# Lomachenko Update: 126lbs, Wants Title ASAP, Video



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympic-boxing-star-lomachenko-weighs-205853291--box.html

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (AP) -- Vasyl Lomachenko is meeting with several top boxing promoters while the two-time Olympic gold medalist considers launching a professional career, his adviser told The Associated Press. Egis Klimas said Lomachenko is meeting with promotional companies Top Rank, Golden Boy and Main Events. The Ukrainian lightweight star likely will decide whether to turn pro in North America within the next week, Klimas said.''I want to fight the best in the world,'' Lomachenko said through a translator Thursday.

The 25-year-old Lomachenko is among the greatest amateur boxers of his generation after winning gold medals in Beijing and London, also claiming two world championships in between. Lomachenko, who competed at 132 pounds in London, fights with an aggressive, athletic style that should make him a popular professional, as evidenced by the attention he's getting from the world's top promoters.

''He wants to become a pound-for-pound champion,'' Klimas said. ''He doesn't want to be on a long track. He wants to fight for a title soon. If we could get a champion today, we would like to fight the champion today. He wants to make something special.''
Oleksandr Usyk, who won the heavyweight Olympic gold for Ukraine last year, is traveling with Lomachenko while contemplating his own pro career as a cruiserweight. Lomachenko and Usyk, who joined Wladimir Klitschko as the only gold medalists in Ukraine's Olympic boxing history, likely would train in the same gym, Klimas said.

Klimas also claimed Lomachenko isn't under any contractual obligation to the International Boxing Association (AIBA), the governing body over amateur boxing. Lomachenko fought for the Ukraine team in AIBA's World Series of Boxing last season, and he signed a deal during the London Olympics with AIBA Professional Boxing (APB), AIBA's latest venture in its ambition to control every level of the sport. APB will begin competition later this year. ''He is out of any conflicts, any obligations, and that's why he's in the States, looking around,'' Klimas said. ''He and Oleksandr are completely free.'' An AIBA spokesman in Switzerland didn't return a request for clarification of Lomachenko's contract status with AIBA.

Klimas, who manages Russian fighters Evgeny Gradovich and Sergey Kovalev, is traveling with Lomachenko and his father, Anatoly. Klimas said Lomachenko intends to work with a professional trainer alongside his father, who trained him on the way to the Olympics. Top Rank already matched two-time Olympic gold medalist Zou Shiming with Hollywood-based trainer Freddie Roach, who is guiding the Chinese amateur star through his first pro fights this year. Top Rank promoter Bob Arum courted Lomachenko after a news conference at the Beverly Hills Hotel on Thursday, discussing housing and training conditions if Lomachenko signs with Top Rank and moves to Las Vegas or Los Angeles. ''He's the best amateur in the history of the sport,'' Arum said.

Lomachenko and Usyk attended the glitzy news conference promoting Juan Manuel Marquez's upcoming welterweight title bout with unbeaten Timothy Bradley. While Lomachenko sat back with his friends and father, Usyk, who gained fame in London for his distinctive chub haircut and celebratory Cossack dances after victories, took photos of the interview sessions with a tablet computer before Arum approached the Ukrainian group for a discussion. ''We had very good conversations,'' Klimas said of Lomachenko's last few days. ''So far we're talking, and the second thing we want to see is something in writing. We're not trying to make some kind of an auction here.''

https://twitter.com/ChrisMannixSI

*Chris Mannix*‏@*ChrisMannixSI*21 Jun
Amateur star Vasyl Lomachenko was ringside at @*NBCSN* show last week. @*Main_Events* making a hard push to sign him. Offering immediate TV date

*Chris Mannix*‏@*ChrisMannixSI*21 Jun
The right to promote Lomachenko will be an all out war amongst the top promoters. Few believe Lomachenko won't be a star.

*Chris Mannix*‏@*ChrisMannixSI*21 Jun
*Lomachenko told me he plans to begin his career at featherweight (126-pounds) and hopes to fight for a title within a handful of fights

Chris Mannix*‏@*ChrisMannixSI*21 Jun
Lomachenko specifically mentioned the career arc of Guillermo Rigondeaux. Rigo fought for a world title in just his seventh pro fight.






lol Usyk isn't very happy and corrects Elie when he says Sasha looks Russian.


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

Lomachenko and Usyk are the greatest boxing talents right now.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

:happy

This is great news. It's nice to see Lomachenko will be fighting in the hottest division in boxing. 
Him vs the likes of Rigondeaux on a catchweight, Donaire, Garcia, Salido, Mares, eventually Uchiyama and maybe Gamboa in his career, will be monstrous. 
He will be undefeated against them all.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

I couldnt see Usyk losing to the heavyweight crop either!


----------



## Brownies (Jun 7, 2013)

Great news. I'm already saving some money for his first PPV. :bbb


----------



## Mexi-Box (Jun 4, 2013)

Yeah, I've been saying he should go to 126 lbs. As people were saying, 130 lbs. is a fucking wasteland. Would love to see him fight Rigondeaux on catchweight. It would be like fight of the year.


----------



## Boxing Fanatic (Jun 5, 2013)

very interesting


----------



## adamcanavan (Jun 5, 2012)

Any division he turns pro in he will dominate. The idea of loma vs selby in the future excites me, two of my favourite fighters


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

I think the WSB thing was a waste of time, but I do wish him well. Looking forward to seeing how his pro career pans out.


----------



## Michael (Jun 8, 2012)

Good, legacy wise 126 is the best division for Lomachenko to start in.


----------



## Michael (Jun 8, 2012)

Btw in one before that spastic oneshot says 'if he was a Mexican we wouldnt be hyping him this much'atsch


----------



## ChipChair (Jun 4, 2013)

El Mexi-Box said:


> Yeah, I've been saying he should go to 126 lbs. As people were saying, 130 lbs. is a fucking wasteland. Would love to see him fight Rigondeaux on catchweight. It would be like fight of the year.


130lb is a complete wasteland, loving the fact Loma is ready to dive into one of the toughest division in boxing and wants all the big fights straight away.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Lomachenko's reign is coming! Thanks for the info


----------



## stevebhoy87 (Jun 4, 2013)

I'm a little surprised Lomacheno is starting at Feathweight but if he's fine making the weight it's a great division to start in. So many quality fighters in and around the weight for him to beat and the potential for what I think would be the fight I'd in my time have been most interested in seeing in Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux, in fact I'd seriously contemplate flying to the states to see that fight live.

Just can't wait for the official news of who he's signed and when his first fight is agreed. Lomachenko is ultra special


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Thank God. I was worried he'd start his career off at too high a weight class


----------



## stevebhoy87 (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> I think the WSB thing was a waste of time, but I do wish him well. Looking forward to seeing how his pro career pans out.


I disagree massively, he's already had 6 fights now under pro rules in the WSB, very few 2012 olympians who turned pro straight away will have had more, and ill guarantee Selimov is better than anyone any of those fighters who did have fought as yet, and Valentino and Bashenov probably are too.

It's a good half way house to give fighters good experience for the pros and makes the transition much easier for the full pro ranks IMO. Lomachenko has no need to start out in the pros fighting bums, but a couple for him to blow away and look outstanding might still be put in there early in his pro career to get the hype started i suppose


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Thank God. I was worried he'd start his career off at too high a weight class


Yeah a few of us were discussing that and i was saying i thought he could make 126 no problem and considering the compitition there very happy. A Mares fight would be something else.



stevebhoy87 said:


> I disagree massively, he's already had 6 fights now under pro rules in the WSB, very few 2012 who turned pro straight away will have had more, and ill guarantee Selimov is better than anyone any of those fighters who did have fought as yet, and Valentino and Bashenov probably are too.
> 
> It's a good half way house to give fighters good experience for the pros and makes the transition much easier for the full pro ranks IMO. Lomachenko has no need to start out in the pros fighting bums, but a couple for him to blow away and look outstanding might still be put in there early in his pro career to get the hype started i suppose


I agree one season in WSB is a good thing imo, far more prepared especially if he's going to fast track his career.. Even more so for Usyk who saw he could compete at HW although the article says CW. I'd be disappointed if he went pro at CW.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Vysotsky said:


> Yeah a few of us were discussing that and i was saying i thought he could make 126 no problem and considering the compitition there very happy. A Mares fight would be something else.
> 
> I agree one season in WSB is a good thing imo, far more prepared especially if he's going to fast track his career.. Even more so for Usyk who saw he could compete at HW although the article says CW. I'd be disappointed if he went pro at CW.


yeah 126 has better fights there and it seems to be more natural for him. Plus he can always come back to 130 and 135 later in his career


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

stevebhoy87 said:


> I disagree massively, he's already had 6 fights now under pro rules in the WSB, very few 2012 olympians who turned pro straight away will have had more, and ill guarantee Selimov is better than anyone any of those fighters who did have fought as yet, and Valentino and Bashenov probably are too.
> 
> It's a good half way house to give fighters good experience for the pros and makes the transition much easier for the full pro ranks IMO. Lomachenko has no need to start out in the pros fighting bums, but a couple for him to blow away and look outstanding might still be put in there early in his pro career to get the hype started i suppose


Which has better players, the NBA D League, or Div I? What Lomachenko did is the equivalent of a Div I superstar playing a season in the D League before going to the NBA.


