Why does everyone hate the London?

So I’ve been playing the London exclusively as White for about 2 years now in OTB games, and although I do somewhat enjoy trying to defend its reputation against people who trash talk about it, I can’t help but wonder why exactly it’s so hated. I mean, many of the positions are obviously a draw with best play, but I find I can usually outplay an opponent 200 points lower, and get outplayed by an opponent 200 points higher. I also have a pretty low draw rate (playing Sicilian and KID helps, but most of my London games are decisive as well). So why exactly does everyone hate this opening?

see out of all the openings you could have played, leading to dynamic and fun chess, you play the London... 

That doesn't mean the London can't be dynamic it is just dry more often.

Here we go. I hear foot steps….

You should see what Coach Andras thinks?

lets not bring andras here xd

In general because it's a training wheels opening (it helps beginners with zero experience to not fall off the bike).

At higher levels it's not hated, because players know how to get a middlegame that's interesting (or at least one they don't hate).

The 2 main reasons is that it's seen as a noob opening that does require much prep to use, and that it usually leads to boring middle games. I personally find it fun to play against the London because I am well prepared against it and most lower rated players don't play properly against moves like qb3

I’ve always wondered that as well but I still like to roast the london 

define higher rated

Giri plays the London doesn't he?

Rated high enough that after the memorized opening moves are over that they're not completely clueless on how to continue... because when you reach a balanced position and are clueless then that's pretty frustrating because "there's nothing to do."

Of course practically any rating can have this problem in an opening they haven't studied (or an opening they don't have much experience in yet) but I think you see what I mean.

Lots of GMs play the London now and then.

I meant like a rating lol

People reach the same rating with different skill sets, so it's not possible to just give a number.

But in general it's something like...
1000 almost never moves a piece to an attacked square where it's immediately lost
1300 almost never gives away a piece to simple 1-2 move tactics (common forks, and pins)
1600 has started moving beyond blunders and is working in some strategic ideas

So I'd say at least 1600... but this is for players who are more or less well rounded. You can get to, you know, master level and be a "dumb" attacking player... Firouzja lost against Caruana today because he played like a dumb kid, and he's 2800 FIDE.

I think it's the same with the Colle system. 

There is probably something similar with exchange variant of the Defense French where if the white player is weaker, it's ok but if he is stronger, is embarrassing because we know that he doesn't have a bad position and that he can win or make a draw but [I think] it's still not brilliant to play the exchange variant because white has the possibility to play better moves.    

Introduction To The London System & Jobava London System...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/the-london-system

“1600 has started moving beyond blunders and is working in some strategic ideas”

bro, total lie

No offense but... I have no idea how rapid ratings work. Maybe you're 1600, I don't know, but I only know about blitz ratings, and in that case you're ~1300.

No, no lol. The KIA is much more flexible 

Bongcloud outshines every opening 

lmfaooooo

going for the throat with my signature exchange slav