All Time Great Or Great For His Era?

I would definitely consider RJJ an ATG among others.

Ricardo Lopez is only the 3rd fighter in the history of boxing to retire undefeated. He fought 52 times and defended his title a record 26 times. I think it's safe to say he's an ATG....lol I'm sure there are a few more than that.

Yeah I think Lennox Lewis is an all time great heavyweight. He just got unfocused sometimes, but when he had his mind right, he kicked alot of ass.

I'm sure Lennox is amongst that list.

I can agree in part about his resume with the caveat being the obscurity of his divisions makes it difficult to accurately guage how good his resume is. I don't think name value is the best way to evaluate a resume. If James Toney fights Iran Barkley and Lopez fights some guy we don't know- most would say Barkley is better because of name value and they know he beat Hearns etc. But if Toney is -$250 favorite over Iran and Lopez is a -$250 favorite over "guy we don't know"-thats about an equal win to me. I didn't say anything about name value. James Toney simply beat much better fighters than Lopez did and I struggle to see how that's arguable. I completely disagree with the last paragraph but fair enough.

I would take off Toney and McCallum. Great fighters but not ATG. Ricardo Lopez "possibly"? I think it's safe to say he's an ATG. Ridiculous to suggest such a thing. He has an argument to be greater than most on that list.

I'm not penailizing him for stating in one division. Carlos Monzon stayed in one divison and his resume is ATG calibur. I'm just simply saying, for me, his resume isn't what I would call ATG calibur. I wouldn't disagree if you thought he's a great fighter. I can agree in part about his resume with the caveat being the obscurity of his divisions makes it difficult to accurately guage how good his resume is. I don't think name value is the best way to evaluate a resume. If James Toney fights Iran Barkley and Lopez fights some guy we don't know- most would say Barkley is better because of name value and they know he beat Hearns etc. But if Toney is -$250 favorite over Iran and Lopez is a -$250 favorite over "guy we don't know"-thats about an equal win to me.

Dan none of us can use just your criteria for ATG status to argue for Lopez. Those of us saing he is an ATG are saying so because we think his being undefeated and making that number of defenses. we find that accomplishment worthy of ATG status. I'm not saying you should. I was merely asking. And as for the rest, I disagree but that's fair enough.

it is, but thats because Lopez just didn't grow out of those classes. I dont think Lopez should be "penalized" for genetic reasons. Hagler's most notable fights are with fighters who moved up to 160 (with the exception of antefuermo and minter.) Lopez didnt have a Hearns, srl, duran, or mugabi underneath him to move into his weight class. I understand your points about him being undefeated and the title defenses. I would disagree. I think here on NSB the climate makes posters under appreciate everything it takes to defend a title that many times and not lose. I'm not penailizing him for stating in one division. Carlos Monzon stayed in one divison and his resume is ATG calibur. I'm just simply saying, for me, his resume isn't what I would call ATG calibur. I wouldn't disagree if you thought he's a great fighter.

Lopez is an ATG because of his skill level and over all ability to performwell. If you know the techniques needed to be great as a competitor you don't NEED to look at a resume (Record) to determine if a fighter is below or above average or great! Comparing common opponents seems to be the norm to give accredidation by most fans who don't know what their looking at when evaluating a fighters sills. I think Roy is an ATG but only at his prime. I think Toney is right on the edge, he could compete in any era but I'm not so sure he has sucesses. The others I'll suggest are in Toneys shoes also! Right on the edge. Competing against the best in any era is a huge accomplishment but being able to succeed at a high level would determine if ATG status is assured. Are the names mentioned in the top twenty-five in their respective divisions? If so then they can compete but the top 6 to 8 are the ones that will dominate. Is Bernard Hopkins a top 8 middleweight or LyHvy??? I don't think so!! Is Floyd Mayweather a top 8 welter? I don't think so!! Try to imagine the ones you feel are in the top twenty five in their division and how they fare against the ATG's. Think of their skills not their records, they ALL have good records! Ray.

I think it's very unfair to say that his resume wasn't ATG. I agree, many of those names on there weren't well known but let's be real here, his weight hurt him a lot. It's a weight class that doesn't get much respect or attention. He fought every good fighter in his weight class, he avenged his lone draw and retired on time. I also think that people that study boxing, see him as so great because of his technical ability. He was almost a perfect fighter in his technique and intelligence in the ring. I can't fault the man because he destroyed all of his competition. It's not like he had a big record avoiding guys, he fought everyone he could in his time. His division was weak, that's not his fault. But I'm not going to call it ATG calibur if the fighters in the division are weak. Like I said, in terms of skills, then yes he's ATG. He's ATG in the skills department, no question. He's one of the more skilled fighter's I've seen. But that's not how I judge, I just don't think his resume is ATG standard. The guys he beat, despite being for the most part, the best available at that particular weight, weren't great and a long list of his defenses were underwhelming.

I don't think it does. Holding onto a title and defending it against weak opposition just to say "I have this many title defenses" isn't what makes a great fighter to me. You can have 100 back to back title defenses, unless they were against top, good fighters I don't consider it to be a great thing. I'm not saying Lopez did this on the level of a Joe Calzaghe or a Sven Ottke, but a lot of his defences were certainly underwhelming. It's not Lopez fault. Like I said, he didn't duck anyone. He fought the best available, it's not his fault many options weren't there. Would have liked to see him move up earlier, though. Like I said, I'm willing to listen to anyone who can tell me why Lopez resume is ATG calibur. Dan none of us can use just your criteria for ATG status to argue for Lopez. Those of us saing he is an ATG are saying so because we think his being undefeated and making that number of defenses. we find that accomplishment worthy of ATG status.