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

In wich division does USyk want to start? I would start at Cruiserweight.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> Which has better players, the NBA D League, or Div I? What Lomachenko did is the equivalent of a Div I superstar playing a season in the D League before going to the NBA.


Are you serious? Guys like Selimov and Bashenov could teach guys like Paulie and Broner a lesson about boxing.


----------



## stevebhoy87 (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> Which has better players, the NBA D League, or Div I? What Lomachenko did is the equivalent of a Div I superstar playing a season in the D League before going to the NBA.


Your point makes no sense. Clearly fighting 12 rounds fights against someone like Mikey Garcia would be harder than what he did in the WSB, but it's hardly relevant as he wouldn't have been fighting people like that in the 6 months he lost by fighting in WSB, he'd have been fighting bums. And they sure as hell aren't a level above what he faced in the WSB, quite the opposite.

Selimov for instance is an outstanding fighter and its great experience fighting him under pro rules, and is much harder fight than a novice in the pro ranks will be up against, that's for sure. One season in the WSB is a good transition for top amatuers into the pros, any more than that and I'd say they were wasting their time, but one series, frankly is quite useful and gets them good level of competition under pro rules and helps get use to fighting without the headgear over more rounds that there use to.

Now I rate Errol Spence for instance highly, but is a fighter like luis Torres who he fought in his 4th pro bout better than Selimov who Lomachenko fought in his 4th bout under pro rules? Far far far from it.


----------



## ChipChair (Jun 4, 2013)

Personally thought the 1 season in WSB was ideal for Loma, it may have only been 5 rounders but give me that anyday over fighting some guy in a 6 rounder who has a crazy record along the lines of 5-54 but " he's never been stopped "


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)




----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

stevebhoy87 said:


> Your point makes no sense. Clearly fighting 12 rounds fights against someone like Mikey Garcia would be harder than what he did in the WSB, but it's hardly relevant as he wouldn't have been fighting people like that in the 6 months he lost by fighting in WSB, he'd have been fighting bums. And they sure as hell aren't a level above what he faced in the WSB, quite the opposite.
> 
> Selimov for instance is an outstanding fighter and its great experience fighting him under pro rules, and is much harder fight than a novice in the pro ranks will be up against, that's for sure. One season in the WSB is a good transition for top amatuers into the pros, any more than that and I'd say they were wasting their time, but one series, frankly is quite useful and gets them good level of competition under pro rules and helps get use to fighting without the headgear over more rounds that there use to.
> 
> Now I rate Errol Spence for instance highly, but is a fighter like luis Torres who he fought in his 4th pro bout better than Selimov who Lomachenko fought in his 4th bout under pro rules? Far far far from it.


Starting out fighting bums is just part of boxing. Name me one fighter who hasn't done it. The point I was trying to make is, with Lomachenko's talent level, it wasn't necessary for him to go the WSB route, just like it wouldn't be necessary for a Div I superstar to make a pit stop in the D League. If you think these WSB guys are better than mid-level pros, then that makes what Lomachenko did even more unnecessary, and risky, as something could have happened that altered his career.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> Starting out fighting bums is just part of boxing. Name me one fighter who hasn't done it. The point I was trying to make is, with Lomachenko's talent level, it wasn't necessary for him to go the WSB route, just like it wouldn't be necessary for a Div I superstar to make a pit stop in the D League. If you think these WSB guys are better than mid-level pros, then that makes what Lomachenko did even more unnecessary, and risky, as something could have happened that altered his career.


So you support fighters building their records against Bums? Shouldn't everything a fighter does be to elevate their game? The problem with your analogy is that pro boxing is high school basketball, not the NBA. It's not until he's earning a paper title that he's reached the level of WSB. You can argue that pro boxing never reaches the level of the olympics because when you're in a good position you can pick and choose your opponent. In the olympics you have to fight and beat the best, you have no choice. In the pro game you can be an ATG and choose to fight guys like Baldomir and Guerrero. 
WSB got him prepared to fight without headgear, over more rounds and against top opposition. Don't you want to see him fight the top guys sooner as a pro? Or were you looking forward to seeing him knock out guys anyone can knock out? The point of those easy touches in pro boxing is to gain confidence, work on certain things, learn how to bodypunch and pace etc. - all things that are unnecessary for Lomachenko.


----------



## FelixTrinidad (Jun 3, 2013)

Uysk is too small for Heavyweight. He's tall enough but the guy walks at 200 pounds. Bryant Jennings is around his height but is at 227-230. He should fight Jennings for his debut. Will be great.


----------



## FelixTrinidad (Jun 3, 2013)

Vysotsky said:


>


I sure hope boring+chin isn't infectious or Uysk is dead standing this close.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> So you support fighters building their records against Bums? Shouldn't everything a fighter does be to elevate their game?


I accept the fact that starting off fighting bums is, and always has been a part of boxing. You can't name one ATG who started his career fighting top tier opponents. Even Rigonduex fought nobodies en route to Donaire. I mean, maybe two of them had decent records, but none of his opponents prior to Donaire were up and comers. Lomachenko has enough talent. He doesn't need a pit stop to "elevate his game". He needed to start building a name for himself immediately after London, not risk an injury and premature wear fighting WSB guys.



> The problem with your analogy is that pro boxing is high school basketball, not the NBA. It's not until he's earning a paper title that he's reached the level of WSB. You can argue that pro boxing never reaches the level of the olympics because when you're in a good position you can pick and choose your opponent. In the olympics you have to fight and beat the best, you have no choice. In the pro game you can be an ATG and choose to fight guys like Baldomir and Guerrero.
> WSB got him prepared to fight without headgear, over more rounds and against top opposition. Don't you want to see him fight the top guys sooner as a pro? Or were you looking forward to seeing him knock out guys anyone can knock out? The point of those easy touches in pro boxing is to gain confidence, work on certain things, learn how to bodypunch and pace etc. - all things that are unnecessary for Lomachenko.


I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that WSB was good for Lomachenko so he can start off fighting top tier pros (which won't happen) or so he can dominate low level pros even more than he would have had he not went the WSB route?


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

WSB surely helped Lomachenko to develop as a fighter.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> I accept the fact that starting off fighting bums is, and always has been a part of boxing. You can't name one ATG who started his career fighting top tier opponents. Even Rigonduex fought nobodies en route to Donaire. I mean, maybe two of them had decent records, but none of his opponents prior to Donaire were up and comers. Lomachenko has enough talent. He doesn't need a pit stop to "elevate his game". He needed to start building a name for himself immediately after London, not risk an injury and premature wear fighting WSB guys.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that WSB was good for Lomachenko so he can start off fighting top tier pros (which won't happen) or so he can dominate low level pros even more than he would have had he not went the WSB route?


Wow, so you think Cordoba, Ramos, Kennedy and Marroquin in 11 fights is the norm? He won the WBA title from Cordoba in his 7th fight, and Marroquin is the definition of an up and comer (high KO%, one SD loss and had beaten Gary Russell as an amateur). Nobodies? YDKSAB. He beat a p4p guy in his 12th fight. 
Because of Lomachenko's experience he can step it up just as quickly. He is saying he wants to fight the best from the start of his career. Like Rigondeaux, who he specifically mentioned.
So you're saying that fighting top opponents so soon is a bad thing? I don't really know what your angle is. Why on earth would you want to see Lomachenko have 20 fights knocking over unworthy opponents who aren't going to elevate his game or provide any competition? If you're beating a p4p guy in 12 fights as well as having the aforementioned names on your record then that is a fast tracked career, that is starting off fighting top tier pros.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Wow, so you think Cordoba, Ramos, Kennedy and Marroquin in 11 fights is the norm? He won the WBA title from Cordoba in his 7th fight, and Marroquin is the definition of an up and comer (high KO%, one SD loss and had beaten Gary Russell as an amateur). Nobodies? YDKSAB. He beat a p4p guy in his 12th fight.
> Because of Lomachenko's experience he can step it up just as quickly. He is saying he wants to fight the best from the start of his career. Like Rigondeaux, who he specifically mentioned.
> So you're saying that fighting top opponents so soon is a bad thing? I don't really know what your angle is. Why on earth would you want to see Lomachenko have 20 fights knocking over unworthy opponents who aren't going to elevate his game or provide any competition? If you're beating a p4p guy in 12 fights as well as having the aforementioned names on your record then that is a fast tracked career, that is starting off fighting top tier pros.


