BoxRec

tanibanana wrote:only 35 total votes, i wonder..

Mexico is arguably the 2nd most richest
country in boxing history only behind to usA..

Probably. Maybe Thailand and Japan would have a claim, but Mexico has the added benefit of neighbouring the US and therefore having the extra exposure/matchmaking possibilities.

oliverfennell wrote:

tanibanana wrote:only 35 total votes, i wonder..

Mexico is arguably the 2nd most richest
country in boxing history only behind to usA..

Probably. Maybe Thailand and Japan would have a claim, but Mexico has the added benefit of neighbouring the US and therefore having the extra exposure/matchmaking possibilities.

Agree.. but Japan only.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:I voted for Lopez. If he was any other weight, he'd be a shoo-in.

I remember someone saying of Lopez, "If you could make a 160lb. version of him, he would beat any fighter, in any weightclass today."

He is Mexico's most gifted fighter of all-time.

x3

saad off the deck, you ask what Lopez had that Sanchez didn't?

I would say he was more versatile than Sanchez. SS really only SHONE, IMO, when his man came right at him (Lopez, Gomez, Nelson to an extent). as a counterpuncher, basically, his skillset was negated somewhat by the cagier boxers.

when his man looked to move and counter and/or box from the outside, lets see, he looked one-paced against Laporte, slightly disinterested against Rocky Garcia, and was outboxed for fairly long periods by the VERY green Patrick Ford (some say he lost that S/D). similarly he only wrested control of Ruben Castillo late in the fight, when his extra size and strength began to tell

SS had a great boxing brain and was supremely patient, but come on Saad:

scale Ruben Castillo or Rocky Garcia down to straw-weight, and what do you think Lopez would do to them? come on, he'd fecking murder them. he runs over the SW equivalent of Castillo within 10 rounds, no doubt in my mind

like oliver was saying (i think it was, apologies to whoever said it if not), Lopez had so many different ways he could break a fighter down and win, and look good in the process.

'p4p' i would say Lopez was slightly faster and had a harder punch than SS, personally.

Sanchez seemed to me to be a fighter who would fight up or down to the level of his competition.

whereas Lopez mostly just ran them the fook over no matter who or what they were. thats why i think he was better all-round, though i do love to watch Sanchez' fights

Thanks for answering the question though I find Lopez being more versatile than Sanchez to be completely preposterous.

He wasn't effective as the aggressor? You should watch him fight Wilfredo Gomez.

I'd be more concerned waht Finito would do with a straweight Wilfredo or Azumah than a Castillo. It goes both ways, move Rosendo Alvarez up to Featherweight and what do you think Sanchez would do to him? He would murder him.

Lopez just doesn't have near the resume to rate higher than these guys. There is only so far you can go on talent alone. Ricardo has some very solid wins, but nothing great and Sanchez proved he could beat all time great fighters, lopez didn't.


It's the same sort of thing for me as someone having Marciano over Louis & Ali. I just can't see it and Rock faced much better opp than Finito.

i disagree saad. the reason Sanchez got aggressive with gomez was- gomez RAN into SS's best shot, within the first 60 secs. IE, he got countered by Sanchez, not jumped on and swarmed from the start.

SS then tries to take him out in the first round by throwing a huge flurry with Gomez on the ropes.

he fails to take him out.

then he goes back to type for the greater part of the rest of the fight, IE countering off the back foot.

the rest of that fight, from rds3- 1 round before finish (8th?) Gomez was the one coming forward, pretty much the whole timek, trying to swarm and close the distance and throw punches in bunches

mate watch the fight and tell me how often Sanchez' back hits the ropes. it happened continually. cos Sanchez was countering off the back foot. as he always did when he looked at his best.

so i totally disagree that SS was aggressive vs Gomez, or at least much more aggressive than usual.

aggressive for the first and last rounds, when he knows he's got his man hurt much less so between them. if he was better at being aggressive he'd have taken out castillo just like Arguello and JCC did. IMO.

agree on the level of competition but of course you know we can play that game with SS too.

Lopez- punch drunk, retired after the second beating
Gomez superbantam never effective above 122 never trained hard beyond hitting the bottle, etc
Nelson green green green green and took him all the way.

strawweight Wilfredo, the man who went life and death with Pintor, gets his head box-punched off by Lopez IMO.

and he'd probably be too busy for Nelson too

This post is full of fail.

You're picking apart great fighters, you don't even have a chance to do that with Lopez because he didn't face them. You can say he is the most talented Mexican fighter you've ever seen. I wouldn't agree, but the skills are there for that opinion. Greatest is just ridiculous.

