Why exactly does the London get so much hate?

True, the sample size is imbalanced, but I would bet that if we could reduce the sample size of my d4 games to let's say about a year, the rate of draws wouldn't change much. I'm not sure if there's an easy way to test this, but I'm pretty sure of it.

I played the London for a long time. Got some good wins against stronger players once in a while. I saw it as a solid short cut around so much theory. It is not so easy to use these days, players are onto ways to combat it and too often the tables are turned on me. Yeah, I saw hate for it but was very seldom. 

Eventually I moved on, trying out the Keep It Simple 1 d4 and Keep It Simple 1 e4 repertoires. Recently gave 1 b4 a try. My choice is Keep It Simple 1 e4 (first edition. I read a 2.0 1 e4 version recently came out with a big re-write of the author's repertoire choices but I'm sticking with the book I have). 

It's incredibly complicated to test because it depends on the opening and your experience with the opening.

Even if you reduce the sample size for the openings it's still imbalanced if you've played one more.

Because the vast majority of people that play the London play it out of laziness and not out of understanding.  They close their eyes and play d4, Bf4, e3, Nf3, c3, Bd3 (Be2 if Black played ...g6 at any point), O-O, and Nbd2, open their eyes, and start to play chess.

When Carlsen plays it, or any other master, they are playing it to win.  They understand when to play c3 and when to play c4.  They understand when to play h4 ideas and when not to.

The last time I played someone OTB over 2200 that played the London, it was a hard fought draw.  Either side may have missed a win.

When I play Class A and B players, my score against the London is very high.  Only talking serious games, not blitz or online trash.

thats like comparing the easiness between  scrambled eggs to fried eggs when youve made fried eggs 1000 times any scramed 250 time

Not all London players are slaves to the London. Many players (including myself) have the London as just one of many possible openings in their repertoire.

Like a toolbelt filled with many tools.

I'd even argue that learning the London can be instructive and beneficial to your game, as long as it isn't the only opening you rely on.

The same could be said for any other opening, too. I'd tell an exclusive Queen's Gambit player the same thing, too. "Branch out. Try something other than the QG. Expand your knowledge."

The recommendation to expand and to avoid limiting yourself can apply to any opening or defense.

Because its the best opening in the world

As a London player, I agree with (most of) the things said in this thread. The London (usually/most of the time) is pretty uninventive, mostly because people dont study any of the theory and basically premove the entire opening. Now, if the players actually study the theory, the London can be quite interesting and dynamic, as well as a pretty darn solid opening. Personally, I have won quite a few otb games using the London, and those games were pretty fun. The London is especially useful if you need to hold a game, like when you are playing someone who is higher rated than you. That being said, the London sucks, dont play it kids.
At least its better than the Italian

This is the thing. If someone likes playing the London then fair enough that's their decision but if someone doesn't explore any variety in the game and only depends on this opening then that's really a shame.

When someone says they don't want to play anything else because they'll just have to learn theory, that's extremely sad and disappointing. It's like, so you don't want to learn anything more about this game? Don't you enjoy this game? For some reason they think it's a chore to learn about chess, like they don't find it interesting or something.

Eric Rosen plays the London but he reached that point after playing many other openings. He actually does have a very diverse repertoire and the ability to adapt. When he is not playing the Stafford, he is actually a Sicilian player and plays a lot of e4 as well.

Apart from London and Stafford he plays these openings:

• English
• Ruy Lopez
• QGD
• Nimzo-Indian
• Closed Sicilian
• Open Sicilian
• Sicilian Taimanov
• Sicilian Dragondorf

And the list goes on.

One reason I think we may be more inclined to hate with Black about the London system (and probably also the Colle system) is that we can believe that the London system is a "opening called equal" like the French exchange (which can also be annoying for real but not to the point of hatred because it is because of making draws and not downright losing) while the London system is probably and potentially more strong than a French exchange and therefore as we can underestimate from the start the London system on arrival we are more hateful when we are beaten (and I'm not talking about defeats against a champion or a strong chess program but against someone who is supposed to be at our level).

Lazy? Sign me up. I gotta learn it

Ahhh... That's unfortunate. I had really hoped I'd truly discovered an innovation at 1600 ELO blitz.

I think the main reason the London gets hated on, is that it often leads to the same type of game that is difficult for black to avoid. If you're facing e4, black has an array of viable defenses, each with their own character. If you're facing d4 c4 you can again choose from an array of defenses. Against the London the options are more limited and a lot of them lead to a show maneuvering game. 

So you have people that are used to playing "their game" that now have to play their opponent's game instead. 

There are many options against the London. Here are a few:

The list can go on. All of these are completely playable. You can pick and choose any of them, at whim.

I think the problem (for some players) is that they play the same defense every time - and they don't realize that they have the option of mixing it up and trying something new.

Then they accuse the London player of being boring, for playing the same old opening - when they themselves are guilty of the very same thing, with their same old defense.

But there are many ways to skin a cat ...

@IronSteam

Well I said more limited, not that there was only one way to play against the London. Your options are also a bit restricted by your move order against d4-c4. Can't play the Dutch against the London when I start with Nf6 aiming for a grunfeld for example. 

why did you have to compare it to skinning a cat?

It's an old expression, which mostly means "there's more than one way to do something".

What a lot of people don't know is that the expression originally referred to cleaning and preparing a fish. "Cat" was used as verbal shorthand, to refer to catfish. As in "There's more than one way to skin a catfish".

These days, though, most people think of an actual feline, when they hear the phrase ...

In my part of the country, smart hunters buy a cougar tag. If you see one, you shoot, and then skin. The meat allegedly tastes like pork.

Hm, I was thinking about Alf from Melmak