Yes
Official Boxing Thread
- Thread starter FJP
- Start date
Who? Because his best wins are GRJ and Walters and neither one of them was top 10 pfp
That being said, MY opinion of him is he's the most complete boxer I've seen. Doesn't have to be yours, and there are a LOT of fighters here who get props and haven't beaten a top 10 pfp fighter so... I also understand where a lot of this bias comes from but it's all good. Everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint and opinion Bruh...
Who would you pick between the 130 pound version of Loma and the 130 pound version of Floyd?
Hard to say. I would lean toward Floyd but if pressed outright it would be tough. Floyd was a beast, and he sat down on his punches more But on the flipside Lomachenkos Ability to give angles and to change up speed and direction on his punches Would-be an advantage to him.
Honestly that's a fight I would love to see common as neither of them at that weight would have faced a Fighter like the fighter in front of them.
Still, only his 2nd pro fight. Name me any fighter in recent memory Who is fighting for world championships or that level of competition and their 2nd pro Fight. And it's not like he got blown away-and that fight He was actually dominating that fight at the end of the fight.
He did have like 300 amateur fights. He is a beast, no doubt, but you can't compare him to Floyd until he starts moving up. I don't know if he has the frame, but Floyd proved his skill by constantly fighting fighters who outweighed him.
My 2 cents
Today's game is different than it was years back. Every division has around 5 or 6 'champions'. I'm not taking away from Loma's great accomplishment of fighting for and winning a world title in under 4 fights. But, I'm really doubting guys like Gary Russell Jr (super inflated record at that point) and Siri (gatekeeper) would have been fighting for world titles at that point in their respective careers if they were fighting 15 years or so ago.
Last edited:
He has been moving up, but imo jumping divisions isn't the problem. Following up the Walters fight w/ Sosa and Marriaga is the problem.
True. He has a Garcia fight but I can't see Crawford. He is too big. The beauty about Floyd is that he was so hungry that he was calling out ninja's fighting at 154 when he was at 140. He was chasing the money but it was going to lead to big fights.
Crawford is a massive weight drainer, so a catch-weight bout could probably be made if Arum/Lomachenko wanted it.
Loma vs Mikey Garcia is the bout every wants to see (including me,) but Garcia needs to find a weight-comfort zone. His inactivity coupled w/ his ever-changing weight is slightly worrisome.
Respect
All that being said, he still lost a CLOSE decision, in his second fight, against a highly respected veteran and has been fighting on a championship fight level from day one. Unheard of in ANY era and to me, that holds A LOT more weight in assessing him that anything else. Like I said, there are a lot of Dudes who get props and eDap here, who haven't beaten anybody of substance or maybe has one good or two good wins. At the lower levels, historically those guys don't get the name recognition or notoriety of the higher weight classes, however that doesn't mean they aren't quality fighters. Classic example is Ricardo Lopez, who went undefeated and you NEVER hear of his name mentioned but he was a phenomenally complete fighter...
You realize Guillermo Rigondeaux did the same, right? He also did it before Loma. Rigo won a title in fight 7.
Who is comparing him to Floyd!?!?! Not sure where you got that from. The question was Floyd vs Him at 130 which I responded to. It would be idiotic to compare a fighter with what, 10 fights to Floyds entire career. Also, I said he is possibly the most complete fighter I've seen, which is talking about his skillset not fights.
Also, 300 amateur fights doesn't negate the fact that his lone loss was a very close decision in his second career fight. Most fighters start out fighting Dudes with 1-3 fights on their ledger, club fighters, etc. to acclimate themselves to the pro game. 300 career amateur fights not with standing, rules are different from pros. There are ALOT of fighters with a lot of amateur fights who STILL don't contend for titles or fight the level of experienced opposition from day one like he did. He gets my ultimate respect for that, not record padding whatsoever.
He did it before him because he started his career 4 years earlier, AND he didn't do it career wise sooner, he did it in his 7th fight and Lomachenko won is first title in his 3rd fight.
In his first 6 fights, Rigondeaux fought fighter with 18,12 and and 11 loses.