I don't think it does. Holding onto a title and defending it against weak opposition just to say "I have this many title defenses" isn't what makes a great fighter to me. You can have 100 back to back title defenses, unless they were against top, good fighters I don't consider it to be a great thing. I'm not saying Lopez did this on the level of a Joe Calzaghe or a Sven Ottke, but a lot of his defences were certainly underwhelming. It's not Lopez fault. Like I said, he didn't duck anyone. He fought the best available, it's not his fault many options weren't there. Would have liked to see him move up earlier, though. Like I said, I'm willing to listen to anyone who can tell me why Lopez resume is ATG calibur. I think it's very unfair to say that his resume wasn't ATG. I agree, many of those names on there weren't well known but let's be real here, his weight hurt him a lot. It's a weight class that doesn't get much respect or attention. He fought every good fighter in his weight class, he avenged his lone draw and retired on time. I also think that people that study boxing, see him as so great because of his technical ability. He was almost a perfect fighter in his technique and intelligence in the ring. I can't fault the man because he destroyed all of his competition. It's not like he had a big record avoiding guys, he fought everyone he could in his time.

It's nothing to do with him staying in 1 division (or 2). I think Hagler and Lope are night and day, the difference in opposition level is vast. Lopez' resume is just not great IMO. Not even nearly ATG level. He didn't duck anyone, and he was dominant and consistent. As was Sven Ottke for the most part. And I'm not comparing the two, I'm just using an example as to why throwing stats like "He's undefeated" "He has 100 title defenses" etc doesn't necessarily mean anything. For me, Toney's resume is clearly superior to Lopez'. it is, but thats because Lopez just didn't grow out of those classes. I dont think Lopez should be "penalized" for genetic reasons. Hagler's most notable fights are with fighters who moved up to 160 (with the exception of antefuermo and minter.) Lopez didnt have a Hearns, srl, duran, or mugabi underneath him to move into his weight class. I understand your points about him being undefeated and the title defenses. I would disagree. I think here on NSB the climate makes posters under appreciate everything it takes to defend a title that many times and not lose.

It means a lot, if you look at the history of boxing, it's not like everyone is defending the title that many times. It's a major accomplishment and that a lone doesn't make him an ATG but he fought everyone. I don't think it does. Holding onto a title and defending it against weak opposition just to say "I have this many title defenses" isn't what makes a great fighter to me. You can have 100 back to back title defenses, unless they were against top, good fighters I don't consider it to be a great thing. I'm not saying Lopez did this on the level of a Joe Calzaghe or a Sven Ottke, but a lot of his defences were certainly underwhelming. It's not Lopez fault. Like I said, he didn't duck anyone. He fought the best available, it's not his fault many options weren't there. Would have liked to see him move up earlier, though. Like I said, I'm willing to listen to anyone who can tell me why Lopez resume is ATG calibur.

Yes, he is. Didn't even slightly imply that he wasn't. You said the others weren't. I just explained that if you said Lopez was, and I agree he is, then they are too, as they have better resumes, bigger names, more of them, won more titles in more divisions, beat more champions and did it in much tougher divisions. That wasn't the argument though...lol There was a list, I just said that Lopez should be part of the ATG. That's it, I didn't argue against anyone else.

Ricardo Lopez is only the 3rd fighter in the history of boxing to retire undefeated. He fought 52 times and defended his title a record 26 times. I think it's safe to say he's an ATG....lol Yes, he is. Didn't even slightly imply that he wasn't. You said the others weren't. I just explained that if you said Lopez was, and I agree he is, then they are too, as they have better resumes, bigger names, more of them, won more titles in more divisions, beat more champions and did it in much tougher divisions.

It's nothing to do with him staying in 1 division (or 2). I think Hagler and Lope are night and day, the difference in opposition level is vast. Lopez' resume is just not great IMO. Not even nearly ATG level. He didn't duck anyone, and he was dominant and consistent. As was Sven Ottke for the most part. And I'm not comparing the two, I'm just using an example as to why throwing stats like "He's undefeated" "He has 100 title defenses" etc doesn't necessarily mean anything. For me, Toney's resume is clearly superior to Lopez'. It means a lot, if you look at the history of boxing, it's not like everyone is defending the title that many times. It's a major accomplishment and that a lone doesn't make him an ATG but he fought everyone.

i think toneys resume is excellent. I think Ricardo's length of dominance is more impressive. I think in cases of fighters like hagler and Lopez, their lack of moving up isn't a negative or diminishes them in any way. It's nothing to do with him staying in 1 division (or 2). I think Hagler and Lope are night and day, the difference in opposition level is vast. Lopez' resume is just not great IMO. Not even nearly ATG level. He didn't duck anyone, and he was dominant and consistent. As was Sven Ottke for the most part. And I'm not comparing the two, I'm just using an example as to why throwing stats like "He's undefeated" "He has 100 title defenses" etc doesn't necessarily mean anything. For me, Toney's resume is clearly superior to Lopez'.

All time greats who were active between from 1993-present (Not for what they did in that time span, just who had a fight in that time span) Pernell Whitaker Julio Cesar Chavez Evander Holyfield Roy Jones Jr Floyd Mayweather Manny Pacquaio Bernard Hopkins Erik Morales Marco Antonio Barrera Juan Manuel Marquez James Toney Mike McCallum Ricardo Lopez possibly. Think that's it, IMO. May have missed somone. lennox lewis for sure. top 10 HW and top 100 all time. foreman beat moorer in the mid 90's, right? i'd claim to know the year without checking the boxrec, but i was flippin less than 10 years old when that sh#t was going down :lol1: 94-95 sounds right. i remember comeback george clearly, wolfing down burgers on TV. duran's old bones fought in the 90's, too. :lol1: