# Is Lomachenko an ATG level talent?



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

I'm talking talent and skills here, not resume.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Probably.


----------



## Drunkenboat (Jul 29, 2012)

Probably.


----------



## ChampionsForever (Jun 5, 2013)

Bit early to say really.


----------



## Zopilote (Jun 5, 2013)

Yes


----------



## Divi253 (Jun 4, 2013)

I believe he is, but would like to see a bit more.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Dunno yet.


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

Are we talking Top 100 ATG or inner circle, top 20 ATG?

I'm comfortable saying he's easily, skill wise, a yes for the top 100 but he needs to show quite a bit more to be in that rare company of the latter.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

Skill-wise, yes. I agree he needs that true signature win to put the stamp on his overall claim, but as a boxing technician, he's about as good as they come.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

He's far more skilled than he is talented, that's for sure.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

Yes. He wouldn't have achieved what he's achieved if he wasn't.


----------



## Mal (Aug 25, 2013)

ATG talent, yes. ATG resume, not yet, but it's in the making.


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

I'm surprised you even have to ask.

I was never completely sold on the guy, until Sat night. Linares is a bit basic, but no joke, either. Loma proved a lot of things that night, including his chin, and his willingness to trade shots with a fairly big puncher.

I'm sold now. He's the real deal.


----------



## Davie (Dec 21, 2017)

On talent/skills/technical ability, call it what you want, yes.

Resume isn't there yet and there has always been the question over whether he has the likes of the toughness/heart/chin etc to make it to ATG level. We are, fight by fight, seeing that that is there.


----------



## BobDigi5060 (Jul 15, 2012)

No, wtf. He got dropped by Linares and that's the best he's fought so far.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

All you guys that post but don't vote are a disappointment.

The whole purpose of a poll is to get a quick visual of the boards opinion. Ain't nobody got time to keep track of your individual posts.

Cough @Bogotazo cough

@DynamicMoves you're a hero.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 8, 2013)

Seems like it. Still want to see more though before I would claim that. I think Mikey beats him


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

BobDigi5060 said:


> No, wtf. He got dropped by Linares and that's the best he's fought so far.


Ali got dropped by Wepner, Cooper, and Sonny Banks.

What a poser that guy was !


----------



## BobDigi5060 (Jul 15, 2012)

Cableaddict said:


> Ali got dropped by Wepner, Cooper, and Sonny Banks.
> 
> What a poser that guy was !


STFU. He's not ATG level skill wise.


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

BobDigi5060 said:


> STFU. He's not ATG level skill wise.


STFU yourself.

He certainly is.

Of course, you're still entitled to YOUR opinion, no matter how wrong it is & no matter how obnoxious you are.


----------



## jonnytightlips (Jun 14, 2012)

Talent wise he's one of the best ever. It's not even up for debate and anyone who disagrees with that statement is a fucking retard and hasn't the slightest clue about boxing. 

It is fair to say that he'll need to get more high quality wins in the resume bracket to go down as a legit ATG . Regardless though, if he retired tomorrow he still has his place in history with the 2 Olympic gold's, Val Baker trophy, European and World amateur titles. Equalling the record for winning a world title in the least amount of fights and now the quickest ever three weight world champion. That's some fucking career.


----------



## BobDigi5060 (Jul 15, 2012)

ATG level? Seriously? :lol:

Look at who he is fighting! He hasn't fought a pro that can justify that he is ATG level.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

BobDigi5060 said:


> ATG level? Seriously? :lol:
> 
> Look at who he is fighting! He hasn't fought a pro that can justify that he is ATG level.


The question is not whether he's achieved ATG status. The question is whether or not he has ATG ability.


----------



## BobDigi5060 (Jul 15, 2012)

Sweet Pea said:


> The question is not whether he's achieved ATG status. The question is whether or not he has ATG ability.


He doesn't, like I said can't justify it with his level of opposition.

I see him get dropped before winning and next thing I know people are wondering if he has ATG level skills? Wtf.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

BobDigi5060 said:


> He doesn't, like I said can't justify it with his level of opposition.
> 
> I see him get dropped before winning and next thing I know people are wondering if he has ATG level skills? Wtf.


Is this the first you've heard of him?


----------



## BobDigi5060 (Jul 15, 2012)

Sweet Pea said:


> Is this the first you've heard of him?


Of course not.


----------



## Brownies (Jun 7, 2013)

Of course.

Edit : Of course he's an ATG in the making. Doubters should just take a a seat and enjoy this special talent and unique fighter.


----------



## DynamicMoves (Apr 13, 2014)

Pedrin1787 said:


> All you guys that post but don't vote are a disappointment.
> 
> The whole purpose of a poll is to get a quick visual of the boards opinion. Ain't nobody got time to keep track of your individual posts.
> 
> ...


:cheers


----------



## thehook13 (May 16, 2013)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1003132709842831



Yeah


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

BobDigi5060 said:


> ATG level? Seriously? :lol:
> 
> Look at who he is fighting! He hasn't fought a pro that can justify that he is ATG level.


GRJ, Walters, Rigondeaux, Linares? Multiple records, pound for pound number one? Greatest amateur of all time. There are Cuban heavyweights that never turned pro that are considered all time greats.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

BobDigi5060 said:


> He doesn't, like I said can't justify it with his level of opposition.
> 
> I see him get dropped before winning and next thing I know people are wondering if he has ATG level skills? Wtf.


What ATG hasn't been dropped?


----------



## rjjfan (May 17, 2013)

Anyone who is a 3 weight champ in 12 fights with his record has to be an ATG level talent.

And does it legally, without coming in over the weight limit and low blowing like there's no tomorrow. @Zopilote :hi:


----------



## Deadendgeneration (Mar 24, 2015)

Talent wise it's not really in doubt. Whether there are the fights out there for him to actually go down as an ATG is much more debateable. Can't see it myself.


----------



## thehook13 (May 16, 2013)

We will see in time. He is already the greatest amateur ever. He has had an unprecented start to his career and broken a great record already.

There is little double his style and ability is outstanding. Time will tell how much of a professional impact he will have long term.l but as far as im concerned he has no trouble getting there at this stage.


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

I don't know; I can't even figure out if he's a puncher or not and nobody will help me pin down the number anywhere for what we have anymore.


----------



## JamieC (Jun 2, 2012)

BobDigi5060 said:


> ATG level? Seriously? :lol:
> 
> Look at who he is fighting! He hasn't fought a pro that can justify that he is ATG level.


You can neither read the question or appreciate boxing skill.

Skill wise he's as good as anyone.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Lomachenko arguably isn't the fastest 2 weight world champ.

Inoue still is.
Inoue turned pro in 2012 and won a title in the 2nd division a little less than 27 months later.
Loma took 32 months.


----------



## superman1692 (Jun 3, 2013)

BobDigi5060 said:


> STFU. He's not ATG level skill wise.


You're an idiot.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Boxed Ears said:


> I don't know; I can't even figure out if he's a puncher or not and nobody will help me pin down the number anywhere for what we have anymore.


look at his stoppage percentage and consider that he has been against champion level competition since the start. Then look at all the other apparent punchers and look at their stoppage percentage since reaching world level. He is a puncher. He moved up to 130, and 135 and one punched both those champs without a warm up fight. And he is a natural 126 pound fighter. In the Loma v Garcia match up I know who is really the puncher. I can't wait for it.


----------



## Drunkenboat (Jul 29, 2012)

Imagine if he was American


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Suggesting Lomachenko would be the puncher in a fight with Garcia is pretty hilarious.


----------



## Kingboxer (Jul 31, 2012)

Lomachenko is an ATG talent. Skill-wise?, No doubt. I don't think any boxing fan can doubt that.

Physically we saw on the weekend his limits, with 135-140 probably being his peak career weightclass. I do believe he will carve out his legacy as one of, if not the best of this era though (Depending how much stock you put into this era or the fighters around him is on you).

Right now, Garcia is a very big fight and is very winnable for Loma imo, despite the hot takes I'm seeing after the Linares fight. Davis could prove to be a big fight too, though he needs to prove more to put himself on that level. If these fights will happen though is a question I don't know the answer to.



dyna said:


> Lomachenko arguably isn't the fastest 2 weight world champ.
> 
> Inoue still is.
> Inoue turned pro in 2012 and won a title in the 2nd division a little less than 27 months later.
> Loma took 32 months.


There's nothing really arguable about that my guy :lol:. Inoue's still that dude before some Japanese jobber chases and breaks that record then kamikaze's himself into a short career and early retirement.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

Out of interest, who rates Mikey as a better win for a Loma than Linares?


----------



## Zopilote (Jun 5, 2013)

rjjfan said:


> Anyone who is a 3 weight champ in 12 fights with his record has to be an ATG level talent.
> 
> And does it legally, without coming in over the weight limit and low blowing like there's no tomorrow. @Zopilote


ATG level talent, hard to argue with that. Looks better and better on Salido's win column :deal :hi::yep:happy:smoke


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Kurushi said:


> Out of interest, who rates Mikey as a better win for a Loma than Linares?


Everyone not named Linares and Dealt With.


----------



## allenko1 (Jun 27, 2012)

Yes, but there were a lot of gym giants who could do all the drills and skill-building exercises that he does. Skills and talent have to be applied at the time the spotlight comes on. Which is what he's done and continuing to do now...


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> Out of interest, who rates Mikey as a better win for a Loma than Linares?


I'm pretty sure most people would, you don't?


----------



## jonnytightlips (Jun 14, 2012)

ATG status doesn't really matter anyway. Henry Armstrong to me has one of the greatest achievements in sporting history by holding the Featherweight, Lightweight and Welterweight titles at the same time back when boxing only had 8 divisions and one title per division and you'd be hard pressed to find someone outside of boxing who has heard of him. He got robbed apparently when he fought for the middleweight title too. He doesn't even get all that much credit in boxing nevermind the wider world of sports.


----------



## jonnytightlips (Jun 14, 2012)

Kurushi said:


> Out of interest, who rates Mikey as a better win for a Loma than Linares?


Loma beating Garcia would be the signature win of his career. Linares is a brilliant fucking fighter but Garcia is the bigger, heavier puncher and doesn't seem as vulnerable as Linares.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Pedrin1787 said:


> All you guys that post but don't vote are a disappointment.
> 
> The whole purpose of a poll is to get a quick visual of the boards opinion. Ain't nobody got time to keep track of your individual posts.
> 
> ...


Sorry, wasn't sure which to choose for "probably".

Also mentions don't seem to be working.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

jonnytightlips said:


> ATG status doesn't really matter anyway. Henry Armstrong to me has one of the greatest achievements in sporting history by holding the Featherweight, Lightweight and Welterweight titles at the same time back when boxing only had 8 divisions and one title per division and you'd be hard pressed to find someone outside of boxing who has heard of him. He got robbed apparently when he fought for the middleweight title too. He doesn't even get all that much credit in boxing nevermind the wider world of sports.


I'd argue it's the only thing that really matters. How history judges your legacy.


----------



## rjjfan (May 17, 2013)

Zopilote said:


> ATG level talent, hard to argue with that. Looks better and better on Salido's win column :deal :hi::yep:happy:smoke


Cheater!!:shifty


----------



## Kingboxer (Jul 31, 2012)

Kurushi said:


> Out of interest, who rates Mikey as a better win for a Loma than Linares?


 Everyone.

Linares has always been overrated. He was getting overrated by a few people that had him in the top 10 P4P for unifying in the (for what it has seemed like forever) weak lightweight division.

Technically skilled, athletically gifted and aesthetically pleasing, his physical and mental weaknesses (glass chin/skin/body and brain) will never allow him to step above that level of being good to great.

Mikey is a better/greater fighter no question. But he doesn't offer the same match up stylistically. Bigger, harder puncher, seems physically and mentally sturdy, a more disciplined boxer-puncher/counter puncher than Linares. He isn't as quick of hand or feet as either Loma/Linares and fights at a slower pace/workrate. And despite his move ups in weight, never been much of a physical fighter, preferring to fight at range. I give the edge to Loma but I wouldn't be surprised nor be mad if the concensus has Mikey as the favourite. It's looks like a career defining fight for the both of em at this point in their careers.


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> look at his stoppage percentage and consider that he has been against champion level competition since the start. Then look at all the other apparent punchers and look at their stoppage percentage since reaching world level. He is a puncher. He moved up to 130, and 135 and one punched both those champs without a warm up fight. And he is a natural 126 pound fighter. In the Loma v Garcia match up I know who is really the puncher. I can't wait for it.


Yeah but how many punchers are there even right now?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Kingboxer said:


> Everyone.
> 
> Linares has always been overrated. He was getting overrated by a few people that had him in the top 10 P4P for unifying in the (for what it has seemed like forever) weak lightweight division.
> 
> ...


Terrific.


----------



## jonnytightlips (Jun 14, 2012)

Bogotazo said:


> I'd argue it's the only thing that really matters. How history judges your legacy.


Hardcore boxing fans obviously rate Armstrong very highly but my point on this is that he isn't anywhere near as revered as Ali, Louis, Sugar Ray Robinson, Dempsey or even Rocky Marciano. Not saying he's better than all those but but he should be given more credit. Especially given that boxing is in a time where multi weight champions are seemingly everywhere like Broner for example.


----------



## Mr. Brain (Jun 4, 2013)

Most likely ATG status. A convincing win over Mikey would seal the deal tho.


----------



## Mr. Brain (Jun 4, 2013)

Perhaps the Saensak Muangsurin of the 21st century.


----------



## Haggis (May 16, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> What ATG hasn't been dropped?


It's as if people never heard of Ali juuuuuust squeaking past blown-up LHW Doug Jones, or needing to cheat at avoid getting stopped by Henry Cooper. They would have written him off before he even fought Liston.

:hat


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Haggis said:


> It's as if people never heard of Ali juuuuuust squeaking past blown-up LHW Doug Jones, or needing to cheat at avoid getting stopped by Henry Cooper. They would have written him off before he even fought Liston.
> 
> :hat


We expect 21 year olds to have tough fights as they come up, and if you honestly believe Ali needed to cheat to avoid being stopped by Henry Cooper then that's unfortunate, but I think the hyperbole and hype surrounding Lomachenko has been so fantastic, especially from the mouth of Dealt With, that it came as a shock to some that a fighter of Linares calibre would be able to pose him so much trouble. Lomachenko is a 30 year old man after all, not the 21 year old baby Ali was when he faced adversity.

Ali would not have been hailed an ATG after his performances against Jones and Cooper, that came after he defeated monsters in Liston, Frazier and Foreman.

So far Lomachenko has Linares.

I think we can hold off on the ATG rhetoric for a while.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

If people are only looking at the calibre of a fighter like Linares in a vacuum then their argument is already skewed. It's utterly ludicrous to ignore the fact that this was Loma's 12th fight in his 3rd division against the number one guy with no tune ups. If people's stance is that 'Loma had some trouble at times against a fighter like Linares so that means x fighter would beat Loma' then their position is an inherently flawed one.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> If people are only looking at the calibre of a fighter like Linares in a vacuum then their argument is already skewed. It's utterly ludicrous to ignore the fact that this was Loma's 12th fight in his 3rd division against the number one guy with no tune ups. If people's stance is that 'Loma had some trouble at times against a fighter like Linares so that means x fighter would beat Loma' then their position is an inherently flawed one.


Wasn't Loma's amateur experience supposed to count for something? People love to use his amateur record in an argument when it suits them, yet completely disregard it when the agenda changes. It's just plain silly to pretend that a guy with 400 amateur fights and two Olympic golds just picked up a pair of boxing gloves. Vasyl Lomachenko is in his prime RIGHT NOW, so it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to compare him to 20 year-olds prospects, ATGs or otherwise.

Linares was the number one guy -by default- and Loma didn't struggle with him due to a lack of experience.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Wasn't Loma's amateur experience supposed to count for something? People love to use his amateur record in an argument when it suits them, yet completely disregard it when the agenda changes. It's just plain silly to pretend that a guy with 400 amateur fights and two Olympic golds just picked up a pair of boxing gloves. Vasyl Lomachenko is in his prime RIGHT NOW, so it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to compare him to 20 year-olds prospects, ATGs or otherwise.
> 
> Linares was the number one guy -by default- and Loma didn't struggle with him due to a lack of experience.


It's not clear what the point you're making is. Loma was a brilliant amateur, yes. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees on that. I haven't seen anyone suggest he just picked up some boxing gloves either. What is it you're trying to say?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Kurushi said:


> If people are only looking at the calibre of a fighter like Linares in a vacuum then their argument is already skewed. It's utterly ludicrous to ignore the fact that this was Loma's 12th fight in his 3rd division against the number one guy with no tune ups. If people's stance is that 'Loma had some trouble at times against a fighter like Linares so that means x fighter would beat Loma' then their position is an inherently flawed one.


Likewise, it's equally ridiculous to view Lomachenko's 12 fight pro career in a vacuum. The man had 400 amateur fights and 6 fights in the WBS. He was 24 years old when he turned professional. This doesn't mean the fast track hasn't been impressive, but it's been a terribly misleading narrative for most part. And then when someone posts his first 12 fights compared to Floyd's, clearly trying to use it as basis for why one fighter is better than the other, you were curiously quiet.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Kurushi said:


> It's not clear what the point you're making is. Loma was a brilliant amateur, yes. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees on that. I haven't seen anyone suggest he just picked up some boxing gloves either. What is it you're trying to say?


I hope I'm wrong mate, but this post smacks of someone intentionally misunderstanding the points put across.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Likewise, it's equally ridiculous to view Lomachenko's 12 fight pro career in a vacuum. The man had 400 amateur fights and 6 fights in the WBS. He was 24 years old when he turned professional. This doesn't mean the fast track hasn't been impressive, but it's been a terribly misleading narrative for most part. And then when someone posts his first 12 fights compared to Floyd's, clearly trying to use it as basis for why one fighter is better than the other, you were curiously quiet.


I haven't seen anyone view his achievement in a vacuum but it is obviously more than just 'impressive'. No one in the history of the sport has done it before. If that doesn't suggest ATG potential then I'm literally not sure what could qualify. If I've been quiet it's because the forum has been down. You also mentioned you didn't have the energy to engage so that conversation didn't go far. Happy to discuss anything though.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I hope I'm wrong mate, but this post smacks of someone intentionally misunderstanding the points put across.


So that I didn't misunderstand the point being put across I specifically asked for clarification.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Kurushi said:


> I haven't seen anyone view his achievement in a vacuum but it is obviously more than just 'impressive'. No one in the history of the sport has done it before. If that doesn't suggest ATG potential then I'm literally not sure what could qualify. If I've been quiet it's because the forum has been down. You also mentioned you didn't have the energy to engage so that conversation didn't go far. Happy to discuss anything though.


I'm revitalised, my dude.

And I'm ready and willing to combat all Lomachenko sycophants! Even those that I like.

To clarify once more, I think it's fair to say Lomachenko has ATG potential. Many fighters over the last 15 years had that same potential but fell short for whatever reason. It usually involved looking more and more ordinary as they stepped up the competition. Because that's how the game works. People are expecting Lomachenko of Russell Jr when/if he faces Mikey, and it isn't gonna happen. Just like he didn't look infallible against Linares. You're only as good as your opponent allows you to be, and that's why I hold off on this 'one of the best ever in terms of talent' talk. This is a 30 year old man. We can talk about his 12 fight career, but when most fighters have had 12 fights they are miles off their prime. This man is likely smack bang in his. There's not a lot more development to come from him. People should keep that in mind.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I'm revitalised, my dude.
> 
> And I'm ready and willing to combat all Lomachenko sycophants! Even those that I like.
> 
> To clarify once more, I think it's fair to say Lomachenko has ATG potential. Many fighters over the last 15 years had that same potential but fell short for whatever reason. It usually involved looking more and more ordinary as they stepped up the competition. Because that's how the game works. People are expecting Lomachenko of Russell Jr when/if he faces Mikey, and it isn't gonna happen. Just like he didn't look infallible against Linares. You're only as good as your opponent allows you to be, and that's why I hold off on this 'one of the best ever in terms of talent' talk. This is a 30 year old man. We can talk about his 12 fight career, but when most fighters have had 12 fights they are miles off their prime. This man is likely smack bang in his. There's not a lot more development to come from him. People should keep that in mind.


I'm not seeing a lot to disagree with here. The question the thread poses is "Is Loma ATG level?". @Pedrin1787 specifically asked "I'm talking talent and skills here, not resume."

Your initial response was "Dunno yet". @steviebruno doesn't appear to have committed to an answer yet (at least not that I saw in this thread). You've now changed your opinion (although you've called it a 'clarification') as now you "think it's fair to say Lomachenko has ATG potential." A contrast from claiming you don't know. Not sure what tipped you over the edge but we agree; Loma has ATG potential.

As for the rest of your post, it's a sort of mish-mash of different points but as I've mentioned before it's unfair to pick on Floyd. Obviously his first 12 fights are shit compared to Loma's. So are most, if not all, other people's in the sport so I don't know why people would single out Floyd.

One of the issues that seems to be at the heart of this discussion here though is the idea that Loma's pro achievements are somehow diluted by his amateur success. This notion that 'he was a decorated amateur so obviously he was going to achieve this much' is misguided. Mayweather himself was a decorated amateur. Many successful amateurs have had average and poor pro careers too. Many decorated amateurs did not attempt what Loma has regardless of whether they were younger or older than Loma. Were they at all obliged to attempt it because of their amateur pedigree? No, of course not. Was Loma obliged to? No, of course not. He did so because he's immensely ambitious and he's pulled it off.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> I'm not seeing a lot to disagree with here. The question the thread poses is "Is Loma ATG level?". @Pedrin1787 specifically asked "I'm talking talent and skills here, not resume."
> 
> Your initial response was "Dunno yet". @steviebruno doesn't appear to have committed to an answer yet (at least not that I saw in this thread). You've now changed your opinion (although you've called it a 'clarification') as now you "think it's fair to say Lomachenko has ATG potential." A contrast from claiming you don't know. Not sure what tipped you over the edge but we agree; Loma has ATG potential.
> 
> ...


Loma's amateur experience doesn't diminish his standing as a professional, it enhances it... and that is exactly the point I was making, and also why he was in line to immediately fight for titles in the first place.

No one has ever, ever been more decorated than Lomachenko coming out of the amateur ranks, and Floyd's resume as a one-time Olympic bronze medalist isn't even comparable.

Floyd could have hung around for another. 300 fights and competed in Sydney but didn't. Loma could have come out four years earlier than he did and gone through his progessions in the professional ranks. He chose not to.

Their careers are on a completely different continuum, and so a side-by-side comparison with Loma and just about anyone else in history places him in an obviously favorable light... until you actually provide context to the discussion.

Lomachenko is in his prime and about as good as he will ever be (which is quite good). Ali improved exponentially from his 12th fight to his prime. Floyd, too.

Barrera and Morales were still fighting in Mexican shoe boxes. Manny Pacquiao was still malnourished and would be ko'd in another couple of fights. None of this matters.

In an ATG discussion, the only thing that matters is what these guys were at their peaks... Which you should be fine with, considering the fact that Loma has only three or four years remaining to get his accomplishments on par with the guys mentioned.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Loma's amateur experience doesn't diminish his standing as a professional


I'm glad you clarified this because at one point it looked like you were going the other way with it. Obviously what Lomachenko has achieved since turning pro is remarkable. It doesn't matter that he was as decorated as he was or that he is in his prime. It's objectively remarkable.



steviebruno said:


> No one has ever, ever been more decorated than Lomachenko coming out of the amateur ranks, and Floyd's resume as a one-time Olympic bronze medalist isn't even comparable.


It can absolutely be compared in the context I brought it up in which is Mayweather was no stranger to the ring himself having won an Olympic medal.



steviebruno said:


> Their careers are on a completely different continuum, and so a side-by-side comparison with Loma and just about anyone else in history places him in an obviously favorable light... until you actually provide context to the discussion.


Exactly the point I've been making. Loma's first 12 fights are clearly superior to Floyd's (and almost anyone's). Whatever 'context' you provide doesn't change that. There's no 'until'. His first 12 fights are superior.



steviebruno said:


> Lomachenko is... as good as he will ever be (which is *quite good*).


Absolutely laughable statement.



steviebruno said:


> In an ATG discussion, the only thing that matters is what these guys were at their peaks... Which you should be fine with, considering the fact that Loma has only three or four years remaining to get his accomplishments on par with the guys mentioned.


I'm more than fine with it. What Loma is at his peak is a talent the likes of which is incredibly rare in this sport and he is achieving things no one has before. I hope people appreciate him for the next few years too.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Who do we think has had the superior opening 5 years - Lomachenko or Anthony Joshua?

Joshua holds nearly all the belts at Heavy and his best win is against Wladimir Klitschko.

Lomachenko is a 3 divisional champ and his best win is Jorge Linares. 

Joshua is 28, Lomachenko is 30.

One has tasted defeat, the other is undefeated. 

One had 400 amateur bouts, the other 43.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

... I don't think that Loma will crack the upper echelon retiring with like 20 fights, but that's just me.


Kurushi said:


> I'm glad you clarified this because at one point it looked like you were going the other way with it. Obviously what Lomachenko has achieved since turning pro is remarkable. It doesn't matter that he was as decorated as he was or that he is in his prime. It's objectively remarkable.
> 
> It can absolutely be compared in the context I brought it up in which is Mayweather was no stranger to the ring himself having won an Olympic medal.
> 
> ...


It's remarkable in that it hasn't been done before. IMO, lots of other ATG fighters could have waited until 24-25 to turn pro and had a similar professional career arc.

And lots of ATG would have been able to beat a 32 year old Linares at age 30. May, Pac, EM, JMM would all beat Linares in their prime, and Barrera would have a real shot.

And so while his first 12 fights are clearly superior, his first FIVE YEARS are not... but you will continually ignore this point for reasons unknown.

At his peak, he is a little better than Linares. He's not going to be a better fighter five years from now, if he is even still active. He will be remembered as that great little fighter who became the best amateur ever, fought 20 times as a pro and collected a few titles, then left the sport, either retiring early or fading out and losing a couple more fights and being forced out.

He'll have his place in professional boxing lore, but it won't be anywhere near the top.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

steviebruno said:


> And lots of ATG would have been able to beat a 32 year old Linares at age 30. May, Pac, EM, JMM would all beat Linares in their prime, and Barrera would have a real shot.
> .


Well MAB turned pro at age 15. 40 fights before his 25th birthday.

The only meaningful comparison is how would MAB in his prime do against Linares? He wins by stoppage and without getting dropped himself is the answer.


----------



## Zopilote (Jun 5, 2013)

How do we compare Loma’s first 5 years as a pro to someone like say...Oscar De La Hoya’s??


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Who do we think has had the superior opening 5 years - Lomachenko or Anthony Joshua?
> 
> Joshua holds nearly all the belts at Heavy and his best win is against Wladimir Klitschko.
> 
> ...


:lol: Interesting stategy. Let's see how this plays out.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> And lots of ATG would have been able to beat a 32 year old Linares at age 30. May, Pac, EM, JMM would all beat Linares in their prime, and Barrera would have a real shot.


At 30 in their own career arcs? Perhaps. At 30, after 11 fights, in their third division, at their first fight in the division? Who knows? This is why I keep pointing out that simply bringing up Linares' caliber isn't a solid argument.



steviebruno said:


> And so while his first 12 fights are clearly superior, his first FIVE YEARS are not... but you will continually ignore this point for reasons unknown.


I haven't ignored this at all. I responded to @Pedderrs about this and said it could be an interesting discussion. Personally I'd pick Loma. You?



steviebruno said:


> At his peak, he is a little better than Linares. He's not going to be a better fighter five years from now, if he is even still active. He will be remembered as that great little fighter who became the best amateur ever, fought 20 times as a pro and collected a few titles, then left the sport, either retiring early or fading out and losing a couple more fights and being forced out. He'll have his place in professional boxing lore, but it won't be anywhere near the top.


So, to clarify, you don't think he is ATG level?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Kurushi said:


> :lol: Interesting stategy. Let's see how this plays out.


I don't understand what you mean?

Loma's opening 5 years has been remarkable, the likes of which we have never seen before.

So I just wanted to pit it against Joshua's first 5 years as a Pro and to see if any of us felt it was comparable.

Care to address the question?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Zopilote said:


> How do we compare Loma's first 5 years as a pro to someone like say...Oscar De La Hoya's??


Age: 24
Record: 24-0
Best win: Pernell Whitaker (Past prime, disputed)
Other notable wins: Gonzalez, Ruelas, Hernandez.
Achievements: 4 divisional champion


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Mike Tyson's opening 5 years.

Age: 24
Record: 37-1
Best win: Michael Spinks (arguable)
Other notable wins: Berbick, Tucker, Biggs, Holmes, Thomas
Achievements: Undisputed


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Loma's opening 5 years

Age: 30
Record: 11-1
Best win: Jorge Linares
Other notable wins: Russell Jr, Martinez, Walters, Rigondeux
Achievements: 3 Division Champ


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)




----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

This is the part where context matters.

amirite @Kurushi


----------



## Zopilote (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Age: 24
> Record: 24-0
> Best win: Pernell Whitaker (Past prime, disputed)
> Other notable wins: Gonzalez, Ruelas, Hernandez.
> Achievements: 4 divisional champion


Don't forget Chavez, although a past prime ATG, was still the guy to beat at 140lbs at the time, and had a big advantage in experience.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Zopilote said:


> Don't forget Chavez, although a past prime ATG, was still the guy to beat at 140lbs at the time, and had a big advantage in experience.


Dunno man, I tend to try to forget Chavez after Randall.


----------



## Zopilote (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Dunno man, I tend to try to forget Chavez after Randall.


I hear ya on that, but would you consider that version of Chavez lesser than Jorge Linares?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Zopilote said:


> I hear ya on that, but would you consider that version of Chavez lesser than Jorge Linares?


Not at all.

Mainly because of the intangibles. Linares lacks in that department and has his entire career.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Threads gone off the original question which is a shame as it is then just a rehash of a dozen others.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

One to watch said:


> Threads gone off the original question which is a shame as it is then just a rehash of a dozen others.


Nice input, Coca Cola champion.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Mike Tyson's opening 5 years.
> 
> Age: 24
> Record: 37-1
> ...


I'm glad you brought up Tyson. I was going to mention him earlier to counter the point that the starts of fighter's careers can't be compared because of age differences. Tyson was only 20 when he won the title.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

One to watch said:


> Threads gone off the original question which is a shame as it is then just a rehash of a dozen others.


I don't think it's gone off topic, I think it's just developed a little quite naturally and generally respectfully if a little heated. @Pedderrs has even stated he thinks Loma has ATG potential so we're bang on topic with that.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

@Kurushi

I compliment Lomachenko fairly regularly.

I'm simply pointing out that comparing his first 12 fights to Floyd's is fraudulent.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> At 30 in their own career arcs? Perhaps. At 30, after 11 fights, in their third division, at their first fight in the division? Who knows? This is why I keep pointing out that simply bringing up Linares' caliber isn't a solid argument.
> 
> I haven't ignored this at all. I responded to @Pedderrs about this and said it could be an interesting discussion. Personally I'd pick Loma. You?
> 
> So, to clarify, you don't think he is ATG level?


Loma has accomplished more after 12 fights than anyone in boxing history. That is a fact.

It is simply my opinion that his era is not strong enough, nor has he left himself enough time, to crack top 50 ATG status. He could have come out earlier and built up some sort of longevity, but he decided to focus on his amateur career, which is his right. Still, there is a price to pay for doing so.

As for the eye test, I'm not sold on him being better than Pac (top 20), JMM, MAB, EM (top 50), etc. That might make me a skeptic, but that Linares fight was going exactly how this skeptic had predicted prior to that liver shot KO.

... So maybe my eyes aren't deceiving me at all...


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

JMM's sharp combinations bouncing off of Lomachenko's head. It wouldn't be pretty.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> ...nor has he left himself enough time, to crack top 50 ATG status. He could have come out earlier and built up some sort of longevity, but he decided to focus on his amateur career, which is his right. Still, there is a price to pay for doing so.