Well, I concede that I didn't know as much as I thought about Rigo's opponents prior to Donaire, and I never called Donaire a nobody, anyway, I slated his opponents _prior _to Donaire as being nobodies. Going off what you say, I guess I was wrong, though. Still. How does this justify Lomachenko's WSB pit stop? Don't you think he is better than Rigo? I'm not saying that fighting top opponents right away is a bad thing, I'm saying I accept and understand why it isn't the norm. I mean come on. Think about how rare what Rigo did is. Also, it was more necessary for Rigo to move up quickly because of his age. Lomachenko can afford to take his time a bit more.

I don't know what your angle is, either. I've seen you proclaim how good Lomachenko is, that he could beat the likes of Broner, but you're holding on to this notion that he needs to gain more skill by fighting tough opponents right off the bat. I don't understand how you can't see how going 12-0 (11) against low level competition wouldn't be better for his career than going 10-0 (6) against high level (but unknown) competition. It's not like his skills will erode by starting off fighting lesser guys...just like every ATG in history has done!


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> Well, I concede that I didn't know as much as I thought about Rigo's opponents prior to Donaire, and I never called Donaire a nobody, anyway, I slated his opponents _prior _to Donaire as being nobodies. Going off what you say, I guess I was wrong, though. Still. How does this justify Lomachenko's WSB pit stop? Don't you think he is better than Rigo? I'm not saying that fighting top opponents right away is a bad thing, I'm saying I accept and understand why it isn't the norm. I mean come on. Think about how rare what Rigo did is. Also, it was more necessary for Rigo to move up quickly because of his age. Lomachenko can afford to take his time a bit more.
> 
> I don't know what your angle is, either. I've seen you proclaim how good Lomachenko is, that he could beat the likes of Broner, but you're holding on to this notion that he needs to gain more skill by fighting tough opponents right off the bat. I don't understand how you can't see how going 12-0 (11) against low level competition wouldn't be better for his career than going 10-0 (6) against high level (but unknown) competition. It's not like his skills will erode by starting off fighting lesser guys...just like every ATG in history has done!


I'm not saying he needs to gain skill by fighting top opposition, I'm saying he's already skilled as hell so the sooner he is in big fights the better. The WSB will have allowed the transition to be faster and smoother as he can go 5 rounds comfortably against top opposition without headgear already, we'll see more world title fights of Lomachenko and at a younger age, when he's in his prime. It's very simple pal. High level competition is never unknown competition to actual fans of the sport, which I strongly suspect you're not (not knowing about Rigo's opposition, hoping to see a fighter knock out overmatched opponents).


----------



## BigBone (Jun 13, 2012)

The idea of Loma signing with Top Prank is sickening. Arum did fuckall to build up his previous two foreign amateur stars with Gamboa and Rigo being set up to be a name on JuanMa's and Donaire's record (didn't work out too well did it, Bob? :rofl). K2 is still Vasyl's best choice IMO. The K's can guarantee more TV and sponsor deals, and one doesn't have to be part of TR or GBP to appear on HBO, just ask Goovkin or Martinez. 

How soon do you guys think Vasyl can make his official pro debut?


----------



## w;dkm ckeqfjq c (Jul 26, 2012)

Some of this hype is retarded. He's good, but let's just slow down on the talk of him being unbeatable you utter mongs.


----------



## artful (May 10, 2013)

He might actually have some power at 126, good move by him.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I'm not saying he needs to gain skill by fighting top opposition, I'm saying he's already skilled as hell so the sooner he is in big fights the better. The WSB will have allowed the transition to be faster and smoother as he can go 5 rounds comfortably against top opposition without headgear already, we'll see more world title fights of Lomachenko and at a younger age, when he's in his prime. It's very simple pal. High level competition is never unknown competition to actual fans of the sport, which I strongly suspect you're not (not knowing about Rigo's opposition, hoping to see a fighter knock out overmatched opponents).


Now I'm not an actual fan of the sport because I didn't know much about Rigo's opponents? Come on, man. You're quick to tell someone YDKSAB if they don't share every bit of knowledge you do. There are things I know about boxing that you don't, and vice versa. I followed Rigo a bit since he turned pro, but not enough to thoroughly know his opponents, who btw - definitely CAN be high level, but unknown. You ever heard of "high risk, low reward"? You also ducked my question...is he better than Rigo?


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Are you serious? Guys like Selimov and Bashenov could teach guys like Paulie and Broner a lesson about boxing.


Selimov would lose to Paulie and Broner


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

@Abraham are you retarded.

You think Lomachenko is better off fighting 2-67 record journeymen then former world champions like Selimov under pro rules to get adjusted to the pro game. FFS come on - just go and watch the fights and then watch some horrendous American journeymen then work it out.

Lomachecnko will fast track due to this as he is used to fighting longer rounds without headgear and he can start fighting further up the rankings and have better fights quicker. he doesn't need to piss fart about making sure he's used to boxing under those rules and by doing it in WSB then if he did have a blip it wouldn't matter to his pro record that pays him big money in the future.

WSB is competitive, journeymen generally aren't (esp. in America), why you comparing it to other sports that have completely different set ups also - its makes no sense whatsoever.

Also your not taking into account that Lomachenko wasn't going to turn over and was thinking about going for Gold number 3 and thus the WSB gave him the option to box under pro rules whilst not stopping him from competing in the Olympics plus they have been looking to make AIBA Pro and the guy obviously wanted to assess his options.


----------



## McKay (Jun 6, 2012)

If Usyk's going to an American promoter he's best signing with Main Events I think. They have a proven track record working with both Eastern Europeans and heavier guys. Top Rank and GBP have shown little to no interest in building up either.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

BigBone said:


> The idea of Loma signing with Top Prank is sickening. Arum did fuckall to build up his previous two foreign amateur stars with Gamboa and Rigo being set up to be a name on JuanMa's and Donaire's record (didn't work out too well did it, Bob? :rofl). K2 is still Vasyl's best choice IMO. The K's can guarantee more TV and sponsor deals, and one doesn't have to be part of TR or GBP to appear on HBO, just ask Goovkin or Martinez.
> 
> How soon do you guys think Vasyl can make his official pro debut?


Well tbf you havent took into account that Gamboa and Rigo have no fanbase and Lomachenko does. Lomachenko's style is far more appealing to the general fan than Rigo's is as well. Not that Bob did a good job with Rigo but overall he has gotten him int he top ten P4P with less than 20 fights, he did a fine job with Gamboa though considering how dumb he is.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

bballchump11 said:


> Selimov would lose to Paulie and Broner


They would be interesting over 4-6 rounds which is what we are talking about. He'd lose over the full distance though no doubt.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Chatty said:


> @Abraham are you retarded.
> 
> You think Lomachenko is better off fighting 2-67 record journeymen then former world champions like Selimov under pro rules to get adjusted to the pro game. FFS come on - just go and watch the fights and then watch some horrendous American journeymen then work it out.
> 
> ...


This! 
And the fact that Lomachenko would have beaten all of these bums within 5 rounds anyway. So what he got is 5 rounds with top amateur champtions.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Chatty said:


> @Abraham are you retarded.
> 
> You think Lomachenko is better off fighting 2-67 record journeymen then former world champions like Selimov under pro rules to get adjusted to the pro game. FFS come on - just go and watch the fights and then watch some horrendous American journeymen then work it out.
> 
> ...


I didn't say Lomachenko is better off fighting guys THAT bad...geez. There isn't any point in his fighting top tier competition to start his pro career, either. Shit, Andre Ward won the gold, is one of the most skilled fighters on the planet today, and did he start off fighting top level competition? He wasn't fighting 3-17 guys either, but those guy were no-namers.

Now, if Lomachenko went to WSB route in case he decided to go for gold # 3, that's perfectly understandable.


----------



## BigBone (Jun 13, 2012)

Chatty said:


> Well tbf you havent took into account that *Gamboa and Rigo have no fanbase* and Lomachenko does. Lomachenko's style is far more appealing to the general fan than Rigo's is as well. Not that Bob did a good job with Rigo but overall he has gotten him int he top ten P4P with less than 20 fights, he did a fine job with Gamboa though considering how dumb he is.


Of course they don't have a fanbase, cause Bob forgot to build one up, haha. It's easy to stage a fight on Puerto Rican Day Parade, cause if there's a Rican, it'll sell, but when was the last time Arum built up someone up from scratch without milking the boxing nations? Promoting is what Bute's boss did to make him from Romanian unknown to Montreal superstar and Bob clearly didn't achieve that with Gamboa, and since I don't see Ukranian masses storming US ticket offices either, Top Rank is a bad choice for foreigner Lomachenko.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Chatty said:


> They would be interesting over 4-6 rounds which is what we are talking about. He'd lose over the full distance though no doubt.


