Vergil "The Mustang" Ortíz Jr. - all the hype is warranted.

This kid is what Teófimo López wants to be and is billed as (the hard-working and explosive offense-as-defense seek-and-destroy bogeyman with an engaging personality on the mic to boot) - but Vergil is just IMSHO better, in every conceivable way, at everything. I don't just mean that he would beat Teó h2h by virtue of it being a welter vs. a lightweight - I mean p4p, he is levels above López and the superior specimen from the same mold.

He first popped up on my radar over three years ago, when he absolutely wrecked a hapless soul by the name of Jesús Álvarez on FNF. Looking in the rearview, there are precious few mentions of his name before that - although he did sneak in some broadcast appearances here and there on deep undercards, and both @moparfan and @PinoyProdigy did provide RBR for at least one match of his from before Álvarez, versus Ángel Fernando "Pescado" Sariñana in ESPN3's show (headlined by Gamboa vs. Castellanos) opener in 2017, and sounded duly impressed for how green he was. For many it was probably his following bout, verus Juan Carlos Salgado, that began turning heads - or Roberto "Massa" Ortíz a few months later, or stealing the show on the Canelo vs. Jacobs undercard against Mauricio Herrera. By his first main event, he was a 1/10 favorite over well-regarded former prospect Antonio Orozco and if you had managed to avoid the buzz around his name, you were living under a rock or at the very least not following the sport.

Both he and El Brooklynero debuted in 2016, and to be sure the latter has the biggest single coup between them in Vasyl Lomachenko. No matter, I firmly believe that, barring injury or extracurricular derailment (or the machinations of boxing politics, should he lose the patronage and favor of De La Hoya), Ortíz is on track for a higher plane of greatness in-ring than López.

Now, at first glance it may seem that López's game is more dynamic, particularly on defense, as he utilizes a greater variety of stances (even the Philly shell at times) but what you need to really look at is effectiveness. When he tries fancy evasive maneuvers, López still gets hit as much as Ortíz does just marching forward clamping his gloves over the sides of his skull like a helmet, admittedly leaving his body open to hooks and his face to jabs. Vergil excels at watching his opponents' feet and hands like a hawk, reacting instantly on their every subtle move, nearly always managing to find a way to land first (or directly on the heels of an incoming hit, often repaid double with interest). His transitioning from body to head and back eclipses López's, as does his accuracy, his economy of punches (waiting until inside proper range for each shot and then punching through his target, all maximizing both his connect rate and, more germanely, the damage issued), his ability to fight moving backwards, and to go from zero to sixty when needed, calmly stalking only to pounce with a spike in violence as soon as he notices someone is hurt with hardly any hesitation.

If this all sounds overly negative towards López, or like I'm dumping on the Honduran-American - don't get it twisted. I rate the victory over Lomachenko, and thought he was a beast already before that, and fully expect him to have a fantastic career. He's just no goddamn Vergil Ortíz Jr., and fisticuff gods willing (a silent prayer whispered to Gatti, Chava, Hagler and Tapia up in Olympus; don't get your panties in a twist, only a subcommittee of the great war council, not a complete representation of the pantheon who all share a quality or two with the young mortal) the records in the final analysis will bear that out.

 

Here's a nice little contrast & compare sampler of their most recent (and greatest) nights' work for the busy analyst on the go:

This content is protected

This content is protected

Now, granted, Loma >>>> Hooker, but they're not at diametrically opposed ends of the spectrum. Hooker isn't garbage. These are both world class opponents, near enough (despite, again, there being a sizable gulf between Hi-Tek and Mo) that you can extrapolate similar data from their performances and size up like with like.

Now, my opinion is formed based on seeing the majority of their respective 16 and 17 pro fights - but even from these videos, it should be obvious to anybody who the more dangerous force and completer package is. Anybody still believing it to be López can, I'm sure, piece together a cogent argument on why, and that opinion can be respected - but is wrong.

 

I think some of that can be put down to feeling Hooker's power and trusting in his own chin. Part of being an offensive minded hunter in the ring is balancing the collateral amount you're willing to get hit to deal out punishment against that fine line of 'too much', in case your opponent uncorks something huge or has been holding back on their real power and finally discovering the limits of what you can handle. I saw him making Hooker miss when he wanted to, although yes, he did at times allow quite a few touches in the bargain. I guess time will tell as he continues to face top shelf competition.

 

His defense is what it needs to be for his style.

He might not have a long career (mid-thirties being a hard ceiling) but it ought to be fun, and could be great.

Kazakh Thunder is a nice prospect too but let's wait until Daniyar faces a warm body, eh?

 

Oh, you mean the same Julius Indongo whom I never rated in the first place? Who iced an overrated Troyanovsky and then beat a fading Burns, and has subsequently been destroyed by Rougarou and Bud? Yeah, that doesn't impress me as much as you might think. He was never truly world class, and is a tatters of what he was at his peak when half the boxing world got hoodwinked into thinking he was.

 

re: Spence and Crawford, while I'm not sure he's yet seasoned enough to be ready for them, I can say with confidence that we have never seen either man yet have to deal with quite as potent a combination of raw power and intense pressure. One could posit that he's too basic for both, that he would struggle with their smoothness and class - but all of that echos 100% the rhetoric about why López had no chance versus Lomachenko (whom I still think is at least as good p4p as them, if not better). Just saying.

 

I take it that's just because he isn't all that defensive minded and they're both sharp counter-punchers, more so than having seen any signs of his punch resistance being weak? That's fair; I'd ask, however, is he any easier to hit than Porter, Kavaliauskas, Benavídez, or Horn? (all of whom saw the late rounds versus either Spence or Crawford - and none of whom possess quite the discouraging wallop that Vergil has in both hands)