Greater/Better: Wilfredo Gomez or Ricardo Lopez?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Xplosive, Aug 17, 2019.



  1. Xplosive

    Xplosive Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,383
    2,736
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 23, 2008
    What say you all...
     
  2. J Jones

    J Jones Active Member Full Member

    1,278
    825
    Sportsbook:
    708
    Jul 19, 2017
    Finito by a mile. His technique is flawless.
     
  3. red cobra

    red cobra Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    36,688
    4,304
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 28, 2004
    Gomez...that is all
     
  4. roughdiamond

    roughdiamond Ridin' the rails Full Member

    3,063
    4,103
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 25, 2015
    Gomez actually has the stronger resume for once. He beat the better fighters, and won three titles. He beat the likes of Davila, Pintor, Lockridge, etc etc.

    In comparison, Lopez's division was an absolute wasteland, and its criminal how he didn't move up atleast one weight class, when the competition was very strong. His best wins are older Rosendo Alvarez, older Ohashi (who lost to Chang years before) and young Sorjaturong, who wasn't near his peak.

    He was very consistent and dominant, which adds points, but over very weak talent and a division which was historically insignificant.
     
  5. zadfrak

    zadfrak Boxing Addict Full Member

    7,011
    1,051
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 17, 2008
    Lopez by a mile.


    Gomez' legs had already deteriorated before he moved up in weight. After the move up, losses against better competition. And wilfredo was the benficiary of some questionable decisions.

    Can you imagine the criticism of Ricardo Lopez if he was the one getting knocked out? Or winning some dubious decisions? And he fought at a weightclass where guys are washed up at 25 or 27. They tend to have a 3 year peak performance window and do not look good at all in their 30's fighting guys a decade younger. Those reflexes at that weight go as fast as any division in the sport. And Lopez defended that title until he was what, 35?
     
    Ra's Al-Ghul likes this.
  6. ChrisJS

    ChrisJS Active Member Full Member

    825
    1,249
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 11, 2018
    Gomez got one dubious decision in a fight he was already washed up and losing by KO to Sanchez and Nelson is hardly bad.

    I’m a big Finito fan but Gomez is far greater than him. Lopez didn’t fight anyone the class of Davila, LaPorte let alone Zarate or Pintor.
     
  7. The Morlocks

    The Morlocks Boxing Addict booted Full Member

    4,704
    2,515
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 21, 2009
    Insanity! Gomez Gomez Gomez Gomez Gomez
     
  8. The Morlocks

    The Morlocks Boxing Addict booted Full Member

    4,704
    2,515
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 21, 2009
    I gotta tell ya. All you guys go on and on about Lopez Chang etc in the newer( 40 yrs) weight classes. They fought NOONE. No great punchers techni q ue. Zapata give me a break. These were weak nonpunching lttle g y ys fighting other weak non punching little guys. Action fights. Clubfighter style. When anyone with any talent arrives he stands out over the flotsam of the division.
     
  9. Minotauro

    Minotauro Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,357
    297
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    May 22, 2007
    Gomez by far his resume is miles better and was near unbeatable at his peak.
     
  10. Smokin Bert

    Smokin Bert Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,083
    2,122
    Sportsbook:
    837
    Sep 8, 2013
    Gomez by a pretty substantial margin. And, I am a big fan of Lopez.
     
  11. 88Chris05

    88Chris05 Active Member Full Member

    662
    963
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 20, 2013
    I'm always a little conflicted with Lopez. Great fighter to watch with all the skills, and pretty much the sole reason the Strawweight division had any credibility between its inception and the rise of Calderon and Roman Gonzalez. But I just can't rate him as highly as most others seem to do, and I think he gets let off way too easily for the amount of filler on his record.

    I think whenever you rate anyone below Flyweight you really need to give some consideration to the state of the divisions and how thinly spread the quality in and around them is. For starters the pool of athletically viable, fully-grown men who weigh less than 112 lb has shrunk drastically in recent decades - these divisions (105 and 108 lb) exclude a hell of a lot more prospective fighters than two other side-by-side divisions such as 160 and 168 for example. And from Flyweight downwards, though there's only a mere 7 lb difference across the weight scale, these guys are spread across three weight classes. Leads to a relatively (as compared to other divisions) small amount of fighters spread very thinly, with the level of competition in each weight class seriously diluted in my opinion.