I agree :yep, but everytime I talk to Dealth_with, he seems to think Loma could dominate Broner over 12 rounds right now


----------



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

He should fight Marroquin,a real test before going after bigger names.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> I agree :yep, but everytime I talk to Dealth_with, he seems to think Loma could dominate Broner over 12 rounds right now


I think just about any Olympian could dominate Broner over 12 rounds now after that display on the weekend. One of them already gave him a beating in sparring (Spence jr.).
And yes I think Selimov could beat Broner over 12 as well. It's not like Broner fights for all 12 rounds is it, it's not going to be hard to keep up with that.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I think just about any Olympian could dominate Broner over 12 rounds now after that display on the weekend. One of them already gave him a beating in sparring (Spence jr.).
> And yes I think Selimov could beat Broner over 12 as well. It's not like Broner fights for all 12 rounds is it, it's not going to be hard to keep up with that.


You really think a guy who's 135 pounds and never fought more than 5 rounds would really beat Adrien Broner?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> Now I'm not an actual fan of the sport because I didn't know much about Rigo's opponents? Come on, man. You're quick to tell someone YDKSAB if they don't share every bit of knowledge you do. There are things I know about boxing that you don't, and vice versa. I followed Rigo a bit since he turned pro, but not enough to thoroughly know his opponents, who btw - definitely CAN be high level, but unknown. You ever heard of "high risk, low reward"? You also ducked my question...is he better than Rigo?


No, you actually sound like a casual fan who wants to see bums getting knocked out rather than competitive fights. If you're going to claim that Rigo's opponents are nobodies when they were at world title level than that says a lot about your status as a boxing fan. I highly doubt that someone like you knows something about boxing that I don't. Who are you talking about as 'high risk low reward'?

I didn't duck any question, I didn't notice it amongst your baffling nonsense. Rigo and Lomachenko are two completely different fighters with different styles so it's hard to compare, I'm a big fan of both. They have comparable amateur records (Lomachenko's slightly better) and when it comes to the pro game Rigondeaux is the slicker, more measured fighter. Lomachenko has more of a pro style, bodypunching and combinations on the inside. Rigondeaux is more one dimensional in his style so that means there are other styles that can give him problems. Lomachenko is more versatile in that he can fight well at any range, so with his talent I'd expect him to end up with a better record than Rigo (also due to turning pro at a younger age).
Head to head I'd have to favour Lomachenko mainly because of the size difference, and Lomachenko isn't Donaire. I don't want to take anything away from Rigo though since I'm a big fan and he's my p4p #1. Taking everything into account I'd say yes he is better than Rigo at the same point in their boxing careers, now Lomachenko needs to get the pro achievements on the board like Rigo has. I predict that Loma will be more successful than Rigo as a pro.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> You really think a guy who's 135 pounds and never fought more than 5 rounds would really beat Adrien Broner?


I think Amir Khan would beat Adrien Broner. Let's not compare anyone to Adrien Broner, because Broner is not an example of an elite fighter.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I think Amir Khan would beat Adrien Broner. Let's not compare anyone to Adrien Broner, because Broner is not an example of an elite fighter.


Khan probably could beat him, but not Selimov, at least not right now


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Khan probably could beat him, but not Selimov, at least not right now


Well Selimov is more skilled, the same size as Broner, sneaky punches and good footwork, and a far bigger and better southpaw than PDL is/was. People overestimate the difficulty of going 12 rounds, if you're an explosive high intensity fighter in the style of Haye/Judah/Chakhkiev then the adjustment is very difficult but if you're a measured counter puncher who is well conditioned then going 12 is no different than going 5 rounds.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Well Selimov is more skilled, the same size as Broner, sneaky punches and good footwork, and a far bigger and better southpaw than PDL is/was. People overestimate the difficulty of going 12 rounds, if you're an explosive high intensity fighter in the style of Haye/Judah/Chakhkiev then the adjustment is very difficult but if you're a measured counter puncher who is well conditioned then going 12 is no different than going 5 rounds.


I think most professionals and fighters who've actually gone 12 rounds would disagree with you.


----------



## Michael (Jun 8, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> Well Selimov is more skilled, the same size as Broner, sneaky punches and good footwork, and a far bigger and better southpaw than PDL is/was. People overestimate the difficulty of going 12 rounds, if you're an explosive high intensity fighter in the style of Haye/Judah/Chakhkiev then the adjustment is very difficult but *if you're a measured counter puncher who is well conditioned then going 12 is no different than going 5 rounds*.


That depends on who you're fighting, how the fight goes and what style you have to deal with though, counter punchers definitely are suited to long drawn out fights, what with their styles dependent on capitalizing on the mistakes of their opponents, and not over-exerting themselves or putting themselves in a position to be hit with lots of shots. But that's only if the fight is going all their way. What if they have a strong relentless pressure fighter in front of them, who wont take no for an answer and gets a lot stronger as the fight goes on, who forces the counter puncher to work harder they want to, or if they get with some meaty body shots for instance and they slow down over a longer distance. Those things aren't really an issue over 5 rounds. There's no guarantee that Selimov would be able to go 12 rounds with ease if he's in with an opponent good enough to force him out of his comfort zone, even if he is in good condition


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> I think most professionals and fighters who've actually gone 12 rounds would disagree with you.


I think most professionals and fighters will tell you it's purely a mental thing, the uncertainty of going a distance you haven't gone before. I seriously doubt a well conditioned amateur fighter who isn't breathing hard after 5 rounds is going to be unable to fight 12 rounds at a slower pace.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Sportofkings said:


> That depends on who you're fighting, how the fight goes and what style you have to deal with though, counter punchers definitely are suited to long drawn out fights, what with their styles dependent on capitalizing on the mistakes of their opponents, and not over-exerting themselves or putting themselves in a position to be hit with lots of shots. But that's only if the fight is going all their way. What if they have a strong relentless pressure fighter in front of them, who wont take no for an answer and gets a lot stronger as the fight goes on, who forces the counter puncher to work harder they want to, or if they get with some meaty body shots for instance and they slow down over a longer distance. Those things aren't really an issue over 5 rounds. There's no guarantee that Selimov would be able to go 12 rounds with ease if he's in with an opponent good enough to force him out of his comfort zone, even if he is in good condition


That's all very true, but Broner isn't that opponent or style who is good enough. Even if you are an old pro who has been 12 rounds many times before, if you're facing a relentless Mexican body puncher who is going to make you work then you'll wear down regardless. The deciding variable there is the opponent, not the number of rounds. Fighters wear down within 5 rounds all the time if the opponent is really putting it on them.


----------



## Michael (Jun 8, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> That's all very true, but Broner isn't that opponent or style who is good enough. Even if you are an old pro who has been 12 rounds many times before, if you're facing a relentless Mexican body puncher who is going to make you work then you'll wear down regardless. The deciding variable there is the opponent, not the number of rounds. Fighters wear down within 5 rounds all the time if the opponent is really putting it on them.


Yeah I agree, there's still a lot of unanswered questions about a man who's never been 12 rounds is basically all im saying . Im sure Selimov, in his immense amateur career, has faced each and every type of opponent you could imagine, including good pressure fighters. They were at a distinct disadvantage fighting under 3 or 5 rounds, comparison to 12 with Selimov, who may have lets say outboxed them at a canter in the shorter fights, but when you're being taken into deeper waters, the whole course of a fight can change, depending on who you're fighting. Selimov might have been broken down by someone good enough over a greater distance.

As for a Broner-Selimov fight, id prefer to see Selimov over 10/12 rounds against a top quality opponent before id put him in a matchup with Broner. While I don't doubt he has a superior skillset, better technically than Broner, we still dont know how it'll go over 12, how he'll adapt to a big strong guy who is used to walking down smaller men.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Sportofkings said:


> Yeah I agree, there's still a lot of unanswered questions about a man who's never been 12 rounds is basically all im saying . Im sure Selimov, in his immense amateur career, has faced each and every type of opponent you could imagine, including good pressure fighters. They were at a distinct disadvantage fighting under 3 or 5 rounds, comparison to 12 with Selimov, who may have lets say outboxed them at a canter in the shorter fights, but when you're being taken into deeper waters, the whole course of a fight can change, depending on who you're fighting. Selimov might have been broken down by someone good enough over a greater distance.
> 
> As for a Broner-Selimov fight, id prefer to see Selimov over 10/12 rounds against a top quality opponent before id put him in a matchup with Broner. While I don't doubt he has a superior skillset, better technically than Broner, we still dont know how it'll go over 12, how he'll adapt to a big strong guy who is used to walking down smaller men.