The length of Loma's pro career was the challenge he was going to face in trying to become as great as he could. Starting relatively late he had a shorter time in which to build the career he needed to achieve ATG status. I don't see you disagreeing much there. And he seems to be doing almost everything he can to attempt that exact climb up the ranks too.

Whether he cracks the top 50 or top 100 isn't relevant to the thread question however. Is he ATG level skill wise? To be p4p #1 and win a title in three divisions in just 12 fights is unequivocal evidence that he is. In naming "Pac, JMM, MAB, EM" you've just listed 4 guys who most people consider to be ATGs anyway so Loma could fail to surpass them and still be an ATG. Skill wise he's easily up there with any of them.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> The length of Loma's pro career was the challenge he was going to face in trying to become as great as he could. Starting relatively late he had a shorter time in which to build the career he needed to achieve ATG status. I don't see you disagreeing much there. And he seems to be doing almost everything he can to attempt that exact climb up the ranks too.
> 
> Whether he cracks the top 50 or top 100 isn't relevant to the thread question however. Is he ATG level skill wise? To be p4p #1 and win a title in three divisions in just 12 fights is unequivocal evidence that he is. In naming "Pac, JMM, MAB, EM" you've just listed 4 guys who most people consider to be ATGs anyway so Loma could fail to surpass them and still be an ATG. Skill wise he's easily up there with any of them.


Top what, Kurushi? Top 50? 20? 10?


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Top what, Kurushi? Top 50? 20? 10?


What do you mean Stevie?


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> What do you mean Stevie?


You keep saying ATG, but you have yet to quantify it in any way.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Who do we think has had the superior opening 5 years - Lomachenko or Anthony Joshua?
> 
> Joshua holds nearly all the belts at Heavy and his best win is against Wladimir Klitschko.
> 
> ...


Joshua's best win is against a guy coming off a loss who retired straight afterwards. That's all he has on his resume.
Lomachenko has become a three weight division champ and set records doing it, is p4p number one. His best win could be GRJ, Rigo, Walters or Linares. Three of those guys were undefeated champs with many favouring them to beat Loma. Yet he dominated them or made them quit. He moved up to 130 and brutally knocked out the champ without a warm up, then did the same at 135.
Are you even serious?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> @Kurushi
> 
> I compliment Lomachenko fairly regularly.
> 
> I'm simply pointing out that comparing his first 12 fights to Floyd's is fraudulent.


You laughed and said that there was no way Lomachenko would be anywhere near pound for pound in ten fights. Now he's done that, been dominant... and yet you're putting a disclaimer saying that his 12 fights aren't really his first 12 fights? Do we do that with every gold medallist, every fighter who has 300-400 fights? GGG and Rigo sure took their time stepping up then didn't they.
You also need to understand that in Europe they fight more often as amateurs, in the US it's different. Floyd at the Olympics as a European fighter would have had 200 plus fights.
And what happened to the argument that the pros and the amateurs are completely different? Now that Lomachenko has dominated the pro game he had an advantage from the amateur game and his age?
Get real, you're trying to do everything you can to discredit Lomachenko. This revisionist history saying "Salido wasn't really his second fight" is absurd. Define your parameters, if it's pro fights then yes you compare Lomachenko's first 12 fights to Floyd's first 12 fights. Floyd was born into a boxing family, his relatives were pro boxers, he went to the Olympics. Lomachenko is destroying every other pros resume with his 12 fights, just like he did as an amateur. Floyd was what, 84-6 as an amateur? Floyd was also very fortunate with the judges as a pro, you could make a case for him losing up to 5 of his fights. And then you have the nerve to ignore the factors involved in the Salido bout and count that as a loss, as evidence of Lomachenko not being that good. Again you can't get your story straight, did he learn a pro lesson or was he already in the equivalent of his thirtieth pro fight?
You're not worth listening to when it comes to Lomachenko, you always sprinkle in "Oh but I'm a fan, he's quite good" as if to give the impression that your point of view is balanced and well thought out. You're an irrational hater and you refuse to give credit where it's due because you know how wrong you've been. It's okay, you're human. Let it go and appreciate the ATG.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Boxed Ears said:


> Yeah but how many punchers are there even right now?


Depends on how you define 'puncher'. In any definition I rate Lomachenko as more of a puncher than Garcia. That's what the evidence says, and that's not even taking into account the fact that it's an undersized guy against superior competition compared to an oversized weight cutter against inferior competition.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Boxed Ears said:


> Yeah but how many punchers are there even right now?


Depends on how you define 'puncher'. In any definition I rate Lomachenko as more of a puncher than Garcia. That's what the evidence says, and that's not even taking into account the fact that it's an undersized guy against superior competition compared to an oversized weight cutter against inferior competition.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> What do you mean Stevie?


You keep saying ATG, but you have yet to quantify it in any way.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> I don't think it's gone off topic, I think it's just developed a little quite naturally and generally respectfully if a little heated. @Pedderrs has even stated he thinks Loma has ATG potential so we're bang on topic with that.


 No it's a good debate here.

I just think the discussion was 'talent' and then naturally with Loma it always descends into 'resume'.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Nice input, Coca Cola champion.


I prefer to give an opinion and then only expand on that if needed.

Not beat everyone to death with it over and over again.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> You keep saying ATG, but you have yet to quantify it in any way.


When people talk about a fighter becoming an ATG they're usually talking about top 100. So, you reckon Loma's ATG-level skill-wise?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

One to watch said:


> No it's a good debate here.
> 
> I just think the discussion was 'talent' and then naturally with Loma it always descends into 'resume'.


Because the two go hand in hand.

Fact is, if Loma loses to Mikey and retires then nobody on this site can say with a straight face that he was one of the most talented fighters of all time.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Because the two go hand in hand.
> 
> Fact is, if Loma loses to Mikey and retires then nobody on this site can say with a straight face that he was one of the most talented fighters of all time.


Why would a result null and void his record up to this point and all the skills he has shown against top competition? Why would we then ignore his amateur career, his records in the pro game, the fact that he was the number one pound for pound fighter in the world? Roy Jones was still one of the most talented fighters of all time when he got stopped by Tarver.
Fact is you talk absolute shit about Lomachenko, there is no logic or thought to anything you say about him. You think Mikey is a beast and a devastating puncher, why would one punch from him erase all those years of performance and results? Do you think there are fighters who literally can't be knocked out? See what I mean, you don't make any sense, you think you're hiding your hatred behind your logic but your logic is as weak as can be.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> When people talk about a fighter becoming an ATG they're usually talking about top 100. So, you reckon Loma's ATG-level skill-wise?


Top 100? Easily.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Why would a result null and void his record up to this point and all the skills he has shown against top competition? Why would we then ignore his amateur career, his records in the pro game, the fact that he was the number one pound for pound fighter in the world? Roy Jones was still one of the most talented fighters of all time when he got stopped by Tarver.
> Fact is you talk absolute shit about Lomachenko, there is no logic or thought to anything you say about him. You think Mikey is a beast and a devastating puncher, why would one punch from him erase all those years of performance and results? Do you think there are fighters who literally can't be knocked out? See what I mean, you don't make any sense, you think you're hiding your hatred behind your logic but your logic is as weak as can be.


Roy Jones had 10 year run at the top to fall back on. Loma's accomplishments in the amateurs boost his overall status as a fighter, but do absolutely nothing for his legacy as a professional when compared to historically great pros. He's going to have to keep doing it over 12, no headgear, and professional scoring systems... against, you know, other professional fighters.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Top 100? Easily.


Good man.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Because the two go hand in hand.
> 
> Fact is, if Loma loses to Mikey and retires then nobody on this site can say with a straight face that he was one of the most talented fighters of all time.


He could beat Mikey's ass and still wind up a 20-fight anamoly.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> Good man.


The caveat is that great little fighters are inherently more skilled than great big fighters.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Roy Jones had 10 year run at the top to fall back on. Loma's accomplishments in the amateurs boost his overall status as a fighter, but do absolutely nothing for his legacy as a professional when compared to historically great pros. He's going to have to keep doing it over 12, no headgear, and professional scoring systems... against, you know, other professional fighters.


Okay, take his professional accomplishments on their own. His legacy as an all time great is secured already.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

If we use McGrain's top 100 P4P boxers of all time as the standard, Lomachenko needs to surpass George Foreman to be considered an ATG. He sits at 100 on McGrain's list.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> If we use McGrain's top 100 P4P boxers of all time as the standard, Lomachenko needs to surpass George Foreman to be considered an ATG. He sits at 100 on McGrain's list.


And that is an insanely high bar.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

One to watch said:


> And that is an insanely high bar.


Absolutely.

Ultimately it's a bit of a silly discussion when framed this way. All a bit arbitrary. The 100th placement is an ATG but the 101th placement isn't?

Lomachenko needs to achieve a lot more to be mentioned alongside this kind of company. That's the bottom line.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> Ultimately it's a bit of a silly discussion when framed this way. All a bit arbitrary. The 100th placement is an ATG but the 101th placement isn't?
> 
> Lomachenko needs to achieve a lot more to be mentioned alongside this kind of company. That's the bottom line.


It depends if you include amateur achievements or not. If I recall correctly McGrain mentions them tangentially but doesn't list any of the amateur greats (I could be wrong). There's no reason an ATG list shouldn't include them though. I guess there's arguments for and against that and it'll come down to personal parameters of the person making the list. But if we completely ignore Loma's 2 Olympic gold medals then I could certainly understand why people would think he has a ways to go.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Hold on, when did we start including amateur achievements when considering all time greats in the Pro game? 

Serious question. I've been posting about Boxing since 2004 and I've never heard of it.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Hold on, when did we start including amateur achievements when considering all time greats in the Pro game?
> 
> Serious question. I've been posting about Boxing since 2004 and I've never heard of it.


I don't understand the question. Some lists will consider amateur achievements and some won't when composing a list of ATG boxers.

Another point to consider is that Mcgrain's list isn't a top 100 of most skilled boxers. So while you may feel the list is a good standard it doesn't apply to the question in hand.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

It doesn't need to apply to the question at hand. We established a while back that we aren't strictly staying on topic in this thread. I was addressing the question of what does Lomachenko need to do to be considered an ATG. A question that has come up many times, a question that is often alluded to whenever Lomachenko is discussed.

I've never cared for ATG lists that include amateur achievements as well as Professional achievements. Truth be told, this is actually a first for me. I don't recall ever encountering one in the 10+ years I've been discussing the sport. But I guess there is a first for everything.

@Kurushi


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> It doesn't need to apply to the question at hand. We established a while back that we aren't strictly staying on topic in this thread. I was addressing the question of what does Lomachenko need to do to be considered an ATG. A question that has come up many times, a question that is often alluded to whenever Lomachenko is discussed.
> 
> I've never cared for ATG lists that include amateur achievements as well as Professional achievements. Truth be told, this is actually a first for me. I don't recall ever encountering one in the 10+ years I've been discussing the sport. But I guess there is a first for everything.
> 
> @Kurushi


You've never heard of Stevenson, Savon? Considered on many ATG lists and never turned pro. There was a lot of demand for Stevenson to turn pro and fight Ali.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> You've never heard of Stevenson, Savon? Considered on many ATG lists and never turned pro. There was a lot of demand for Stevenson to turn pro and fight Ali.


I've never seen Stevenson or Savon included in a top 100 ATG list, no.

Unless said list is specifically about amateurs.


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> Depends on how you define 'puncher'. In any definition I rate Lomachenko as more of a puncher than Garcia. That's what the evidence says, and that's not even taking into account the fact that it's an undersized guy against superior competition compared to an oversized weight cutter against inferior competition.


Objectively a puncher gotta mean something universally so what do the tests say? How many are there with the universal standard in the sport?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Boxed Ears said:


> Objectively a puncher gotta mean something universally so what do the tests say? How many are there with the universal standard in the sport?


What tests? Absolute power is probably irrelevant anyway, it would be relative power for the weight class. Objectively there is no such thing as a 'puncher' because you'd have to set some arbitrary cut off point. It's subjective, and the only way we have some indications is from opponents/sparring partners/KO record against top competition.


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> What tests? Absolute power is probably irrelevant anyway, it would be relative power for the weight class. Objectively there is no such thing as a 'puncher' because you'd have to set some arbitrary cut off point. It's subjective, and the only way we have some indications is from opponents/sparring partners/KO record against top competition.


What? If you're the one talkin to me about who more of a puncher then why you say it's irrelevant though? Yeah in my sport they would just measure everybody best times and tell you who fastest. But in boxing why don't they just measure everybody punches and whoever in the upper tier is a puncher? They don't do that in boxing? I don't really watch it that often but I seen them do loads of tests on sciencetistic shows. Like Chris Byrd punched real good when he was celebitsed and when he was doing it with his chick.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Boxed Ears said:


> What? If you're the one talkin to me about who more of a puncher then why you say it's irrelevant though? Yeah in my sport they would just measure everybody best times and tell you who fastest. But in boxing why don't they just measure everybody punches and whoever in the upper tier is a puncher? They don't do that in boxing? I don't really watch it that often but I seen them do loads of tests on sciencetistic shows. Like Chris Byrd punched real good when he was celebitsed and when he was doing it with his chick.


Even if you had an objective measure and test, it would have very little external validity. You need to be able to place the punches and you need to take your opponents into account as well. So say the cutoff point for a 'puncher' is 3500N, you have one guy who registers 3501N vs a guy with 3499N, except the guy with 3499N is by far the superior boxer, is undefeated and has a KO percentage of 100% against good competition, while Mr. 3501N is a journeyman who regularly gets knocked out. And you want to label him a 'puncher'? On top of that you'd have to determine that arbitrary number for each weight division.
That's why calling someone a 'puncher' is completely qualitative, with context and subjective perception determining that loose label.

Those sports science shows are junk, very soft science.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Even if you had an objective measure and test, it would have very little external validity. You need to be able to place the punches and you need to take your opponents into account as well. So say the cutoff point for a 'puncher' is 3500N, you have one guy who registers 3501N vs a guy with 3499N, except the guy with 3499N is by far the superior boxer, is undefeated and has a KO percentage of 100% against good competition, while Mr. 3501N is a journeyman who regularly gets knocked out. And you want to label him a 'puncher'? On top of that you'd have to determine that arbitrary number for each weight division.
> That's why calling someone a 'puncher' is completely qualitative, with context and subjective perception determining that loose label.
> 
> Those sports science shows are junk, very soft science.


None of this matters. You could argue Loma being the bigger puncher than Mikey p4p (which he isn't), but there is no question at all that in a head to head fight, Mikey will carry the heavier punch. None.


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> Even if you had an objective measure and test, it would have very little external validity. You need to be able to place the punches and you need to take your opponents into account as well. So say the cutoff point for a 'puncher' is 3500N, you have one guy who registers 3501N vs a guy with 3499N, except the guy with 3499N is by far the superior boxer, is undefeated and has a KO percentage of 100% against good competition, while Mr. 3501N is a journeyman who regularly gets knocked out. And you want to label him a 'puncher'? On top of that you'd have to determine that arbitrary number for each weight division.
> That's why calling someone a 'puncher' is completely qualitative, with context and subjective perception determining that loose label.
> 
> Those sports science shows are junk, very soft science.


Listen, I don't know a lot of science because of where I'm from so please be patient with me and don't use stuff like arbitrary. Is that like a legal thing? Anyways, so like you're talking about external validity but you sayin that like I'm judging what's INSIDE somebody too like I don't think theys as much a person but I still think Lomachenko would be a good person even if I thought he was not a puncher or a weakling or whatever. That's not my point. I like the dude mostly except for all the showboating. But you said he's more of a puncher than Garcia and here's what I'm sayin'. Like if Tyson punched one of those balls machines in the face and it registered like 7000 mph but a dude who is a big puncher for a featherweight did it and it was only like a slow miles per hour of force, then like where does that leave us? I gotta think Garcia punch harder even if they was both not punchers compared to normal size human male guys. You see what I'm saying?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> None of this matters. You could argue Loma being the bigger puncher than Mikey p4p (which he isn't), but there is no question at all that in a head to head fight, Mikey will carry the heavier punch. None.


Based on.. the Martinez fight? Based on Garcia fighting nobody?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Boxed Ears said:


> Listen, I don't know a lot of science because of where I'm from so please be patient with me and don't use stuff like arbitrary. Is that like a legal thing? Anyways, so like you're talking about external validity but you sayin that like I'm judging what's INSIDE somebody too like I don't think theys as much a person but I still think Lomachenko would be a good person even if I thought he was not a puncher or a weakling or whatever. That's not my point. I like the dude mostly except for all the showboating. But you said he's more of a puncher than Garcia and here's what I'm sayin'. Like if Tyson punched one of those balls machines in the face and it registered like 7000 mph but a dude who is a big puncher for a featherweight did it and it was only like a slow miles per hour of force, then like where does that leave us? I gotta think Garcia punch harder even if they was both not punchers compared to normal size human male guys. You see what I'm saying?


Think what you want, keep it simple for yourself. Then be surprised when the world unfolds differently than you expect.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Based on.. the Martinez fight? Based on Garcia fighting nobody?


If Mikey Garcia has fought no one, who did Jorge Linares fight that impressed you so much?


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Need to see more. ATG level talent is earned in my estimation. He's a fantastic boxer but it's not earned yet. Garcia either. Look at the ATG level talents....Leonard, Duran, RJJ, Mayweather, Robinson, Whitaker. Absolute monsters.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Need to see more. ATG level talent is earned in my estimation. He's a fantastic boxer but it's not earned yet. Garcia either. Look at the ATG level talents....Leonard, Duran, RJJ, Mayweather, Robinson, Whitaker. Absolute monsters.


They were calling Jones Jr an all time talent as early as the Percy Harris fight, maybe even prior. Sometimes it's just obvious.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Sweet Pea said:


> They were calling Jones Jr an all time talent as early as the Percy Harris fight. Sometimes it's just obvious.


Exactly. Too bad the Olympics fucked him bad. Thankfully everyone knew


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Exactly. Too bad the Olympics fucked him bad. Thankfully everyone knew


That's my point, though. Roy hadn't "earned" that status at that point, but it was clear to all who witnessed him what a special talent he was.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Sweet Pea said:


> That's my point, though. Roy hadn't "earned" that status at that point, but it was clear to all who witnessed him what a special talent he was.


He earned it at that point no? That's the difference. Roy was basically an ATG after the Olympic fiasco and here is Lomachenko, fighting for validation after 450 fights.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

turbotime said:


> He earned it at that point no? That's the difference. Roy was basically an ATG after the Olympic fiasco and here is Lomachenko, fighting for validation after 450 fights.


I don't really understand your post. Sarcasm?


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Sweet Pea said:


> I don't really understand your post. Sarcasm?


No. Well, I knew. If you didn't, that's fine.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Sweet Pea said:


> They were calling Jones Jr an all time talent as early as the Percy Harris fight, maybe even prior. Sometimes it's just obvious.


He's no Roy Jones.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> He's no Roy Jones.


True, technically and skill wise he is far superior.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> True, technically and skill wise he is far superior.


The thread is about his overall talent, and Roy absolutely shyts all over him in that regard.

... Which part of Linares' resume did you find impressive?


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> He's no Roy Jones.


They're very different fighters. Roy was an unbelievable athlete with attributes perfectly tailored for boxing. Unparalleled in those regards. Add to that he was an intelligent, crafty fighter who made the most of those God given talents.

Loma is a good physical specimen in terms of speed, reflexes, etc, but nothing like Roy. As a technician, though, he's unparalleled.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> The thread is about his overall talent, and Roy absolutely shyts all over him in that regard.
> 
> ... Which part of Linares' resume did you find impressive?


Define talent then, because now I have no idea what you're talking about.

The length of Linares reign, his skills, his size are what I find impressive. Campbell is a better win than anything on Garcia's resume if you're trying to make a comparison there. Most importantly Linares is athletically gifted with skills. Higher than Garcia in that regard.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Define talent then, because now I have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> The length of Linares reign, his skills, his size are what I find impressive. Campbell is a better win than anything on Garcia's resume if you're trying to make a comparison there. Most importantly Linares is athletically gifted with skills. Higher than Garcia in that regard.


... So your answer is Luke Campbell? Barely getting by Luke Campbell -and then struggling with Gesta- made you believe that he should trouble ATG Lomachenko?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> ... So your answer is Luke Campbell? Barely getting by Luke Campbell -and then struggling with Gesta- made you believe that he should trouble ATG Lomachenko?


No the skills, style, size and momentum. Didn't I make that clear already? Why would I look at other match ups as a correlate of 1 when styles make fights? As someone who knows boxing I look at fighter vs fighter and weigh up styles with other variables. How someone looked versus so and so plays little part in how I would predict a fight unless there's a consistent pattern and relevant style match up.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> ... So your answer is Luke Campbell? Barely getting by Luke Campbell -and then struggling with Gesta- made you believe that he should trouble ATG Lomachenko?


And you still need to define talent. Because Lomachenko is clearly the most talented fighter I've ever seen. When I say talent I mean a combination of athleticism, iq, skills and mental focus. Second would be Andre Ward and third would be Roy Jones/Rigondeaux for me.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Sweet Pea said:


> They're very different fighters. Roy was an unbelievable athlete with attributes perfectly tailored for boxing. Unparalleled in those regards. Add to that he was an intelligent, crafty fighter who made the most of those God given talents.
> 
> Loma is a good physical specimen in terms of speed, reflexes, etc, but nothing like Roy. As a technician, though, he's unparalleled.


:lol::lol::lol:

You know what, fuck this forum.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> You know what, fuck this forum.


How can you even argue with that? Point out all of Lomachenko's technical flaws if it's such an absurd statement. I'm sure your expertise will be able to point out what hasn't been an issue against 400 plus opponents. Papachenko is eagerly awaiting to hear your expertise.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

An ATG level talent after 450 bouts doesn't lose to fucking Salido.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> How can you even argue with that? Point out all of Lomachenko's technical flaws if it's such an absurd statement. I'm sure your expertise will be able to point out what hasn't been an issue against 400 plus opponents. Papachenko is eagerly awaiting to hear your expertise.


Pea just called the 11-1 Lomachenko the most technically flawless fighter that ever lived.


----------



## superman1692 (Jun 3, 2013)

turbotime said:


> An ATG level talent after 450 bouts doesn't lose to fucking Salido.


Mate I can't stand Dealt_with, but don't try to pass off that ridiculous Salido fight as a win for Salido. Salido was a fouling cheating cunt (several weight classes higher I might add) who should have been disqualified - admittedly Lomo's lack of pro experience at that point, meant he didn't get that if someone fouls you, foul the prick right back.


----------



## superman1692 (Jun 3, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Need to see more. ATG level talent is earned in my estimation. He's a fantastic boxer but it's not earned yet. Garcia either. Look at the ATG level talents....Leonard, Duran, RJJ, Mayweather, Robinson, Whitaker. Absolute monsters.


You're talking about careers though not talent, we're talking strictly about skills here. Career wise, of course Lomo hasn't matched those guys you mentioned, but his skill level is up there with the best.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

superman1692 said:


> Mate I can't stand Dealt_with, but don't try to pass off that ridiculous Salido fight as a win for Salido. Salido was a fouling cheating cunt (several weight classes higher I might add) who should have been disqualified - admittedly Lomo's lack of pro experience at that point, meant he didn't get that if someone fouls you, foul the prick right back.


ATG level talents more often than not, find a way, though early in their careers facing a rough dirty experienced pro.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

superman1692 said:


> You're talking about careers though not talent, we're talking strictly about skills here. Career wise, of course Lomo hasn't matched those guys you mentioned, but his skill level is up there with the best.


You think he is up there with Jones, Leonard, Duran and Mayweather?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Pea just called the 11-1 Lomachenko the most technically flawless fighter that ever lived.


Yeah, and that's what I said before he even turned pro.
Are you actually thinking you're making a valid point by posting that video? Name the fighter you think is technically above Lomachenko and I'll post some videos for you if you think that's a way to make a point.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> ATG level talents more often than not, find a way, though early in their careers facing a rough dirty experienced pro.


Has an ATG ever been anywhere near to experiencing that in their second pro fight? Never mind an opponent who refuses to make weight, throws enough low blows to get disqualified five times over without any consequence. There simply isn't a valid comparison to be made anywhere in boxing history.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> You think he is up there with Jones, Leonard, Duran and Mayweather?


He's clearly above. Don't wait another 20 years to realise that, appreciate it while it's here.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

turbotime said:


> You think he is up there with Jones, Leonard, Duran and Mayweather?


Hyperbole.

We have to see how his skills hold up against A+ fighters before we can call him the most technically flawless fighter that ever lived.

Sweet Pea has legit gone full retard over Loma. It's nuts.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> He's clearly above. Don't wait another 20 years to realise that, appreciate it while it's here.


Fair enough, and I've been on the train from the start.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Hyperbole.
> 
> We have to see how his skills hold up against A+ fighters before we can call him the most technically flawless fighter that ever lived.
> 
> Sweet Pea has legit gone full retard over Loma. It's nuts.


Hey people see what they wanna see.


----------



## superman1692 (Jun 3, 2013)

turbotime said:


> ATG level talents more often than not, find a way, though early in their careers facing a rough dirty experienced pro.


Bernard Hopkins is an ATG level talent, yet he lost his first pro fight to Clinton Mitchell. You have some serious double standards turbo.


----------



## superman1692 (Jun 3, 2013)

turbotime said:


> You think he is up there with Jones, Leonard, Duran and Mayweather?


Career wise? Hell no. But he is definitely a once-in-a-generation-appreciate-them-while-they're-here guy. That much is obvious. And so what if he took a loss already, that's what happens when you don't want to face loads of cans early on like most boxers do, including the ATG's.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

superman1692 said:


> Bernard Hopkins is an ATG level talent, yet he lost his first pro fight to Clinton Mitchell. You have some serious double standards turbo.


Hopkins is a seriously different case. Do I even consider him an ATG level talent?

Plus he started boxing in the pen. Whereas Lomas been boxing since like 6 years old.


----------



## superman1692 (Jun 3, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Hopkins is a seriously different case. Do I even consider him an ATG level talent?
> 
> Plus he started boxing in the pen. Whereas Lomas been boxing since like 6 years old.


So? I think cos of Mayweather, boxing fans, well at least those stateside, put so much stock into a loss, it's poisoned the sport imo. And the reality is, most ATG's suffer losses, and if they stepped up their competition on a similar level within their 1st/2nd fights, instead of having "confidence-builder" fights, they would have had early losses too.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

superman1692 said:


> So? I think cos of Mayweather, boxing fans, well at least those stateside, put so much stock into a loss, it's poisoned the sport imo. And the reality is, most ATG's suffer losses, and if they stepped up their competition on a similar level within their 1st/2nd fights, instead of having "confidence-builder" fights, they would have had early losses too.


450 fights though come on? Then you go and get beat up by Salido? Try and put it in perspective.

Again, I don't even consider Hopkins an ATG level talent. We saw what happened when he stepped to a one handed Jones.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> No the skills, style, size and momentum. Didn't I make that clear already? Why would I look at other match ups as a correlate of 1 when styles make fights? As someone who knows boxing I look at fighter vs fighter and weigh up styles with other variables. How someone looked versus so and so plays little part in how I would predict a fight unless there's a consistent pattern and relevant style match up.


... So Linares never fought anyone better than Luke effing Campbell to test his "skills" against, yet you were so thoroughly impressed by him. Interesting...

He struggled against Campbell. He then looked just as bad against Gesta, an even lesser fighter than Campbell. Seems that a pattern was indeed being established.


----------



## superman1692 (Jun 3, 2013)

turbotime said:


> 450 fights though come on? Then you go and get beat up by Salido? Try and put it in perspective.
> 
> Again, I don't even consider Hopkins an ATG level talent. We saw what happened when he stepped to a one handed Jones.


450 amateur fights, no pro fights. I don't think extensive amateur records always tell the whole story, as you get loads of fighters who've had insanely decorated amateur careers only to flop hard in the pros.

And RJJ was a freak, he beat James Toney in his prime too, and even clowned him, and there's no doubt about it that James Toney is an ATG talent. RJJ in his prime made everyone look sub-par.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Pea just called the 11-1 Lomachenko the most technically flawless fighter that ever lived.


The guy could barely lay a glove on a blown-up 37 year old Rigo there only to cash himself out.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> And you still need to define talent. Because Lomachenko is clearly the most talented fighter I've ever seen. When I say talent I mean a combination of athleticism, iq, skills and mental focus. Second would be Andre Ward and third would be Roy Jones/Rigondeaux for me.


He didn't look super talented against an old, blown up, cashing out Rigo and got decked and struggled against a Linares who, according to your standards, fought no one.

Rigo is a chinny, one-handed backfoot fighter with the punch output of a heavyweight.

Roy Jones is in a completely different category than those two and it's not even close.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Hey people see what they wanna see.


Pretty accurate assessment of Pedderrs' post.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Hyperbole.
> 
> We have to see how his skills hold up against A+ fighters before we can call him the most technically flawless fighter that ever lived.
> 
> Sweet Pea has legit gone full retard over Loma. It's nuts.


What A+ fighters? There aren't any, other than Rigondeaux. Is Rigondeaux that far below fighters like Toney and Hopkins skillwise? Did Lomachenko outskill Rigo?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> He didn't look super talented against an old, blown up, cashing out Rigo and got decked and struggled against a Linares who, according to your standards, fought no one.
> 
> Rigo is a chinny, one-handed backfoot fighter with the punch output of a heavyweight.
> 
> Roy Jones is in a completely different category than those two and it's not even close.


Even Roy Jones wouldn't say he's in a completely different category to Rigo. There was a reason why he wanted to see Loma vs Rigo more than any other fight.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> The guy could barely lay a glove on a blown-up 37 year old Rigo there only to cash himself out.


You're just dumb, plain and simple.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> You're just dumb, plain and simple.


----------



## saul_ir34 (Jun 8, 2013)

He is a good fighter but being overblown by the media. He lost to Salido and the other good fighter he faced dropped him and took a few rounds off him. He isnt elite yet. Those thinking he is dksab. Bob clearly kept him away from Berchelt and he will do the same with Mikey. We all know how Bob likes to marinate his fights.


----------



## saul_ir34 (Jun 8, 2013)

I love seeing that straight right drop him. Imagine what Mikey would have done had he been the one that landed that right hand.

Im unsure the Mikey fight will happen because of this punch. Bob had to have realized he cant put Loma in there with Mikey now.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

saul_ir34 said:


> I love seeing that straight right drop him. Imagine what Mikey would have done had he been the one that landed that right hand.
> 
> Im unsure the Mikey fight will happen because of this punch. Bob had to have realized he cant put Loma in there with Mikey now.


It'll happen so long as Mikey can keep his weight down. Loma doesn't have the luxury of time and would like to build up his pro legacy before he hangs 'em up.


----------



## Davie (Dec 21, 2017)

steviebruno said:


> The guy could barely lay a glove on a blown-up 37 year old Rigo there only to cash himself out.


Lets be honest, there are few men in the sport harder to lay gloves on than Rigo.

And if Rigo comes into the ring, of a mind not to get hit you're going to do well to land.
Loma made him retire after 6 rounds


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

Davie said:


> Lets be honest, there are few men in the sport harder to lay gloves on than Rigo.
> 
> And if Rigo comes into the ring, of a mind not to get hit you're going to do well to land.
> Loma made him retire after 6 rounds


Really dumb point from Stevie.


----------



## Riggo44 (May 27, 2018)

You aren't sure yet? You want to see more? Two Olympic gold medals and close to 400 amateur wins then his pro record and that's not enough? I love the "he was dropped by Linares" comment. Like that rules him out?


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

I wonder what people make of Roy getting dropped by Del Valle?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

saul_ir34 said:


> He is a good fighter but being overblown by the media. He lost to Salido and the other good fighter he faced dropped him and took a few rounds off him. He isnt elite yet. Those thinking he is dksab. Bob clearly kept him away from Berchelt and he will do the same with Mikey. We all know how Bob likes to marinate his fights.


Not elite, okay. Pound for pound number one but not elite. But that would all change if he moved back down to beat a Mexican bum.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

saul_ir34 said:


> I love seeing that straight right drop him. Imagine what Mikey would have done had he been the one that landed that right hand.
> 
> Im unsure the Mikey fight will happen because of this punch. Bob had to have realized he cant put Loma in there with Mikey now.


