Ok, the main strike against him is the quality of opposition. But, that's not his fault. And he pretty much did the best possible against who he was put in front of. Just as importantly, he looks great on tape, he has elite boxing technique, does almost nothing wrong, throws punches and combinations almost perfectly, and had legit KO power and a solid chin. He was also a very smart fighter and ring general. Undefeated, dominant long-reigning champion, near-perfect technique, and great on the intangibles, shouldn't he be top 10 on the ATG P4P list?
No because he never really had the opposition to place him higher. Im sure if he did, he would be ranked higher, because he was a very talented fighter.
He could be underrated, a number of the lower weight fighters are. I don't agree he's great on intangibles though, besides obviously scoring as high as any fighter for dedication.In a lot of respects he's quite unknown, though the fights against the buffalo while past his best give us something to work on.I dont like the fact he was a huge straw who usually held significant physical advantages.Lopez in the 70s has absolutely NO issue fighting at Flyweight. Ultimately no fighter who fought in such an irrelevant, weak weight division should grace the top ten fighters of all-time.Was Lopez a great fighter? yes i think he was....was he an all-time great of such magnitude? no not even remotely close. imo divisions like junior Fly, straw and superfly ruined the 112-118 scene, diluting the talent pool and making it a convoluted mess where fighters of marginal talent could easily prosper.You can count on one hand how many fighters since the late 70s there will rate as highly as their predecessors, despite a golden era of lower weight talent not drying up until the mid-nineties. Just too hard to build the quality of record and proveness needed.Too many titles being hogged by too many mediocre alphabet champs.Guys like Sorjaturong who will no doubt be cited among the best fighters Lopez beat, and he probably was unfortunately)are the epitome of this. With just one or two titles to shoot for, a few fighters from the recent decades may be much higher regarded.They would certainly be more proven.
Underrated yes. He makes the top hundred by default of being the greatest ever him his division. Certainly not in the top 25 tho xxx
good posts so far and i think swarmer nailed the biggest mark against him: he didn't move up to where there were 2 or 3 other HOF fighters who could have cemented his legacy. had he moved up and beaten carbajal and gonzalez, he'd be a solid top 30 pick or even higher. i think this would have been entirely possible for a man of his talent however, he didn't and he is judged now on dominance and skill alone. i have a huge fan of his and he's one of the top 5 best/most perfect boxers i've ever seen so i have trouble rating him fairly. objectively though, he can't be considered in the top 25 which is a real shame
I don't even think he makes the top 100, too many great fighters and i mean way too many have faced much greater opposition than Lopez. Lopez is the most overrated bum on this forum.
As much of a big fan of Lopez as I am I'm also a realistic person. I think Lopez in the Top 20 ATG list is a bit of a stretch but I think I wouldn't mind putting him around the Top 50. There are many more fighters who have fought better quality oppositions who deserves to be rated higher. Most people tend to put him in the top 10 list just because he had a flawless style, dominated his division, and remained undefeated.
He is one of those fighters that could reasonably be rated across such a broad range that it's usually hard to call overrating or underrating.
Definitely underrated but as others have said had no real greats on his resume to put him in the top 10.
Depends on where you place him. I personally think Top 50-75 is acceptable. Any higher, then you're rating him sole upon his ability, and how he looked against opposition that wasn't particularly daunting (for the most part)....Any lower, and you're ignoring it.