I agree, not so sure on Broner being the big strong guy though. He couldn't do that to the much smaller PDL, and DeMarco just stood in front of him not throwing punches until his corner waved it off. Selimov is the same height as Broner and he's a strong, big boned guy so he can easily carry a few extra pounds.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> No, you actually sound like a casual fan who wants to see bums getting knocked out rather than competitive fights. If you're going to claim that Rigo's opponents are nobodies when they were at world title level than that says a lot about your status as a boxing fan. I highly doubt that someone like you knows something about boxing that I don't. Who are you talking about as 'high risk low reward'?
> 
> I didn't duck any question, I didn't notice it amongst your baffling nonsense. Rigo and Lomachenko are two completely different fighters with different styles so it's hard to compare, I'm a big fan of both. They have comparable amateur records (Lomachenko's slightly better) and when it comes to the pro game Rigondeaux is the slicker, more measured fighter. Lomachenko has more of a pro style, bodypunching and combinations on the inside. Rigondeaux is more one dimensional in his style so that means there are other styles that can give him problems. Lomachenko is more versatile in that he can fight well at any range, so with his talent I'd expect him to end up with a better record than Rigo (also due to turning pro at a younger age).
> Head to head I'd have to favour Lomachenko mainly because of the size difference, and Lomachenko isn't Donaire. I don't want to take anything away from Rigo though since I'm a big fan and he's my p4p #1. Taking everything into account I'd say yes he is better than Rigo at the same point in their boxing careers, now Lomachenko needs to get the pro achievements on the board like Rigo has. I predict that Loma will be more successful than Rigo as a pro.


Me not knowing everything about every single fighter makes me a "casual fan"? :lol: I'd bet my left nut there is PLENTY I know that you don't, and fair enough, vice versa. You keep saying I'd rather see bums knocked out, when I've never said such a thing. You have no reading comprehension. What I said - once again - is that I understand that beginning your career fighting bums is, and always has been part of boxing. Fighting top level opposition right away is extremely rare. How many fighters can you name that have done it?
Would I rather see these elite level amateurs come into the pros fighting top guys right away? Sure, but I also except that fact that more often than not, it won't be that way, for a plethora of reasons.

I notice you tend to get insulting when someone doesn't agree with what you are saying, like you're Monsieur Boxing or some shit. Everything you say is right, everything someone else says is wrong. You giving the fight to Malignaggi over Broner shows that perhaps you don't know as much as you think, dude. If you wanna play the "who knows more" game, we can definitely do that.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> I agree :yep, but everytime I talk to Dealth_with, he seems to think Loma could dominate Broner over 12 rounds right now


It's pretty obvious he will lose to Lomachenko once Lomachenko is well adjusted to 12 rounds...whether that be by Loma's 2nd fight or Loma's 10th. Let's not forget that someone who Loma is actually better than (Rigo) had a title shot in his 7th fight and beat P4P top 5 at the time Donaire after around 10 fights.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> Me not knowing everything about every single fighter makes me a "casual fan"? :lol: I'd bet my left nut there is PLENTY I know that you don't, and fair enough, vice versa. You keep saying I'd rather see bums knocked out, when I've never said such a thing. You have no reading comprehension. What I said - once again - is that I understand that beginning your career fighting bums is, and always has been part of boxing. Fighting top level opposition right away is extremely rare. How many fighters can you name that have done it?
> Would I rather see these elite level amateurs come into the pros fighting top guys right away? Sure, but I also except that fact that more often than not, it won't be that way, for a plethora of reasons.
> 
> I notice you tend to get insulting when someone doesn't agree with what you are saying, like you're Monsieur Boxing or some shit. Everything you say is right, everything someone else says is wrong. You giving the fight to Malignaggi over Broner shows that perhaps you don't know as much as you think, dude. If you wanna play the "who knows more" game, we can definitely do that.


I've asked you repeatedly to clarify what you are trying to say. I honestly think you have no idea what your point is. It's happened before (Rigo) and it will happen again (Lomachenko) because of the WSB, which for some reason you think was a waste of time. Because of the WSB Lomachenko is more prepared to step it up sooner, which for some reason you think is a bad idea.

My reading comprehension? Your quote "I don't understand how you can't see how going 12-0 (11) against low level competition wouldn't be better for his career than going 10-0 (6) against high level (but unknown) competition."
Due to your poor grasp of the English language you used a double negative but we know what you were trying to say.
Is that not you saying that you'd prefer to see bums getting knocked out? You didn't literally say those words but it's the closest thing to it without actually saying it.

Who cares what traditionally happens when a top amateur turns pro, we're talking about Lomachenko and his situation. What exactly is your point? That Lomachenko shouldn't step it up straight away because that's not traditionally what happens? That's bizarre, and frankly quite stupid.
And the fact that you think a subjective opinion about a close boxing match (a split decision) indicates the level of someones boxing knowledge is again, stupid. Rigondeaux had/has a lot of hype, every fight he's had has been dissected and debated. The fact you don't know the first thing about any of his opponents and you called them nobodies indicates that you are either a) new to boxing, or b) you don't know shit/casual fan. Which one is it?
I ACCEPT that you're a scatterbrained idiot, I have no time to debate with somebody who doesn't even know what their own point is.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I've asked you repeatedly to clarify what you are trying to say. I honestly think you have no idea what your point is. It's happened before (Rigo) and it will happen again (Lomachenko) because of the WSB, which for some reason you think was a waste of time. Because of the WSB Lomachenko is more prepared to step it up sooner, which for some reason you think is a bad idea.
> 
> My reading comprehension? Your quote "I don't understand how you can't see how going 12-0 (11) against low level competition wouldn't be better for his career than going 10-0 (6) against high level (but unknown) competition."
> Due to your poor grasp of the English language you used a double negative but we know what you were trying to say.
> ...


Duly noted. Fuck off, slag.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> Duly noted. Fuck off, slag.


:lol::hi:


----------



## Copernicus (Jun 6, 2013)

The most anticipated pro fighter ever! Unbelievable talent!


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Usyk released a statement yesterday saying he's talked with American promoters and recieved offers but is going to wait until he talks to Vitali first before he makes a decision. Hopefully that means that Vasya is also finished talking with promoters and we'll hear a decision soon.


----------



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

He shouldn't rush his career, he's young and has some stuff to learn.
An early defeat can derail his confidence. Fight 5 fights in a year against some journeymen and learn a few things.
I'm sure he's set up for greatness


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Kid Cubano said:


> He shouldn't rush his career, he's young and has some stuff to learn.
> An early defeat can derail his confidence. Fight 5 fights in a year against some journeymen and learn a few things.
> I'm sure he's set up for greatness


What stuff does he have to learn? He's the most complete fighter I've ever seen, amateur or pro.


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Kid Cubano said:


> He shouldn't rush his career, he's young and has some stuff to learn.
> An early defeat can derail his confidence. Fight 5 fights in a year against some journeymen and learn a few things.
> I'm sure he's set up for greatness


He has his WSB experience against very solid compitition under pro rules and a terrific pro style. He's the most qualified candidate you'll find for a prospect that should be moved quickly and its also what he wants, more so than Rigo and look how hes done.


----------



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

Vysotsky said:


> He has his WSB experience against very solid compitition under pro rules and a terrific pro style. He's the most qualified candidate you'll find for a prospect that should be moved quickly and its also what he wants, more so than Rigo and look how hes done.


I didn't know he has gone 12 rds against a contender.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Kid Cubano said:


> I didn't know he has gone 12 rds against a contender.


Don't worry, Rigondeaux is great in his own right.


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Kid Cubano said:


> I didn't know he has gone 12 rds against a contender.


Well fortunately your tomato can tour advice isn't a sentiment he shares.


----------



## BUMPY (Jul 26, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> What stuff does he have to learn? He's the most complete fighter I've ever seen, amateur or pro.


I think it's too early to say something like that man


----------



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Don't worry, Rigondeaux is great in his own right.


What does Rigo has to do with it?
Actually, after winning his first 6-7 fights most of them by spectacular liver punches, Rigo looked very ordinary against a world class like Cordoba. 
There's something to learn when stepping up the competition.


----------



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

Vysotsky said:


> Well fortunately your tomato can tour advice isn't a sentiment he shares.


Why are u so sensitive ? What did I say that hurt u so much?
I just feel the kid can use a few fights to adjust before going for a title. But if u think otherwise its ur fcking opinion and I respect it.
Chill bro


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Kid Cubano said:


> Why are u so sensitive ? What did I say that hurt u so much?
> I just feel the kid can use a few fights to adjust before going for a title. But if u think otherwise its ur fcking opinion and I respect it.
> Chill bro


I don't expect him to go for a title in his first bout that was just american media distortions. He does want one as soon as possible though and fighting a top 20 guy in his first fight would be ideal imo. Title in 4-7 fights would be the pace that's realistic imo.


----------



## BigBone (Jun 13, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> I think most professionals and fighters will tell you it's purely a mental thing, the uncertainty of going a distance you haven't gone before. I seriously doubt a well conditioned amateur fighter who isn't breathing hard after 5 rounds is going to be unable to fight 12 rounds at a slower pace.