Yep a flash knockdown where Lomachenko wasn't hurt, that ruined the chance of the fight happening. See Martinez drop Garcia, and Martinez wasn't even the bigger man? Imagine if that was Loma. Maybe that's why Garcia ducked Linares and everybody else.
Mikey isn't anywhere near as fast and athletic as Linares.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Sweet Pea said:


> I wonder what people make of Roy getting dropped by Del Valle?


That was the moment that I knew Roy was a bum and would never get into the hall of fame. Then further confirmation came when Griffin beat him by head butting his fist when he was kneeling down. There was now a blemish on his record, and just on principle I could never respect the boxing skills and achievements of anyone who doesn't have their zero. It really offends my autism and OCD. How can I say anything positive about him when he has a loss on his record? I know a fighter from Israel who has a perfect record against camel farmers, how can I claim that Roy is better than him when Roy has a 1 instead of a 0? That's just maths, factually Roy Jones could never be great. Getting dropped by bums, losing to Griffin. I just couldn't buy the hype from the media. He moved through the divisions looking dominant, but man.. he got dropped and don't have his zero.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Davie said:


> Lets be honest, there are few men in the sport harder to lay gloves on than Rigo.
> 
> And if Rigo comes into the ring, of a mind not to get hit you're going to do well to land.
> Loma made him retire after 6 rounds


Hisashi Amagasa says hi.

Guillermo Rigondeaux 'retired' the second he signed to fight at 130. The fight was a cashout and nothing more, and the fact that he showed up ' not to get hit' should tell you what you need to know about it.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Yep a flash knockdown where Lomachenko wasn't hurt, that ruined the chance of the fight happening. See Martinez drop Garcia, and Martinez wasn't even the bigger man? Imagine if that was Loma. Maybe that's why Garcia ducked Linares and everybody else.
> Mikey isn't anywhere near as fast and athletic as Linares.


He was so unfazed that he didn't throw another punch for the entire round.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Sweet Pea said:


> I wonder what people make of Roy getting dropped by Del Valle?


He's no Roy Jones. No Sweat Pea either, for that matter.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> He was so unfazed that he didn't throw another punch for the entire round.


Yeah, for a whole 14 seconds. As I said, you're just dumb, plain and simple. Usually I wouldn't resort to personal attacks but you don't have an argument to work with, just your stupidity.


----------



## saul_ir34 (Jun 8, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Not elite, okay. Pound for pound number one but not elite. But that would all change if he moved back down to beat a Mexican bum.


Dont forget the Salido loss. Papa Salido is not exactly an ATG.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Yeah, for a whole 14 seconds. As I said, you're just dumb, plain and simple. Usually I wouldn't resort to personal attacks but you don't have an argument to work with, just your stupidity.


You're upset because you know I'm right. All the homosexual fanboyism in the world won't change the fact that Loma is no more talented than the great fighters that he stayed in the amateur ranks to avoid.


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

Every prophecy @Dealt_with has made - Lomachenko fulfilled.

Is there a limit to Vasya's greatness?

Britain's most respected experts are at a loss for words

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995966056249413632


> Frank Warren: I am now convinced Lomachenko is the best fighter I have seen since Sugar Ray Leonard.
> 
> He may even turn out to be better than Leonard, I don't know.


----------



## Davie (Dec 21, 2017)

steviebruno said:


> Hisashi Amagasa says hi.
> 
> Guillermo Rigondeaux 'retired' the second he signed to fight at 130. The fight was a cashout and nothing more, and the fact that he showed up ' not to get hit' should tell you what you need to know about it.


Why do people on boxing forums insist on just arguing for the sake of arguing.
We can all give 1 example where a fight played out slightly different from the norm.

It's a fact that Rigo is difficult to nail down. 
You said Loma struggled to lay a glove on him, that simply isn't true.
Rigo may have gone in with little ambition to win but he still went in there intent on not getting hit, probably more so given he knew he was up against it.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Some haters in here.

Sad to see.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Davie said:


> Why do people on boxing forums insist on just arguing for the sake of arguing.
> We can all give 1 example where a fight played out slightly different from the norm.
> 
> It's a fact that Rigo is difficult to nail down.
> ...


He was 37, fighting at 130, after years of refusing to fight at 126 and begging for a catchweight of 124. Make of it what you will, but, IMO, it was an unequivocal cashout. He didn't throw any meaningful punches, was as lethargic with his footwork as I have ever seen him, and QUIT at the first sign of adversity. An uber-talented fighter does more than what Loma does there. Pernell Whitaker beats the living hell out of that version of Rigo, whether he has the "intent" of getting hit or not.

Ol' 'he didn't want to get hit so Loma obliged him' apologists. What kind of excuse is that? Who wants to get hit if they don't have to?

One example; SMH.

He couldn't lay a glove on a 37 year-old Rigo.
He LOST to Salido.
He got dropped by a fading Linares (who had struggled against both Luke Campbell and Gesta) and was in real danger of losing on points.

That's THREE examples, not one. In roughly *a quarter of his fights*, you apologists have had to come up with some sort of excuse for an uneven performance. You are simply letting what he accomplished in the amateurs cloud what you are seeing in the pro game. He isn't some virtuoso performer; he just isn't, and you will continue to see it as he finishes up his 20 fight "career".


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

Nobody has had to come up with an excuse for the Rigo fight. He looked exceptional in there. Better than most of us anticipated, even though most favored him to win due to size and youth. He out-classed him technically, which no one had ever done.

What excuse does he need? You can say whatever you want about punch-stats. If you've seen him fight, you know his style isn't oriented around that. He throws all kinds of feeler/distraction punches, which are of course gonna lower his percentages. That doesn't matter to anyone but Floyd fanboys. It's supremely effective, any way you slice it, and assisted in him utterly dominating Rigo. Which he did. No need to excuse anything.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Sweet Pea said:


> Nobody has had to come up with an excuse for the Rigo fight. He looked exceptional in there. Better than most of us anticipated, even though most favored him to win due to size and youth. He out-classed him technically, which no one had ever done.
> 
> What excuse does he need? You can say whatever you want about punch-stats. If you've seen him fight, you know his style isn't oriented around that. He throws all kinds of feeler/distraction punches, which are of course gonna lower his percentages. That doesn't matter to anyone but Floyd fanboys. It's supremely effective, any way you slice it, and assisted in him utterly dominating Rigo. Which he did. No need to excuse anything.


He looked awful and himself showed visible frustration during the fight.

No one else does that "feeler" bullshit either. It's pretty lame to slap away at someone arms to distract them enough in order to finally land a decent punch. Didn't see Pea doing much of that. Not Roy Jones, not Floyd, not Pac, not Leonard, not Robinson, etc. No one else does that corny amateur shyt, as the greats have always been adept at actually choosing the correct punch to throw in the appropriate situation.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> He was 37, fighting at 130, after years of refusing to fight at 126 and begging for a catchweight of 124. Make of it what you will, but, IMO, it was an unequivocal cashout. He didn't throw any meaningful punches, was as lethargic with his footwork as I have ever seen him, and QUIT at the first sign of adversity. An uber-talented fighter does more than what Loma does there. Pernell Whitaker beats the living hell out of that version of Rigo, whether he has the "intent" of getting hit or not.
> 
> Ol' 'he didn't want to get hit so Loma obliged him' apologists. What kind of excuse is that? Who wants to get hit if they don't have to?
> 
> ...


What a horrible post.

Full of emotion and dare I say it.....

ESB level posting.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Better than Leonard.

'Kay Frank.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> He looked awful and himself showed visible frustration during the fight.
> 
> No one else does that "feeler" bullshit either. It's pretty lame to slap away at someone arms to distract them enough in order to finally land a decent punch. Didn't see Pea doing much of that. Not Roy Jones, not Floyd, not Pac, not Leonard, not Robinson, etc. No one else does that corny amateur shyt, as the greats have always been adept at actually choosing the correct punch to throw in the appropriate situation.


:lol:Now you're just trolling.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

One to watch said:


> What a horrible post.
> 
> Full of emotion and dare I say it.....
> 
> ESB level posting.


It wasn't a cashout?


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Sweet Pea said:


> :lol:Now you're just trolling.


:lol: Somewhat, but my point stands.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Pea calling out dudes for trolling after saying Lomachenko is the most talented technician of all time after 12 professional fights.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Pea calling out dudes for trolling after saying Lomachenko is the most talented technician of all time after 12 professional fights.


I said he's unparalleled right now. Who's a better technician?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Sweet Pea said:


> I said he's unparalleled right now. Who's a better technician?


Ah, if you meant it in the context of right now then I don't have a problem with it.

But the way you've been popping off recently, you can forgive the confusion.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

saul_ir34 said:


> Dont forget the Salido loss. Papa Salido is not exactly an ATG.


There is no precedent for a comparison to Lomachenko-Salido. Anybody with some honesty and a brain knows this.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> You're upset because you know I'm right. All the homosexual fanboyism in the world won't change the fact that Loma is no more talented than the great fighters that he stayed in the amateur ranks to avoid.


I'm not upset, I just think you're an exceptionally unintelligent person.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> He looked awful and himself showed visible frustration during the fight.
> 
> No one else does that "feeler" bullshit either. It's pretty lame to slap away at someone arms to distract them enough in order to finally land a decent punch. Didn't see Pea doing much of that. Not Roy Jones, not Floyd, not Pac, not Leonard, not Robinson, etc. No one else does that corny amateur shyt, as the greats have always been adept at actually choosing the correct punch to throw in the appropriate situation.


Might just be the dumbest thing I've ever read.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Pea calling out dudes for trolling after saying Lomachenko is the most talented technician of all time after 12 professional fights.


Who has he beat in those 12 fights and how has he looked? He didn't accidentally get to pound for pound number one. You keep implying that it's 'only' 12 fights but then on the other hand you say that he was an experienced pro against Salido so he shouldn't have had a problem with him (while ignoring all the other factors involved in that fight). So which is it? If you can't get your story straight then you can't do a very good job of concealing your irrational hatred. Don't be so insecure, you got it really wrong while I got it really right. Just be honest, learn more about boxing and then you too can recognize greatness and make accurate predictions about what is going to happen.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> Who has he beat in those 12 fights and how has he looked? He didn't accidentally get to pound for pound number one. You keep implying that it's 'only' 12 fights but then on the other hand you say that he was an experienced pro against Salido so he shouldn't have had a problem with him (while ignoring all the other factors involved in that fight). So which is it? If you can't get your story straight then you can't do a very good job of concealing your irrational hatred. Don't be so insecure, you got it really wrong while I got it really right. Just be honest, learn more about boxing and then you too can recognize greatness and make accurate predictions about what is going to happen.


I admire your determination, my dude.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Who has he beat in those 12 fights and how has he looked? He didn't accidentally get to pound for pound number one. You keep implying that it's 'only' 12 fights but then on the other hand you say that he was an experienced pro against Salido so he shouldn't have had a problem with him (while ignoring all the other factors involved in that fight). So which is it? If you can't get your story straight then you can't do a very good job of concealing your irrational hatred. Don't be so insecure, you got it really wrong while I got it really right. Just be honest, learn more about boxing and then you too can recognize greatness and make accurate predictions about what is going to happen.


His P4P ranking is completely media driven at this point in time. Can't believe we're actually using that as a criteria for judging fighters in 2018.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I'm not upset, I just think you're an exceptionally unintelligent person.


Right. Tell me again how Loma would do against Roberto Duran.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I admire your determination, my dude.


Some people like to help others reach a point of honesty and truth, so they can grow and stop pretending that Lomachenko isn't clearly the most skilled boxer of all time.



steviebruno said:


> His P4P ranking is completely media driven at this point in time. Can't believe we're actually using that as a criteria for judging fighters in 2018.


Yeah sure, it's a grand conspiracy between everybody. They all have a motive in your mind I'm guessing. Judge him on what he does in the ring and on his achievements. If you're dumb and don't know boxing then it's difficult to judge accurately. People who know boxing know things sooner, that's why I knew what he was before he turned pro. That's why Roy Jones was one of the first guys to have him pound for pound number one. Everybody else has him pound for pound number one, the only people left are the intellectually challenged and the emotionally biased (yourself, Pedderrs and the Mayweather gym).



steviebruno said:


> Right. Tell me again how Loma would do against Roberto Duran.


I could tell you but you can't even judge what is front of your eyes, so why get into hypotheticals? Stay in your lane, there's some beginner boxing videos on youtube.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Some people like to help others reach a point of honesty and truth, so they can grow and *stop pretending that Lomachenko isn't clearly the most skilled boxer of all time*.
> 
> Yeah sure, it's a grand conspiracy between everybody. They all have a motive in your mind I'm guessing. Judge him on what he does in the ring and on his achievements. If you're dumb and don't know boxing then it's difficult to judge accurately. People who know boxing know things sooner, that's why I knew what he was before he turned pro. That's why Roy Jones was one of the first guys to have him pound for pound number one. Everybody else has him pound for pound number one, the only people left are the intellectually challenged and the emotionally biased (yourself, Pedderrs and the Mayweather gym).
> 
> I could tell you *but you can't even judge what is front of your eyes*, so why get into hypotheticals? Stay in your lane, there's some beginner boxing videos on youtube.


LOL. Who gives a shyt about a contrived P4P ranking in a weak era ?Name the other nine fighters in the rankings and try to put that "accomplishment" into some type of perspective. I'll give you a clue: the list isn't any good and he isn't better than Terence Crawford, anyway.

Either you are trolling with your bias or you are just mentally ill.

Loma shuts out Mayweather.
Loma beats Duran easily. 
Loma is the "obviously the most skilled boxer in history".
etc. etc.

It's just too much.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> LOL. Who gives a shyt about a contrived P4P ranking in a weak era ?Name the other nine fighters in the rankings and try to put that "accomplishment" into some type of perspective. I'll give you a clue: the list isn't any good and he isn't better than Terence Crawford, anyway.
> 
> Either you are trolling with your bias or you are just mentally ill.
> 
> ...


Great, go away now.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Great, go away now.


I guess the truth really does hurt.

You've already said that Russell and Rigo would beat Floyd at 130. How does Linares do against Duran?

Just how deep does the rabbit hole go? I'm curious...


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> I guess the truth really does hurt.
> 
> You've already said that Russell and Rigo would beat Floyd at 130. How does Linares do against Duran?
> 
> Just how deep does the rabbit hole go? I'm curious...


I never said that Russell beats Floyd, unless I was trolling someone. I don't believe that. Rigo-Floyd would be 60/40 in favour of Rigo. As I said, I don't care to discuss hypotheticals with you because your input is completely meaningless to me. I'm all for the truth, that's why I said what people are saying about Lomachenko many years ago. It's there, deal with it.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I never said that Russell beats Floyd, unless I was trolling someone. I don't believe that. Rigo-Floyd would be 60/40 in favour of Rigo. As I said, I don't care to discuss hypotheticals with you because your input is completely meaningless to me. I'm all for the truth, that's why I said what people are saying about Lomachenko many years ago. It's there, deal with it.


60\40 for a 37 year-old Rigo fighting at 130, eight pounds north of his most effective weight. You're either trolling still... or on drugs.

You were already banished once for humiliating yourself and you are still at it, trying to build Linares up as a worldbeater while hoping that Loma would win in a dominant fashion just so you could gobble more of his semen. Too bad he struggled -as I said he would- and got put on his ass in the process.

He'll be on his ass again soon and you'll be making excuses all over again... Pacing against the ultra fit Salido, fighting ATG beasts like Linares, or young lions like 37 year old Rigo, etc.

The fact of the matter is that there a dozens upon dozens of fighters that could have gone through his list of opponents... undefeated, and having not found themselves on their asses.

He's not quite what you think he is, but you will never see it... nor do I even expect you to. You are too far gone at this point.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

I guess we're at the point now where everyone thinks everyone else is trolling. And there's probably a little truth in that I'd imagine. 

Shame to see people dismissing Loma's win against the two-time Olympic gold-medal winning, pound for pound rated Rigo because of age and size though. The simple fact is Mayweather never fought anyone as defensively skilled as Rigo, not even remotely in same universe of defensive skill. The other day a thread popped up about the best defensive fighter mayweather ever faced and the consensus was Alvarez ffs. Would Floyd beat the same Rigo Loma beat? Who knows, we don't have a counterpart to Rigo on Mayweather's resume to base opinions on. Would Mayweather beat Loma? Again, who knows? We sure as hell can't claim he would do based on Corrales.

But, again, this is probably getting pointless because Loma's detractors want to look at the Linares win in a vacuum rather than Loma's 12th fight in a third division with no divisional warm up fights. I wonder, if Loma had lost, whether those same people would dismiss Linares' win as they are Loma's win over Rigo. 'Loma jumped up to 135 so it's not a good win for Linares'. I doubt it.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> I guess we're at the point now where everyone thinks everyone else is trolling. And there's probably a little truth in that I'd imagine.
> 
> Shame to see people dismissing Loma's win against the two-time Olympic gold-medal winning, pound for pound rated Rigo because of age and size though. The simple fact is Mayweather never fought anyone as defensively skilled as Rigo, not even remotely in same universe of defensive skill. The other day a thread popped up about the best defensive fighter mayweather ever faced and the consensus was Alvarez ffs. Would Floyd beat the same Rigo Loma beat? Who knows, we don't have a counterpart to Rigo on Mayweather's resume to base opinions on. Would Mayweather beat Loma? Again, who knows? We sure as hell can't claim he would do based on Corrales.
> 
> But, again, this is probably getting pointless because Loma's detractors want to look at the Linares win in a vacuum rather than Loma's 12th fight in a third division with no divisional warm up fights. I wonder, if Loma had lost, whether those same people would dismiss Linares' win as they are Loma's win over Rigo. 'Loma jumped up to 135 so it's not a good win for Linares'. I doubt it.


Why shouldn't we consider the fact that Rigo was small even at 122, and refused to even go to 126 for several years, then went all the way up to 130 at age 37? Are you also on drugs, or trolling? Does Floyd get full credit for beating up JMM in far more impressive fashion?

How many great Bantemweights were still great at age 37, even before jumping two weight divisions? This is insane.

If you bothered to watch the fight, Rigo brought no foot movement whatsoever and was completely reliant upon a strategy of ducking down below the waist to avoid heavy shots. He reacted to EVERY feint by leaning back like a statue, allowing T-rex to step in and make it a closet fight.

He brought nothing, absolutely nothing to the fight that would lead me to believe that he was anywhere close to his best. At his peak, he was an exceptional mover who glided across the ring, stopping only to deliver pinpoint laser left hands. He didn't move, nor did he throw any straight lefts.

...And then he QUIT the first chance he got. Guillermo Rigondeaux wasn't the fighter he was, nor did he show up looking to win. He wanted the payday, plain and simple. A desperate, broke, and abused fighter looking for a modicum of respite.

Yes, Floyd kicks his ass. But if you aren't sure, start a poll and see what type of 'consensus' you get.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> 60\40 for a 37 year-old Rigo fighting at 130, eight pounds north of his most effective weight. You're either trolling still... or on drugs.
> 
> You were already banished once for humiliating yourself and you are still at it, trying to build Linares up as a worldbeater while hoping that Loma would win in a dominant fashion just so you could gobble more of his semen. Too bad he struggled -as I said he would- and got put on his ass in the process.
> 
> ...


When have I ever claimed that Linares is a special fighter or an ATG? I think he's merely a skilled fighter for today with good athleticism, who is certainly superior to Mikey Garcia. I said he would be Lomachenkos toughest fight yet, but not because he's his best opponent yet. Because of styles and circumstance. But I understand there's no room for context or nuance in your simpleton world. You have no idea what he is, or anything about boxing. Go back to your literal interpretation of the Bible you infantile retard.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Why shouldn't we consider the fact that Rigo was small even at 122, and refused to even go to 126 for several years, then went all the way up to 130 at age 37? Are you also on drugs, or trolling? Does Floyd get full credit for beating up JMM in far more impressive fashion?
> 
> How many great Bantemweights were still great at age 37, even before jumping two weight divisions? This is insane.
> 
> ...


You think a proud longtime dominant winner like Rigondeaux was coming just for a payday? See, you're dumb. So you want to start a poll and get a consensus for something as proof, when you ignore the consensus when it comes to Lomachenko? See, you're dumb.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> When have I ever claimed that Linares is a special fighter or an ATG? I think he's merely a skilled fighter for today with good athleticism, who is certainly superior to Mikey Garcia. I said he would be Lomachenkos toughest fight yet, but not because he's his best opponent yet. Because of styles and circumstance. But I understand there's no room for context or nuance in your simpleton world. You have no idea what he is, or anything about boxing. Go back to your literal interpretation of the Bible you infantile retard.


Meh... Go back to sucking dick, fakkit. Context is something you will never possess in any discussion involving Vasyl Lomachenko.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Meh... Go back to sucking dick, fakkit. Context is something you will never possess in any discussion involving Vasyl Lomachenko.


You're going to hell for that talk boy.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> You think a proud longtime dominant winner like Rigondeaux was coming just for a payday? See, you're dumb. So you want to start a poll and get a consensus for something as proof, when you ignore the consensus when it comes to Lomachenko? See, you're dumb.


Why did he wait until age 37 to come all the way up to 130 after refusing to fight at 126 while near his peak? It's a simple question to ask, and a simple one to answer. But you're too much a **** to even ask it. Pathetic.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> You're going to hell for that talk boy.


I'm merely trying to lead you away from a life of homosexuality, but I have decided to let you linger in your reprobate mindset. It can't be helped.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Back when Rigo held any sort of belief that he could beat Loma, he was asking for the fight at a catchweight of 124. This is a documented fact. Then he turns 37 and is suddenly willing to fight all the way at 130.

Suddenly 'context' isn't important, though...


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

Damn there is some butthurt stuff going one here with that steviebruno guy and that dealt with guy. Keep going its fun to read.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Better than Leonard.
> 
> 'Kay Frank.


Best since Leonard is what he said.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Why shouldn't we consider the fact that Rigo was small even at 122, and refused to even go to 126 for several years, then went all the way up to 130 at age 37? Are you also on drugs, or trolling? Does Floyd get full credit for beating up JMM in far more impressive fashion?
> 
> How many great Bantemweights were still great at age 37, even before jumping two weight divisions? This is insane.
> 
> ...


This idea that Rigo is small for 122 is getting overstated but there's an asterisk next to Loma's win over Rigo for sure because Rigo was coming up 8lbs. There's a bunch of asterisks alongside many of Mayweather's fights too including the JMM fight. Not just because JMM was moving up but also because Mayweather himself missed weight. There's a difference, however, between not giving a win 'full credit' and trying to minimise the amount of credit a win can be given. Which is what you're doing here, as you are with the Linares fight. Context is absolutely important and you should try to view Loma's wins in context rather than defaulting to the position of how to give them minimum credit. I can't make you do that mate but I'd encourage you to appreciate what's in front of you while it lasts.

Your last three paragraphs could just as easily be a testament to Loma's skill as they could a critique of Rigo's performance. When trying to devalue a win people will often criticise the opponent's performance rather than praise the winner's. Again, this is consistent with your usual position.

And, no, Mayweather doesn't kick Loma's ass. It would be a competitive fight in Mayweather's prime. I'm assuming that's where you were imagining the fight taking place because you didn't want to compare a younger Floyd to Loma earlier.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> This idea that Rigo is small for 122 is getting overstated but there's an asterisk next to Loma's win over Rigo for sure because Rigo was coming up 8lbs. There's a bunch of asterisks alongside many of Mayweather's fights too including the JMM fight. Not just because JMM was moving up but also because Mayweather himself missed weight. There's a difference, however, between not giving a win 'full credit' and trying to minimise the amount of credit a win can be given. Which is what you're doing here, as you are with the Linares fight. Context is absolutely important and you should try to view Loma's wins in context rather than defaulting to the position of how to give them minimum credit. I can't make you do that mate but I'd encourage you to appreciate what's in front of you while it lasts.
> 
> Your last three paragraphs could just as easily be a testament to Loma's skill as they could a critique of Rigo's performance. When trying to devalue a win people will often criticise the opponent's performance rather than praise the winner's. Again, this is consistent with your usual position.
> 
> And, no, Mayweather doesn't kick Loma's ass. It would be a competitive fight in Mayweather's prime. I'm assuming that's where you were imagining the fight taking place because you didn't want to compare a younger Floyd to Loma earlier.





Kurushi said:


> This idea that Rigo is small for 122 is getting overstated but there's an asterisk next to Loma's win over Rigo for sure because Rigo was coming up 8lbs. There's a bunch of asterisks alongside many of Mayweather's fights too including the JMM fight. Not just because JMM was moving up but also because Mayweather himself missed weight. There's a difference, however, between not giving a win 'full credit' and trying to minimise the amount of credit a win can be given. Which is what you're doing here, as you are with the Linares fight. Context is absolutely important and you should try to view Loma's wins in context rather than defaulting to the position of how to give them minimum credit. I can't make you do that mate but I'd encourage you to appreciate what's in front of you while it lasts.
> 
> Your last three paragraphs could just as easily be a testament to Loma's skill as they could a critique of Rigo's performance. When trying to devalue a win people will often criticise the opponent's performance rather than praise the winner's. Again, this is consistent with your usual position.
> 
> And, no, Mayweather doesn't kick Loma's ass. It would be a competitive fight in Mayweather's prime. I'm assuming that's where you were imagining the fight taking place because you didn't want to compare a younger Floyd to Loma earlier.


I said that version of Rigo that Loma fought would get his ass kicked by Floyd, which is the question that you had raised.

Floyd gets less credit for beating JMM and he should, this despite the fact that JMM would go on to accomplish even more in his career even at the higher weights, which Rigo has not done.

I'm not doing this in hindsight. While you all were salivating about the Rigo fight when it was announced, I told you all that it was nothing more than a cashout from a 37 year old fighter who had no interest in fighting at 126, let alone 130. The fight went as I thought it would. The Linares fight went as I thought it would, up until the liver shot. Vasyl Lomachenko, thus far, has performed exactly to my expectations of him.

You've seen Rigo near his best. Has he ever been a stationary, lean-back, statue fighter because someone threw a simple feint at him? Has he ever displayed an inability to adapt to his own mistakes and not repeat them? Vasyl Lomachenko was never forced to take away anything that Rigo used to do well, so why should he get credit for doing so?

Why go out of your way to create a false narrative for the fight when you have video to show you otherwise? Do I really need to show you the difference between a 30 year old Rigo at 122 and a 37 year old Rigo at 130?

I would certainly hope not...


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> I said that version of Rigo that Loma fought would get his ass kicked by Floyd, which is the question that you had raised.
> 
> Floyd gets less credit for beating JMM and he should, this despite the fact that JMM would go on to accomplish even more in his career even at the higher weights, which Rigo has not done.
> 
> ...


You don't know anything about boxing. You dumb bruh.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> You don't know anything about boxing. You dumb bruh.


See? A reprobate.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> I said that version of Rigo that Loma fought would get his ass kicked by Floyd, which is the question that you had raised.
> 
> Floyd gets less credit for beating JMM and he should, this despite the fact that JMM would go on to accomplish even more in his career even at the higher weights, which Rigo has not done.
> 
> ...


You can show me a video of prime Rigo if you want to, I don't mind. I can show you videos of Mayweather's opponents in their prime too if you want? It doesn't mean they're not good/very good wins.

I've no doubt you were critical of Loma vs. Rigo before it happened. That position is entirely expected from you as a way to minimise credit if Loma was to win and to maximise criticism if he lost. People who had a vested interest in criticising Floyd did the exact same thing before his fights.

Loma vs Rigo is a fight everyone wanted, between two, two-time Olympic gold-medal winning amateur greats. Rigo, despite being past prime, was possibly one of the most skilled fighters in the game, on most people's pound for pound lists, undefeated, and arguably one of the most avoided fighters of the last few years coming up 8lbs. That isn't a false narrative Stevie. But you've made a choice to ignore all of those things _except_ for the 8lbs and the past-prime bits and are _only_ viewing the fight through those. That is a false narrative. Everything about how you think Rigo cashed out, didn't bother putting any effort in and quit out of disinterest rather than anything Loma did is pure speculation and isn't supported by the fact that Loma made 3 previous opponents quit.



steviebruno said:


> thus far, has performed exactly to my expectations of him.


This made me laugh though. You're one of Loma's bigger detractors but you expected him to be breaking records, topping pound for pound lists and winning titles in 3 divisions within 12 fights?


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> You can show me a video of prime Rigo if you want to, I don't mind. I can show you videos of Mayweather's opponents in their prime too if you want? It doesn't mean they're not good/very good wins.
> 
> I've no doubt you were critical of Loma vs. Rigo before it happened. That position is entirely expected from you as a way to minimise credit if Loma was to win and to maximise criticism if he lost. People who had a vested interest in criticising Floyd did the exact same thing before his fights.
> 
> ...


You are absolutely wrong in thinking that I have a vested interest in Lomachenko, but you could use the reverse argument when it comes to people like @Dealt_with; maybe he sees the best of every opponent, and of every Loma performance, because he wants to maximize if Loma does what he's supposed to do. It is precisely what he did with Linares, building him up to be some stylistic nightmare and ignoring his struggles against Luke Campbell and Gesta.

It is also what both you guys are doing with Guillermo Rigondeaux. You have yet to answer the question that I posed, yet you keep quoting me for some reason. _Why did Rigo decide to move up to 130 at age 37 after refusing to fight at 126 for several years? _

My belief, which I hold with all certainty, is that he knew he could not operate at his best beyond 122, and 124 was the most he was willing to compromise. Eight pounds is a HUGE deal for a super bantemweight, and even moreso for one that could make 118 with ease. It is the equivalent of a small welterweight moving up to middleweight when you calculate body mass percentage... and then you throw in the fact that he was 37 years old. How many 37 year old bantemweights/super bantemweights have ever remained great in the history of the sport, @Kurushi ?

It was a cashout. The professionalism allowed Rigo to show up in shape, but he offered no resistance in the ring, and brought none of his tools that he possessed in his prime, yet you want to pretend that he did, in order to give Lomachenko the full credit that he simply should not get. Even Loma admitted that it wasn't Rigo's best weight, nor was it a particularly great win, yet here you are, making all sorts of pretentious claims and ignoring all circumstances... because it is YOU who have a vested interested in ignoring the facts, not me.

And if you feel a certain way about me telling the truth, so be it. But if you think that I'm saying all of this just to hate, please don't bother quoting me... by all means. If you do, however, at least have the decency to answer the questions that I ask.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> You are absolutely wrong in thinking that I have a vested interest in Lomachenko


No one, absolutely no one reading this thread is going to believe you. You've ventured too far down this road to suddenly claim you haven't got a vested interest in criticising Loma. Look at your recent response to the thread about Loma having a should injury:



steviebruno said:


> Delayed effects from all that swinging and missing against Rigondeaux.


You very clearly have an interest in criticising Loma whenever the opportunity presents itself.



steviebruno said:


> You have yet to answer the question that I posed, yet you keep quoting me for some reason. _Why did Rigo decide to move up to 130 at age 37 after refusing to fight at 126 for several years? _


Rigo has been avoided by Frampton, LSC among others. This shouldn't come as brand new information to you. His high-risk, low-reward status combined with his fan-unfriendly style meant few promoters were willing to put their guy in with him. Surely you don't disagree with this? It's common knowledge Rigo struggled to get big fights. Loma wanted to fight him, Arum was happy to make the fight, the fans wanted to see it, the fight got made.



steviebruno said:


> Eight pounds is a HUGE deal for a super bantemweight, and even moreso for one that could make 118 with ease. It is the equivalent of a small welterweight moving up to middleweight when you calculate body mass percentage...