In his first 6 fights, Salido has the most loses at 12 I believe. The loses by the fighters in Rigondeaux ledger in just those 3 fights have more losses than ALL of the fighters Lomachenko has fought in his entire career?!?! That's a HUGE difference.
Rigondeaux to me is not as complete a fighter as Lomachenko. He is exceptionally talented, a defensive genius, possibly a top 2-3 most skilled fighter fighting right now, however I do not thing he is as overall a complete fighter as Lomachenko.
Last edited:
I honestly would not fight Crawford at a catchweight. Not just in this context, but I frankly despise catchweight fights. They almost ALWAYS benefit the bigger fighter. In my opinion if both fighters can't make a weight, then the fight doesn't need to happen...
I actually would prefer to see Crawford/Spence at 147, which I believe Crawford can make comfortably, and see Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux, which has the potential to be a boring fight, but also has the potential to be a fight where true fans of the sport would be treated with watching amazing ring technicians go at it...
I also would love to see Rigondeaux or Lomachenko against Garcia, who is one of the most underrated fighter in the sport right now, and I think ultimately both fights could end up being a war...
The point is Loma's not doing anything that hasn't been done before. Unless you wanna split hairs about fight 3 vs fight 7.
Its really not splitting hairs, as short as both of their careers have been, 7 vs 3 is huge. Also, again, in comparison to actual fighters fought, even though Rigondeaux has won chips and been extremely impressive, he fought back to back fights against fighters with 18 and 12 losses. Again, say what you want, but that is big in comparing level of competition...
Also, only 2 out of 17 fighters Rigondeaux has fought were undefeated, 5 out of 10 Lomachenko has fought were undefeated... again BIG difference...
I'm not having it both ways, a disputed decision against an extremely seasoned fighter in only your second fight does not invalidate a fighters greatness. If he was dominated, knocked out, etc, cool... Him ONLY having that one blemish outweight padding records against guys with 18 and 12 loses in my view.
The irony is, you guys want to invalidate Lomachenko's level of competition yet celebrate Rigondeaux who has fought overall a lower level of competition which is pretty hypocritical...
Also, Lomachenko has fought 5 undefeated fighters in only 10 fights, and Rigondeaux as only fought 2 in 17.. another feather in Lomachenkos cap.
Ultimately, regardless of all the semantics, I still stand by my original opinion and view of Lomachenko, that he is probably the most complete fighter I've ever seen. If you disagree with it, that's your opinion which you are entitled too. But none of what you've typed changes or invalidates my view of this phenomenally gifted fighter...
What? Walters and Gary Russell are the only undefeated fighters Loma has beaten. No idea where you're getting 5 from.
Where I have celebrated Rigondeaux's accomplishments? Merely pointing it out to you isn't celebratory.
Please, name all 5.
Your right, my fault. 3 out of 10 vs 2 out of 17...
Still wrong.
Sure it is, with the 1000s of fighters out there to only have 2 fighters in the conversation and Lomenchenko still did it twice as fast as the fighter your named isnt?!?!
Like I said, you are talking careers, cool, has absolutely nothing to do with my assessment as to in my opinion he is the most perfect fighter in overall skillet I've seen tho... Nothing you've typed has changed or invalidated my opinion. Now if you are saying a fighters won loss record dictated how their skill set is viewed then.... ?!?!?!
2-10 vs 2-17.... still a big difference.
Just like 3rd fight vs 7th fight... big difference
Yup. Rigo TKO'ed a guy w/ 11 losses in his 3rd bout.
Loma lost to a guy w/ 12 losses.
Far cry from the 5 out of 10 fighter's he's faced are undefeated.
All that still doesn't change my view that Lomenchenko is the most perfectly overall skilled fighter bar none in my opinion so all this other stuff you've been typing is moot?!?!
I actually do understand the dynamic and why you have an issue with Lomenchenko and others like him which is cool. Still doesnt change my opinion Bruh
Cool. I've shown that you have some fantasy view of Lomachenko and his accomplishments.