It doesn't work like that. Someone doing 2000m comfortably is absolutely NOT guaranteed to be able to compete at half marathon. Pacing has to be learned and conditioning to be tested, of all ppl. Lomachenko should know this by look at his countryman Wlad who's supreme athleticism failed vs. Puritty. Do not underestimate the transitioning, the physical demand from 6 rounds to 8 to 10 to 12 isn't growing linearly, it's growing exponentially, and the pacing may not be set by Lomachenko, but by a Mares who can go 12 with the intensity of an amateur fight.


----------



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

Vysotsky said:


> I don't expect him to go for a title in his first bout that was just american media distortions. He does want one as soon as possible though and fighting a top 20 guy in his first fight would be ideal imo. Title in 4-7 fights would be the pace that's realistic imo.


Then, what are we disagreeing on? I said fight 5 fights first.


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Kid Cubano said:


> Then, what are we disagreeing on? I said fight 5 fights first.


lol I have no idea. I'm plenty calm and the irony is we agree although fighting jorneymen won't be helpful imo. A fringe contender to start with ranked in the top 20 or 25.


----------



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

Vysotsky said:


> lol I have no idea. I'm plenty calm and the irony is we agree.


Lol, ok


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

I'm excited to see Cuba in WSB btw. Hope they use their top guys Toledo, Igelasis, Ramirez, etc. The first two would probably be in the same weighclass which means Cuba would likely own it.


----------



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

Vysotsky said:


> I'm excited to see Cuba in WSB btw. Hope they use their top guys Toledo, Igelasis, Ramirez, etc. The first two would probably be in the same weighclass which means Cuba would likely own it.


I hope we have more Rigo's Gamboas and Lara's on their way to the pro ranks!


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

BUMPY said:


> I think it's too early to say something like that man


Well for 5 rounds he is flawless, I can't think of any fighter so well rounded, offensively, defensively, inside, outside and mid range. He is actually the best fighter I've ever seen.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Kid Cubano said:


> What does Rigo has to do with it?
> Actually, after winning his first 6-7 fights most of them by spectacular liver punches, Rigo looked very ordinary against a world class like Cordoba.
> There's something to learn when stepping up the competition.


The difference is that Rigo has an amateur style, he paced himself for 12 rounds against an awkward style match up. Lomachenko has a pro style, he doesn't need to change anything. He's been handling top competition over 5 rounds in the WSB recently, he wasn't in the wilderness like Rigo was for years before turning pro. Lomachenko has nothing to learn, only lessons to teach.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

BigBone said:


> It doesn't work like that. Someone doing 2000m comfortably is absolutely NOT guaranteed to be able to compete at half marathon. Pacing has to be learned and conditioning to be tested, of all ppl. Lomachenko should know this by look at his countryman Wlad who's supreme athleticism failed vs. Puritty. Do not underestimate the transitioning, the physical demand from 6 rounds to 8 to 10 to 12 isn't growing linearly, it's growing exponentially, and the pacing may not be set by Lomachenko, but by a Mares who can go 12 with the intensity of an amateur fight.


Well for a start anyone can run a half marathon.
The fact is that the longer the duration the lower the intensity is. If a fighter fights too much above their anaerobic threshold early on then they'll gas, but if they pace themselves they can go 20 rounds. That's just the way the human body works.


----------



## BigBone (Jun 13, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> Well for a start anyone can run a half marathon.
> The fact is that the longer the duration the lower the intensity is. If a fighter fights too much above their anaerobic threshold early on then they'll gas, but if they pace themselves they can go 20 rounds. That's just the way the human body works.


Sir, you're very wrong. The pace that is set by the top marathon runners is close to impossible to keep up with for someone built for short distance, it takes considerable time to readjust the system to vastly different demands. In boxing, there's a tank going after the runners smashing the shit out of those who can't keep with the pack, and the pack is Abner Mares who does 12 rounds at a very intense pace, if Loma is starting to feel the heat around R7, he'll get ran over it's as simple as that.

I'm not saying Lomachenko can't go 12 at a high pace, all I'm saying is that your belief he can based on 5-rounders is fundamentally flawed. It's not just another 5 rounds and 2 more, every extra round is getting increasingly harder to manage, and you, me and Lomachenko himself will only find out if he can do championship rounds at championship pace if he has live fights at such distance. Good luck if he plans Abner Mares to be that 12 round test. You can't cut corners in pro boxing, even if you're Vasyl Lomachenko, just like you can't cut corners when arguing with such an knowledgeable pro poster like myself.


----------



## PivotPunch (Aug 1, 2012)

If there something like a boxing god please I wanna see Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux


----------



## Kid Cubano (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> The difference is that Rigo has an amateur style, he paced himself for 12 rounds against an awkward style match up. Lomachenko has a pro style, he doesn't need to change anything. He's been handling top competition over 5 rounds in the WSB recently, he wasn't in the wilderness like Rigo was for years before turning pro. Lomachenko has nothing to learn, only lessons to teach.


Rigo first 5 rds against Cordoba were a piece of cake. Then things starting to get more complicated. And Rigo was already in the ring against a solid journeyman like Berenza. Believe me, as much as we like Lomachenko , he still has things to learn when going deep in a fight.


----------



## SNV (Jun 16, 2012)

PivotPunch said:


> If there something like a boxing god please I wanna see Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux


I'll see what I can do.


----------



## BUMPY (Jul 26, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> Well for 5 rounds he is flawless, I can't think of any fighter so well rounded, offensively, defensively, inside, outside and mid range. He is actually the best fighter I've ever seen.


Yeah he does looks fantastic, but until he's been in with some seasoned veterans we don't know.


----------



## conradically (Jul 12, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I think *just about any Olympian could dominate Broner *over 12 rounds now after that display on the weekend. One of them already gave him a beating in sparring (Spence jr.).
> And yes I think Selimov could beat Broner over 12 as well. It's not like Broner fights for all 12 rounds is it, it's not going to be hard to keep up with that.


How about 2000 Olympian Vyacheslav Senchenko?

Paulie had his number. I bet Broner takes him.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Lomachenko sometimes can be too static for his own good when a fighter is pressuring him and he has his guard up...not the biggest fan of his inside fighting against a pressure fighter. He also has the tendency to be caught by left hooks occasionally.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

BigBone said:


> Sir, you're very wrong. The pace that is set by the top marathon runners is close to impossible to keep up with for someone built for short distance, it takes considerable time to readjust the system to vastly different demands. In boxing, there's a tank going after the runners smashing the shit out of those who can't keep with the pack, and the pack is Abner Mares who does 12 rounds at a very intense pace, if Loma is starting to feel the heat around R7, he'll get ran over it's as simple as that.
> 
> I'm not saying Lomachenko can't go 12 at a high pace, all I'm saying is that your belief he can based on 5-rounders is fundamentally flawed. It's not just another 5 rounds and 2 more, every extra round is getting increasingly harder to manage, and you, me and Lomachenko himself will only find out if he can do championship rounds at championship pace if he has live fights at such distance. Good luck if he plans Abner Mares to be that 12 round test. You can't cut corners in pro boxing, even if you're Vasyl Lomachenko, just like you can't cut corners when arguing with such an knowledgeable pro poster like myself.


12 boxing rounds is nothing like a marathon though, it's 36 minutes of work with a minutes complete rest every three minutes. I'm sure Lomachenko has already sparred 12+ hard rounds consecutively in sparring many times, it's just a mental thing in the pro ring. Physiologically he could do it in his sleep, just a matter of pacing himself. He can take time off during rounds while being on the inside if he wants, with his defence and efficiency of movement he is never going to be in any danger of gassing out in a fight.
Your running analogy is way off as well, it would be more accurate to say that it's like going from running the 800 to the 1500. It's not the massive difference you're making it out to be. It's just a matter of not expending all his energy early on. He's not Zab Judah, it's not going to be a problem at all.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

conradically said:


> How about 2000 Olympian Vyacheslav Senchenko?
> 
> Paulie had his number. I bet Broner takes him.


I don't know man, I was just emphasising how average Broner's performance was and how little I think of him. I don't rate Broner above the likes of Berto, he's B grade at best. People used to talk about Broner being the big test for Lomachenko in the pro ranks, and how he'd beat Lomachenko with ease. Mares, Garcia and Gamboa are the big fights I'm looking forward to seeing Lomachenko against, Broner is a nothing. Rigo is probably a bit too small to give a real good head to head test.


----------



## BigBone (Jun 13, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> 12 boxing rounds is nothing like a marathon though, it's 36 minutes of work with a minutes complete rest every three minutes. I'm sure Lomachenko has already sparred 12+ hard rounds consecutively in sparring many times, it's just a mental thing in the pro ring. Physiologically he could do it in his sleep, just a matter of pacing himself. He can take time off during rounds while being on the inside if he wants, with his defence and efficiency of movement he is never going to be in any danger of gassing out in a fight.
> Your running analogy is way off as well, it would be more accurate to say that it's like going from running the 800 to the 1500. It's not the massive difference you're making it out to be. It's just a matter of not expending all his energy early on. He's not Zab Judah, it's not going to be a problem at all.