Incorrect. A move from 122 to 130 is an increase of 6.5%. A move from 147 to 160 is 8.8% so they're not equivalent. And you say Rigo "could make 118 with ease" and yet boxingscene reported the following:

"_Two sources spoke with reporter George Ebro and indicated that *Rigondeaux was approached about the possibility of taking part in the *_*[WBSS] *_*tournament - but after seeking medical advice, it became apparent that it wasn't safe for Rigondeaux to cut his weight from 122 to 118*"_.​
Another quote from that article:

_"The people of the Super Series were in love with the possibility of counting on Rigondeaux," said a source to Ebro. "It was the name they mentioned the most. *I think it would have been a tremendous opportunity for him to win money and go back to being the world champion.*''_​​_"Nobody better understands his body than he does and his decision is respected. If he says he can not take off those pounds, then he can not, period. But an opportunity of this magnitude will rarely come around again.'_​
So these ideas of yours that Rigo could easily make 118 and was cashing out against Loma are demonstrably false. He's been medically advised not to make 118 and he didn't make a particularly large amount of money against Loma certainly not relative to the multi-millions he'd get for winning the WBSS (for which he would surely be a favourite). So we can drop this 'small for 122' and 'cashing out' nonsense now Stevie.



steviebruno said:


> How many 37 year old bantemweights/super bantemweights have ever remained great in the history of the sport, @Kurushi ?


You can carry on repeating this question and your other points if you like. You don't seem interested in building on the discussion and replies to your questions and points instead opting to just change the subject or carry on repeating yourself but I'll keep giving you the same answer: No one has suggested Rigo was in his prime against Loma.



steviebruno said:


> Even Loma admitted that it wasn't Rigo's best weight, nor was it a particularly great win, yet here you are, making all sorts of pretentious claims and ignoring all circumstances


Loma did indeed say it wasn't Rigo's best weight or a big win for him. As I've already stated there's an asterisk next to the win because of the weight jump so I'm clearly not ignoring the circumstances. I disagree with Loma that it's not a big win however and think he's being modest. It's not his best win but it's a very good one.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> No one, absolutely no one reading this thread is going to believe you. You've ventured too far down this road to suddenly claim you haven't got a vested interest in criticising Loma. Look at your recent response to the thread about Loma having a should injury:
> 
> You very clearly have an interest in criticising Loma whenever the opportunity presents itself.


It's called trolling. Only someone invested in people saying nice things about Vasyl Lomachenko would even take that comment seriously.


> Rigo has been avoided by Frampton, LSC among others. This shouldn't come as brand new information to you. His high-risk, low-reward status combined with his fan-unfriendly style meant few promoters were willing to put their guy in with him. Surely you don't disagree with this? It's common knowledge Rigo struggled to get big fights. Loma wanted to fight him, Arum was happy to make the fight, the fans wanted to see it, the fight got made.


Your point? Guillermo Rigondeaux was avoided for his entire career following the Donaire fight, yet was never tempted to move up to 126, let alone 130. Your argument simply does not work in your favor at all. What you are essentially saying is that Rigo was broke and desperate, and so *cashed himself out* in order to make the fight happen. But you don't want to come out and say it.


> Incorrect. A move from 122 to 130 is an increase of 6.5%. A move from 147 to 160 is 8.8% so they're not equivalent.


Wow.


> And you say Rigo "could make 118 with ease" and yet boxingscene reported the following:
> 
> "_Two sources spoke with reporter George Ebro and indicated that *Rigondeaux was approached about the possibility of taking part in the *_*[WBSS] *_*tournament - but after seeking medical advice, it became apparent that it wasn't safe for Rigondeaux to cut his weight from 122 to 118*"_.​
> Another quote from that article:
> ...


And wow again. This article is from this month, five months _after_ Guillermo Rigondeaux cashed himself out by moving all the way up to 128.4 pounds for Lomachenko. At age 37, Rigo will never get safely near 118 again. In 2010, *near his prime*, he was as low as 119.5.








Dude is TINY.


> You can carry on repeating this question and your other points if you like. You don't seem interested in building on the discussion and replies to your questions and points instead opting to just change the subject or carry on repeating yourself but I'll keep giving you the same answer: No one has suggested Rigo was in his prime against Loma.


Build on what discussion? You want to ignore the facts? Fine. There is really nothing to discuss. I'm not even sure why you keep quoting me.



> Loma did indeed say it wasn't Rigo's best weight or a big win for him. As I've already stated there's an asterisk next to the win because of the weight jump so I'm clearly not ignoring the circumstances. I disagree with Loma that it's not a big win however and think he's being modest. It's not his best win but it's a very good one.


Lomachenko disagrees, sorry.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> It's called trolling. Only someone invested in people saying nice things about Vasyl Lomachenko would even take that comment seriously.
> 
> Your point? Guillermo Rigondeaux was avoided for his entire career following the Donaire fight, yet was never tempted to move up to 126, let alone 130. Your argument simply does not work in your favor at all. What you are essentially saying is that Rigo was broke and desperate, and so *cashed himself out* in order to make the fight happen. But you don't want to come out and say it.
> 
> ...


No rebuttals to any of my points. You said moving from 122-130 was the equivalent of moving from 147-160. It's not. You were wrong about that. You said Rigo could easily make 118. He can't, you were wrong about that also and are now desperately providing links from what he weighed 8 years ago which has no relevance to the point you were making. You said Rigo cashed out against Loma. Wrong again. If he was cashing out he didn't do a very good job and if he's so tiny he could _actually_ cash out if he wanted to in the WBSS.

I haven't ignored any facts, in fact I've done quite the opposite. I've acknowledged the points of yours that have validity. I've separated what you claim is fact from what is actually speculation and I've corrected you on things that you then subsequently ignore. You're the one ignoring facts, you're the one with a narrative and when called out on it you claim you're trolling. But I do like our chats Stevie, and I mean that. You go that extra mile.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> No rebuttals to any of my points. You said moving from 122-130 was the equivalent of moving from 147-160. It's not. You were wrong about that. You said Rigo could easily make 118. He can't, you were wrong about that also and are now desperately providing links from what he weighed 8 years ago which has no relevance to the point you were making. You said Rigo cashed out against Loma. Wrong again. If he was cashing out he didn't do a very good job and if he's so tiny he could _actually_ cash out if he wanted to in the WBSS.
> 
> I haven't ignored any facts, in fact I've done quite the opposite. I've acknowledged the points of yours that have validity. I've separated what you claim is fact from what is actually speculation and I've corrected you on things that you then subsequently ignore. You're the one ignoring facts, you're the one with a narrative and when called out on it you claim you're trolling. But I do like our chats Stevie, and I mean that. You go that extra mile.


"Desperately providing links" from the source that you gave me. Interesting...

Moving from 122-130 is the rough equivalent of moving from 147-160, which is why the weight classes are scaled the way they are. Do you honestly believe that a difference of two percentage points is a huge point in your favor? Well how about the 6.5% points that Rigo moved up to fight Lomachenko?Oh, not a big deal?

Again, interesting...

How did he not do a good job if he got paid? What are you even talking about?

Guillermo Rigondeaux simply cannot meet the demands of a tournament at age 37 at a weight he hasn't approached since he was in his prime *eight years ago*, and he'd stand to lose whatever value his name has should he not come out on top. A much more likely scenario is him dropping down and taking on the winner of the tournament after it has taken place, or challenging the winner to move up and face him. That's where a money play can be made.

But I think that he's stuck now and will most likely campaign at 126.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> "Desperately providing links" from the source that you gave me. Interesting...


I meant "photos" not "links". The _photo_ you posted isn't in the link I sent you Stevie is it?



steviebruno said:


> Moving from 122-130 is the rough equivalent of moving from 147-160, which is why the weight classes are scaled the way they are. Do you honestly believe that a difference of two percentage points is a huge point in your favor? Well how about the 6.5% points that Rigo moved up to fight Lomachenko?Oh, not a big deal?
> 
> Again, interesting...


This isn't the point you made though is it? You said the following:



steviebruno said:


> It is the equivalent of a small welterweight moving up to middleweight when you calculate body mass percentage...


Well, I presented you with the calculations to show that it's not the equivalent of a small welterweight moving up to middleweight. Comparing any 2 two-divisional moves across the entire spectrum of divisions isn't always accurate because, bare in mind, the divisions _aren't_ actually scaled consistently. The gap between MW to SMW, for example, is 8lbs, which is bigger than the gap between SMW and LHW (7lbs). Divisional weight limits don't increase exponentially.



steviebruno said:


> How did he not do a good job if he got paid? What are you even talking about?


Wait, so getting paid at all now is "cashing out"?



steviebruno said:


> Guillermo Rigondeaux simply cannot meet the demands of a tournament at age 37 at a weight he hasn't approached since he was in his prime *eight years ago*, and he'd stand to lose whatever value his name has should he not come out on top.


:lol: What are you on about!? A couple of posts ago you were saying Rigo could easily make 118. And why would he give a shit about his name value if he's cashing out? This is what you said:



steviebruno said:


> My belief, which I hold with all certainty, is that he knew he could not operate at his best beyond 122, and 124 was the most he was willing to compromise. Eight pounds is a HUGE deal for a super bantemweight, and even moreso for one that could make 118 with ease.





steviebruno said:


> But I think that he's stuck now and will most likely campaign at 126.


That's a fair shout. 126 would make sense.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> I meant "photos" not "links". The _photo_ you posted isn't in the link I sent you Stevie is it?


You said link. And do you believe that desperation was required to provide a photo of Guillermo Rigondeaux looking small? LOL



> This isn't the point you made though is it? You said the following:
> 
> Well, I presented you with the calculations to show that it's not the equivalent of a small welterweight moving up to middleweight. Comparing any 2 two-divisional moves across the entire spectrum of divisions isn't always accurate because, bare in mind, the divisions _aren't_ actually scaled consistently. The gap between MW to SMW, for example, is 8lbs, which is bigger than the gap between SMW and LHW (7lbs). Divisional weight limits don't increase exponentially.


168 isn't an original weight class; it is an arbitrary point existing between the original weight classes of 160 and 175. It is not part of the original scaling of weight divisions, but 147 and 160 are. 12 pounds differentiated lightweight from welter, 13 pounds separated welter and middle, 15 pounds from middle to light heavy. There was an actual science to this before the new divisions came about.

... If two percentage points is not a rough equivalent, is it now safe to say that Rigo, who moved up THREE TIMES that percentage, was MUCH smaller than Nomaschenko?


> Wait, so getting paid at all now is "cashing out"?


What? Everything I have already explained is cashing out. The payment is just the close of the transaction.



> :lol: What are you on about!? A couple of posts ago you were saying Rigo could easily make 118. And why would he give a shit about his name value if he's cashing out? This is what you said:
> 
> That's a fair shout. 126 would make sense.


He's still broke, Kurushi, and will always be, unfortunately. But losing at 130 doesn't hurt him the way losing to other small fighters would.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> do you believe that desperation was required to provide a photo of Guillermo Rigondeaux looking small? LOL


Yes, I think it's very desperate for you to say Rigo could easily make 118 in 2017 and then, after being proved wrong, claim you meant he could easily make 118 seven years previously.



steviebruno said:


> 168 isn't an original weight class; it is an arbitrary point existing between the original weight classes of 160 and 175. It is not part of the original scaling of weight divisions, but 147 and 160 are. 12 pounds differentiated lightweight from welter, 13 pounds separated welter and middle, 15 pounds from middle to light heavy. There was an actual science to this before the new divisions came


As fun as it is discussing the history of boxing, neither 147 or 122 were original weight classes so your argument falls flat there. Your argument being, as a reminder to you, that a move from 122 to 130 is an equivalent percentage increase as a move from 147 to 160. Which it isn't. If you think a differential of 2.3% is negligible then that's on you my friend. I hope you never get nut cancer.



steviebruno said:


> ... If two percentage points is not a rough equivalent, is it now safe to say that Rigo, who moved up THREE TIMES that percentage, was MUCH smaller than Nomaschenko?


This is a low effort point, even by your standards mate. Try to find a second wind and get back in the conversation with me. Most people reading what I've just quoted won't know what the fuck you're on about.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> Yes, I think it's very desperate for you to say Rigo could easily make 118 in 2017 and then, after being proved wrong, claim you meant he could easily make 118 seven years previously.
> 
> As fun as it is discussing the history of boxing, neither 147 or 122 were original weight classes so your argument falls flat there. Your argument being, as a reminder to you, that a move from 122 to 130 is an equivalent percentage increase as a move from 147 to 160. Which it isn't. If you think a differential of 2.3% is negligible then that's on you my friend. I hope you never get nut cancer.


*Sigh

147 was around since the year 1914. 175 was around since the year 1913. The weight divisions that were established prior to 1909 (National Sporting Club of London) and solidified by 1920 (Walker Law) contained no scientific scaling for weight increases, and no consensus to what the actual limits were. Historically, 147 is considered an original division (having come about almost immediately after 1909), as is 135. Classes like 130, 140 and 154 didn't come around until the 1960s, long after the lineage of the other divisions had been established.

Back to the point... 118 was an original division. 126 was next, *eight pounds *north. This is consistent with the scaling of 112 to 118 (*6*), 126 to 135 (*9*) 135 to 147 (*12*), 147 to 160 (*13*), and 160 to 175 (*15*); incremental increases in the amount of pounds increased in order to account for overall percentage of weight. *122? That didn't come around until 1976, *and it was another division simply squeezed in between two classes (118 and 126) that had been reasonably scaled apart from each other, each already having a 50-70 year head start in establishing historical lineage.

I hope that you are having fun getting schooled on the history of boxing, and why weight classes exist where they do, but I'm not. Quite frankly, these are things that you should already know and understand without me having to tell you.


> This is a low effort point, even by your standards mate. Try to find a second wind and get back in the conversation with me. Most people reading what I've just quoted won't know what the fuck you're on about.


Was the 6.5% weight jump a huge deal in the Loma vs. Rigo fight, Kurushi? Please answer the question. Thanks.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> *Sigh
> 
> 147 was around since the year 1914. 175 was around since the year 1913. The weight divisions that were established prior to 1909 (National Sporting Club of London) and solidified by 1920 (Walker Law) contained no scientific scaling for weight increases, and no consensus to what the actual limits were. Historically, 147 is considered an original division (having come about almost immediately after 1909), as is 135. Classes like 130, 140 and 154 didn't come around until the 1960s, long after the lineage of the other divisions had been established.
> 
> ...


What are you on about man? You're looking really weird right about now.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Stevie is embarrassing, how he manages to put in this much effort and time into being completely wrong about everything I don’t know. He’s not driven by any facts or arguments, he has a poorly thought out idea and just defends it to death. That’s a recipe for a dumb man. That’s probably why he was given a set of stories as literal truth when he was a child and maintained it until however old he is now. If he’s under 20 years old there’s probably still hope for him. What sort of life is it when you’ve lost the capacity for growth, knowledge, wisdom. You’ve just picked a truth and put your fingers in your ears. That’s sad Stevie.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Stevie is embarrassing, how he manages to put in this much effort and time into being completely wrong about everything I don't know. He's not driven by any facts or arguments, he has a poorly thought out idea and just defends it to death. That's a recipe for a dumb man. That's probably why he was given a set of stories as literal truth when he was a child and maintained it until however old he is now. If he's under 20 years old there's probably still hope for him. What sort of life is it when you've lost the capacity for growth, knowledge, wisdom. You've just picked a truth and put your fingers in your ears. That's sad Stevie.


If you are going to mention me, do it properly. If you are under age 10, it is completely acceptable to have posters of Vasyl Lomachenko on your bedroom wall, and to write to letters to him, and to declare him your personal hero.

Otherwise, it's just pretty sad...


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Stevie is embarrassing, how he manages to put in this much effort and time into being completely wrong about everything I don't know. He's not driven by any facts or arguments, he has a poorly thought out idea and just defends it to death. That's a recipe for a dumb man. That's probably why he was given a set of stories as literal truth when he was a child and maintained it until however old he is now. If he's under 20 years old there's probably still hope for him. What sort of life is it when you've lost the capacity for growth, knowledge, wisdom. You've just picked a truth and put your fingers in your ears. That's sad Stevie.


I think he's just stubborn and afraid to admit he's wrong. Claiming Rigo could easily make 118 and when proved wrong it changed to Rigo could make 118 7/8 years ago and couldn't possibly make 118 at 37. A complete contradiction. He claimed 122>130 is the equivalent increase from 147>160 when body mass percentage is calculated. When proved wrong again it changed to just being a 'rough equivalent'. He claimed Rigo cashed out against Loma but couldn't back it up in the face of contrary evidence. I explained to him that weight divisions aren't separated by the same amounts of weight and that nor do they increase exponentially, then he makes a long-winded post which backs up what I said. Throughout all of this there's no concession or admittance that he's wrong and I'm right. He just defends his point to death, as you say, even if he has to change what he's saying half way through when corrected.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> I think he's just stubborn and afraid to admit he's wrong. Claiming Rigo could easily make 118 and when proved wrong it changed to Rigo could make 118 7/8 years ago and couldn't possibly make 118 at 37. A complete contradiction. He claimed 118>122 is the equivalent increase from 147>160 when body mass percentage is calculated. When proved wrong again it changed to just being a 'rough equivalent'. He claimed Rigo cashed out against Loma but couldn't back it up in the face of contrary evidence. I explained to him that weight divisions aren't separated by the same amounts of weight and that nor do they increase exponentially, then he makes a long-winded post which backs up what I said. Throughout all of this there's no concession or admittance that he's wrong and I'm right. He just defends his point to death, as you say, even if he has to change what he's saying half way through when corrected.


118-126. 122 didn't come around until 1976. You just don't know the history, and I cannot be bothered to explain it any more than I already have.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> 118-126.


It was 122>130.



steviebruno said:


> 122 didn't come around until 1976. You just don't know the history, and I cannot be bothered to explain it any more than I already have.


Indeed, 122 didn't come about to 1976. Not relevant and I haven't seen anyone say otherwise but please quote them if they did. If was just a random thought you wanted to share that's cool too.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> It was 122>130.
> 
> Indeed, 122 didn't come about to 1976. Not relevant and I haven't seen anyone say otherwise but please quote them if they did. If was just a random thought you wanted to share that's cool too.


Yet you mentioned 118-122? Why?

It is indeed relevant, as I have already gone at lengths to explain how the original weights (and those that came about immediately after 1909, if you want to play games) were scaled with incremental (incremental, not exponential, SMH) increases in the amount of pounds added (8,9,12,13,15, and 25) to account for the overall percentage of body mass. You brought up 168, which didn't come up until *1984 *(LOL), and so I gave you a history that you displayed an inability to follow.

I'm not doing it again.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Yet you mentioned 118-122? Why?


I mistyped, should have been 122>130. Why did you type 118-126?

Your claim was that a jump from 122>130 was the equivalent (equal in value) to a jump from 147 to 160. It's not. The equivalent would be 147 to approximately 156.5. Do you accept that you were wrong?



steviebruno said:


> It is indeed relevant, as I have already gone at lengths to explain how the original weights (and those that came about immediately after 1909, if you want to play games) were scaled with incremental increases in the amount of pounds added (8,9,12,13,15, and 25) to account for the overall percentage of body mass. You brought up 168, which didn't come up until *1984 *(LOL), and so I gave you a history that you displayed an inability to follow.
> 
> I'm not doing it again.


At no point have I said there _weren't _"incremental increases" between the traditional divisions. I wasn't even talking about the traditional divisions, I have no idea why you brought that entire topic up although perhaps you were trying to deflect after being corrected about the difference in weight jumps. I said the gaps between weight divisions isn't consistent or exponential, which it isn't. 160>168 (a difference of 8lbs) and 168>175 (a difference of 7lbs) is an example. Therefore comparing any two-divisional jump, regardless of the weight, isn't always going to be accurate. Your comparison wasn't accurate. Care to admit you were wrong?


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> I mistyped, should have been 122>130. Why did you type 118-126?
> 
> Your claim was that a jump from 122>130 was the equivalent (equal in value) to a jump from 147 to 160. It's not. The equivalent would be 147 to approximately 156.5. Do you accept that you were wrong?
> 
> At no point have I said there _weren't _"incremental increases" between the traditional divisions. I wasn't even talking about the traditional divisions, I have no idea why you brought that entire topic up although perhaps you were trying to deflect after being corrected about the difference in weight jumps. I said the gaps between weight divisions isn't consistent or exponential, which it isn't. 160>168 (a difference of 8lbs) and 168>175 (a difference of 7lbs) is an example. Therefore comparing any two-divisional jump, regardless of the weight, isn't always going to be accurate. Your comparison wasn't accurate. Care to admit you were wrong?


For the last time, 168 is a late edition, devoid of any scientific scaling and simply placed between two original divisions that _were_ scientifically scaled. Why do you suppose that there were incremental increases in the amount of pounds added in the original weights as weight divisions progressed higher? This is beyond poor from you.

That would be one question for you.

The other:

If 156.5 to 160 is such a big deal to you, how do you view a move from 122-130? Take your time.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> For the last time, 168 is a late edition, devoid of any scientific scaling and simply placed between two original divisions that _were_ scientifically scaled. Why do you suppose that there were incremental increases in the amount of pounds added in the original weights as weight divisions progressed higher? This is beyond poor from you.


So, like I've been saying,, the gaps between the weight divisions aren't separated consistently or exponentially (as I have provided examples of). Therefore two-divisional jumps aren't all comparable. Your comparison was wrong. Will you admit it?



steviebruno said:


> If 156.5 to 160 is such a big deal to you, how do you view a move from 122-130?


You claimed a jump from 122>130 was the equivalent (equal in value) to a jump from 147 to 160. It's not. Do you accept that you were wrong?


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> So, like I've been saying,, the gaps between the weight divisions aren't separated consistently or exponentially (as I have provided examples of). Therefore two-divisional jumps aren't all comparable. Your comparison was wrong. Will you admit it?
> 
> You claimed a jump from 122>130 was the equivalent (equal in value) to a jump from 147 to 160. It's not. Do you accept that you were wrong?


...Oh, okay. You're arguing just for the sake of arguing. I get it now.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> ...Oh, okay. You're arguing just for the sake of arguing. I get it now.


Nope, I'm providing facts that prove your points wrong. Will you admit that you're wrong though?


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> Nope, I'm providing facts that prove your points wrong. Will you admit that you're wrong though?


Kurushi, you brought up 168, a weight that was added in 1984, to try and build your argument.

You then leapt at an opportunity to deny that 147 and 160 were original weight classes.

You also made a big stink about a 2% difference in weight, while ignoring the point of whether or not a 6.5% increase is also worth making a big stink.

Again, this is just poor form from you, on several fronts.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Kurushi, you brought up 168, a weight that was added in 1984, to try and build your argument.


Super middleweight is one of the divisions Stevie. Are you suggesting otherwise? Two-divisional jumps aren't all comparable. Your comparison wasn't comparable. It's OK to admit you were wrong. Will you?



steviebruno said:


> You then leapt at an opportunity to deny that 147 and 160 were original weight classes.


I didn't say 160 wasn't one of the original weight classes, you're making that up to deflect for having to admit you were wrong. 147 was one of the 'traditional 8 divisions' _Originally_ welterweight wasn't 147, it was a little lower than that.



steviebruno said:


> You also made a big stink about a 2% difference in weight, while ignoring the point of whether or not a 6.5% increase is also worth making a big stink.


Wrong yet again. No big stink. Just correcting your maths.

So, you were wrong about that and also about it being easy for Rigo to be able to make 118 when he fought Loma. Its OK to admit you're wrong mate. Will you?

Why do you keep ignoring my questions and changing the subject?


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> Super middleweight is one of the divisions Stevie. Are you suggesting otherwise? Two-divisional jumps aren't all comparable. Your comparison wasn't comparable. It's OK to admit you were wrong. Will you?
> 
> I didn't say 160 wasn't one of the original weight classes, you're making that up to deflect for having to admit you were wrong. 147 was one of the 'traditional 8 divisions' _Originally_ welterweight wasn't 147, it was a little lower than that.
> 
> ...


Changing the subject? I've been posting the same thing since yesterday, while you continue blowing smoke. Two division jumps aren't comparable because of a whole 2% difference, huh? Was Loma fighting a Rigo who was accustomed to fighting at a comparable size, then? Surely not, according to the maths,

Go get some fresh air.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Changing the subject? I've been posting the same thing since yesterday, while you continue blowing smoke. Two division jumps aren't comparable because of a whole 2% difference, huh? Was Loma fighting a Rigo who was accustomed to fighting at a comparable size, then? Surely not, according to the maths,
> 
> Go get some fresh air.


Yeah, you've been posting about the history of the divisions. That's changing the subject from the differences in weight between divisions being comparable all the way up. They're not. Your comparison wasn't valid was it? Rigo couldn't make 118 easily in December 2017 could he?


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> Yeah, you've been posting about the history of the divisions. That's changing the subject from the differences in weight between divisions being comparable all the way up. They're not. Your comparison wasn't valid was it? Rigo couldn't make 118 easily in December 2017 could he?


LOL. Stop it. Learn your history.

Rigo can't make 118 in 2017 because he ballooned up 6.5% to face an incomparably large Vasyl Lomachenko, amirite?


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

Which statement of yours is true then Stevie? And which one is wrong?



steviebruno said:


> Rigo can't make 118 in 2017





steviebruno said:


> Eight pounds is a HUGE deal for a super bantemweight, and even moreso for one that could make 118 with ease.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> Which statement of yours is true then Stevie? And which one is wrong?


He could have made 118 had he not gone up to 130, a 6.5% increase in weight, and fought an incomparably larger Vasyl Nomaschenko. Is this too hard for you to understand? Old fighters cannot manipulate weights in that manner and do it safely.

I meant to say 2018, so you got me there.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> He could have made 118 had he not gone up to 130, a 6.5% increase in weight, and fought an incomparably larger Vasyl Nomaschenko. Is this too hard for you to understand? Old fighters cannot manipulate weights in that manner and do it safely.
> 
> I meant to say 2018, so you got me there.


Well that's a coincidence, only when presented with two contradictory statements you made did you realise that actually you'd made a typo in one of them. :rofl

Is this Troll-Stevie or Serious-Stevie? You think Rigo could have made 118 with ease a few months ago but it's because he went up to 128.4 that there's no way he could do it now? Is that the story you're going with?


----------



## ThatBoxingGuy2022 (Aug 28, 2014)

Good article, its basically saying you can have him anywhere in the top 3 and its not wrong its all opinion but if he didnt lose to Salido there would be no doubt he would be first

https://www.boxingscene.com/there-any-doubt-lomachenko-1-pound-pound--128297


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> Well that's a coincidence, only when presented with two contradictory statements you made did you realise that actually you'd made a typo in one of them. :rofl
> 
> Is this Troll-Stevie or Serious-Stevie? You think Rigo could have made 118 with ease a few months ago but it's because he went up to 128.4 that there's no way he could do it now? Is that the story you're going with?


Yes. Dead serious. Roy Jones tried to manipulate his weight and couldn't even get back down to his original safely; he never, ever recovered. That is one recent example of old fighters playing games with the scales, but the history of the sport is rife with it. I'm not going to bother teaching you any more history, but you well know that weight-hopping is a young man's game. Guillermo Rigondeaux put on 10 pounds of pure muscle to face Lomachenko; getting back to 122 was dangerous enough, given his age, and we have yet to see him in the ring again to see whether or not he has been affected. As I said before, I think he settles at 126.


----------



## ThatBoxingGuy2022 (Aug 28, 2014)

Drunkenboat said:


> Imagine if he was American


American's dont even support their own they'd abandon him, they are all supporting Eastern Europeans now


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Yes. Dead serious. Roy Jones tried to manipulate his weight and couldn't even get back down to his original safely; he never, ever recovered. That is one recent example of old fighters playing games with the scales, but the history of the sport is rife with it. I'm not going to bother teaching you any more history, but you well know that weight-hopping is a young man's game. Guillermo Rigondeaux put on 10 pounds of pure muscle to face Lomachenko; getting back to 122 was dangerous enough, given his age, and we have yet to see him in the ring again to see whether or not he has been affected. As I said before, I think he settles at 126.


Oh yeah, weight hopping happens. I just find it funny that you think that a guy who fights at 122 could easily make 118 a few months ago and after he puts on about 7lbs (not 10lbs, but I know maths isn't your strong point) that suddenly he could never make 118lbs again. I think it's more likely that Rigo would have struggled to make 118 both at the end of last year and at the start of this year (at both points being aged 37).

I'm not sure how your Jones' comparison fits with what you're saying about Rigo but hopefully you'll clarify. Are you talking about his venture up to HW and then drop back down to LHW? That comparison would only be compatible if you also thought that Jones could easily make 168 (in the same way you think Rigo could have easily made 118). Feel free to elaborate though.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> Oh yeah, weight hopping happens. I just find it funny that you think that a guy who fights at 122 could easily make 118 a few months ago and after he puts on about 7lbs (not 10lbs, but I know maths isn't your strong point) that suddenly he could never make 118lbs again. I think it's more likely that Rigo would have struggled to make 118 both at the end of last year and at the start of this year (at both points being aged 37).
> 
> I'm not sure how your Jones' comparison fits with what you're saying about Rigo but hopefully you'll clarify. Are you talking about his venture up to HW and then drop back down to LHW? That comparison would only be compatible if you also thought that Jones could easily make 168 (in the same way you think Rigo could have easily made 118). Feel free to elaborate though.


Again, Rigo's chances of ever making 118 ended when he stepped up to 130 to face Loma. That is, quite literally, the ONLY reason a doctor would say that it was "not safe" to drop an additional four pounds.

Roy Jones weighed 193 lbs against Ruiz, then dropped 9.5% of his body weight in getting back down to 175. 9% of 128.4, which is what Rigondeaux weighed for Loma, would place him roughly at 117 pounds. Not safe, as demonstrated by Roy Jones, who, btw, wasn't 37 years old.

Did you get that fresh air that I told ya to get?


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Again, Rigo's chances of ever making 118 ended when he stepped up to 130 to face Loma. That is, quite literally, the ONLY reason a doctor would say that it was "not safe" to drop an additional four pounds.


You're going to have to back this up with evidence Stevie. Also, you're going to have to back up your claim that Rigo put on 10lbs.



steviebruno said:


> Roy Jones weighed 193 lbs against Ruiz, then dropped 9.5% of his body weight in getting back down to 175. 9% of 128.4, which is what Rigondeaux weighed for Loma, would place him roughly at 117 pounds. Not safe, as demonstrated by Roy Jones, who, btw, wasn't 37 years old.


Your comparison is wrong again then. You said Rigo could easily make 118lbs before putting on the extra weight to fight Loma. For your comparison to work you'd need to show that Jones could easily make a lower weight than LHW before moving up to fight Ruiz.

Rigo put on approx. 7lbs to fight Loma. This is the equivalent of a 147lber moving up to about 155.5lbs (not 160lbs which you claimed earlier) A drop from 122>118 is about 3%. A drop of 3% from 175lbs is roughly 170lbs. For your comparison to work you would have to prove that Jones could easily have made 170lbs before the Ruiz fight. If you believe in your comparison feel free to back it up. But I'm more than happy to keep on correcting you, pointing out when you contradict yourself and explaining how all of your comparisons are flawed.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> You're going to have to back this up with evidence Stevie. Also, you're going to have to back up your claim that Rigo put on 10lbs.
> 
> Your comparison is wrong again then. You said Rigo could easily make 118lbs before putting on the extra weight to fight Loma. For your comparison to work you'd need to show that Jones could easily make a lower weight than LHW before moving up to fight Ruiz.
> 
> Rigo put on approx. 7lbs to fight Loma. This is the equivalent of a 147lber moving up to about 155.5lbs (not 160lbs which you claimed earlier) A drop from 122>118 is about 3%. A drop of 3% from 175lbs is roughly 170lbs. For your comparison to work you would have to prove that Jones could easily have made 170lbs before the Ruiz fight. If you believe in your comparison feel free to back it up. But I'm more than happy to keep on correcting you, pointing out when you contradict yourself and explaining how all of your comparisons are flawed.


You're just being silly now. Roy Jones wouldn't have to easily make 168 for the comparison to work, as he had already put on a greater percentage of weight to move up (9.5 percent compared to Rigos 6.5 percent), and then had to take it back OFF.

Try again.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> You're just being silly now. Roy Jones wouldn't have to easily make 168 for the comparison to work, as he had already put on a greater percentage of weight to move up (9.5 percent compared to Rigos 6.5 percent), and then had to take it back OFF.
> 
> Try again.