And I hate to burst your bubble but effortlessly changing from aggressive to counter puncher is what most of us would call versatile.

oh FFS i am just saying we can all equivocate with fighters records, thats a given. you say SS record is better, I concede that.

and he didn't 'effortlessly' change to aggressive, in any of his fights, unless his man was badly hurt. he could have done with being better at aggression vs (say) Castillo but that wasn't his style and he didn't adap[t to it that well, barely snuck through that and a couple'other fights too

does that mean i don't think he was great? of course not.

anyways it isn't that difficult to get all agressive and alpha male when you've got your man hurt. Gomez was a sitting target after the first KD, what the eff else was Sanchez going to do at that point? you make it sound like he made some smooth tactical swicth. he hurt the guy badly and went after him. much more difficult when you're chasing the fight against someone who's built up a points lead, etc.

your question was ' what did lOpez have that SS didn't', so I said, IMO he wasn't as versatile and I stand by it.

and if you think Snchez was great against Gomez cos of his aggression, i simply can't agree, on account of Gomez' own face-first tendencies putting him in that position in the first place.

If the big difference between anyone and Sanchez is versatility you're better off just saying nothing.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Thanks for answering the question though I find Lopez being more versatile than Sanchez to be completely preposterous.

He wasn't effective as the aggressor? You should watch him fight Wilfredo Gomez.

I'd be more concerned waht Finito would do with a straweight Wilfredo or Azumah than a Castillo. It goes both ways, move Rosendo Alvarez up to Featherweight and what do you think Sanchez would do to him? He would murder him.

Lopez just doesn't have near the resume to rate higher than these guys. There is only so far you can go on talent alone. Ricardo has some very solid wins, but nothing great and Sanchez proved he could beat all time great fighters, lopez didn't.


It's the same sort of thing for me as someone having Marciano over Louis & Ali. I just can't see it and Rock faced much better opp than Finito.

Those fights with Alvarez were at the very end of his career, & he was in with a bigger man. Two things Sanchez effectively never had to deal with.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:If the big difference between anyone and Sanchez is versatility you're better off just saying nothing.

if you're stating 'aggression' as the reason Sanchez counterpunched the perpetually onrushing Gomez' head into the middle of next week, as though it was part of some tactical change by Sanchez, I'd give you the same advice

Lopez was better at cutting of the ring, better at leading off, better at breaking a guy down i he wasn't committing to hiw own punches, IMO.

Edit: Nevermind

I'm down with C-P's arguments for Lopez over Sanchez; SS was one of the smoothest counter-punchers I ever saw, was hard as nails & had an engine second to none, but didn't like movers or chasing a guy down & fought at one pace. Sanchez had the better defence & haircut, but Lopez was far better at switching from attack to defence & had far greater one-punch power for his size; check out what he did to Sorjaturong & Ohashi (both champions at different weights after Lopez flattened them) -- blasted them clean out the fight whilst they were fresh.

As for the greatest Mexican, feck knows. Sanchez, Lopez, Olivares, Zarate, Chavez, Saldivar -- all towering talents.

Chavez by ALOT.

this shouldnt even be a debate.

theone wrote:Chavez by ALOT.

this shouldnt even be a debate.

Yet another individual who cannot distinguish, "Greatest" from, "Most Famous."

Btw, Barrera & Morales have votes, but Zarate doesn't have a single one? Talk about bias for your own era.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

theone wrote:Chavez by ALOT.

this shouldnt even be a debate.

Yet another individual who cannot distinguish, "Greatest" from, "Most Famous."

Btw, Barrera & Morales have votes, but Zarate doesn't have a single one? Talk about bias for your own era.

I can distinguish it just fine. Chavez went 87 straight wins without a loss or a draw; thats a record. Chavez also has the most title fight defenses (27) most title fights (37) and was for several years nearly universally acknowledged as the best fighter p4p in the world. No Mexican fighter was ever better.

Maybe, maybe not (I say he wasn't #1), but to say, "it shouldn't even be a debate" is absolutely a stupid thing.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

theone wrote:Chavez by ALOT.

this shouldnt even be a debate.

Yet another individual who cannot distinguish, "Greatest" from, "Most Famous."

Btw, Barrera & Morales have votes, but Zarate doesn't have a single one? Talk about bias for your own era.

I actually think Barrera, Morales, and Marquez suffer a little in this kind of ranking BECAUSE they're so modern (they all could wind up fighting soon again), but all 3 essentially dominated the last decade from 122-130 along with Pacquiao and Guzman popping in and out. All are 3 weight champs and each engaged in epic high-level wars where they nearly always won. Couple all of that with thei relative competetiveness with one of the current era's greatest fighters in Manny Pacquiao and their records and legacies stack up VERY WELL.

It's always gonna be a double-edged sword that, Weapon. The old addage, "The older you grow, the greater you become," in reference to your legacy & legend certainly holds true, but, let's face it --- there's a strong counter to that in the form of pure ignorance to fighters from outside the era of a positively huge number of Boxing fans.

Swings both ways. I'm twenty-five. I'll appreciate Marquez, Barrera & Morales a hell of a lot more than most people twenty years my junior, in twenty years' time. Most people voting in these kinds of things probably don't have the necessary knowledge to do so (which is not to say I always do, either, but some of them are just so uneducated to certain fighters)...