As I said noob, pacing is not necessarily something YOU set in the pro ring, a pressure fighter can drain your energy by forcing you to fight, to move, to defend, to stay alert, work all the time. There's simply no way of knowing if Lomachenko can do 12 intense rounds, but we know oh so many occasions, when it turned out that the rushed fighter couldn't, because he cut corners and thought if the skills are there, surely, how hard 12 rounds can be? Just ask Wlad. :deal

You can't just have Kimi Raikkonen jump into a rally car and dominate WRC, it takes considerable amount of time to adapt the different circumstances, never mind the pedals, 4 wheels and steering wheel. Thinking otherwise is delusional and that delusion destroyed careers.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

BigBone said:


> As I said noob, pacing is not necessarily something YOU set in the pro ring, a pressure fighter can drain your energy by forcing you to fight, to move, to defend, to stay alert, work all the time. There's simply no way of knowing if Lomachenko can do 12 intense rounds, but we know oh so many occasions, when it turned out that the rushed fighter couldn't, because he cut corners and thought if the skills are there, surely, how hard 12 rounds can be? Just ask Wlad. :deal
> 
> You can't just have Kimi Raikkonen jump into a rally car and dominate WRC, it takes considerable amount of time to adapt the different circumstances, never mind the pedals, 4 wheels and steering wheel. Thinking otherwise is delusional and that delusion destroyed careers.


I don't understand the reason for calling me a noob but whatever. There's obviously a big difference between a 6'6 guy like Wlad who can't fight to save his life on the inside and a 5'7 126-130 pound guy who has already been fighting pro style fights and fights predominantly on the inside. He's had 400 amateur fights on top of that and he's dealt with pressure fighters larger than him with no problems. He is a pressure fighter himself, with masterful defence. Highly touted guys like Valdez, Ramirez, Verdejo are all highly skilled pro style boxers who are cleaning up in the pro game so far, and they never managed to get Lomachenko out of second gear. If you think a bit of pressure is going to throw a fighter like Lomachenko off his game and that another fighter can dictate the pace against his skills then YDKSAB.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I don't understand the reason for calling me a noob but whatever. There's obviously a big difference between a 6'6 guy like Wlad who can't fight to save his life on the inside and a 5'7 126-130 pound guy who has already been fighting pro style fights and fights predominantly on the inside. He's had 400 amateur fights on top of that and he's dealt with pressure fighters larger than him with no problems. He is a pressure fighter himself, with masterful defence. Highly touted guys like Valdez, Ramirez, Verdejo are all highly skilled pro style boxers who are cleaning up in the pro game so far, and they never managed to get Lomachenko out of second gear. *If you think a bit of pressure is going to throw a fighter like Lomachenko off his game* and that another fighter can dictate the pace against his skills then YDKSAB.


Selimov did expose somewhat of a flaw here, and he really started to get increasingly successful in their WSB match. He's managed to do what I wrote in my previous post pretty well in all of their fights together.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Selimov did expose somewhat of a flaw here, and he really started to get increasingly successful in their WSB match. He's managed to do what I wrote in my previous post pretty well in all of their fights together.


I disagree, Lomachenko was never in any trouble in that WSB fight. He didn't look dazzling but when you're fighting every two weeks it's a bit hard to peak every fight. Selimov is a very good fighter, he's a strong southpaw counter puncher so nobody is going to ever look great against him. In their second amateur fight Lomachenko dominated him after the first round, if Lomachenko was fresh and highly motivated for the WSB contest I'm certain it would of been easy work.


----------



## EvianMcGirt (Jun 9, 2013)

BigBone said:


> The idea of Loma signing with Top Prank is sickening. Arum did fuckall to build up his previous two foreign amateur stars with Gamboa and Rigo being set up to be a name on JuanMa's and Donaire's record (didn't work out too well did it, Bob? :rofl). K2 is still Vasyl's best choice IMO. The K's can guarantee more TV and sponsor deals, and one doesn't have to be part of TR or GBP to appear on HBO, just ask Goovkin or Martinez.
> 
> How soon do you guys think Vasyl can make his official pro debut?





McKay said:


> If Usyk's going to an American promoter he's best signing with Main Events I think. They have a proven track record working with both Eastern Europeans and heavier guys. Top Rank and GBP have shown little to no interest in building up either.


Agree with both of these.

While Top Rank and GBP are the obvious powerhouses they both have their bad points.

Signing with a Main Events type promoter won't see them tied to a network or restricted from fighting other stables fighters such as signing with the big two would.

Main Events also have a good track record with Eastern Euros. K2 aren't as established in USA so could prove difficult signing with them.


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

Massive coolness abounds!

- but HTF is Lomachenko still only 25 y-o? :huh The guy had like 17,000 amateur fights.


----------



## SouthPaw (May 24, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I don't know man, I was just emphasising how average Broner's performance was and how little I think of him. I don't rate Broner above the likes of Berto, he's B grade at best. People used to talk about Broner being the big test for Lomachenko in the pro ranks, and how he'd beat Lomachenko with ease. Mares, Garcia and Gamboa are the big fights I'm looking forward to seeing Lomachenko against, Broner is a nothing. Rigo is probably a bit too small to give a real good head to head test.


He had Malinaggi's head snapping back all night. It was one sided after the 2nd round.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

Whilst I do believe (and would love to see) that Lomachenko could win a world title in his first fight, it would be a hell of a risk to take on both his part and the promoters who will almost certainly be dishing out top dollar to sign Vasyl. 

I mean Lomachenko could probably be favourite over most guys in a five rounder and would likely be fine going twelve if prepared properly it is no guarantee and going a loass in your first fight could prove a huge dent in confidence and money making potential.

A great example would be how badly Ali struggled with Doug Jones and that was after Ali had gone ten twice.


----------



## SouthPaw (May 24, 2013)

I doubt he'll have conditioning problems. Guys with those enormous amateur backgrounds are usually very relaxed which is 90% the battle.


----------



## conradically (Jul 12, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I don't know man, I was just emphasising how average Broner's performance was and how little I think of him. I don't rate Broner above the likes of Berto, he's B grade at best. People used to talk about Broner being the big test for Lomachenko in the pro ranks, and how he'd beat Lomachenko with ease. Mares, Garcia and Gamboa are the big fights I'm looking forward to seeing Lomachenko against, Broner is a nothing. Rigo is probably a bit too small to give a real good head to head test.


So you're not sure about Broner versus the Olympican Senchenko (who was TKO'd by Paulie).

But how about Broner versus Olympian Vincente Escobedo? I like Broner in this matchup.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

conradically said:


> So you're not sure about Broner versus the Olympican Senchenko (who was TKO'd by Paulie).
> 
> But how about Broner versus Olympian Vincente Escobedo? I like Broner in this matchup.


I don't care to analyse Broner against anyone, he's irrelevant to elite level boxing at this point. Once he finds the right weight division and beats someone credible in an impressive fashion then I'll start to care again.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

SouthPaw said:


> He had Malinaggi's head snapping back all night. It was one sided after the 2nd round.


We saw a different fight then. I saw two guys who couldn't put a dent in each other, with the guido putting in more work, and the other guy putting in more posing and talking. Broner only won one round clearly on my scorecard, which I had 7-5 for Paulie.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Cableaddict said:


> Massive coolness abounds!
> 
> - but HTF is Lomachenko still only 25 y-o? :huh The guy had like 17,000 amateur fights.


He had 400 fights. Which isn't that crazy when you think about guys like Broner who allegedly had 300 fights and turned pro at a far younger age. Lomachenko started fighting when he was 6 years old, and he actually has made sure in recent years to skip less important tournaments in order to stay motivated and hungry for boxing.


----------



## JDK (Jun 3, 2013)

^^ I can't wait for Lomachenko to give us some good fights as his style has solid technique while being exciting. 
With that said, I can't make such aggressive statements and predictions about him just yet


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with is such a Lomachenko dick rider...he sees him as this perfect, unstoppable specimen, and his excuse for why he looked relatively lackluster vs Selimov? The schedule. :rolleyes


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> Dealt_with is such a Lomachenko dick rider...he sees him as this perfect, unstoppable specimen, and his excuse for why he looked relatively lackluster vs Selimov? The schedule. :rolleyes


Have you ever competed in anything in your life at a decent level? It's next to impossible to be at your best every two weeks. In boxing you don't have team mates to help you out and support you. Periodisation exists for a reason you dummy.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Who is the trainer that Vasyl would benefit from the most?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Who is the trainer that Vasyl would benefit from the most?


The word is that he'll keep his father as his trainer and add another pro trainer to the team.. the only trainer I think someone of Lomachenko's calibre deserves is Pedro Diaz. The language barrier would be a big issue though. I really can't think of another pro trainer I really rate, most are egotistical bucket holders who have no idea imo. I really don't think they need to add another trainer.


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

That video is terrible, what a load of stupid as shit questions to ask.