Yes he absolutely would have done otherwise your comparison not only fails but is also irrelevant.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

This is better than Tua-Ibeabuchi.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> Yes he absolutely would have done otherwise your comparison not only fails but is also irrelevant.


You're on drugs, clearly. As I have now demonstrated, losing 9.5% of muscle weight at an advanced age is not safe. Rigo, at an older age than RJJ and having knowledge of boxing history that you clearly DO NOT POSSESS, went and consulted A DOCTOR before even trying a similar level of muscle mass loss. He would not have done so if he was simply dropping from 122 to 118.

Just how many times do you want me to put you over my knee?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

The level of stupidity displayed by Stevie is mind blowing. It’s not just one thing, it’s like every thought he has is deeply flawed. And then there is so much wrong with everything he says and he’s put so much effort into it you’d need to put the equivalent amount of effort in to show him he’s wrong about everything, and even then he’s going to stubbornly refuse to learn. If there is ever a person not worth getting into it with it is him. Usually people are stupid at a surface level because they haven’t put any effort into developing their thoughts, this guy has put effort into being wrong on multiple levels. He is a special kind of stupid. It’s evident in post after post in this thread.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> The level of stupidity displayed by Stevie is mind blowing. It's not just one thing, it's like every thought he has is deeply flawed. And then there is so much wrong with everything he says and he's put so much effort into it you'd need to put the equivalent amount of effort in to show him he's wrong about everything, and even then he's going to stubbornly refuse to learn. If there is ever a person not worth getting into it with it is him. Usually people are stupid at a surface level because they haven't put any effort into developing their thoughts, this guy has put effort into being wrong on multiple levels. He is a special kind of stupid. It's evident in post after post in this thread.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> You're on drugs, clearly. As I have now demonstrated, losing 9.5% of muscle weight at an advanced age is not safe. Rigo, at an older age than RJJ and having knowledge of boxing history that you clearly DO NOT POSSESS, went and consulted A DOCTOR before even trying a similar level of muscle mass loss. He would not have done so if he was simply dropping from 122 to 118.


I'm glad that we agree that Rigo can't make 118 now Stevie. I was the one that explained why this was by sharing the article with you that mentioned the doctor advising Rigo not to lose the weight.

Where we disagree is that you think Rigo could have made 118 "with ease" just a few months ago. You haven't provided proof for this. Your comparison with Jones doesn't work because in order to make sense you'd need to show that Roy could easily have lost about 5lbs a few months prior to moving up to fight Ruiz. If you can't do that then it's just an example of someone moving up and down in weight and has no relevance to what we're talking about. Even if the comparison worked it wouldn't be proof that Rigo could easily have made 118 but it would at least bolster your argument a bit. But the losing weight easily bit is critical to what we're discussing.

Again, what evidence have you got that Rigo put on 10lbs to fight Loma, what evidence have you got that Rigo could easily make 118 a few months ago? Are you willing to admit you were wrong about moving up from 122>128.4 being the same as moving up from 147>160?



steviebruno said:


> Just how many times do you want me to put you over my knee?


Flirting with me now is it? If you're into drugs and BDSM I'm afraid I'm not your fella Stevie.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> I'm glad that we agree that Rigo can't make 118 now Stevie. I was the one that explained why this was by sharing the article with you that mentioned the doctor advising Rigo not to lose the weight.
> 
> Where we disagree is that you think Rigo could have made 118 "with ease" just a few months ago. You haven't provided proof for this. Your comparison with Jones doesn't work because in order to make sense you'd need to show that Roy could easily have lost about 5lbs a few months prior to moving up to fight Ruiz. If you can't do that then it's just an example of someone moving up and down in weight and has no relevance to what we're talking about. Even if the comparison worked it wouldn't be proof that Rigo could easily have made 118 but it would at least bolster your argument a bit. But the losing weight easily bit is critical to what we're discussing.
> 
> ...


"Now", meaning _after_ moving up to 130 to fight Nomastenko.

Yes, I do believe that Rigo could have made 118 with ease before moving up, demonstrated by the fact that he actually considered fighting in a 118 pound tournament _after coming back down_ from 130.

The comparison with Jones works because of the percentage of muscle mass lost. Roy Jones went up to 193 pounds of solid muscle, then lost 9.5% of that in getting back down to 175 and never recovered. Rigo moved up 6.5% to 128.4, putting on solid muscle. In getting down to 118 from there, Rigo would have had to lose roughly 9% of his body weight. *The percentages are the comparison*; it does not even matter what I think Rigo or Roy Jones could do, when we have objective proof that such move was potentially dangerous.

Guillermo Rigondeaux knew of the risk, and so consulted a doctor before moving down to a weight he apparently believed that he could make.

https://topclassboxing.co.uk/2017/05/16/rigondeaux-im-ready-for-anyone-at-118-122-and-126-pounds/

_"I'm ready for anyone at 118, 122 and 126 pounds. I do not have any problems, I can fight with anyone in those divisions. Of _course_ we are ready to fight with anyone, we'll fight with whoever they put in front of us,_

Guillermo Rigondeaux said this before moving up to fight Lomachenko at a weight he never even mentioned. Then, he is suddenly checking for medical opinions after coming back down, when he was gung-ho about fighting at 118 just before. _He knew that he was physically changed by his ascent in weight._

What you are doing is simply arguing peripheral points (original weight divisions, 2% differences, etc.) to avoid addressing the crux of the argument. It's an effective strategy for wasting time and bandwidth, but it does not fool anyone here.

... Or at least is shouldn't.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

:lol::lol:

This thread.......now arguing hard over weight division evolution.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

One to watch said:


> :lol::lol:
> 
> This thread.......now arguing hard over weight division evolution.


I've added a quote from Rigo in my last post. Check it out.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> "Now", meaning _after_ moving up to 130 to fight Nomastenko.
> 
> Yes, I do believe that Rigo could have made 118 with ease before moving up, demonstrated by the fact that he actually considered fighting in a 118 pound tournament _after coming back down_ from 130.
> 
> ...


Talking about moving down and even being _able_ to move down aren't the same things as being able to move down "easily" which is what you're claiming Rigo could do. There are many examples of people saying they'd move down and actually moving down and it not being easy. Can you back up your claim that Rigo could do it _easily _(which is what you said) and not just "struggle" to move down (which is what I said) l?

I'm not arguing peripheral points here. You were the one that brought up the traditional weight divisions for some reason on a weird tangent. What I said about weight divisions was that they're not seperated consistently or exponentially so you can't compare all 2 divisional gaps. This is the actual crux of the argument because you claimed Rigo moving from 122>130 was the same as moving from 147>160. Its not, it's approximately the same as moving from 147>155.5. When proved wrong you just dismissed the gap as not important. You talk about me avoiding things but you literally won't acknowledge this point I corrected you on.

You can continue moving the goalposts and ignoring these things if you want to but they're not peripheral. They're literally the main points I've been making. I'll ask you again. Is moving from 122>130 the same as moving from 147>160? And could Rigo "easily" get to 118 before the Loma fight. Not could he _physically_ do it, could he _easily_ do it? If you still believe these things please repeat them and back them up with something. If you won't repeat them then I'll assume you don't believe them but are just too afraid to admit you were wrong.

I'll not address your Jones point again. You're just repeating yourself. It's not a good comparison because we're talking about it being easy to lose weight _before_ moving up.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> Talking about moving down and even being _able_ to move down aren't the same things as being able to move down "easily" which is what you're claiming Rigo could do. There are many examples of people saying they'd move down and actually moving down and it not being easy. Can you back up your claim that Rigo could do it _easily _(which is what you said) and not just "struggle" to move down (which is what I said) l?
> 
> I'm not arguing peripheral points here. You were the one that brought up the traditional weight divisions for some reason on a weird tangent. What I said about weight divisions was that they're not seperated consistently or exponentially so you can't compare all 2 divisional gaps. This is the actual crux of the argument because you claimed Rigo moving from 122>130 was the same as moving from 147>160. Its not, it's approximately the same as moving from 147>155.5. When proved wrong you just dismissed the gap as not important. You talk about me avoiding things but you literally won't acknowledge this point I corrected you on.
> 
> ...


Rigo said, quote, that he would fight at 118 and *would have no problem* doing so. Are you calling him a liar?

Yes, moving from 122-130 is essentially the same as moving from 147-160, 2% difference notwithstanding. That is a peripheral argument, sir, and detracts from the main point that moving up 8 pounds for a superbantemweight is comparable to a welter moving up middle. That you think a 2% difference nullifies that perspective (while not commenting on the notion that Rigo moved up *three times* that percentage to face Lomastenko) is a reflection of your consistently poor form and desire to _selectively_ argue peripheral points.

I can understand why you don't want to address the Jones point, as it requires too much thinking for you. But I will simplify it further... Old fighters losing close to 10% of their body mass, pure muscle, =BAD.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Could someone sum up the debate for me. I'm a thicko.


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Could someone sum up the debate for me. I'm a thicko.


Its not worth it. Pretty low level stuff without any highlights.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Rigo said, quote, that he would fight at 118 and *would have no problem* doing so. Are you calling him a liar?


I'm certainly doubting what he says, yes, and I'm saying that he'd struggle to get down to 118 a few months ago based on a doctor telling him recently that it's not medically advisable to do so. Are you saying people haven't struggled to move down despite saying they could do it? Are you just basing your opinion that Rigo could have easily made 118 on him saying that?



steviebruno said:


> Yes, moving from 122-130 is essentially the same as moving from 147-160, 2% difference notwithstanding.
> 
> That is a peripheral argument, sir, and detracts from the main point that moving up 8 pounds for a superbantemweight is comparable to a welter moving up middle. That you think a 2% difference nullifies that perspective (while not commenting on the notion that Rigo moved up *three times* that percentage to face Lomastenko) is a reflection of your consistently poor form and desire to _selectively_ argue peripheral points.


So, if we ignore the difference then it's the same? It's demonstrably not the same. Rigo weighed in at 121.5 against Flores and 128.4 against Loma which is an increase of 5.6%. The "equivalent" of moving from 147>155.5. If you think those 4.5 pounds are negligible then I believe you would be the only person to hold that belief. Comparing Rigo moving up to fight Loma to moving from 147>160 is just incorrect.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> I'm certainly doubting what he says, yes, and I'm saying that he'd struggle to get down to 118 a few months ago based on a doctor telling him recently that it's not medically advisable to do so. Are you saying people haven't struggled to move down despite saying they could do it? Are you just basing your opinion that Rigo could have easily made 118 on him saying that?
> 
> So, if we ignore the difference then it's the same? It's demonstrably not the same. Rigo weighed in at 121.5 against Flores and 128.4 against Loma which is an increase of 5.6%. The "equivalent" of moving from 147>155.5. If you think those 4.5 pounds are negligible then I believe you would be the only person to hold that belief. Comparing Rigo moving up to fight Loma to moving from 147>160 is just incorrect.


... What if the welterweight weighed in at saaaay 156-157, which is essentially what Rigo did in coming in under the limit 130 limit? Are you still willing to tussle over that extra pound?

Nice try.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> ... What if the welterweight weighed in at saaaay 156-157, which is essentially what Rigo did in coming in under the limit 130 limit? Are you still willing to tussle over that extra pound?
> 
> Nice try.


Irrelevant. I'm talking just about your flaw in the maths. You've said the difference doesn't matter, I'm saying it does.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> Irrelevant. I'm talking just about your flaw in the maths. You've said the difference doesn't matter, I'm saying it does.


LOL. Gentleman's handshake time.


----------



## Kurushi (Jun 11, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> LOL. Gentleman's handshake time.


Ha. Fair enough. :cheers


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Kurushi said:


> Ha. Fair enough. :cheers


:cheers


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Well done lads.

Bravo


----------



## saul_ir34 (Jun 8, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> He was 37, fighting at 130, after years of refusing to fight at 126 and begging for a catchweight of 124. Make of it what you will, but, IMO, it was an unequivocal cashout. He didn't throw any meaningful punches, was as lethargic with his footwork as I have ever seen him, and QUIT at the first sign of adversity. An uber-talented fighter does more than what Loma does there. Pernell Whitaker beats the living hell out of that version of Rigo, whether he has the "intent" of getting hit or not.
> 
> Ol' 'he didn't want to get hit so Loma obliged him' apologists. What kind of excuse is that? Who wants to get hit if they don't have to?
> 
> ...


Good post man. I feel like people are desperate to see another Pac/Mayweather level talent emerge and they are trying to force it to be Loma. He is not it man. He struggles too much with ok fighters. He has had good match making but there is a reason Loma fought Rigo and Linares instead of Berchelt and Mikey.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

I knew their class would shine through. Two of my favourite posters on the General.

Although @Kurushi gotta be more objective when it comes to Loma.


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

saul_ir34 said:


> Good post man. I feel like people are desperate to see another Pac/Mayweather level talent emerge and they are trying to force it to be Loma. He is not it man. He struggles too much with ok fighters. He has had good match making but there is a reason Loma fought Rigo and Linares instead of Berchelt and Mikey.


Technically Loma is levels above Pacman. He doesn't hit as hard, but the idea that he struggles with "ok fighters" is just ludicrous. He was cheated against by Salido incessantly and Salido outweighed him by 2 divisions in Loma's first ever 12 round fight. He dared to do something that nobody has done before. If PBF or Pac had faced a world title holder in their second pro bout...they lose. Pac lost to Torrecampo and Sangsurat by early stoppage. Pac was dropped by Nedal Hussein and only got a TD draw with Agapito Sanchez even though Sanchez got 2 points deducted.

Linares is a class fighter. He's not elite level, but he is much more than okay and he's much, much bigger than Loma, oh...and we now know Loma fucked his shoulder in the second round. So he fought with a serious enough injury to need surgery for the bulk of the fight, still got the better of his opponent and stopped him. He has made every other opponent look utterly hapless. Mayweather lost his first bout to Castillo in many people's eyes, and even as the winner in most people's...he had a very tough fight. Castillo was quality, but he was no higher level than Linares. He got wiped out by Soto, stopped twice by Jauregui...

Loma has struggled solely with Salido who low blowed him more times than would usually be needed to be DQ'd. Despite that he would have won if he had paced the fight properly...but that is experience over 12 rounds, not ability. He simply didn't do enough until later, which is why he should have perhaps had one 12 round fight beforehand and then the title shot. Title shot in his 3rd bout instead, after a 12 round build up fight? He wins.

The guy is technically as good as basically any fighter that has lived. Not saying better than any...as good as. I honestly have no fucking clue how any boxing fan without bias can watch him and not see the level of talent on display.


----------



## superman1692 (Jun 3, 2013)

Strike said:


> Technically Loma is levels above Pacman. He doesn't hit as hard, but the idea that he struggles with "ok fighters" is just ludicrous. He was cheated against by Salido incessantly and Salido outweighed him by 2 divisions in Loma's first ever 12 round fight. He dared to do something that nobody has done before. If PBF or Pac had faced a world title holder in their second pro bout...they lose. Pac lost to Torrecampo and Sangsurat by early stoppage. Pac was dropped by Nedal Hussein and only got a TD draw with Agapito Sanchez even though Sanchez got 2 points deducted.
> 
> Linares is a class fighter. He's not elite level, but he is much more than okay and he's much, much bigger than Loma, oh...and we now know Loma fucked his shoulder in the second round. So he fought with a serious enough injury to need surgery for the bulk of the fight, still got the better of his opponent and stopped him. He has made every other opponent look utterly hapless. Mayweather lost his first bout to Castillo in many people's eyes, and even as the winner in most people's...he had a very tough fight. Castillo was quality, but he was no higher level than Linares. He got wiped out by Soto, stopped twice by Jauregui...
> 
> ...


The problem is Dealt_with has wound up so many people for years with his incessant Lomo nut-hugging that he's turned off lots of potential fans on here - not saying that that's an excuse for them to blatantly not give Lomo ANY credit (and this honestly seems to be an American thing), but I honestly believe that's what's happened here. I personally think Lomachenko is incredible, and the fact that he's breaking the mould and NOT choosing the path of least resistance so early in his career is very admirable. But no some people have nothing better to do, but post 2 second gifs of him making one mistake, while not applying the same standards to their own favourite fighters.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

superman1692 said:


> The problem is Dealt_with has wound up so many people for years with his incessant Lomo nut-hugging that he's turned off lots of potential fans on here - not saying that that's an excuse for them to blatantly not give Lomo ANY credit (and this honestly seems to be an American thing), but I honestly believe that's what's happened here. I personally think Lomachenko is incredible, and the fact that he's breaking the mould and NOT choosing the path of least resistance so early in his career is very admirable. But no some people have nothing better to do, but post 2 second gifs of him making one mistake, while not applying the same standards to their own favourite fighters.


If someone is willling to predicate their judgement on reactionary emotions triggered by a faceless poster on a boxing message board then they have greater problems than anything to do with boxing. They have some serious critical thinking and character defects. I don't believe that's the case, I think people have another bias and they're using a large-penised boxing prophet as a tool to validate their bias/hate.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Strike said:


> Technically Loma is levels above Pacman. He doesn't hit as hard, but the idea that he struggles with "ok fighters" is just ludicrous. He was cheated against by Salido incessantly and Salido outweighed him by 2 divisions in Loma's first ever 12 round fight. He dared to do something that nobody has done before. If PBF or Pac had faced a world title holder in their second pro bout...they lose. Pac lost to Torrecampo and Sangsurat by early stoppage. Pac was dropped by Nedal Hussein and only got a TD draw with Agapito Sanchez even though Sanchez got 2 points deducted.
> 
> Linares is a class fighter. He's not elite level, but he is much more than okay and he's much, much bigger than Loma, oh...and we now know Loma fucked his shoulder in the second round. So he fought with a serious enough injury to need surgery for the bulk of the fight, still got the better of his opponent and stopped him. He has made every other opponent look utterly hapless. Mayweather lost his first bout to Castillo in many people's eyes, and even as the winner in most people's...he had a very tough fight. Castillo was quality, but he was no higher level than Linares. He got wiped out by Soto, stopped twice by Jauregui...
> 
> ...


Well, he hasn't been in with anywhere near the competition that Pac faced, so I'm not sure how one can objectively place him "levels" above a top 20 fighter in the history of the sport.

I think that Pac finds a way to land more than 16% of his punches on an old Rigondeaux. I can think of many great technical fighters that can get through a fight with Linares without getting clipped in the process.

Against other great fighters capable of taking away some of his strengths and exploiting some of his weakneses, Loma, like anyone else who has ever fought, will not look as good. We just haven't seen it yet because of the limited oppositon available in his era, but he is not "levels" above Manny Pacquiao. That is a ludicrous statement, IMO. Boxing isn't about listing atrributes.


----------



## dyna (Jun 4, 2013)

Pacman only landed 24% of his punches on a weight drained Morales the first time.
Is it really that controversial to think that Pac may land less than 16% on a very negative Rigo?


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

dyna said:


> Pacman only landed 24% of his punches on a weight drained Morales the first time.
> Is it really that controversial to think that Pac may land less than 16% on a very negative Rigo?


Guillermo Rigondeaux, in his fight with Loma, was probably less negative than he had been against Donaire, when he still had his foot movement and was hyper reflexive. Againt Loma, he was in range the entire time, froze with every feint, and was never in position to counter. Literally all he did was duck down low and move his head around.

I have never seen anyone survive a prime Pac just standing in the middle of the storm. I think that Pac hurts a lethargic Rigondeaux bad. Real bad. Maybe he gets reckless in trying to finish him and his connection percentage drops a bit, maybe not. But it doesn't matter at that point.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

steviebruno said:


> Well, he hasn't been in with anywhere near the competition that Pac faced, so I'm not sure how one can objectively place him "levels" above a top 20 fighter in the history of the sport.
> 
> I think that Pac finds a way to land more than 16% of his punches on an old Rigondeaux. I can think of many great technical fighters that can get through a fight with Linares without getting clipped in the process.
> 
> Against other great fighters capable of taking away some of his strengths and exploiting some of his weakneses, Loma, like anyone else who has ever fought, will not look as good. We just haven't seen it yet because of the limited oppositon available in his era, but he is not "levels" above Manny Pacquiao. That is a ludicrous statement, IMO. Boxing isn't about listing atrributes.


Pacquiao would have fucking destroyed Rigo. It would have been a massacre.

FFS.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Poor Rigo, one day he's this impeccable boxing god, the next he's some run of the mill contender.

@Rigondeaux we need your nut hugging abilities to even this shit out.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

steviebruno said:


> Well, he hasn't been in with anywhere near the competition that Pac faced, so I'm not sure how one can objectively place him "levels" above a top 20 fighter in the history of the sport.
> 
> I think that Pac finds a way to land more than 16% of his punches on an old Rigondeaux. I can think of many great technical fighters that can get through a fight with Linares without getting clipped in the process.
> 
> Against other great fighters capable of taking away some of his strengths and exploiting some of his weakneses, Loma, like anyone else who has ever fought, will not look as good. We just haven't seen it yet because of the limited oppositon available in his era, but he is not "levels" above Manny Pacquiao. That is a ludicrous statement, IMO. Boxing isn't about listing atrributes.


Absolutely spot on.

But we saw glimpses against Linares, who is a B level operator.


----------



## emallini (Sep 2, 2014)

YES


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

steviebruno said:


> Well, he hasn't been in with anywhere near the competition that Pac faced, so I'm not sure how one can objectively place him "levels" above a top 20 fighter in the history of the sport.


By watching them both. In terms of footwork, both offensively and defensively, in terms of upper body movement, shot selection and judgement of distance...he is levels above. In terms of power...Pac is above, in terms of hand speed...it is very close, but Pac edges it. In terms of output...Pac edges it. Technically though...yeah it's Loma by a distance.


steviebruno said:


> I think that Pac finds a way to land more than 16% of his punches on an old Rigondeaux. I can think of many great technical fighters that can get through a fight with Linares without getting clipped in the process.
> 
> Against other great fighters capable of taking away some of his strengths and exploiting some of his weakneses, Loma, like anyone else who has ever fought, will not look as good. We just haven't seen it yet because of the limited oppositon available in his era, but he is not "levels" above Manny Pacquiao. That is a ludicrous statement, IMO. Boxing isn't about listing atrributes.


I don't think Loma deserves to be ranked ahead of Pac...as achievements and comp clearly matter. I think he is CLEARLY an ATG talent. Some talents are never realised to their full potential, and some are. It remains to be seen if Loma's is. Pac's was.

Rigo is a defensive master...landing 16% is not that surprising, and it was for only 6 rounds...when you would expect (as he always does) that he would then begin to turn the screw in the second half. Pac fought a defensive master in PBF...he landed 19% of his shots over the full 12, while being hit with 34% of PBF's shots. Rigo landed 8% of his shots on Loma.

I don't think Loma gets KO'd inside 4 rounds by Torrecampo and Sangsurat either.


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Absolutely spot on.
> 
> But we saw glimpses against Linares, who is a B level operator.


Yeah or maybe having torn a muscle in his shoulder in the second round and fighting someone much bigger than him had something to do with that. :lol: Stick to wanking off over Eubank Jr beating up pads.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Strike said:


> Yeah or maybe having torn a muscle in his shoulder in the second round and fighting someone much bigger than him had something to do with that. :lol: Stick to wanking off over Eubank Jr beating up pads.


Maybe.

Maybe boxing had something to do with it too.

Obviously you're inclined to suggest otherwise having said Lomachenko has the best footwork of all time (despite not knowing who Orlando Canizales was) and now going a step further and saying Loma is levels above Manny Pacquiao in terms of technical ability (Manny Pacquiao the top 30 ATG with wins over Marco Antonio Barrera, Juan Manuel Marquez, Erik Morales, Miguel Cotto etc).

But yeah, I guess to validate your point you could always bring up Manny Pacquiao's loss when he was an 18 year old.

Have you done that yet? (Just checked. You have)


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Strike said:


> By watching them both. In terms of footwork, both offensively and defensively, in terms of upper body movement, shot selection and judgement of distance...he is levels above. In terms of power...Pac is above, in terms of hand speed...it is very close, but Pac edges it. In terms of output...Pac edges it. Technically though...yeah it's Loma by a distance.
> 
> I don't think Loma deserves to be ranked ahead of Pac...as achievements and comp clearly matter. I think he is CLEARLY an ATG talent. Some talents are never realised to their full potential, and some are. It remains to be seen if Loma's is. Pac's was.
> 
> ...


Who has Lomachenko tested these abilities against? Quality of opposition isn't just for building resumes, it's also for seeing how one adjusts when having some of their best attributes marginalized, while dealing with the attributes of others.

Who is Loma's JMM? His Barrera? His EM? Cotto? Hell, who is his Tim Bradley?

You are viewing it like a trading cards game and that is just plain wrong.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Truth bombs by Stevie.


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Maybe.
> 
> Maybe boxing had something to do with it too.
> 
> ...


Yawn. Only I didn't ever say I didn't know who Canizales was did I? And I said nobody in history has better footwork than Lomachenko...and they don't.* I don't judge Pac on his losses as an 18 year old, but you could do if you have an agenda...like ignoring how fighting in a 12 round fight for the first time ever at world title level against a much bigger opponent who cheats throughout is hardly a reflection of whether someone "struggles with ok fighters".

What does who Manny beat have to do with his technical ability? Nothing. Marciano beat Jersey Joe and Ezzard Charles...he wasn't technically better than either of them. No writing on Greb suggests he was better technically than Tunney...yet he beat him. Of course Manny's record is better than Loma's...it doesn't mean he is technically better does it?

*From everyone I have seen. Happy to learn otherwise by someone like @Fleaman or another showing me footage of a fighter from the past that I have not seen properly who is superior with footwork to Lomachenko.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Stevie’s obsessed with the Rigo performance for some reason.

He mentions it in nearly every post.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

One to watch said:


> Stevie's obsessed with the Rigo performance for some reason.
> 
> He mentions it in nearly every post.


In my defense, he only has 13 fights to chose from.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

steviebruno said:


> In my defense, he only has 13 fights to chose from.


:lol: Nice.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> In my defense, he only has 13 fights to chose from.


True.

But why not talk about Walters or Martinez or Russel Jnr.

Why always concentrate on perceived negatives v Linares,Rigo and Salido.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

Strike said:


> Yawn. Only I didn't ever say I didn't know who Canizales was did I? And I said nobody in history has better footwork than Lomachenko...and they don't.* I don't judge Pac on his losses as an 18 year old, but you could do if you have an agenda...like ignoring how fighting in a 12 round fight for the first time ever at world title level against a much bigger opponent who cheats throughout is hardly a reflection of whether someone "struggles with ok fighters".
> 
> What does who Manny beat have to do with his technical ability? Nothing. Marciano beat Jersey Joe and Ezzard Charles...he wasn't technically better than either of them. No writing on Greb suggests he was better technically than Tunney...yet he beat him. Of course Manny's record is better than Loma's...it doesn't mean he is technically better does it?
> 
> *From everyone I have seen. Happy to learn otherwise by someone like @Fleaman or another showing me footage of a fighter from the past that I have not seen properly who is superior with footwork to Lomachenko.


You won't find one. I've seen more and know more than @Pedderrs


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

One to watch said:


> True.
> 
> But why not talk about Walters or Martinez or Russel Jnr.
> 
> Why always concentrate on perceived negatives v Linares,Rigo and Salido.


It is simply a response to the hyperbole thrown his way. If I am going to read about how he is levels above ATG fighters who have done and proven more, and how he would shut out Mayweather and all other types of garbage, I will point to instances in which such otherworldly attributes were not on display.

Vasyl Lomachenko might be everything you say he is, but I will wait to crown him. I just don't understand the rush, given the level of opposition that he has currently faced.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Sweet Pea said:


> You won't find one. I've seen more and know more than @Pedderrs


With respect, you're somewhat of a shot item in 2018 my dude.

And this pains me to say, because I've always held you in high esteem. You were one on the GOATs in the classic over at ESB.

Nobody can ever take that away from you, but your performances of late in regards to Lomachenko suggests to me you are no longer a rational thinker.

Lomachenko might be the most skilled fighter of all time, which is how you described him, but he'll have to do better than beating Jorge Linares in a tough competitive fight to prove it.

My position: Lomachenko is a solid fighter, he may be an all time great one, but I will wait for him to prove it until hailing him as such.


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

steviebruno said:


> It is simply a response to the hyperbole thrown his way. If I am going to read about how he is levels above ATG fighters who have done and proven more


You're creating a strawman here Stevie. I never said he was levels above Manny did I? I said he was levels above him technically. Vernon Forrest was levels above Mayorga technically, but lost to him twice. Cory Spinks only managed to win an MD over Mayorga but was also miles ahead of him technically. I am not saying that Loma should be rated as a fighter "levels above" Manny, I am saying that technically he is. 
In terms of footwork...it is mind blowing to actually see anyone suggest that it's close. If I had to pick one stand out weakness in Manny it would be his straight line footwork both offensively and defensively.


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> My position: Lomachenko is a solid fighter, he may be an all time great one, but I will wait for him to prove it until hailing him as such.


I think you're argument of saying he should not be hailed as this astonishing ATG is fine. But to have the position, that a guy who is a two time World and Olympic gold medalist with a 396-1 record, and who has won 3 world titles at 3 weights inside 13 pro bouts, is a "solid fighter" just shows total bias.

I know you know your history and you've been keen on watching old fights for years and years, but you let bias cloud your judgement whether in regards to fighters you like or fighters who bug you due to their fans. At least be fair...how can you still be talking about a tough fight with Linares as a negative, when you know for a fact he got a serious injury in the second round and still won in style, while still showing excellent skills against a much bigger man who is also offensively very good?


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Strike said:


> You're creating a strawman here Stevie. I never said he was levels above Manny did I? I said he was levels above him technically. Vernon Forrest was levels above Mayorga technically, but lost to him twice. Cory Spinks only managed to win an MD over Mayorga but was also miles ahead of him technically. I am not saying that Loma should be rated as a fighter "levels above" Manny, I am saying that technically he is.
> In terms of footwork...it is mind blowing to actually see anyone suggest that it's close. If I had to pick one stand out weakness in Manny it would be his straight line footwork both offensively and defensively.


I think that Manny is underrated technically, struggling only with his footwork from time to time. His straight left was pretty much perfect. He was very adept at slipping and countering, and not all that easy to hit flush. His right hook was a brilliant shot, and one that he had to technically master; he started out as a one-handed fighter.

At his best, Manny wasn't a straight line fighter. Even with his poor footwork, he possessed a natural footspeed and could turn his opponents around just as effectively as Lomachenko.

... And he tested his skills against much better fighters, so that we were able to see that there were actual layers to those skills. You are Probably selling Manny a bit short here; power and fast hands alone never got anyone else to top 20 P4P.

... Is Mayorga even a worthwhile comparison, or are we comparing ATG fighters here?

... Linares wasn't as good as JLC. Nope.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Strike said:


> I think you're argument of saying he should not be hailed as this astonishing ATG is fine. But to have the position, that a guy who is a two time World and Olympic gold medalist with a 396-1 record, and who has won 3 world titles at 3 weights inside 13 pro bouts, is a "solid fighter" just shows total bias.


:rolleyes Well...I may be saying 'solid fighter' just to wind some people up admittedly.



> I know you know your history and you've been keen on watching old fights for years and years, but you let bias cloud your judgement whether in regards to fighters you like or fighters who bug you due to their fans. At least be fair...how can you still be talking about a tough fight with Linares as a negative, when you know for a fact he got a serious injury in the second round and still won in style, while still showing excellent skills against a much bigger man who is also offensively very good?


I've honestly never rated Linares very highly, Strike. You aren't wrong when you suggest I harbour some resentment towards Lomachenko as a result of his overzealous fan base and the fact he clowns over matched opposition, but that has nothing to do with my position on Linares. The easiest way to prove this is to look back at post history and see how I reacted when there was talks of Mikey Garcia fighting him. I felt it was a pointless fight. Linares would lose to Garcia 100 times out of 100 because he simply does not possess the intangibles to withstand Garcia's punches. We have seen this countless times throughout his career. I don't think Lomachenko beating him is a big deal, and I wouldn't have afforded Garcia any more credit if it had been him with a win over Linares either. You can argue with me on this point, but it has nothing to do with my feelings on Lomachenko.

