Lopez was more nimble on his feet. Arguello's skillset is more proven, and I can't be arsed more than that.
Thanks I will add that Lopez has the edge in maintaining range and defence, but may not have if he faced more fighters on the level of Alvarez. Rosendo was on the level of one of Arguello's second tier scalps and, IMO, below a Mancini. Also, as per their choice of aapplication. Lopez was the consumate general, able to keep things at range, and punch in boxer-puncher mode, opening up with sweet counters and picture perfect combinations. Arguello was the same but constantly pressed forward and tried to break his man down, whereas with Lopez his accuracy and power was enough to get him many stoppages but if the knockout didn't come, it didn't come, and with his generalship he could keep piling up the points without having to press. Alexis was rarely content to box his man, and looked to put his work together with the sole intent of breaking his opponent to pieces. Being on the front foot allowed him to be outmoved. Again, the one big advantage I see for Finito is in the feet, and how he chose to apply that attribute. Very smart, although Alexis was equally smart in his approach, even if it meant he lost more rounds and took more digs.
Lopez. The Thin Man was good but Lopez was the apotheosis of boxing. As they say in my village: perfection might not exist but Ricardo Lopez does.
Surely you're gonna' give a straight answer? Too many good posters using an interesting discussion to just....cuss me! :|
It is hard to judge because it is easier to look great against weaker opposition, Arguello in my mind is the greater fighter but Lopez looks great on film. Arguello was one of these guys who wasn't fancy dan, it was sometimes hard to see how he was significantly better than the other guy until they suddenly fell apart. He wasn't flashy but was one of those guys where when you watched them in slow motion every punch was picture perfect. Lopez is yet another "modern great" whose record is slightly deceptive, his obvious skills are in my mind diminished by fighting in an era where is was easier to pad your record. A little like Calzaghe (Lopez is greater BTW), no denying their skill but a few defeats against the very best, because you take the risk to fight them, is worth more than an untarnished record. PS I admit to being a Arguello nuthugger and realise I have hardly answered the question sorry!
As far as skillset it's Lopez. Overall ability is another matter, Arguello is a 5'10 FW-SFW with brutal power, iron chin, great stamina, top line fundamentals with a cool mindset. HE is also much more tested over 4 weight classes
Very, very close, but Lopez shades it for me. He's almost perfect from a technical point of view. Everything was straight down the middle and his uppercut was thrown expertly aswell. He was defensively better than Alexis imo aswell and had a wider range of punches to choose from. He went to the body well with the left hook, could uppercut with either hand, excellent jab and straight right and put them all together well in combinations. JMM reminds me a bit of him at times. One thing that he definitely had over AA imo was patience. AA was always looking for the stoppage and had more one punch KO power in his right hand than Lopez had in any one shot, but to me he always seemed to be looking for the highlight reel KO.
They're both equally proficient at placing their punches and they're both great at integrating offense and defense. Lopez clearly had better footwork and head movement but Arguello hit harder and he was better at making subtle changes to his tempo to dictate the terms of engagement. Both had a great intuitive understanding of boxing.
Arguello definitely the better body puncher and has just as many punches at his disposal. No way was Arguello 'looking for the highlight reel K.O'! He toned his shots perfectly and was patient but methodical in breaking his man down, hence why he carried his punch late into the fight.
Fine. Fine. Here's my take: I absolutely think Lopez is more skilled. I get the 'more proven' argument and understand where that's coming from, but to me boxing skills exist in a vacuum. The argument that Lopez would not be as skilled against better opponents seems crazy: Lopez punches would be no less perfect, his footwork no less deft. These are mechanical components of a fighter built into muscle memory that don't change. Arguello was pretty damned skill himself. He threw everything correct, finished as well as anybody, was the far greater inside fighter, and was a solid technician even if he could be outmoved. Yet Arguello is clearly the greater boxer and if Lopez is more skilled Alexis has more ability. He has a better chin (I'm aware Lopez was dropped only once and Arguello several times but that had everything to do with who they faced; in other words if Lopez fought Antonio Avelar and KhaosaI Galaxy he'd be put on his ass too), more one punch power, more accuracy (though Lopez was no slouch himself), and an even greater size advantage. I know someone (Flea cough, cough) is going to say that skills do not exist in a vacuum and that if Lopez fought higher quality opponents he would look less skilled. This is absolutely true. That does not mean, however, that he is any less skilled simply that he has less ability to implement them. When I say skills exhaust in a vacuum I mean they are not relative: either you throw a right cross correctly out you don't, either you cross your feet or you don't. Ability is relative. Arguello was huge and hit hard, for a lightweight. At 147 he'd be positively ordinary in those respects. For Lopez the gap is greater. We don't need to jump whole weight classes for that to happen. Finito had loads of ability but how much is hard to say. Less than the Thin Man, certainly. Against Chang, if he lost it would be because he couldn't hurt Chang, and against other flyweights he might not have the size or strength to fight them off but he certainly has the skill. That wouldn't change no matter who's across the ring. Two cents please.