    None of this is Lopez's fault, and as others said he remained head and shoulders above any other guy in whichever weight class he was in until he was 35 years old - no mean feat. My gripe, however, is that while Lopez was 23-30 years old, in the prime years of his life, there actually was a crop of genuinely talented, exceptional fighters just 3 lb north of him at Light-Flyweight in Humberto Gonzalez, Carbajal and Myung Woo-Yuh, yet fights against these guys never materialised despite being financially and practically viable. Yet he never moved up to Light-Flyweight until 1999, by which time the division had returned to its characteristic average self. That's not to mention Arbachakov and Johnson at Flyweight during Lopez's golden years.

    I've often caught some flak from fellow Brits for my firm belief that Joe Calzaghe is not an all-time great, because his record and its relative paucity of decent names and notable victories simply doesn't allow for it. But a few years back I realised that, if you look at it dispassionately, Lopez's record and the names he beat don't actually read any better than Calzaghe's - although Lopez definitely rates ahead of Calzaghe as he was the much more complete all-round fighter whose style, I believe, gives him a significantly better chance of beating greats from other eras in or around his weight classes than Calzaghe's does. Lopez was supremely consistent and talented, but when your unbeaten championship career spans twelve years and something like twenty-five fights, but your best victim is Rosendo Alvarez, there's something very wrong, especially if you're being extolled as one of the greatest fighters of your era.

    Of course, Gomez has some blotches on his record and question marks hanging over him, too. His prime was a lot shorter than Lopez's and he suddenly looked a lot less indomitable when he moved just 4 lb north of his 'home' weight class. It might also be argued that Super-Bantam wasn't exactly awash with great fighters between 1977 and 1983, but is anyone going to argue it wasn't significantly better than Strawweight 1990-1999? Lopez's demolition of Zarate (albeit he conducted himself disgracefully that night) and his classic war with Pintor are two results which absolutely dwarf anything on Lopez's record. And while he lost more than he won at 126 and 130, he still picked up titles there against guys who are at least on a par with anyone Lopez beat, to put it mildly. Fair enough, the Lockridge win was arguable, maybe even dubious, but he dominated LaPorte.

    The only thing Lopez really has going for him is the fact that he's undefeated and, perhaps on the eye test, was the more consummate stylist, but that doesn't tend to matter all that much to me when those skills are only being tested by a lesser class of fighter. I'd put Gomez ahead of Lopez without much hesitation.
     
  12. red cobra

    red cobra Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    36,688
    4,304
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 28, 2004
    True insanity, even for the revisionista...
     
    roughdiamond and The Morlocks like this.
  13. Xplosive

    Xplosive Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,383
    2,736
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 23, 2008
    Brilliant post
     
  14. salsanchezfan

    salsanchezfan Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,316
    1,706
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 22, 2004
    Gomez. It's easier to look magnificent against chattel. Lopez showed in the Alvarez fight(s) that he could hang tough and overcome, which is a necessity to be called great. He only really had to do it then, however. Gomez had Zarate, Pintor, Davila, To a lesser extent Leo Cruz........to be truly great you have to prove it. We can't rely on supposition.
     
    roughdiamond likes this.
  15. Ra's Al-Ghul

    Ra's Al-Ghul The One and Only Full Member

    10,308
    683
    Sportsbook:
    1,218
    Oct 17, 2014
    Lopez is in my view the best Mexican boxer ever and all time top 5 pound for pound.
    While the Super-Bantamweight was just created when Gomez became title-holder and he had even worse challengers than Lopez; actual had he just 2 - 3 world class opponents in it, with the best faded Zarate. But many opponent had their debut or were journeymen (even with negative record) when they fought him, which shouldn't have been sanctioned by the WBC, as they don't do it for the Thais. If someone like Klitschko or Mayweather had defended against such poor guys, they would have received a never ending ****storm.