And Now Al Bernstein's Top 10 P4P List...

Difference between Middle and Light Heavy is more drastic than Lopez moving up to Bantam!

 

Not about winning titles. Gavilan, Rodriguez, Griffith, all have numerous quality scalps between welter and middle. Not winning the title doesn't take away from lots of quality wins. They dared to test themselves.

 

yup, and like you i don't reward or credit fighters for fights that didn't happen. i firmly believe that lopez beats both carbajal and gonzalez in wars. that is just an opinion and in the end, they are ommisions on his record. HOF level ommissions

floyd has the same problem
roy has the same problem

 

I completely disagree with that but I digress... Lopez is one of the greatest. fighters of all time, and that is indisputable. If you want to argue Lopez out of the top 100 I think you are making the absurd argument that Lopez only beat overmatched opponents and nothing else which is categorically untrue. I make fun of Lopez because he is so good that no amount of snark can undermine his obvious brilliance.

That being said if you have Lopez in your top 10 then you better have Calzaghe in your top 20 because he did everything Lopez did even if he looked shittier doing it.

Edit: totally misread that Flea and I meant I agree. Btw Lopez> Chang.

 

I can think of better choices; IN: Roy Jones, Monzon, Greb, B. Leonard, Langford

OUT: SRL (thatz an easy one), Lopez, Ali, Louis, Moore

 

I'm not arguing him out of the top 100. But why should Ernesto Marcel, Oscar De La Hoya, Eddie Booker etc etc miss out because Lopez gets in?

That is my thinking anyway.

And how can you disagree with the weight thing? It's is less of a move Not a problem for someone with Lopez's dimensions either.

And yes he did look great against decent (at worst) opposition, but that's joy as good as squeezing a victory out against a great fighter. Lopez has no greats on his record.

 

Honestly I have trouble ranking any of the murderers row guys. There a lot like Negro Leaguers in baseball; clearly hall of fame quality but separating the very good from the truly great is difficult.

 

Maybe not greats, but many many quality wins. You probably know most of these fighters as well as anyone here since most of them are asian (4 Thai I believe), and most were world champs at one time. All of them had sterling records when they ran into Lopez. If my count is correct, Lopez defeated 13 world champs.....seems we should award points for "cumulative greatness."

Kyung-Yung Lee, Hideyuki Ohashi, Rocky Lin, Saman Sorjaturong, Surachai Saengmorokat, Andy Tabanas, Ala Villimor, Mongkol Charoen, Rosendo Alverez, Ratanapol Sor Vorapin...

I have to admit I'm not very familiar with any of the Asian fighters on this list except Saman, and even him I only know from articles I've read and two fight films

 

I missed something here. Lopez did in fact move up and win a title in 98. Held it until he retired in '02.

 

Simply winning is terribly underrated, as most of these guys opposition is as McGrain said solid professionals. Does Ken Norton rate above Jack Dempsey? Is Larry Holmes not a great heavyweight? The consistency of a Lopez or a Monzon is every bit as important as the high peak of a Ray Leonard.

 

I think De La Hoya has a better single win for sure, Trinidad, who at that point was better than any of Lopez's opponents. I can see ranking Lopez over him, but I definitely think that's the bracket he's in, but my point was not about beating an 'all time great' but having a 'great win', which can elevate 'consistently good but unspectacular opposition' fighters to higher tiers IMO.

My point about jumping weight was because the point was made 'Monzon didn't go up to light heavy' so I couldn't pull Lopez up for not moving up.

He did move up to light fly and stake his claim there. My point was he could've moved up more and sought better challenges.

I also don't rank unparalleled dominance at straw weight over patchiness at more stacked and historically relevant weights.

I'm not disputing Lopez wasn't great. But I don't think he deserves to be in that class.

Would Marcel make your top 100? Consensus no.1 featherweight, awe-inspiring on film with wins over Shibata, Gomez x2, Serrano, Arguello? He doesn't make mine.What about Morales, Barrera, Marquez, Chucho, Herrera? The original Gato?

Incredible dominance and consistently good opposition vs patchy but better opposition?

I hope you can see what I'm getting at and don't think I've become every bit as much a cliche as those who rank Lopez in the top 20 :huh

 

As I've already pointed out, Monzon had better opposition than Lopez, so the same criticism does not apply IMO. There was also less weight between Lopez moving up three or four divisions than there was Monzon moving up one.

Being the greatest middleweight of all time is also a far higher accolade than being the greatest straw, which is why Monzon makes my late top 20s early 30s.

Larry Holmes is great, but there can be no doubt a lot of his opponents were inexperienced when he faced them. I give him immense credit for coming back after the Tyson loss. He tested himself against other greats in his weight class.

I don't rate Larry as highly as others though, I have him just inside or just outside the top five, not top 3 as he usually is. He was class, and I think his opposition was a notch above Lopez's. Some good contenders there.

 

When I'm ranking, as it's all pointless in the grand scheme of things I go with what I saw as much as I can, or what I have read. Oscar gets full credit for the win, even if it showed up one of his main defects as a fighter.

B-Hop ranks high P4P for me for such an anomaly achievement, even if Jean Pascal is a basic fighter. I don't rate his middleweight comp' that highly, but Trinidad was a top rated middleweight and B-Hop schooled him. Would you agree Tito was at a better place when he fought Hopkins than any of Lopez's defences? That made Hopkins' middleweight reign a bit more worthwhile for me. Impressive single win IMO, along with a lot more fluff than Lopez had in his reign. I pretty much agree, Hop' gets rated at middle based on longevity alone.

As for Burley and Steele types, I hope you won't tear me to shreds here but for me personally, it's far more impressive being regarded as the 8th or 9th best middleweight of all time than it is being the greatest straw.

Hagler's pre-title run has quality contenders, he dominated for years, and he also has highly ranked ATGs on his ledger (Hearns, Duran) so I'm comfortable ranking Marv' much higher. I think you'll agree Haglers resume was a lot more solid than Lopez's. Sure he didn't win every round, but he displayed an incredible all-round game and toughness equally as impressive as Lopez's destructive beauty.

And many have, many guys that I rank over him. Plus, I think Lopez could've taken his sweat suit off and it wouldn't have been that much of a hassle. And yes, I do only rank based on what he actually did, and I don't rate it as high as some.

Please remind yourself: I do not think Lopez is ****. I love the guy. I just don't rate him as high as a lot of other guys. He's as good as anyone on film, don't get me wrong, and H2H i rate him very highly. He'd win some, lose some against the very best around his weight, as would any chosen great in history at any weight.

Again, it is all criteria.