As for Lomachenko, I echo Stevie's sentiment. He may be as good as you guys think he is, but a fighter has to prove it in the ring. Looking spectacular against this level of competition really isn't that uncommon. And I exclude Linares from that because I didn't think he looked spectacular. It was a good performance and he deserves credit for not yielding under heavy artillery, some of which legitimately hurt him, but it's still only Jorge Linares. Lomachenko has a phenomenal record for someone with so few fights but it's still completely disproportionate to the hyperbole often heard around here and in the media.

And about the record, it's disingenuous to compare it to greater fighters like Floyd Mayweather Jr and Manny Pacquiao's first 11-12 fights. Manny Pacquiao turned professional at 17 years of age and was fighting upwards to 10 times a year against the dregs of his society in absolute shit holes. Floyd Mayweather turned professional at age 18 and within 2 years was a legitimate world champion. Neither of them had 400 amateur fights or 6 WBS fights under their belt prior to turning professional like Lomachenko, a 30 year old whose best win is Jorge Linares. None of them had easy rises in the pro ranks. Not by any stretch of the imagination, and the circumstances are so different I don't think a comparison is warranted at all. And yet this has often been used as a way to discredit fighters that came before him, most of which didn't have anywhere near the same level of pedigree as amateurs and who typically turned professional before their 20s.

Yo, Loma is great. He might beat Mikey. But I'll have to see him walk on water first before I fall in line.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

I've proof read it a couple of times now. I think it's fair.


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

steviebruno said:


> I think that Manny is underrated technically, struggling only with his footwork from time to time. His straight left was pretty much perfect. He was very adept at slipping and countering, and not all that easy to hit flush. His right hook was a brilliant shot, and one that he had to technically master; he started out as a one-handed fighter.
> 
> At his best, Manny wasn't a straight line fighter. Even with his poor footwork, he possessed a natural footspeed and could turn his opponents around just as effectively as Lomachenko.
> 
> ...


Well you've made my argument for me really...nobody is saying Manny was technically poor, just that he had technical limitations. That's why even at the height of his threshing machine reign of terror I said PBF beats him wide on points...there was just no way that his footwork was going to keep him in the range enough to unload his 10 million shots a second. And if you do back PBF up...he's just too good at slipping and rolling unless you come around the side enough to stop him just letting the punches slide off.

Manny threw beautiful, fast, straight shots with venom. He wasn't brilliant inside, and he looked limited at times with his footwork, but was quick enough and relentless enough to make it not too much of an issue in most fights. I'm not selling him short, he had good technique in most areas, and he had other assets that made him brilliant, but technically...all facets considered...no he's not on Loma's level. The eye test does work, for sure you have to see it against top tier fighters, but you can look at someone even with an overmatched opponent and see phenomenal skills.

For me, the much dismissed Rigo fight is a great example. The main issue was Loma being too big and too strong, so if he had stood in the pocket and bullied Rigo...the win would not mean much to me. He didn't...he made the master trap setter miss, set his traps and then swing at air as they were sprung. He fought the fight that Rigo would have wanted, mainly from the mid range, physical advantages not really in play...and he made him look clueless at times.

GRJ has faster hands than anyone in the 3 divisions that Loma has fought at...he's a world class talent with outrageous natural athleticism, who was in his 25th bout when Loma fought him in his third. Loma won and made him miss too, while landing clean counters and leads, despite being in only his second 12 rounder and not as well versed in the pro game as he is now.

I used Mayorga as an example of someone with lesser skills beating a better boxer. It was used purely to illustrate that when I say Loma is technically better than Pacman, it does not equate to me saying Loma is better full stop than Pac and should be ranked above him.


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> :rolleyes Well...I may be saying 'solid fighter' just to wind some people up admittedly.


Yeah, but why? I don't get this. I will be honest with you...you're a very knowledgeable poster and I am more than happy to admit that if we stacked up our respective historical boxing knowledge and who had watched the most fights...you'd win. I used to order old fights on VHS and sat through hours of stuff, but that ended in about 2008 and I lost some interest in personal boxing education around that time and although I still loved the sport, I drifted away from talking about it etc. But that changed again about 3 years ago, and I am very confident in my ability to judge a fighter's ability, to understand the nuances of the sport and to be impartial.

I will never get the value in just trolling, and think it then devalues valuable contributions as it's never 100% clear where the line is between honest appraisal and inflammatory dig.



Pedderrs said:


> I've honestly never rated Linares very highly, Strike. You aren't wrong when you suggest I harbour some resentment towards Lomachenko as a result of his overzealous fan base and the fact he clowns over matched opposition, but that has nothing to do with my position on Linares. The easiest way to prove this is to look back at post history and see how I reacted when there was talks of Mikey Garcia fighting him. I felt it was a pointless fight. Linares would lose to Garcia 100 times out of 100 because he simply does not possess the intangibles to withstand Garcia's punches. We have seen this countless times throughout his career. I don't think Lomachenko beating him is a big deal, and I wouldn't have afforded Garcia any more credit if it had been him with a win over Linares either. You can argue with me on this point, but it has nothing to do with my feelings on Lomachenko.


Fair enough, I think Garcia KOs Linares too, but only due to Linares not having a stellar chin. Technically...the two are pretty evenly matched, but Linares as faster hands and mixes his attacks up more. Beating Linares with a fucked shoulder? Yeah that's impressive.


Pedderrs said:


> As for Lomachenko, I echo Stevie's sentiment. He may be as good as you guys think he is, but a fighter has to prove it in the ring. Looking spectacular against this level of competition really isn't that uncommon. And I exclude Linares from that because I didn't think he looked spectacular. It was a good performance and he deserves credit for not yielding under heavy artillery, some of which legitimately hurt him, but it's still only Jorge Linares. Lomachenko has a phenomenal record for someone with so few fights but it's still completely disproportionate to the hyperbole often heard around here and in the media.


He did it with a torn shoulder muscle. Yeah...that's special.


Pedderrs said:


> And about the record, it's disingenuous to compare it to greater fighters like Floyd Mayweather Jr and Manny Pacquiao's first 11-12 fights. Manny Pacquiao turned professional at 17 years of age and was fighting upwards to 10 times a year against the dregs of his society in absolute shit holes. Floyd Mayweather turned professional at age 18 and within 2 years was a legitimate world champion. Neither of them had 400 amateur fights or 6 WBS fights under their belt prior to turning professional like Lomachenko, a 30 year old whose best win is Jorge Linares. None of them had easy rises in the pro ranks. Not by any stretch of the imagination, and the circumstances are so different I don't think a comparison is warranted at all. And yet this has often been used as a way to discredit fighters that came before him, most of which didn't have anywhere near the same level of pedigree as amateurs and who typically turned professional before their 20s.
> 
> Yo, Loma is great. He might beat Mikey. But I'll have to see him walk on water first before I fall in line.


Why is Linares his best win? Why not GRJ? Rigo as a win is way better than you lot make it out to be, due to the manner of the victory. Not strength and power coming into play...pure movement, distance judgement and technique won it.

As for PBF and Manny...they both rank higher overall than Loma...of course they do. But Manny's early losses count, if you're going to happily count Loma being cheated against by Salido in his first ever 12 round fight as evidence of him struggling. Yeah he had issues with a guy two weight classes above him who low blowed incessantly in a bout that was more than twice as long as he had ever fought. Well...Manny had issues as a young guy without much experience in fights where he got KO'd. If Manny had turned over later...almost certainly doesn't lose those fights. If Loma had had one or two 12 round bouts before Salido...he would clearly have paced it better and won. In fact...even if he hadn't...had the referee actually done his job, Loma would have won anyway.

So it's about being consistent.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> With respect, you're somewhat of a shot item in 2018 my dude.
> 
> And this pains me to say, because I've always held you in high esteem. You were one on the GOATs in the classic over at ESB.
> 
> Nobody can ever take that away from you, but your performances of late in regards to Lomachenko suggests to me you are no longer a rational thinker.


Most of that is true, but you are literally putting words in my mouth 90% of the time when it comes to Loma, so your perception of my rationality when it comes to him might be a little irrational.


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

@Sweet Pea please edit you above post with the necessary [/ to ensure it can be read properly.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Strike said:


> Yeah, but why? I don't get this. I will be honest with you...you're a very knowledgeable poster and I am more than happy to admit that if we stacked up our respective historical boxing knowledge and who had watched the most fights...you'd win. I used to order old fights on VHS and sat through hours of stuff, but that ended in about 2008 and I lost some interest in personal boxing education around that time and although I still loved the sport, I drifted away from talking about it etc. But that changed again about 3 years ago, and I am very confident in my ability to judge a fighter's ability, to understand the nuances of the sport and to be impartial.
> 
> I will never get the value in just trolling, and think it then devalues valuable contributions as it's never 100% clear where the line is between honest appraisal and inflammatory dig.


You're right.

I need to reevaluate my choices.



> Fair enough, I think Garcia KOs Linares too, but only due to Linares not having a stellar chin. Technically...the two are pretty evenly matched, but Linares as faster hands and mixes his attacks up more. Beating Linares with a fucked shoulder? Yeah that's impressive.


Yeah maybe, wouldn't have mattered against Garcia. It would have looked like man vs boy after 3 rounds.

I don't care to talk about the injury. It wasn't evident at the time to anyone and it's almost impossible to quantify how much of a factor it was.



> He did it with a torn shoulder muscle. Yeah...that's special.


See above.



> Why is Linares his best win? Why not GRJ? Rigo as a win is way better than you lot make it out to be, due to the manner of the victory. Not strength and power coming into play...pure movement, distance judgement and technique won it.


Linares is more accomplished than GRJ, but if you wanna take GRJ then it doesn't change the complexion of my point in the slightest.

Did you see GRJ's last fight?



> 'As for PBF and Manny...they both rank higher overall than Loma...of course they do. But Manny's early losses count, if you're going to happily count Loma being cheated against by Salido in his first ever 12 round fight as evidence of him struggling. Yeah he had issues with a guy two weight classes above him who low blowed incessantly in a bout that was more than twice as long as he had ever fought. Well...Manny had issues as a young guy without much experience in fights where he got KO'd. If Manny had turned over later...almost certainly doesn't lose those fights. If Loma had had one or two 12 round bouts before Salido...he would clearly have paced it better and won. In fact...even if he hadn't...had the referee actually done his job, Loma would have won anyway.
> 
> So it's about being consistent.


Nobody seriously holds the Salido fight against him. But it did happen. And Lomachenko was far closer to realising his fullest potential at 24-25 years of age in his second professional fight (after 400 amateur fights and 6 WBS fights) than Pacquiao was losing as an 18 year old. So the two aren't fully comparable really.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Sweet Pea said:


> Most of that is true, but you are literally putting words in my mouth 90% of the time when it comes to Loma, so your perception of my rationality when it comes to him might be a little irrational.


Clarify your position for me so this doesn't happen again, my brother.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Hey yo, Strike paid me a compliment back there.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Clarify your position for me so this doesn't happen again, my brother.


You continuously state that I've called him the best or most skilled fighter of all time. You even tag me in those posts, often times when I'm not even posting in that thread. I assumed you were just trying to rile me up half the time so I paid it no mind or laughed it off.

If that isn't the case, your mental faculties are the ones that come into question, not mine.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Sweet Pea said:


> You continuously state that I've called him the best or most skilled fighter of all time. You even tag me in those posts, often times when I'm not even posting in that thread. I assumed you were just trying to rile me up half the time so I paid it no mind or laughed it off.
> 
> If that isn't the case, your mental faculties are the ones that come into question, not mine.


You mean you didn't say he's the best fighter of all time?


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I don't care to talk about the injury. It wasn't evident at the time to anyone and it's almost impossible to quantify how much of a factor it was.
> 
> See above.


That was a reasonable post bar this. It is absolutely laughable to say we don't know if tearing a shoulder muscle in the second round of a boxing match was much of a factor.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Strike said:


> That was a reasonable post bar this. It is absolutely laughable to say we don't know if tearing a shoulder muscle in the second round of a boxing match was much of a factor.


It's a good job that's not what I said then isn't it?

I said, I see no point in us talking at length about the injury because it's impossible to quantify how much of a factor it was. I wasn't questioning it being a factor, but if you want me to sit here and say Linares was only able to be competitive because of the injury then you are going to be very disappointed.

Incidentally I don't remember anyone flagging up a problem with Lomachenko on the night, during or after. I don't remember any injury being evident in the way he was moving or fighting. This isn't to suggest he's lying because I know he's had work on it, so he was obviously hurt, but what do you want me to do? Say the fight would have been easy had he not been injured? The first round looked very competitive from what I remember.



Strike said:


> Linares is a class fighter. He's not elite level, but he is much more than okay and he's much, much bigger than Loma, oh...and we now know Loma fucked his shoulder in the second round. So he fought with a serious enough injury to need surgery for the bulk of the fight, still got the better of his opponent and stopped him. He has made every other opponent look utterly hapless. Mayweather lost his first bout to Castillo in many people's eyes, and even as the winner in most people's...he had a very tough fight.
> .


You not gonna acknowledge the injury to Floyd's shoulder?






Floyd telling us he hurt his shoulder after the fight.






After the first round, which Floyd won handily, he was asked if he was okay by Roger and Floyd responded 'Yeah I'm okay. just massage it'.

Also, how did YOU score the fight?


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> You mean you didn't say he's the best fighter of all time?


Not that I can ever recall. As I said, I've made many a drunken post, but I've never said anything of the sort in any sort of prolonged debate or stood by any such assessment.

I only say that much because I'm assuming you have some hammered post of mine bookmarked for your response?


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> It's a good job that's not what I said then isn't it?


Yeah you did. You said we don't know how much of a factor it was, and I said it's laughable to say we don't know if tearing a muscle was much of a factor. We do. We can look at every single sportsman who has ever torn a muscle and seen if it affected their performance or on an anecdotal level apply personal experience of tearing a muscle or ligament.

More significantly, we can look at it solely on a medical level. Find me a doctor who says that tearing a muscle does not affect the performance of said muscle significantly and cool...the only tears that constitute not being seriously problematic are the micro-wears produced by weight lifting that don't even show up on scans. Genuine tears that require surgery are often career ending, and if not...yeah they hamper muscle performance. 


Pedderrs said:


> Incidentally I don't remember anyone flagging up a problem with Lomachenko on the night, during or after. I don't remember any injury being evident in the way he was moving or fighting. This isn't to suggest he's lying because I know he's had work on it, so he was obviously hurt, but what do you want me to do?


I want you to just side with reason and evidence. The man has undergone surgery due to a proven muscle tear....I can't remember what sports you've played, but at a guess...like any Brit lad you've played footy and turned an ankle at some point...how was it to play after that? And that was without a tear? This is just common sense and objectivity. 


Pedderrs said:


> Say the fight would have been easy had he not been injured? The first round looked very competitive from what I remember.


As do most of Loma's 1st rounds. He feels people out. In fact, bar super aggressive fighters this is often the way. Even very aggressive fighters like Hamed often felt out the 1st round. My prediction was that Loma lost the first round or tied it and then moved on. He spends most first rounds testing the waters. Fuck it...even if he didn't...more fighters than I can count have done that. You watch a ton of old fights...you know plenty of ATG fighters...you know that plenty use the 1st as a feeler.



Pedderrs said:


> You not gonna acknowledge the injury to Floyd's shoulder?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:lol:

Did Floyd have surgery on a muscle tear? Nope. Do I have my scorecard to hand? Of course not. Even fights where I sit and score them round by round, I do so for the boards and myself. Once the fight is over, I look at my card and then if it's a fight I am discussing online I post it, and then I bin it. If you keep all your cards for every fight then fair play mate...I don't. I am happy to rewatch a fight (provided it's not something like Fury vs Wlad or Parker vs Hughie) and score it again.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Strike said:


> Yeah you did. You said we don't know how much of a factor it was, and I said it's laughable to say we don't know if tearing a muscle was much of a factor. We do. We can look at every single sportsman who has ever torn a muscle and seen if it affected their performance or on an anecdotal level apply personal experience of tearing a muscle or ligament.


Looking back at the footage, there is seemingly no visible signs during the action that anything was wrong with Lomachenko. He was throwing with intent with both hands from first round to last. That is why I say it is difficult to measure just how much of a factor the injury was, because there was no visible signs of it affecting Lomachenko at all. At least not without really analysing it. Nobody, and I mean nobody, said anything about an injury as the fight was taking place.



> I want you to just side with reason and evidence. The man has undergone surgery due to a proven muscle tear....I can't remember what sports you've played, but at a guess...like any Brit lad you've played footy and turned an ankle at some point...how was it to play after that? And that was without a tear? This is just common sense and objectivity.


I'm not denying Lomachenko was injured, I'm simply saying it's impossible to know how the fight would have gone if it didn't occur. The footage doesn't seem to show Lomachenko being seriously hindered by anything other than Linares punches. If you can show me otherwise then I'd be happy to review the footage. You obviously think that was the only reason Linares was allowed to be competitive. That's fine. I'm not convinced for the reasons mentioned.



> As do most of Loma's 1st rounds. He feels people out. In fact, bar super aggressive fighters this is often the way. Even very aggressive fighters like Hamed often felt out the 1st round. My prediction was that Loma lost the first round or tied it and then moved on. He spends most first rounds testing the waters. Fuck it...even if he didn't...more fighters than I can count have done that. You watch a ton of old fights...you know plenty of ATG fighters...you know that plenty use the 1st as a feeler.


Fair point.



> Did Floyd have surgery on a muscle tear? Nope. Do I have my scorecard to hand? Of course not. Even fights where I sit and score them round by round, I do so for the boards and myself. Once the fight is over, I look at my card and then if it's a fight I am discussing online I post it, and then I bin it. If you keep all your cards for every fight then fair play mate...I don't. I am happy to rewatch a fight (provided it's not something like Fury vs Wlad or Parker vs Hughie) and score it again.


In the interest of consistency, I thought you might have mentioned Floyd's injury when referencing his first fight with Castillo. If it has to be a muscle tear to warrant a mention then I apologise, I'm still learning.

You don't remember who you had winning the fight? I find that hard to believe.


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I'm not denying Lomachenko was injured, I'm simply saying it's impossible to know how the fight would have gone if it didn't occur. The footage doesn't seem to show Lomachenko being seriously hindered by anything other than Linares punches. If you can show me otherwise then I'd be happy to review the footage. You obviously think that was the only reason Linares was allowed to be competitive. That's fine. I'm not convinced for the reasons mentioned.


Okay...but no...I didn't even imply that was the only reason Linares was competitive. I said it is ludicrous to dismiss a major injury. When Salah got injured the other week, he carried on for a while...there was no visible change to how he moved but then he had to leave due to the injury. Linares was a lot bigger than Loma...more than I expected and yes he is fast and offensively excellent...I think Loma's reach will be an issue for him in terms of ever moving up further.

I also accepted after the bout that I thought the Garcia fight was closer now as I did not expect Loma to have any issues really bar the first 2 rounds. But the injury changes that for me...and he still got tagged with a shot that I don't think has anything to do with the injury...and were Garcia to land that shot...yeah it hurts him much more.



Pedderrs said:


> In the interest of consistency, I thought you might have mentioned Floyd's injury when referencing his first fight with Castillo. If it has to be a muscle tear to warrant a mention then I apologise, I'm still learning.
> 
> You don't remember who you had winning the fight? I find that hard to believe.


You know what...hands up...memory can fuck you over, and I forgot about the injury issue with that fight, but there is not a thing on record that says it was akin to Loma's injury...but...fuck it...let's say it was the same...cool that supports the main point. Injuries matter. I didn't say I didn't remember who I had winning, I said I didn't remember my score card. I had PBF edging it, but I would need to sit down and rewatch it to score it.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Strike said:


> Yeah, but why? I don't get this. I will be honest with you...you're a very knowledgeable poster and I am more than happy to admit that if we stacked up our respective historical boxing knowledge and who had watched the most fights...you'd win. I used to order old fights on VHS and sat through hours of stuff, but that ended in about 2008 and I lost some interest in personal boxing education around that time and although I still loved the sport, I drifted away from talking about it etc. But that changed again about 3 years ago, and I am very confident in my ability to judge a fighter's ability, to understand the nuances of the sport and to be impartial.
> 
> I will never get the value in just trolling, and think it then devalues valuable contributions as it's never 100% clear where the line is between honest appraisal and inflammatory dig.
> 
> ...


Fantastic post that.

Why blur the lines between trolling and serious discussion when debating?


----------



## superman1692 (Jun 3, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Truth bombs by Stevie.


Didn't Stevie admit he thought the moon landings were faked? Yea I can't take this guy seriously ever again.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

superman1692 said:


> Didn't Stevie admit he thought the moon landings were faked? Yea I can't take this guy seriously ever again.


Yes he did.

But he believes everything said in the bible is true.Evolution is a myth and dinosaurs didn't excist.

Good company there Pedderrs.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

And @Pedderrs calls me irrational.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

superman1692 said:


> Didn't Stevie admit he thought the moon landings were faked? Yea I can't take this guy seriously ever again.


The thing is, I don't really know who you are. I question why your opinion of me even matters, and also what this has to do with a discussion regarding Vasyl Lomachenko.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

One to watch said:


> Yes he did.
> 
> *But he believes everything said in the bible is true*.Evolution is a myth and dinosaurs didn't excist.
> 
> Good company there Pedderrs.


And yet I still know more about boxing than you, apparently. That's probably a bit of an embarrassment on your part. Surely an atheist should know more about boxing relsted topics, no?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Strike said:


> Okay...but no...I didn't even imply that was the only reason Linares was competitive. I said it is ludicrous to dismiss a major injury. When Salah got injured the other week, he carried on for a while...there was no visible change to how he moved but then he had to leave due to the injury. Linares was a lot bigger than Loma...more than I expected and yes he is fast and offensively excellent...I think Loma's reach will be an issue for him in terms of ever moving up further.


I wasn't dismissing a major injury. I apologise if my wording suggested I was.

Do you not think this is a contentious one? Loma's injury ended up being serious enough to warrant surgery, but during the fight there was seemingly nothing at all in his movement that would suggest he was injured? The Salah example doesn't actually strengthen your position because he actually had to stop playing altogether. It was the most important game of his career, the biggest game in European football, and he still left the field. Lomachenko carried on fighting till the end and showed no visible signs of being seriously hindered at any stage. So it's a difficult one to get a grasp on, that's all I was saying.



> I also accepted after the bout that I thought the Garcia fight was closer now as I did not expect Loma to have any issues really bar the first 2 rounds. But the injury changes that for me...and he still got tagged with a shot that I don't think has anything to do with the injury...and were Garcia to land that shot...yeah it hurts him much more.


Fair.



> You know what...hands up...memory can fuck you over, and I forgot about the injury issue with that fight, but there is not a thing on record that says it was akin to Loma's injury...but...fuck it...let's say it was the same...cool that supports the main point. Injuries matter. I didn't say I didn't remember who I had winning, I said I didn't remember my score card. I had PBF edging it, but I would need to sit down and rewatch it to score it.


I wasn't trying to draw comparisons between the two injuries, but if you're going to bring up Floyd's struggle with a world class operator in Jose Luis Castillo then in the interest of consistency I might have expected you to mention that he was injured in some capacity. And they ran it back, and in the rematch he won more convincingly. If you didn't remember he had the injury then that's fair enough, now you do remember.

And what does Stevie's thoughts on the bible have to do with opinions on boxing matters? Poor form from those bringing that up here.


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

- Indestructible, bitches.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Sweet Pea said:


> Most of that is true, but you are literally putting words in my mouth 90% of the time when it comes to Loma, so your perception of my rationality when it comes to him might be a little irrational.


If you are saying that Loma would beat Barrera, JMM or Morales then you're not being rational.. Sorry but where is the evidence for any of that? Saying that at this point makes no sense. Loma could be packing glass for all we know


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

tommygun711 said:


> If you are saying that Loma would beat Barrera, JMM or Morales then you're not being rational.. Sorry but where is the evidence for any of that? Saying that at this point makes no sense. Loma could be packing glass for all we know


Bro, did you not see how badly he beat...GRJ?


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Bro, did you not see how badly he beat...GRJ?


And Linares is just as good as JLC, so we have that to go on, too.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

steviebruno said:


> And Linares is just as good as JLC, so we have that to go on, too.


Yeah, I read that too.

Although personally I am taking Stevie Johnston, Joel Casamayor and Diego Corrales over Kevin Mitchell, Rocky Juarez and Oscar Larios, but that's just me.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Yeah, I read that too.
> 
> Although personally I am taking Stevie Johnston, Joel Casamayor and Diego Corrales over Kevin Mitchell, Rocky Juarez and Oscar Larios, but that's just me.


Some people say he also beat the great Floyd Mayweather...

But Linares has fast hands and throws nice combinations. That's how the trading cards game works.


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> I wasn't trying to draw comparisons between the two injuries, but if you're going to bring up Floyd's struggle with a world class operator in Jose Luis Castillo then in the interest of consistency I might have expected you to mention that he was injured in some capacity.


Why is Castillo rated as world class but Linares not? Before Castillo fought PBF he had one world class win...Stevie Johnston, and one very good win over Paez. He had also been KO'd in 2 by Cesar Soto. He had been stopped twice by the gatekeeper Jauregui for the Mexican national title and he had been stopped by Mexican domestic level Julio Alvarez (on a cut late but still).

Linares also had two KO losses and one stoppage loss late due to a cut. But all three were in world title fights, nothing like a loss to Alvarez or even Jauregui. Castillo did go on to have some quality wins, obviously Casamayor, Corrales and then lesser than those but good..Lazcano and Diaz. But it's comparable to Linares.

I rate Castillo above Linares, and he was a lot less vulnerable, but he was also less proven when he got his Mayweather shot than Linares was against Loma, and Castillo had none of the physical advantages that Linares had over Loma.

Castillo is a better win than Linares. But Loma ended Linares more convincingly than PBF beat Castillo in their first fight and Linares had a big size advantage than Castillo never had over Floyd.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Strike said:


> Why is Castillo rated as world class but Linares not? p


I think Jorge Linares is world class? He's Lomachenko's best win.



> Before Castillo fought PBF he had one world class win...Stevie Johnston, and one very good win over Paez. He had also been KO'd in 2 by Cesar Soto. He had been stopped twice by the gatekeeper Jauregui for the Mexican national title and he had been stopped by Mexican domestic level Julio Alvarez (on a cut late but still).


So with the help of Boxrec we can see that Castillo was a late bloomer. But what purpose does isolating his career before and after Floyd Mayweather Jr serve? I don't see it serving any purpose unless you're making the point that Jorge Linares could conceivably go on to get comparable victories to Joel Casamayor and Diego Corrales. Is that what you're saying? Because if we're comparing these fighters now, in 2018, we look at Castillo's entire body of work.



> Linares also had two KO losses and one stoppage loss late due to a cut. But all three were in world title fights, nothing like a loss to Alvarez or even Jauregui. Castillo did go on to have some quality wins, obviously Casamayor, Corrales and then lesser than those but good..Lazcano and Diaz. But it's comparable to Linares.


You think Linares has comparable victories on his record to Stevie Johnston, Joel Casamayor and Diego Corrales? We should also factor in Castillo's two competitive decision losses to a prime Floyd. Any performances from Linares you think are comparable?



> I rate Castillo above Linares, and he was a lot less vulnerable, but he was also less proven when he got his Mayweather shot than Linares was against Loma, and Castillo had none of the physical advantages that Linares had over Loma.


Yeah, this is all true. But again, I don't know what the point is? It's not as if Castillo was a green 21 year old when he lost to Floyd and then entered his prime going into his fights with Casamayor and Corrales. This was a 30 year old man. And if we're going to look back and rate the victories, we consider the fact that Castillo was good enough to beat some of the better fighters around at that time during the mid 00s. If Jorge Linares goes on to beat Mikey Garcia in his next fight, then Lomachenko's victory over him looks a hell of a lot better too. We don't view these things in a vacuum.



> Castillo is a better win than Linares. But Loma ended Linares more convincingly than PBF beat Castillo in their first fight and Linares had a big size advantage than Castillo never had over Floyd.







This is what it took to stop a Lightweight Castillo.

Now imagine putting Linares in there with Corrales on that night.

See my point?

It's like saying 'well, Wilder beat Luis Ortiz more convincingly than Lennox Lewis beat Ray Mercer'.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> And yet I still know more about boxing than you, apparently. That's probably a bit of an embarrassment on your part. Surely an atheist should know more about boxing relsted topics, no?


I'm happy to go toe to toe with you on boxing topics any day you wish.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

One to watch said:


> I'm happy to go toe to toe with you on boxing topics any day you wish.


Well, I'm here... in a boxing thread. I'm not the one that brought up someone's religious beliefs for no reason.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Yeah it was silly for OTW to bring that up. Very silly tbh.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

tommygun711 said:


> If you are saying that Loma would beat Barrera, JMM or Morales then you're not being rational.. Sorry but where is the evidence for any of that? Saying that at this point makes no sense. Loma could be packing glass for all we know


Seriously? There's nothing irrational about it. I'm not favoring him over Marvin Hagler. I'm favoring him over Morales and Barrera, guys that were the same size or smaller that I wouldn't rank in an all time top 100 pound for pound. Guys he was technically superior to and much better defensively than. And I don't believe he'd dominate those guys. I think they'd be awesome fights. But yeah, I'd favor him.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

So you don't favour him over JMM? @Sweet Pea


----------



## DOM5153 (May 16, 2013)

jonnytightlips said:


> Loma beating Garcia would be the signature win of his career. Linares is a brilliant fucking fighter but Garcia is the bigger, heavier puncher and doesn't seem as vulnerable as Linares.


Exactly, as good as Linares is we all expected Loma to come out with a victory. That's no knock on Linares but all his best attributes were trumped by Loma's best attributes. To Linares credit he still took a few rounds off Loma and knocked him on his ass, so again no doubt a fantastic fighter, certainly doesn't seem to be getting the respect he deserves. Garcia brings very different challenges to the table, I think Loma can rack up rounds against Garcia easier than he could against Linares, however Mikey has even more size on his side and power that can end the fight in a flash, although Mikey isn't as quick of hand and foot as Linares, he's more measured and deliberate with his motion. He's better defensively and not as vulnerable as Linares. Even if he is losing rounds against Loma you just know he will be probing his defence and putting the groundwork in to force a stoppage later in the fight. Mikey might just be more ring savvy than Loma over the 12 round distance, I see him forcing a late come from behind stoppage on Loma whilst down on the cards, Loma will race ahead only for Garcia to wear him down late with intelligent boxing and pressure. So hope this fight happens.


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> So you don't favour him over JMM? @Sweet Pea


Not so sure about that one. He could, certainly.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Sweet Pea said:


> Not so sure about that one. He could, certainly.


Do you think JMM could KO Loma?


----------



## Sweet Pea (Jun 22, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Do you think JMM could KO Loma?


Could he? Sure. I certainly wouldn't count on it.


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> Think what you want, keep it simple for yourself. Then be surprised when the world unfolds differently than you expect.


Yeah but I wanna know what to expect so I can make money betting on stuff that's gonna happen. You can help me with that if you know? DM me.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Boxed Ears said:


> Yeah but I wanna know what to expect so I can make money betting on stuff that's gonna happen. You can help me with that if you know? DM me.


I do have an exceptional record when it comes to betting on boxing and sports in general. If Vasyl fights Mikey put all your money on Vasyl, I'll give you that tip.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

DOM5153 said:


> Exactly, as good as Linares is we all expected Loma to come out with a victory. That's no knock on Linares but all his best attributes were trumped by Loma's best attributes. To Linares credit he still took a few rounds off Loma and knocked him on his ass, so again no doubt a fantastic fighter, certainly doesn't seem to be getting the respect he deserves. Garcia brings very different challenges to the table, I think Loma can rack up rounds against Garcia easier than he could against Linares, however Mikey has even more size on his side and power that can end the fight in a flash, although Mikey isn't as quick of hand and foot as Linares, he's more measured and deliberate with his motion. He's better defensively and not as vulnerable as Linares. Even if he is losing rounds against Loma you just know he will be probing his defence and putting the groundwork in to force a stoppage later in the fight. Mikey might just be more ring savvy than Loma over the 12 round distance, I see him forcing a late come from behind stoppage on Loma whilst down on the cards, Loma will race ahead only for Garcia to wear him down late with intelligent boxing and pressure. So hope this fight happens.


