Addie
11-13-2009, 11:59 PM
I'm asking this in terms of legacy. Who has the more impressive resume? Who had the more complete set of skills? I feel longevity, overcoming adversity, as well as titles acquired should factor in to all of your decisions.
I feel this is a good question to ask. Ricardo Lopez is a bit of a mystery on here in Eastside Boxing. One person will rank him among the top 60 in their respective all-time great lists, whereas others will not even give him so much as a mention. Those same people feel he dominated a weak division, and failed to assert himself as a true all-time great by not, for whatever reason, moving up and fighting the Carbajal's and Gonzalez's of the world. Others, those who credit Lopez as being among the very best of the last 50 years, concentrate on the man's ability, and in the ring, it has to be said the man was nothing short of spellbinding. Very rarely was prime Lopez ever tested.
On the other hand, we have the great Marco Antonio Barrera. I always seperate the mans career into three different parts. You have the Super Bantamweight Barrera, who saw off contender after contender with relative ease, beating Mckinney along the way, before being beaten twice, almost mysteriously, by Junior Jones. Barrera's second career saw him enter his peak, in my estimation, showing off a more impressive range of skills in decimating good fighters in Jesus Salud, Enrique Sanchez, before turning in equally great performances against undefeated P4P rated opposition in Erik Morales and Naseem Hamed, establishing himself as the best Featherweight of the decade. His third and final reign as a top level fighter saw him recover from a crushing defeat at the hands of the best fighter in the world currently today, by seeing off the likes of Paulie Ayala, Rocky Jaurez, before yet again beating his arch nemesis, Erik Morales.
What do I think? I think that in terms of ability and craftsmanship, the argument can be made that Lopez was a more efficient fighter during their respective peaks. However, all things considered, I see no reason to give Lopez the benefit of the doubt considering Barrera fought better opposition, beat more world champions, and spanned more weight divisions thus winning more world titles. A lot can be said for an undefeated fighter like Lopez, but what's equally impressive is being able to come back from career crushing defeats. Barrera did this on two separate occasions during a long 20+ year career as a top level fighter.
Opinions of the Classic?
I feel this is a good question to ask. Ricardo Lopez is a bit of a mystery on here in Eastside Boxing. One person will rank him among the top 60 in their respective all-time great lists, whereas others will not even give him so much as a mention. Those same people feel he dominated a weak division, and failed to assert himself as a true all-time great by not, for whatever reason, moving up and fighting the Carbajal's and Gonzalez's of the world. Others, those who credit Lopez as being among the very best of the last 50 years, concentrate on the man's ability, and in the ring, it has to be said the man was nothing short of spellbinding. Very rarely was prime Lopez ever tested.
On the other hand, we have the great Marco Antonio Barrera. I always seperate the mans career into three different parts. You have the Super Bantamweight Barrera, who saw off contender after contender with relative ease, beating Mckinney along the way, before being beaten twice, almost mysteriously, by Junior Jones. Barrera's second career saw him enter his peak, in my estimation, showing off a more impressive range of skills in decimating good fighters in Jesus Salud, Enrique Sanchez, before turning in equally great performances against undefeated P4P rated opposition in Erik Morales and Naseem Hamed, establishing himself as the best Featherweight of the decade. His third and final reign as a top level fighter saw him recover from a crushing defeat at the hands of the best fighter in the world currently today, by seeing off the likes of Paulie Ayala, Rocky Jaurez, before yet again beating his arch nemesis, Erik Morales.
What do I think? I think that in terms of ability and craftsmanship, the argument can be made that Lopez was a more efficient fighter during their respective peaks. However, all things considered, I see no reason to give Lopez the benefit of the doubt considering Barrera fought better opposition, beat more world champions, and spanned more weight divisions thus winning more world titles. A lot can be said for an undefeated fighter like Lopez, but what's equally impressive is being able to come back from career crushing defeats. Barrera did this on two separate occasions during a long 20+ year career as a top level fighter.
Opinions of the Classic?