There's more evidence of Garcia fading in fights than what you propose. I sincerely believe that Linares is a harder puncher than Mikey as well, and Mikey is far more predictable.
It will just be the Walters fight all over again, I told people that would be an easy fight but when an alleged 'puncher' is involved we get excited.
Davis, GRJ are the more difficult fights that I'd prefer to see.


----------



## Setanta (May 24, 2013)

BobDigi5060 said:


> No, wtf. He got dropped by Linares and that's the best he's fought so far.


Ali go dropped by Henry Cooper.

What's your point ?


----------



## Setanta (May 24, 2013)

jonnytightlips said:


> Talent wise he's one of the best ever. It's not even up for debate and anyone who disagrees with that statement is a fucking retard and hasn't the slightest clue about boxing.


Take it easy, Johnny.

No need to be calling @Pedderrs a fuckin' retard.

As to the question, YES.

An ATG talent.


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> I do have an exceptional record when it comes to betting on boxing and sports in general. If Vasyl fights Mikey put all your money on Vasyl, I'll give you that tip.


Thanks, bro. But maybe you should delete this comment since it's in public. We can do better in money for the odds if nobody else knows about it. That's why I said to DM me. Respect.


----------



## rjjfan (May 17, 2013)

Boxed Ears said:


> Thanks, bro. But maybe you should delete this comment since it's in public. We can do better in money for the odds if nobody else knows about it. That's why I said to DM me. Respect.


If you wanna win some money, bet it on Mikey. Cuz If Mikey connects and you forgets, dat easy money is gone and you'll be forlorn.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Setanta said:


> Ali go dropped by Henry Cooper.
> 
> What's your point ?


Well in 1963 it wouldn't have been controversial to say Ali wasn't an ATG talent. It didn't really become apparent until later on with wins over Sonny Liston etc.

Likewise, it may become apparent in the near future that Lomachenko is also an ATG talent if he was to beat the likes of Garcia and Crawford, but currently his best win is over Linares, and he struggled quite a bit.

So yeah, some of us would rather wait until that happens.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Well in 1963 it wouldn't have been controversial to say Ali wasn't an ATG talent. It didn't really become apparent until later on with wins over Sonny Liston etc.
> 
> Likewise, it may become apparent in the near future that Lomachenko is also an ATG talent if he was to beat the likes of Garcia and Crawford, but currently his best win is over Linares, and he struggled quite a bit.
> 
> So yeah, some of us would rather wait until that happens.


His best wins are GRJ, Rigo, Walters, Martinez, Linares. Those first two are better wins than Crawford, and Linares is better than beating Garcia. And he didn't struggle ffs, he lost 30 seconds of that fight and knocked out the bigger man.
You're not the pound for pound number one and three weight division holder with records when you're just a prospect. You really get hung up on numbers don't you? You ignore the context and the reality of the situation because you have some neurotic hang up about his total number of fights and the questionable loss. It's blatantly clear to anybody who has eyes and knows anything about boxing that we're witnessing an ATG in action.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> His best wins are GRJ, Rigo, Walters, Martinez, Linares. Those first two are better wins than Crawford, and Linares is better than beating Garcia. And he didn't struggle ffs, he lost 30 seconds of that fight and knocked out the bigger man.
> You're not the pound for pound number one and three weight division holder with records when you're just a prospect. You really get hung up on numbers don't you? You ignore the context and the reality of the situation because you have some neurotic hang up about his total number of fights and the questionable loss. It's blatantly clear to anybody who has eyes and knows anything about boxing that we're witnessing an ATG in action.


Anyone here agree? @Sweet Pea @Strike @steviebruno @Setanta


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Anyone here agree? @Sweet Pea @Strike @steviebruno @Setanta


What are you appealing to here? You disregard the consensus about Lomachenko then you appeal to others opinions on particulars that are arguably more subjective. It really doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> What are you appealing to here? You disregard the consensus about Lomachenko then you appeal to others opinions on particulars that are arguably more subjective. It really doesn't make any sense.


I'm curious if anyone agrees with the idea that Gary Russel Jr is a better win than Crawford. If they do, it might warrant a discussion.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I'm curious if anyone agrees with the idea that Gary Russel Jr is a better win than Crawford. If they do, it might warrant a discussion.


You're not trying to discuss that, you obviously disagree and you're trying to get a consensus for your view. Why are you so dishonest in these discussions?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> You're not trying to discuss that, you obviously disagree and you're trying to get a consensus for your view. Why are you so dishonest in these discussions?


I don't know why you're so uncomfortable. I'm intrigued to see if anyone shares the view that Gary Russel Jr is a better win than Crawford.

In the meantime, maybe you could expand on your reasoning...

Go on Dealt With, surprise us.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Anyone here agree? @Sweet Pea @Strike @steviebruno @Setanta


I mean, it's absolute BS like everything else he posts regarding Vasyl Lomachenko. Just don't expect the other Children of the Corn to call him on it.


----------



## Pedrin1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Anyone here agree? @Sweet Pea @Strike @steviebruno @Setanta


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

steviebruno said:


> I mean, it's absolute BS like everything else he posts regarding Vasyl Lomachenko. Just don't expect the other Children of the Corn to call him on it.


Are you not looking forward to Dealt With's explanation though? I'm quite excited to hear it.

How does one justify ranking a win against Russel Jr over a win against Crawford...

He has his work cut out.


----------



## BobDigi5060 (Jul 15, 2012)

Setanta said:


> Ali go dropped by Henry Cooper.
> 
> What's your point ?


My point is he has 12 pro fights.

I can't call him ATG level while excluding his resume I find the question being presented to us a little ridiculous, but I see what OP is getting ask. Either way I can't find any other answer to this other than no. Imo he has to beat a handful of top 10 p4p fighters and remain undefeated for the next several years for me to even consider him an ATG. These are the big leagues and his amateur career doesn't fuel the argument for his ATG status.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Are you not looking forward to Dealt With's explanation though? I'm quite excited to hear it.
> 
> How does one justify ranking a win against Russel Jr over a win against Crawford...
> 
> He has his work cut out.


Nope. You may not have noticed, but he is afraid to defend his ridiculous statements and has been for some time, basically resorting to hiding behind other, smarter posters that have a vaguely similar point of view and throwing little potshots from time to time.

You'll be waiting for a while.


----------



## Setanta (May 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Well in 1963 it wouldn't have been controversial to say Ali wasn't an ATG talent. It didn't really become apparent until later on with wins over Sonny Liston etc.
> Likewise, it may become apparent in the near future that Lomachenko is also an ATG talent if he was to beat the likes of Garcia and Crawford, but currently his best win is over Linares, and he struggled quite a bit.
> 
> So yeah, some of us would rather wait until that happens.


In 1963, Ali was the RING's number 1 HW contender and it was already apparent that he was an extraordinary talent. His ATG status was solidified later with his wins over Liston, Frazier and Foreman.]

And his ATG status was certainly cemented when he kissed the canvas against journeyman Chuck Wepner. I didn't hear any clamour at the time such as...

"Wll that's it , then... Ali can't possibly be an ATG. He just got KD'd by a journeyman !"

So suffering a flash KD against a much bigger elite fighter, and getting up and stopping him a few round later, does not indicate "struggling quite a bit."

He did not "struggle quite a bit."

Your conclusion that he " struggled quite a bit" is mainly a matter of expectations.

When the guy goes fight after fight dropping hardly a round, and then drops three rounds out of nine, he is "struggling quite a bit?"

He just moved up to a new weight class and took apart the best or second best in the division while being outweighed on fight night by around 10 lbs, against a skilled boxer who hadn't lost a fight in six years.

His last five opponents have quit.

And if you have any eye for the sport whatsoever, it is very obvious that skillwise, he's on a level with Roy and Floyd but at a much earlier stage of his professional career.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Setanta said:


> In 1963, Ali was the RING's number 1 HW contender and it was already apparent that he was an extraordinary talent. His ATG status was solidified later with his wins over Liston, Frazier and Foreman.]
> 
> And his ATG status was certainly cemented when he kissed the canvas against journeyman Chuck Wepner. I didn't hear any clamour at the time such as...
> 
> ...


What's with all this Ali talk?

Muhammad Ali proved his ATG status in the ring; it wasn't simply_ attributed_ to him because he got knocked down like other HOF fighters did before him. He had to rise up and prove himself worthy of the #1 heavyweight contender ranking and he did so. And when he got dropped by Wepner *48 fights into his career*, he already had a lifetime of wars against other legendary fighters and had, as you say, "cemented" his ATG status.

Would you say that Lomachenko has cemented anything in 13 fights, other than being a great contemporary fighter? You said that Ali's status wasn't "solidified" until he beat Liston, Foreman, and Frazier; who has Lomachenko faced that would lead you believe that he has solidified anything?

Not everyone that gets themselves knocked down becomes Muhammad Ali. In fact, there has only been one Muhammad Ali and there will only ever be one. Vasyl Lomachenko doesn't get to piggyback off of what someone else accomplished, just for the sake of comparison.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Setanta said:


> In 1963, Ali was the RING's number 1 HW contender and it was already apparent that he was an extraordinary talent. His ATG status was solidified later with his wins over Liston, Frazier and Foreman.


Being the number 1 HW contender does not equate to having ATG talent.



> And his ATG status was certainly cemented when he kissed the canvas against journeyman Chuck Wepner. I didn't hear any clamour at the time such as...
> 
> "Wll that's it , then... Ali can't possibly be an ATG. He just got KD'd by a journeyman !"


Nobody is claiming Lomachenko can't possibly be an ATG because he got knocked down, they are saying he isn't an ATG at the moment because his best win is against Jorge Linares.



> So suffering a flash KD against a much bigger elite fighter, and getting up and stopping him a few round later, does not indicate "struggling quite a bit."


Maybe I should have said had a tough fight. He won well in the end and was clearly the better man, but he lost 3 rounds, was hurt multiple times and suffered a legitimate knockdown.



> He just moved up to a new weight class and took apart the best or second best in the division while being outweighed on fight night by around 10 lbs, against a skilled boxer who hadn't lost a fight in six years.


He beat Jorge Linares.



> His last five opponents have quit.


Two were inactive, one was coming off a loss, and the best one of the lot was Jorge Linares. Just to add some context.



> And if you have any eye for the sport whatsoever, it is very obvious that skillwise, he's on a level with Roy and Floyd but at a much earlier stage of his professional career.


I feel that's premature because his best win is Jorge Linares, and Jorge Linares isn't a top tier operator.

I'd sooner wait for him to overcome a killer.


----------



## Setanta (May 24, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> What's with all this Ali talk?


Calm yourself down, Stevie.

I'm certainly not saying that Loma is anywhere near Ali status.

I am merely refuting Addie's point that a flash KD was significant.

Ali himself did not put much significance in KDs as a measure of how a fight went.



steviebruno said:


> Muhammad Ali proved his ATG status in the ring; it wasn't simply_ attributed_ to him because he got knocked down like other HOF fighters did before him. He had to rise up and prove himself worthy of the #1 heavyweight contender ranking and he did so. And when he got dropped by Wepner *48 fights into his career*, he already had a lifetime of wars against other legendary fighters and had, as you say, "cemented" his ATG status.
> 
> *Would you say that Lomachenko has cemented anything in 13 fights, other than being a great contemporary fighter?*


Yes.
He has solidified his place as the best boxer currently active.

His talent is obvious to the eye and his utter destruction of the second best fighter (Rigo) and the manner in which he has dispatched his last five opponents, all considered elite or near elite, makes it clear to me that the dude has skills well beyond ordinary.



steviebruno said:


> You said that Ali's status wasn't "solidified" until he beat Liston, Foreman, and Frazier; who has Lomachenko faced that would lead you believe that he has solidified anything?


No, not quite

I said that Ali's status was solidified in retrospect by those wins, but anyone watching him fight Cleveland Williams much earlier in his career would have noticed that he was on a completely different level from any other HW in the history of the sport.



steviebruno said:


> Not everyone that gets themselves knocked down becomes Muhammad Ali.


You appear to be taking a reverse stance here on the KD, almost as if you are suggesting that it's a milestone on the way to ATG status.

I am not saying that the KD puts him at Ali status. I am saying that just because a fighter gets knocked down, it doesn't mean he can't be an ATG.

Once agin, my point is, the KD was insignificant, both in assessing Ali and in suggesting that Loma somehow struggled mightily with Linares.
Nothing more.



steviebruno said:


> In fact, there has only been one Muhammad Ali and there will only ever be one. Vasyl Lomachenko doesn't get to piggyback off of what someone else accomplished, just for the sake of comparison.


Again, that was not the point.

The point was that a KD was insignificant.

And the remainder of my post was to refute the notion that Lomachenko "struggled quite a bit" with Linares.

He took him apart and KO'd him.


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

Pedderrs said:


> Anyone here agree? @Sweet Pea @Strike @steviebruno @Setanta


By Crawford we mean Terence Crawford?! No...neither GRJ or Rigo would be anywhere near as good a win as beating Crawford.


----------



## Setanta (May 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Being the number 1 HW contender does not equate to having ATG talent.


Neither are the two mutually exclusive.



Pedderrs said:


> Nobody is claiming Lomachenko can't possibly be an ATG because he got knocked down, they are saying he isn't an ATG at the moment because his best win is against Jorge Linares.


Your earlier point was an effort to buttress the argument that a KD detracted from the quality of the win.

It doesn't.



Pedderrs said:


> Maybe I should have said had a tough fight. He won well in the end and was clearly the better man, but he lost 3 rounds, was hurt multiple times and suffered a legitimate knockdown.


I didn't see him hurt or in any kind of trouble at any stage of the fight.



Pedderrs said:


> He beat Jorge Linares.


So he didn't get a gift, then?

There was no robbery involved ?

Good. glad we agree on that.



Pedderrs said:


> Two were inactive, one was coming off a loss, and the best one of the lot was Jorge Linares. Just to add some context.


Wrong on two counts. ONE hadn't fought in 11 months. And one was coming off a loss.

Rigo was the best of the lot.



Pedderrs said:


> I feel that's premature because his best win is Jorge Linares, and Jorge Linares isn't a top tier operator.


Rigo was the best fighter he beat, and Linares was the second best LW in the world.



Pedderrs said:


> I'd sooner wait for him to overcome a killer.


No problem.

The dude clearly has ATG talent.

In time, I expect his resume will reflect ATG status.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Setanta said:


> Calm yourself down, Stevie.


What would lead to believe that I am not calm? Weird (and condescending) way to begin addressing a counterpoint, but continue on, by all means.


> I am merely refuting Addie's point that a flash KD was significant.
> 
> Ali himself did not put much significance in KDs as a measure of how a fight went.


Time will tell how significant the flash KD was. What evidence do you have to support your notion that Ali didn't put much significance in getting dropped on his ass?


> Yes.
> He has solidified his place as the best boxer currently active.


Which Roman Gonzalez and GGG did before him. I don't remember seeing any threads declaring either of them the second coming. And please look up the word "contemporary".


> His talent is obvious to the eye and his utter destruction of the second best fighter (Rigo) and the manner in which he has dispatched his last five opponents, all considered elite or near elite, makes it clear to me that the dude has skills well beyond ordinary.


People don't like bringing up the truth about this fight, but Rigo was 37 years old and had moved up two weight classes, to a weight he had no interest in fighting at. He had begged for the fight at 124, several years prior, when he would been closer to his peak physically, and refused to moved up to 126. At 130, this was never meant to be anything more than a cashout and a glorified sparring session... and it was.

And let's not pretend that Vasyl Lomachenko put on some type of master class virtuoso performance; he could barely land on a 37 year old bantemweight, who was certainly* not no. 2 P4P when this fight was made*

https://www.newsday.com/sports/boxing/top-10-pound-for-pound-boxers-1.2411479

Nor is he anywhere close to the top in any current rankings.


> No, not quite
> 
> I said that Ali's status was solidified in retrospect by those wins, but anyone watching him fight Cleveland Williams much earlier in his career would have noticed that he was on a completely different level from any other HW in the history of the sport.


He had already beaten Liston before the Cleveland Williams fight. Twice. And Floyd Patterson.



> You appear to be taking a reverse stance here on the KD, almost as if you are suggesting that it's a milestone on the way to ATG status.
> 
> I am not saying that the KD puts him at Ali status. I am saying that just because a fighter gets knocked down, it doesn't mean he can't be an ATG.


Well then it become meaningless to bring up Ali in this instance, and not the thousands of other fighters who got knocked down and didn't become Muhammad Ali. No one is saying that he can't become an ATG, I am simply saying that based upon what I have seen _at the present_, he is not there. Not yet, anyway.


> Once agin, my point is, the KD was insignificant, both in assessing Ali and in suggesting that Loma somehow struggled mightily with Linares.


Time will tell. Ali had fought wars in the ring and _proved_ the KD to be insignificant.


> And the remainder of my post was to refute the notion that Lomachenko "struggled quite a bit" with Linares.
> 
> He took him apart and KO'd him.


I guess we saw a different fight, then. I saw a fairly even match, which I told you it would be, with Lomachenko showing his class and coming away with a close decision. We were on the way to seeing that before the liver shot. He got hit 200+ times and was outlanded in the power punch department. I don't think that it was as easy you think it was.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

@Pedderrs

Dealt_with said:

 I think GRJ was a clear step down in opposition, but I really can't fathom how people have been saying that Lomachenko didn't deserve another immediate shot. Salido forfeited the title on the scales, before winning a controversial split decision with very questionable officiating. It would have been disgraceful if Loma wasn't given another immediate shot. GRJ was the undeserving fighter, he fought literally no one and was given the mandatory position. If guys like Brunker etc. want a shot then maybe they can try their luck against GRJ, Ramirez and other ranked contenders to earn their shot. Nobody should be waiting for an opportunity, they should be forcing their opportunity with the help of their manager/promoter. Pro boxing isn't a sport, it's business and politics. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, and there are always dodgier things going on than what happened with GRJ and Loma.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Setanta said:


> Neither are the two mutually exclusive.


:lol: Well of course not, but I don't see how pointing out that Ali was number 1 contender strengthens your position or contradicts any of my points?



> Your earlier point was an effort to buttress the argument that a KD detracted from the quality of the win.
> 
> It doesn't.


I would expect an ATG talent on the level of a Roy or Floyd to beat Linares without suffering a knockdown, without being hurt multiple times, and without losing three rounds. It'a good win, and it was a good performance, it just doesn't correlate with a lot of what you boys have been saying in regards to Lomachenko's otherworldly talents.



> I didn't see him hurt or in any kind of trouble at any stage of the fight.


I recommend that you re-watch the fight. There was one instance in particular where he was literally on the canvas.



> So he didn't get a gift, then?
> 
> There was no robbery involved ?
> 
> Good. glad we agree on that.


No, he secured a solid win against an unspectacular fighter.



> Wrong on two counts. ONE hadn't fought in 11 months. And one was coming off a loss.


Rigo had fought twice in two years before Loma. He was inactive.



> Rigo was the best of the lot.


To think Rigo at that weight, and at that age, was a more formidable opponent than Jorge Linares is ridiculous.



> Rigo was the best fighter he beat, and Linares was the second best LW in the world.


See above.

What were Linares' most outstanding title defences in your view?



> No problem.
> 
> The dude clearly has ATG talent.
> 
> In time, I expect his resume will reflect ATG status.


I've been watching the sport too long to fall into such traps.

He may establish himself as an ATG when he's actually put in the work, or he may get stopped by Garcia and fall into obscurity.

We shall see.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

steviebruno said:


> @Pedderrs
> 
> Dealt_with said:
> 
> I think GRJ was a clear step down in opposition, but I really can't fathom how people have been saying that Lomachenko didn't deserve another immediate shot. Salido forfeited the title on the scales, before winning a controversial split decision with very questionable officiating. It would have been disgraceful if Loma wasn't given another immediate shot. GRJ was the undeserving fighter, he fought literally no one and was given the mandatory position. If guys like Brunker etc. want a shot then maybe they can try their luck against GRJ, Ramirez and other ranked contenders to earn their shot. Nobody should be waiting for an opportunity, they should be forcing their opportunity with the help of their manager/promoter. Pro boxing isn't a sport, it's business and politics. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, and there are always dodgier things going on than what happened with GRJ and Loma.


Oh dear.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Oh dear.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

steviebruno said:


>


I wonder what GRJ has done since Salido to cause him to wildly change his opinion?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I don't know why you're so uncomfortable. I'm intrigued to see if anyone shares the view that Gary Russel Jr is a better win than Crawford.
> 
> In the meantime, maybe you could expand on your reasoning...
> 
> Go on Dealt With, surprise us.


Coming from someone who has ignored all the valid points I've made about Loma vs Garcia? There's been dead silence from you and now you want to discuss this? So if I make points about context and talent in relation to GRJ/Crawford you're all of a sudden going to be responsive? I doubt that, there'll just be silence and backslapping of retards like Stevie who validate your view simply by sharing it. Go back and answer all my unanswered posts about Garcia directed at you and then I'll bless you with an explanation boy. That sounds fair right?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> :lol: Well of course not, but I don't see how pointing out that Ali was number 1 contender strengthens your position or contradicts any of my points?
> 
> I would expect an ATG talent on the level of a Roy or Floyd to beat Linares without suffering a knockdown, without being hurt multiple times, and without losing three rounds. It'a good win, and it was a good performance, it just doesn't correlate with a lot of what you boys have been saying in regards to Lomachenko's otherworldly talents.
> 
> ...


Since Garcia was knocked down by Martinez he can never be an ATG right? Is that why he hasn't fought anyone since? Is that why he ducked Linares? Is losing a round to Linares worse than losing rounds to Broner/Lipinets etc.?
So why is that guy any sort of a measuring stick for Lomachenko? I don't see the logic.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Coming from someone who has ignored all the valid points I've made about Loma vs Garcia? There's been dead silence from you and now you want to discuss this? So if I make points about context and talent in relation to GRJ/Crawford you're all of a sudden going to be responsive? I doubt that, there'll just be silence and backslapping of retards like Stevie who validate your view simply by sharing it. Go back and answer all my unanswered posts about Garcia directed at you and then I'll bless you with an explanation boy. That sounds fair right?


 Dealt_with said:

 I think GRJ was a clear step down in opposition, but I really can't fathom how people have been saying that Lomachenko didn't deserve another immediate shot. Salido forfeited the title on the scales, before winning a controversial split decision with very questionable officiating. It would have been disgraceful if Loma wasn't given another immediate shot. GRJ was the undeserving fighter, he fought literally no one and was given the mandatory position. If guys like Brunker etc. want a shot then maybe they can try their luck against GRJ, Ramirez and other ranked contenders to earn their shot. Nobody should be waiting for an opportunity, they should be forcing their opportunity with the help of their manager/promoter. Pro boxing isn't a sport, it's business and politics. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, and there are always dodgier things going on than what happened with GRJ and Loma.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> Since Garcia was knocked down by Martinez he can never be an ATG right?


You are not following the debate.

Also, could you address this please...

*I think GRJ was a clear step down in opposition, but I really can't fathom how people have been saying that Lomachenko didn't deserve another immediate shot. Salido forfeited the title on the scales, before winning a controversial split decision with very questionable officiating. It would have been disgraceful if Loma wasn't given another immediate shot. GRJ was the undeserving fighter, he fought literally no one and was given the mandatory position. If guys like Brunker etc. want a shot then maybe they can try their luck against GRJ, Ramirez and other ranked contenders to earn their shot. Nobody should be waiting for an opportunity, they should be forcing their opportunity with the help of their manager/promoter. Pro boxing isn't a sport, it's business and politics. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, and there are always dodgier things going on than what happened with GRJ and Loma. *


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> You are not following the debate.
> 
> Also, could you address this please...
> 
> *I think GRJ was a clear step down in opposition, but I really can't fathom how people have been saying that Lomachenko didn't deserve another immediate shot. Salido forfeited the title on the scales, before winning a controversial split decision with very questionable officiating. It would have been disgraceful if Loma wasn't given another immediate shot. GRJ was the undeserving fighter, he fought literally no one and was given the mandatory position. If guys like Brunker etc. want a shot then maybe they can try their luck against GRJ, Ramirez and other ranked contenders to earn their shot. Nobody should be waiting for an opportunity, they should be forcing their opportunity with the help of their manager/promoter. Pro boxing isn't a sport, it's business and politics. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, and there are always dodgier things going on than what happened with GRJ and Loma. *


And this:

Dealt_with said:

:lol: Russell is biting off more than he can chew on June 21st, he hasn't even taken a quality warm up fight. GRJ hasn't done shit in the pros, if he fought Lomachenko's debut opponent then that would be a step up for him. And the reason why no one has capitalised on Gary's flaws is because they've been complete bums, obviously!
*Am I really talking to complete morons here??







*


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

This is a strange thing that some people do...talk shit about any prospective opponent of a fighter they like. It's never made any sense to me, as it just means you can't give your fighter much credit for beating that person. Even though it would be disingenuous, on a logical level I can see the point of overhyping an opponent as it then gives more kudos to your man if he wins.


----------



## Setanta (May 24, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> What would lead to believe that I am not calm? Weird (and condescending) way to begin addressing a counterpoint, but continue on, by all means.


Not meant to be in the least condescending. My apologies if it seemed that way to you.

(In fact, you're one of the posters I respect most on here ).

However, you did leap into my exchange with Pedders with:



steviebruno said:


> "What's with all this Ali talk?"


That pointed to you being a bit riled that I would even mention Ali's name in a discussion of Loma, when I was merely, as others had done in the thread, pointing out that a KD was insignificant in the big scheme of things as it could even happen to The Greatest.

BTW, Ali is my all-time favourite boxer ( and athlete) and, with the possible exception of my dad, my number one hero *outside* of sports.

My invocation of Ali's name was to make a point about knockdowns and their lack of significance, rather than to elevate Loma to Ali status.



steviebruno said:


> Time will tell how significant the flash KD was. What evidence do you have to support your notion that Ali didn't put much significance in getting dropped on his ass?


I once heard him in an interview say something to the effect that getting knocked down was no big deal so long as you got back up again.'

I'll try to find the quote later.



steviebruno said:


> Which Roman Gonzalez and GGG did before him. I don't remember seeing any threads declaring either of them the second coming. And please look up the word "contemporary".


I never mentioned the second coming, but I think it's hardly controversial to state that both Gonzalez and Golovkin are seen by many as having ATG talent.
And that is what I stated about Lomachenko.

(And what make you think I need to have* contemporary* defined ?)



steviebruno said:


> People don't like bringing up the truth about this fight, but Rigo was 37 years old and had moved up two weight classes, to a weight he had no interest in fighting at. He had begged for the fight at 124, several years prior, when he would been closer to his peak physically, and refused to moved up to 126. At 130, this was never meant to be anything more than a cashout and a glorified sparring session... and it was.


Before the fight, many believed that Loma would be exposed.
He was only a slight favourite.

And Rigo could have had the fight at 126, when he was younger. He was a better fighter than Linares and he had less of a weight disadvantage against Loma than Loma was against Linares.



steviebruno said:


> And let's not pretend that Vasyl Lomachenko put on some type of master class virtuoso performance; he could barely land on a 37 year old bantemweight, who was certainly* not no. 2 P4P when this fight was made*


I think we saw two different fights.

I was expecting a close, great fight.

What I *did* see was utter dominance.

*He made him quit.*



steviebruno said:


> He had already beaten Liston before the Cleveland Williams fight. Twice. And Floyd Patterson.


At the time of Williams, Ali was definitely *not *considered an ATG, any more that Loma is now.
His both wins over Liston were being questioned as to legitimacy, and Floyd's star had dropped on account of two first round losses to Liston.

My point there was the eye-test, the spectacle that Ali put on against Williams. ATG talent !

Loma's performances recently have been reminiscent of that kind of dominance.



steviebruno said:


> Well then it become meaningless to bring up Ali in this instance, and not the thousands of other fighters who got knocked down and didn't become Muhammad Ali.


No, that doesn't follow in the least.

It would scarcely make the point I was making (namely, a fighter can get KD'd and go on to become an ATG) if I'd used on of the thousands you mention.



steviebruno said:


> No one is saying that he can't become an ATG, I am simply saying that based upon what I have seen _at the present_, he is not there. Not yet, anyway.
> 
> Time will tell. Ali had fought wars in the ring and _proved_ the KD to be insignificant


We're nearly at the same place then as I have not declared him an ATG yet, but rather stated that he has ATG talent.



steviebruno said:


> I guess we saw a different fight, then. I saw a fairly even match, which I told you it would be, with Lomachenko showing his class and coming away with a close decision. We were on the way to seeing that before the liver shot. He got hit 200+ times and was outlanded in the power punch department. I don't think that it was as easy you think it was.


We will have to disagree on our widely differing views of what we saw in the Linares fight.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> You are not following the debate.
> 
> Also, could you address this please...
> 
> *I think GRJ was a clear step down in opposition, but I really can't fathom how people have been saying that Lomachenko didn't deserve another immediate shot. Salido forfeited the title on the scales, before winning a controversial split decision with very questionable officiating. It would have been disgraceful if Loma wasn't given another immediate shot. GRJ was the undeserving fighter, he fought literally no one and was given the mandatory position. If guys like Brunker etc. want a shot then maybe they can try their luck against GRJ, Ramirez and other ranked contenders to earn their shot. Nobody should be waiting for an opportunity, they should be forcing their opportunity with the help of their manager/promoter. Pro boxing isn't a sport, it's business and politics. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, and there are always dodgier things going on than what happened with GRJ and Loma. *


Someone saying that GRJ hadn't fought anyone to deserve the title shot at Lomachenko, pointing out that numbers in the pro game don't mean a thing and that it's a business. GRJ happened to prove that he was worthy later on winning a legit title and showing world class skills against top competition. Similar to Hopkins against Jones.
Your point being? Oh you think that context and facts change nothing, you have to view things exactly the same as when you were ten years old and ignore everything that happens. Right. Is that why you find it so hard to recognise and tell the truth about Lomachenko?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Dealt_with said:
> 
> I think GRJ was a clear step down in opposition, but I really can't fathom how people have been saying that Lomachenko didn't deserve another immediate shot. Salido forfeited the title on the scales, before winning a controversial split decision with very questionable officiating. It would have been disgraceful if Loma wasn't given another immediate shot. GRJ was the undeserving fighter, he fought literally no one and was given the mandatory position. If guys like Brunker etc. want a shot then maybe they can try their luck against GRJ, Ramirez and other ranked contenders to earn their shot. Nobody should be waiting for an opportunity, they should be forcing their opportunity with the help of their manager/promoter. Pro boxing isn't a sport, it's business and politics. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, and there are always dodgier things going on than what happened with GRJ and Loma.


I don't even read anything you post Cain, you shouldn't waste your time.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Someone saying that GRJ hadn't fought anyone to deserve the title shot at Lomachenko, pointing out that numbers in the pro game don't mean a thing and that it's a business. GRJ happened to prove that he was worthy later on winning a legit title and showing world class skills against top competition. Similar to Hopkins against Jones.
> Your point being? Oh you think that context and facts change nothing, you have to view things exactly the same as when you were ten years old and ignore everything that happens. Right. Is that why you find it so hard to recognise and tell the truth about Lomachenko?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


>


Yeah I don't mind pictures and gifs, as long as I don't have to read any of your nonsense.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Setanta said:


> Not meant to be in the least condescending. My apologies if it seemed that way to you.
> 
> (In fact, you're one of the posters I respect most on here ).
> 
> ...


The KD can only be made insignificant if he makes it insignificant. What if he starts getting dropped frequently at 135 and beyond? Is it still insignificant, or does it speak to his ability to take a punch at the higher weights? We will see.


> My invocation of Ali's name was to make a point about knockdowns and their lack of significance, rather than to elevate Loma to Ali status. I once heard him in an interview say something to the effect that getting knocked down was no big deal so long as you got back up again.'


I would think that the ability to stay upright is pretty important in a boxing match scored on a ten point must system. You see what havoc was wreaked on the cards because of that one punch, and also how much confidence it gave to Linares.


> I never mentioned the second coming, but I think it's hardly controversial to state that both Gonzalez and Golovkin are seen by many as having ATG talent.
> And that is what I stated about Lomachenko.


This thread isn't about Loma being in some fringe top 100 category though, now is it? If it is, I will no longer argue Loma's standing. You have people comparing him to Roy Jones, saying he is the most skilled ever, placing him levels above Manny Pac (albeit from a technical standpoint), saying he would shut out Floyd, beat Duran, etc. and so I see this thread as an attempt to place him higher than what he has earned.


> (And what make you think I need to have* contemporary* defined ?)


Of course you don't. But I called him a great contemporary fighter and you seemed to have some sort of issue with that... but countered with his standing on a contemporary pound for pound list.


> Before the fight, many believed that Loma would be exposed.
> He was only a slight favourite.


As we head towards Saturday, here are the latest odds, courtesy of OddsShark:

Vasyl Lomachenko -450​Guillermo Rigondeaux +325​https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2017/12...-rigondeaux-boxing-odds-betting-analysis-espn

I don't gamble and I don't really understand odds, but that doesn't seem all that slight to me.


> And Rigo could have had the fight at 126, when he was younger. He was a better fighter than Linares and he had less of a weight disadvantage against Loma than Loma was against Linares.


Yes, he could have. But he knew that giving up size to someone as talented as Loma would not work in his favor... and he wasn't quite as desperate as he was when he finally agreed to move up... not to 126, but all the way to 130.


> I think we saw two different fights.
> 
> I was expecting a close, great fight.


I wasn't.


> What I *did* see was utter dominance.


I didn't.


> *He made him quit.*


Guillermo Rigondeaux quit because of an injury, not because he was getting battered around the ring.



> At the time of Williams, Ali was definitely *not *considered an ATG, any more that Loma is now.
> 
> His both wins over Liston were being questioned as to legitimacy, and Floyd's star had dropped on account of two first round losses to Liston.


Questioned or not, they were two wins over Sonny Liston. Is that not worth more than a win over Guillermo Rigondeaux, age 37 and two weight divisions above his preferred weight?


> My point there was the eye-test, the spectacle that Ali put on against Williams. ATG talent !
> 
> Loma's performances recently have been reminiscent of that kind of dominance.


Which one? I'll get the Ali tape and you pick Loma's best performance and we'll see if they are at all comparable.



> No, that doesn't follow in the least.
> 
> It would scarcely make the point I was making (namely, a fighter can get KD'd and go on to become an ATG) if I'd used on of the thousands you mention.


Precisely. I was not saying that Vasyl Lomachenko is disqualified from being an ATG because he got knocked down, just pointing out the useless exercise in making the comparison. Yes, Ali got knocked down and became an ATG. Pretty much every ATG has gotten knocked down, and many OUT, at some point. But we simply don't know what Lomachenko will wind up as, and so invoking the name of someone on the short list of very best to ever do it speaks to my earlier point...

_*This is not a discussion about a fringe top 100 ATG fighter*_. Clearly you guys think that he is something more than a Roman Gonzalez or a GGG.



> We're nearly at the same place then as I have not declared him an ATG yet, but rather stated that he has ATG talent.


Fair enough.



> We will have to disagree on our widely differing views of what we saw in the Linares fight.


Fair enough.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Yeah I don't mind pictures and gifs, as long as I don't have to read any of your nonsense.


Well then perhaps you will read _your own_ nonsense.
Dealt_with said:

:lol: Russell is biting off more than he can chew on June 21st, he hasn't even taken a quality warm up fight. GRJ hasn't done shit in the pros, if he fought Lomachenko's debut opponent then that would be a step up for him. And the reason why no one has capitalised on Gary's flaws is because they've been complete bums, obviously!
*Am I really talking to complete morons here??*

Dealt_with said:

 No seriously, you still haven't described how GRJ has more of a pro style and I just tore everything you said to pieces (not hard mind you). What has GRJ done as a pro? Seriously? 

Dealt_with said:

 
 *Bop wasn't even allowed on the conference call*, this is a Showtime/GBP card and promotion. If it's close in anyway then GRJ is getting the decision. I don't expect it to be close though, if Loma doesn't stop him it will have been a poor performance. I honestly think GRJ is journeyman level.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

It's good to see that people have come round to understanding Lomachenko's boxing genius. The poll speaks for itself. I want to see him against Davis or a GRJ rematch, those are his toughest fights. Then he can move up properly by putting some weight on, end the hype of Garcia and make some money off Pac if those options are still on the table. I'm half expecting Garcia to lose before Lomachenko gets a chance at him, and Pac is past his expiry date. In terms of hype and money then Garcia and Pac should be the priority, in terms of sporting competition it has to be Davis and GRJ.


----------



## Setanta (May 24, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> The KD can only be made insignificant if he makes it insignificant. What if he starts getting dropped frequently at 135 and beyond? Is it still insignificant, or does it speak to his ability to take a punch at the higher weights? We will see.


By insignificant, I meant it had no impact on the ultimate outcome of the fight.

Sometimes, in a close fight, the extra point from a 10-8 round is all that separates the fighters. That was not the case here.

Sometimes in a fight, the KD stuns a fighter to the degree that he's ready for the taking , even if he makes it back up again. That was not the case here.

BTW, I found the Ali quote I spoke of earlier: https://quotefancy.com/quote/869777...getting-knocked-down-as-long-as-you-get-right



steviebruno said:


> This thread isn't about Loma being in some fringe top 100 category though, now is it?


No, the thread question is: *Is Lomachenko an ATG level talent?*

And I've answered yes.



steviebruno said:


> You have people comparing him to Roy Jones,


Yes, IMO, not since Roy came on the scene, and Floyd, have I seen the level of skill that Loma has demonstrated.

Since I began watching boxing in 1965, there have been, in my estimation, five fighters of exceptional talent and skill that have stood out as extraordinary, Ali, SRL, Pea, RJJ and Floyd. From watching tapes of fights before that era, I would add SRR to the mix for a total of six.

These are not necessarily the greatest of the era, but, IMO, the most naturally talented. Not everyone would agree.

I did not need to see them reach ATG status (and I believe that it is inarguable that all of them are ATGs) to sense that they eventually would. The 'eye-test' pointed to it before they actually achieved the status.

I feel the same about Loma.

He is not an ATG, but I think he has ATG skills and I expect he will achieve that status.

That is all I have said in the thread.

His achievements have been very significant so far, but not quite enough to warrant the label just yet.



steviebruno said:


> saying he is the most skilled ever, placing him levels above Manny Pac (albeit from a technical standpoint), saying he would shut out Floyd, beat Duran, etc. and so I see this thread as an attempt to place him higher than what he has earned.


I have not said any of this stuff.



steviebruno said:


> Of course you don't. But I called him a great contemporary fighter and you seemed to have some sort of issue with that... but countered with his standing on a contemporary pound for pound list.


You made it sound as though we both said the same thing and that I was repeating what you said on account of not grasping the meaning of contemporary.

You said:

Would you say that Lomachenko has cemented anything in 13 fights, *other than being a great contemporary fighter?*

I said:

He has solidified his place as the best boxer currently active.

These two are a bit different.



steviebruno said:


> Guillermo Rigondeaux quit because of an injury, not because he was getting battered around the ring.


He was losing before and after any injury.

The fight was a shut-out.



steviebruno said:


> Which one? I'll get the Ali tape...


Unnecessary.

I have seen those fights as they happened, and a good many times since.

And, as in the cases of the five talents I mentioned above, seen flashes of the same kind of brilliance a very few times since.

And this is one of those rare times.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Setanta said:


> By insignificant, I meant it had no impact on the ultimate outcome of the fight.
> 
> Sometimes, in a close fight, the extra point from a 10-8 round is all that separates the fighters. That was not the case here.
> 
> ...


That's not quite the same as calling it insignificant. He said that there's nothing wrong with getting knocked down, not that it didn't mean anything. I guarantee that Muhammad Ali was quite disappointed in himself each time he got clipped; you could literally see it all over his face in that first Frazier fight.








> No, the thread question is: *Is Lomachenko an ATG level talent?*
> 
> And I've answered yes.


ATG top what?



> Yes, IMO, not since Roy came on the scene, and Floyd, have I seen the level of skill that Loma has demonstrated.
> 
> Since I began watching boxing in 1965, there have been, in my estimation, five fighters of exceptional talent and skill that have stood out as extraordinary, Ali, SRL, Pea, RJJ and Floyd. From watching tapes of fights before that era, I would add SRR to the mix for a total of six.
> 
> ...


So you have Vasyl Lomachenko as *top 7 in overall talent over the past 50 years*. That's saying a lot based on 13 fights with no A level opposition. I certainly don't see that, but you are entitled to your opinion. 


> That is all I have said in the thread.


Top 7 over the past 50 years. "That is all".


> His achievements have been very significant so far, but not quite enough to warrant the label just yet.


So, essentially, in your mind, he only needs to validate the status that you have already attributed to him, based on your "eye test".



> You made it sound as though we both said the same thing and that I was repeating what you said on account of not grasping the meaning of contemporary.
> 
> You said:
> 
> ...


A bit. I don't think that he's any better than Crawford.



> He was losing before and after any injury.
> 
> The fight was a shut-out.


A shut out because Rigo brought nothing to the table at age 37 and two classes removed from his best. He landed 15 punches in 6 rounds.



> Unnecessary.
> 
> I have seen those fights as they happened, and a good many times since.
> 
> ...


Soooo... which Lomachenko performance is on par with Ali/Williams?


----------



## Setanta (May 24, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> That's not quite the same as calling it insignificant. He said that there's nothing wrong with getting knocked down, not that it didn't mean anything. I guarantee that Muhammad Ali was quite disappointed in himself each time he got clipped; you could literally see it all over his face in that first Frazier fight.


He lost that Frazier fight, so he might have regarded that one as a bit more problematic since it WAS significant.

If I recall the quote, he was talking about a fight he was either watching live, or was discussing later. He was not talking about one of his own fights and he was basically saying that the KD under discussion was no biggie. I don't recall all the details as it was several decades ago, but the sentiment expressed stuck with me.



steviebruno said:


> ATG top what?


Talent.



steviebruno said:


> So you have Vasyl Lomachenko as *top 7 in overall talent over the past 50 years*. That's saying a lot based on 13 fights with no A level opposition. I certainly don't see that, but you are entitled to your opinion.


Well, I will concede that it's opinion, and I will also point out that it's your* opinion* that Loma has faced no A-level competition so far.



steviebruno said:


> Top 7 over the past 50 years. "That is all".


No.

I did not say he was Top 7 over the past 50 years.

What I originally said was: He has ATG level talent.

That's what the thread question asked.

And the majority of the posters, with a wide range of boxing knowledge, from little to a lot, have the same opinion.

During the course of the ensuing dialogue with you, I outlined my reasons for believing that he has ATG level talent.
I mentioned five boxers whose careers I followed from the beginning, and who I felt were going to go on to become ATGs based on how they looked to me.
I saw flashes of that same kind of talent in Loma, and therefore, have a sense that he will go on to be an ATG.



steviebruno said:


> So, essentially, in your mind, he only needs to validate the status that you have already attributed to him, based on your "eye test".


My take is that he has the talent to achieve ATG status. He is not there yet, but I expect , barring something unforeseen, that he will get there.



steviebruno said:


> A bit. I don't think that he's any better than Crawford.


I think he is.

That's where we differ. 
And that's ok.



steviebruno said:


> Soooo... which Lomachenko performance is on par with Ali/Williams?


Again, that's not what I said.

What I said was... " flashes of the same kind of brilliance."

And in the Sosa fight, he did display just that.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I don't even read anything you post Cain, you shouldn't waste your time.


You got to answer these posts otherwise you lose any lingering credibility in this debate.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

One to watch said:


> You got to answer these posts otherwise you lose any lingering credibility in this debate.


Stevie isn't worth responding to, I honestly haven't read his posts. I'll answer anybody else's questions. And I don't care how people perceive me, I have continuously been proven right about Lomachenko and will continue to be. What do you want me to answer?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> Stevie isn't worth responding to, I honestly haven't read his posts. I'll answer anybody else's questions. And I don't care how people perceive me, I have continuously been proven right about Lomachenko and will continue to be. What do you want me to answer?


What victories of GRJ's caused you to wildly change your opinion on him? You went from thinking he was a worse opponent than Old Salido to now saying he's a greater win than Crawford. I'm curious as to how you got there.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Setanta said:


> He lost that Frazier fight, so he might have regarded that one as a bit more problematic since it WAS significant.
> 
> If I recall the quote, he was talking about a fight he was either watching live, or was discussing later. He was not talking about one of his own fights and he was basically saying that the KD under discussion was no biggie. I don't recall all the details as it was several decades ago, but the sentiment expressed stuck with me.
> 
> ...


This guy didn't make your cut. Why not?


----------



## Setanta (May 24, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> This guy didn't make your cut. Why not?


No, he didn't.

But I rank him higher p4p than nearly all of those who did.

My list was based on a certain kind if flair and natural talent.

Duran had that, no doubt, but he was also blessed with a toughness and grit that allowed him to overcome more naturally talented boxers.

I have him top 5 all-time, all weights, and Ali at 6. Some days, that gets reversed.

None of the others crack my top 10.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Setanta said:


> No, he didn't.
> 
> But I rank him higher p4p than nearly all of those who did.
> 
> ...


So Duran had that flair and natural talent, but loses points because he also had grit? Aside from arguably Ray Leonard, which more naturally talented boxers than himself did he have to face?

I just threw Duran, an obvious omission, out there in hopes that you might see that you are being a prisoner of the moment. There are literally scores of little fighters that could move, had speed, could put their punches together, could defend, etc.


----------



## Setanta (May 24, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> So Duran had that flair and natural talent, but loses points because he also had grit?


This is at least the third time in this thread that you've put words in my mouth that I didn't actually say.

Duran did not "lose points" (your words, not mine) for having grit.

It's just the it wasn't as obvious to me as early that he would reach the heights he did.

With the others, I had that sense early.

No knock on Duran. I rank him higher than Leonard, Pea, Roy or Floyd.

He and Pac are my second and third favourite fighters, but neither were in that little group.



steviebruno said:


> Aside from arguably Ray Leonard, which more naturally talented boxers than himself did he have to face?.


In addition to SRL, probably Benitez and Hearns. Not that that matters to my overall point here. He ranks higher then either one of them. And higher than Leonard too !



steviebruno said:


> I just threw Duran, an obvious omission, out there in hopes that you might see that you are being a prisoner of the moment.
> 
> There are literally scores of little fighters that could move, had speed, could put their punches together, could defend, etc.


There are, but I have my take on which ones I feel have that something extra.

And that appears to irk you for some reason. Not sure why. Something to do with your feelings toward Loma, perhaps.

BTW, I missed the guy in your av as well, and he went on to stellar heights.

I don't always spot them all.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Setanta said:


> This is at least the third time in this thread that you've put words in my mouth that I didn't actually say.
> 
> Duran did not "lose points" (your words, not mine) for having grit.
> 
> ...


Well then I apologize for putting words in your mouth; I'm just trying to make sense of what you are saying. It wasn't as obvious to you as you were watching, but you have the benefit of looking back at his entire body of work and the talent _still_ doesn't become overwhelmingly obvious? Am I getting this right?



> In addition to SRL, probably Benitez and Hearns. Not that that matters to my overall point here. He ranks higher then either one of them. And higher than Leonard too !


Okay. I don't think that lightweight Duran was any less talented than any of those guys. Just as fast as Leonard, just as difficult to hit cleanly as Benitez, a bigger puncher than each. Tougher than Hearns and much better defensively.


> There are, but I have my take on which ones I feel have that something extra.
> 
> And that appears to irk you for some reason. Not sure why. Something to do with your feelings toward Loma, perhaps.
> 
> ...


Not 'irked'. That is also the second time you have tried to remove me from my state of calm and characterize my mood as something that it is not.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Lomachenko vs Dooran at 135lbs?

Fantasy match up.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Lomachenko vs Dooran at 135lbs?
> 
> Fantasy match up.


Don't let @Dealt_with off the hook with another question. Let him answer that GRJ shyt first.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Any minute now...


----------



## Setanta (May 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Lomachenko vs Dooran at 135lbs?
> 
> Fantasy match up.


Loma would take this Dooran character apart and make him quit early.

If the dude speaks Spanish, Loma might even make him say "No Mas !"

However, If the matchup was with Roberto Duran out of Panama, that would be a whole other story.

Duran would take this, and probably inside the distance.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

steviebruno said:


> Don't let @Dealt_with off the hook with another question. Let him answer that GRJ shyt first.


Dude, we know he won't answer that question. He can't answer that question without losing credibility.



Setanta said:


> Loma would take this Dooran character apart and make him quit early.
> 
> If the dude speaks Spanish, Loma might even make him say "No Mas !"
> 
> ...


I've got Dooran by stoppage too. :thumbsup


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> What victories of GRJ's caused you to wildly change your opinion on him? You went from thinking he was a worse opponent than Old Salido to now saying he's a greater win than Crawford. I'm curious as to how you got there.


I didn't wildly change my opinion. You don't seem to have any concept of context. GRJ was a worse opponent for Lomachenko in a relative sense, in that no one was ever going to outbox Lomachenko. Salido was the better opponent in that he was unorthodox and dirty, fighting Lomachenko at a particular time in an anomalous situation. GRJ was a worse opponent for Lomachenko but he would've whooped Salido. I get that you have trouble comprehending any sort of nuance, or that styles make fights.
GRJ is better than I thought he was at the time in an absolute sense as well, he proved he is legit against Gonzales and Diaz and in retrospect he put in a respectable effort against Lomachenko, certainly better than anyone since. 
The problem with you is that everytime I point these things out for you there is no response, and you go right back to your unsophisticated thoughts and predictions. I've pointed out many flaws in your logic that you just haven't responded to. I'm providing you the courtesy here when you don't really deserve it, maybe you should reciprocate and explain your glaring flaws in logic.


----------



## Strike (Jun 4, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> I didn't wildly change my opinion. You don't seem to have any concept of context. GRJ was a worse opponent for Lomachenko in a relative sense, in that no one was ever going to outbox Lomachenko. Salido was the better opponent in that he was unorthodox and dirty, fighting Lomachenko at a particular time in an anomalous situation. GRJ was a worse opponent for Lomachenko but he would've whooped Salido. I get that you have trouble comprehending any sort of nuance, or that styles make fights.
> GRJ is better than I thought he was at the time in an absolute sense as well, he proved he is legit against Gonzales and Diaz and in retrospect he put in a respectable effort against Lomachenko, certainly better than anyone since.
> The problem with you is that everytime I point these things out for you there is no response, and you go right back to your unsophisticated thoughts and predictions. I've pointed out many flaws in your logic that you just haven't responded to. I'm providing you the courtesy here when you don't really deserve it, maybe you should reciprocate and explain your glaring flaws in logic.


But the quote in question had you saying that GRJ was barely above journeyman level. There's not much nuance to that, it just seems like a derisory remark made at the time because some people were probably bigging him up and suggesting he would win.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Dude, we know he won't answer that question. He can't answer that question without losing credibility.
> 
> I've got Dooran by stoppage too. :thumbsup


I answered. What are you trying to win, trying to prove? Are you trying to find a way to make up for me making you look stupid with the Lomachenko pound for pound in ten fights? Do you think if you deny what everyone else sees then that means it isn't true? Do you think that recruiting an obvious retard like Stevie adds validity to your irrational and absurd viewpoint on Lomachenko? Are you even aware of your motivations here? I'm aware of what you're playing at.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Strike said:


> But the quote in question had you saying that GRJ was barely above journeyman level. There's not much nuance to that, it just seems like a derisory remark made at the time because some people were probably bigging him up and suggesting he would win.


I meant that his resume was journeyman level at the time (and it was, he had an atrocious record for someone to have a title shot). There was talk about Lomachenko not having enough experience and not earning another title shot; and that he was definitely going to lose to the seasoned pro in GRJ. His boxing skills compared to Lomachenko were journeyman level.
That is how I honestly remember my perception at the time. I also think it's absurd that anyone is expected to hold the same opinions five years later of the same fighter.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Personal attacks aside, you still haven't addressed the question @Dealt_with.

Yes, GRJ was not proven when he fought Lomachenko. He had no significant victories to his name. I get that. Perceptions change over time. What I don't get is how he goes from being a step down to Old Salido, to a more impressive scalp than Crawford. I'm looking at GRJ's resume and I don't see how your perception of his abilities could change so radically.

So, how does that happen?


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Personal attacks aside, you still haven't addressed the question @Dealt_with.
> 
> Yes, GRJ was not proven when he fought Lomachenko. He had no significant victories to his name. I get that. Perceptions change over time. What I don't get is how he goes from being a step down to Old Salido, to a more impressive scalp than Crawford. I'm looking at GRJ's resume and I don't see how your perception of his abilities could change so radically.
> 
> So, how does that happen?


You do an awful lot of 'looking at resumes'.

You want to watch some boxing occasionally.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

One to watch said:


> You do an awful lot of 'looking at resumes'.
> 
> You want to watch some boxing occasionally.


I mean, it was just a figure of speech. I've watched 3 of GRJ's last 4 fights.

Anything you disagree with mate?


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I mean, it was just a figure of speech. I've watched 3 of GRJ's last 4 fights.
> 
> Anything you disagree with mate?


GRJ, according to @Dealt_with , seems to have gone from being a complete bum with "no pro style" to being a bigger test for Lomachenko than Crawford would be... In five fights...

... All because Loma wasn't as dominant as he thought he'd be, he's willing to throw away 20+ fights of data that he had compiled on GRJ.

Weird.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

@Setanta






I respect Lomachenko's honesty here.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

steviebruno said:


> @Setanta
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just hyping the fight.

Oh wait.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

'It's not a big win for me, because it's another weight category'.


----------



## One to watch (Jun 5, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I mean, it was just a figure of speech. I've watched 3 of GRJ's last 4 fights.
> 
> Anything you disagree with mate?


Oddly I've never really seen much of GRJ.

His win over JoJo Diaz is solid though,I rated Diaz as a talent.

From my little experience of watching him I say it's overhyped by DealtWith,it's a legit win because of his proven pedigree before and after but it's certainly not outstanding in any form of the word.
For me Loma's best win and by some distance is Linares,firstly because of the weight jump and secondly because I think he presented some stylistic issues with his length,speed and sharp combinations.For me his best performance is over Walters when he totally befuddled a huge guy who was feared at the time,and v Rocky Martinez when he put on an exhibition v a made to measure opponent but one who has been in and around championship level for years.

I actually see the Salido performance as generally positive as well.He did pace it all wrong and come the 12th he had the Mexican rocking and could have finished him.Rigo was anti climatic and dissapointing but I don't question his performance that night,Rigo is an absolute nightmare to hit when he is being offensive let alone when he is in a negative mindset.

You and Stevie are 100% right.Loma is unproven and that is the basis for this thread.Ive stayed out because I feel it's largely the same points being regurgitated over and again.At the end of the day Loma has been dropped and has lost so no he isn't infallible but he is an electric fighter to watch who has balls and is striving for greatness.

I have to go so this was rushed.Ill be back after training.


----------



## Setanta (May 24, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> @Setanta
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Everything he said was true, no doubt.

And also in the clip two below your post, he gives Rigo props for being great while acknowledging the weight disparity.

"It's not his size, it's not his weight, so it's not big win for me."

Regarding what we talked about earlier this afternoon, I had a few thoughts since.

I guess one of the aspects I consider in gauging a fighter is the aesthetic aspect.
The fighters I mentioned all possessed a certain artistry about their craft, a certain slickness of movement.

It doesn't always guarantee success in a fight, but it's more pleasing to the eye, at least this eye.

At one point, I felt that Sergio Martinez might make it into the little club. I first saw him in his bout with Bunema and he reminded me a bit of both Sugar Rays.

However, he started the game a bit late and he suffered injuries that he carried over from other sports.

I was a bit disappointed about how he went out against a guy he would have toyed with and stopped a few years earlier.

Still, like Rigo, he probably felt it was time to "cash out."


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Setanta said:


> Everything he said was true, no doubt.
> 
> And also in the clip two below your post, he gives Rigo props for being great while acknowledging the weight disparity.
> 
> ...


Serge Martinez... interesting choice.

We all have preferences. I always liked the potshot types (Jones, Mayweather, Prince Naseem) most of all. I was watching some of the Prince's highlights yesterday, actually. Talk about flare...


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Setanta said:


> Everything he said was true, no doubt.
> 
> And also in the clip two below your post, he gives Rigo props for being great while acknowledging the weight disparity.
> 
> ...


Indeed, you're not the only one who conflates being aesthetically pleasing with bonafide greatness.


----------



## Setanta (May 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Indeed, you're not the only one who conflates being aesthetically pleasing with bonafide greatness.


No conflation here, Peddars.

The little group of six I was discussing with Stevie was composed of SRR, Ali, SRL, Pea, RJJ and Floyd.

Which one of them would you say, owes their ATG status to a conflation of aesthetics and bona fide greatness ?


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Setanta said:


> No conflation here, Peddars.
> 
> The little group of six I was discussing with Stevie was composed of SRR, Ali, SRL, Pea, RJJ and Floyd.
> 
> Which one of them would you say, owes their ATG status to a conflation of aesthetics and bona fide greatness ?


I believe you're on point with the aforementioned 6.

Lomachenko though, he might be misleading you a wee bit. Or maybe not. That's what we need to find out.


----------



## Setanta (May 24, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> I believe you're on point with the aforementioned 6.
> 
> Lomachenko though, he might be misleading you a wee bit. Or maybe not. That's what we need to find out.


All i've said is that he has the talent that's on a general level with that crew (IMO).
Whether he fulfills the potential, only the next few years will tell.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

How is it that @Kalash has voted every possible choice? LOL


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Setanta said:


> All i've said is that he has the talent that's on a general level with that crew (IMO).
> Whether he fulfills the potential, only the next few years will tell.


That's fair enough.

Lomachenko is obviously supremely skilled. I don't think any of us would begrudge him that. But I won't be willing to start saying he's an ATG talent until I see him display said skills against a better level of competition. When I say things like that people assume I'm criticising his level of competition. I'm not. He has a very good resume. But the best opponent he has fought is Linares in my opinion, and he looked human. Yeah, he won comfortably and looked good, but he looked human. I ask myself what would Garcia's record be like if he fought all of Lomachenko's opponents? I say he would be undefeated with an 80-100% KO ratio. So when I consider that, can I really start mentioning him in the same breath as the Roy's and Floyd's? I have to see more.

Rest assured, if he does a similar thing to Mikey then I will be singing a different tune.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> Personal attacks aside, you still haven't addressed the question @Dealt_with.
> 
> Yes, GRJ was not proven when he fought Lomachenko. He had no significant victories to his name. I get that. Perceptions change over time. What I don't get is how he goes from being a step down to Old Salido, to a more impressive scalp than Crawford. I'm looking at GRJ's resume and I don't see how your perception of his abilities could change so radically.
> 
> So, how does that happen?


I've explained, and I was saying that GRJ and Rigondeaux combined are better than a Crawford victory. You see what you want to see, you don't actually read, think, and use your brain. That's why you were so schocked by my accurate predictions about Lomachenko's career, and why you're still in denial about what Lomachenko is.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Pedderrs said:


> That's fair enough.
> 
> Lomachenko is obviously supremely skilled. I don't think any of us would begrudge him that. But I won't be willing to start saying he's an ATG talent until I see him display said skills against a better level of competition. When I say things like that people assume I'm criticising his level of competition. I'm not. He has a very good resume. But the best opponent he has fought is Linares in my opinion, and he looked human. Yeah, he won comfortably and looked good, but he looked human. I ask myself what would Garcia's record be like if he fought all of Lomachenko's opponents? I say he would be undefeated with an 80-100% KO ratio. So when I consider that, can I really start mentioning him in the same breath as the Roy's and Floyd's? I have to see more.
> 
> Rest assured, if he does a similar thing to Mikey then I will be singing a different tune.


So you need to see Lomachenko beat better opponents than undefeated GRJ, Rigo, Walters.. beat better fighters than Linares? 
Yet Garcia has fought no one and you just assume he beats everyone Loma has fought and knocks them out? Even though Garcia has looked 'human' against lesser opposition, lost plenty of rounds to the likes of Lippinets and Broner? You actually give credit to Garcia for beating all of Lomachenko's opponents, because that's what you believe happens.
You're absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Pedderrs (Jun 1, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> So you need to see Lomachenko beat better opponents than undefeated GRJ, Rigo, Walters.. beat better fighters than Linares?


Before I call him an ATG talent? Indeed.



> Yet Garcia has fought no one and you just assume he beats everyone Loma has fought and knocks them out? Even though Garcia has looked 'human' against lesser opposition, lost plenty of rounds to the likes of Lippinets and Broner? You actually give credit to Garcia for beating all of Lomachenko's opponents, because that's what you believe happens.


I've never described Garcia as an ATG talent.

He definitely beats everyone on Lomachenko's resume. I seriously doubt anyone on these boards other than yourself would dispute this.



> You're absolutely ridiculous.


On occasion.



Dealt_with said:


> I've explained, and I was saying that GRJ and Rigondeaux combined are better than a Crawford victory.


I don't believe that's what you were saying at all, but even if it was, you're still incorrect.

If Lomachenko defeats Crawford it will be at 140lbs. Crawford is currently viewed as a top 3 P4P fighter by most people.

A far tougher assignment than either GRJ or Rigo.



> You see what you want to see, you don't actually read, think, and use your brain. That's why you were so schocked by my accurate predictions about Lomachenko's career, and why you're still in denial about what Lomachenko is.


Cool.


----------



## DOM5153 (May 16, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> There's more evidence of Garcia fading in fights than what you propose. I sincerely believe that Linares is a harder puncher than Mikey as well, and Mikey is far more predictable.
> It will just be the Walters fight all over again, I told people that would be an easy fight but when an alleged 'puncher' is involved we get excited.
> Davis, GRJ are the more difficult fights that I'd prefer to see.


If Garcia has faded down the stretch it hasn't been recently, he has been solid going the distance against good opposition. He might find Lomachenko more difficult to find but then he won't be expelling as much energy trying to keep a smaller fighter off him. If anyone is going to struggle with the pacing of this fight it will be Lomachenko who will have to constantly move and work angles to keep Garcia guessing and missing, this is going take more out of him than the naturally bigger Garcia. Garcia punches far harder than Linares and technically is very sound, I think you're mixing up the fact that Garcia is an orthodox conventional boxer puncher with him being predictable, he changes the pace and his activity nicely in his fights, predictable he is not. I'd say Linares is at least as predictable, he'd been looking for the straight right down the pipe for a number of rounds and Loma still walked into it, it's all relative really. Stylistically I agree that Davis is as dangerous if not more dangerous than Mikey but he may not have the experience, seasoning, toughness etc to make that count. Time will tell.


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)




----------



## PistolPat (Jun 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I've explained, and I was saying that GRJ and Rigondeaux combined are better than a Crawford victory. You see what you want to see, you don't actually read, think, and use your brain. That's why you were so schocked by my accurate predictions about Lomachenko's career, and why you're still in denial about what Lomachenko is.


Rigo ducks punches constantly, quite often when opponents duck Loma puts his forearm/elbow onto the opponent's back and shifts all his weight on them preventing counters whilst moving to the opponents side and shoots at an opening. He also uses a combination of jabs against high guard to blind them whilst moving to their sides and looks for openings as well as using a similar trick with feints, where he leaves the gloves hanging in front of the guard, blocking line of vision and moves to their side. Those are the two main strategies behind his matrix style at close range that has made his opponents look like they're stuck in mud. He uses the opponents defense against them.

A tall dude like Crawford that moves back with long reach and an open guard will require a different strategy unless Crawford decides to fight close range, it is definitely a better win because styles makes fights. Most of us haven't seen him in the AM'S and expect Loma to come out with something different to what he mainly used to dominate his last few opponents. So to some of us it will definitely be a better win, but really they should not be sharing the same ring.


----------