----------



## adamcanavan (Jun 5, 2012)

Abraham said:


> Dealt_with is such a Lomachenko dick rider...he sees him as this perfect, unstoppable specimen, and his excuse for why he looked relatively lackluster vs Selimov? The schedule. :rolleyes


Selimov is a top fighter and lomachenko won the two rematches clearly?


----------



## jonnytightlips (Jun 14, 2012)

Whats the word then lads. Is he any closer to signing with anyone.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Lomachenko is the type of fighter that would 116-112 or 115-113 a prime Gamboa


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

jonnytightlips said:


> Whats the word then lads. Is he any closer to signing with anyone.


He gave a interview since returning from America saying

- He has a contract now and should be signing it in a week or two after reviewing everything (didn't name the promotional comapany)
- Should make his debut in mid-late October at FW
- Would like the winner of Orlando Salido vs Orlando Cruz WBO title fight if they're willing

That fight is on the Bradley vs JMM card October 12th with Top Rank so i doubt the contract is with Golden Boy.


----------



## Royal-T-Bag (Jun 5, 2013)

Abraham said:


> Dealt_with is such a Lomachenko dick rider...he sees him as this perfect, unstoppable specimen, and his excuse for why he looked relatively lackluster vs Selimov? The schedule. :rolleyes


dealt with lomachenkos cock in his mouth is gonna jump off a bridge when lomachenko suffers his first loss


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Royal-T-Bag said:


> dealt with lomachenkos cock in his mouth is gonna jump off a bridge when lomachenko suffers his first loss


I think it's more of a question 'if' he ever suffers his first loss. A far greater prospect than Floyd ever was. I'm a boxing fan, if someone is ever good enough to beat Lomachenko then they deserve all the credit in the world. It's boxing, one punch can change everything and nobody is unbeatable. Lomachenko is obviously interested in fighting the very best so that increases the chances of him suffering a loss at some point. He isn't Broner/Mayweather/Calzaghe (credit to Mayweather though for fighting Canelo, despite it being the first time he's stepped up to the plate in over 5 years), he's more in the mould of Rigondeaux or Mares.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Vysotsky said:


> He gave a interview since returning from America saying
> 
> - He has a contract now and should be signing it in a week or two after reviewing everything (didn't name the promotional comapany)
> - Should make his debut in mid-late October at FW
> ...


Salido is a tough guy, that would be a good test for Lomachenko considering Gamboa and Garcia couldn't put him away.


----------



## Royal-T-Bag (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I think it's more of a question 'if' he ever suffers his first loss. A far greater prospect than Floyd ever was. I'm a boxing fan, if someone is ever good enough to beat Lomachenko then they deserve all the credit in the world. It's boxing, one punch can change everything and nobody is unbeatable. Lomachenko is obviously interested in fighting the very best so that increases the chances of him suffering a loss at some point. He isn't Broner/Mayweather/Calzaghe (credit to Mayweather though for fighting Canelo, despite it being the first time he's stepped up to the plate in over 5 years), he's more in the mould of Rigondeaux or Mares.


bruh you lost your shit son.

this dude hasn't even officially turned pro, you're on some next level crazy


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Royal-T-Bag said:


> bruh you lost your shit son.
> 
> this dude hasn't even officially turned pro, you're on some next level crazy


It's because my prefrontal lobe is more developed than yours. Evolve and catch up bruh


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I think it's more of a question 'if' he ever suffers his first loss. A far greater prospect than Floyd ever was. I'm a boxing fan, if someone is ever good enough to beat Lomachenko then they deserve all the credit in the world. It's boxing, one punch can change everything and nobody is unbeatable. Lomachenko is obviously interested in fighting the very best so that increases the chances of him suffering a loss at some point. He isn't Broner/Mayweather/Calzaghe (credit to Mayweather though for fighting Canelo, despite it being the first time he's stepped up to the plate in over 5 years), he's more in the mould of Rigondeaux or Mares.


Do you think Lomachenko is presently more skilled than Mayweather? How do you think he would do against the Mayweather that fought Diego?


----------



## steven_z (Jul 20, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> It's because my prefrontal lobe is more developed than yours. Evolve and catch up bruh


Perhaps you should use your "prefrontal lobe" and realize that you now live in Western society, which recognizes and even encourage diversity of opinions.
Looking at your posts it's obvious you came from former Soviet Union and have totalitarianism mentality, where only one opinion could exists and everything else is wrong and should be suppressed (Putin jailing Khodorkovsky, Yanukovich puting Timoshenko in jail - sounds familiar?).

I'm big fan of Lomachenko, but it's very unpleasant for me to read your posts. I'll with pleasure read critics of him, even if they are not always correct. In fact critic is very valuable thing and allows to understand subject better and more objectively.

Even though your posts have some interesting info and you possess certain degree of intelligence - your insults doesn't do any good and you make Lomachenko look kind of bad. May be it's time to evolve, bruh?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steven_z said:


> Perhaps you should use your "prefrontal lobe" and realize that you now live in Western society, which recognizes and even encourage diversity of opinions.
> Looking at your posts it's obvious you came from former Soviet Union and have totalitarianism mentality, where only one opinion could exists and everything else is wrong and should be suppressed (Putin jailing Khodorkovsky, Yanukovich puting Timoshenko in jail - sounds familiar?).
> 
> I'm big fan of Lomachenko, but it's very unpleasant for me to read your posts. I'll with pleasure read critics of him, even if they are not always correct. In fact critic is very valuable thing and allows to understand subject better and more objectively.
> ...


Hey nooby noob, the guy was talking about dicksucking and jumping off a bridge when I was merely discussing a boxer I'm a fan of, hence my insult in return. Which wasn't even really an insult, I was essentially saying that the guy lacks the foresight (function of the prefrontal lobe - the most recently evolved part of the human brain) to see the potential and the talent. He attacked me for no reason so I don't understand why you're getting on your high horse. And no I'm not from Eastern Europe. From your solitary post I'd say that you lack a certain degree of intelligence.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

Lomachenko dindt even become pro yet and gets compared with Mayweather?
Comparing him with Broner is fine (because he sucks) but Mayweather? Thats too much.


----------



## DirtyDan (May 25, 2013)

If he moves to featherweight, who the fuck is he going to beat? Mares? Donaire? Garcia? John? Rigo?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> Do you think Lomachenko is presently more skilled than Mayweather? How do you think he would do against the Mayweather that fought Diego?


He's a different sort of fighter, obviously a lot more offence-minded than Mayweather so it's hard to make a comparison. Lomachenko doesn't get hit even though he's aggressive. Right now his reflexes and athleticism are greater than Floyd's, versus the Corrales version it's very even. Gun to my head and I say Lomachenko is the more complete boxer, the more skilled boxer. 
I might be wrong.. but I've been following boxing for many years and from my eyes I've never seen a fighter as complete as Lomachenko. My other favourite boxers over the years have been Roy Jones, Hopkins, Toney, Whitaker... currently my favourites are Dirrell, GGG, Gamboa and Rigondeaux. I'm always objective when judging these things as I don't have any silly nationalistic biases.
We'll see what happens when he turns pro. Right or wrong I can't wait to see him in action.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

DirtyDan said:


> If he moves to featherweight, who the fuck is he going to beat? Mares? Donaire? Garcia? John? Rigo?


I don't understand? That's the weight you want to be at to face top competition. I can't wait to see him against those guys.


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> He's a different sort of fighter, obviously a lot more offence-minded than Mayweather so it's hard to make a comparison. Lomachenko doesn't get hit even though he's aggressive. Right now his reflexes and athleticism are greater than Floyd's, versus the Corrales version it's very even. _*Gun to my head and I say Lomachenko is the more complete boxer, the more skilled boxer. *_
> I might be wrong.. but I've been following boxing for many years and from my eyes I've never seen a fighter as complete as Lomachenko. My other favourite boxers over the years have been Roy Jones, Hopkins, Toney, Whitaker... currently my favourites are Dirrell, GGG, Gamboa and Rigondeaux. I'm always objective when judging these things as I don't have any silly nationalistic biases.
> We'll see what happens when he turns pro. Right or wrong I can't wait to see him in action.


...........................................

...
.

Freedom of speech and all that, but....You're a complete and utter idiot.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

browsing said:


> ...........................................
> 
> ...
> .
> ...


And I think the same of you if you can't see that. Happy days


----------



## BUMPY (Jul 26, 2012)

Rigo makes lomanchenko look lost.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

BUMPY said:


> Rigo makes lomanchenko look lost.


I must've missed their fight. Hopefully they can meet up in the pro game, I have a feeling Rigo might be a bit small for it though.


----------



## BUMPY (Jul 26, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> I must've missed their fight. Hopefully they can meet up in the pro game, I have a feeling Rigo might be a bit small for it though.


Can Lomanchenko make super bantamweight?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

I would say almost certainly not. I was a bit surprised that he said he's going to be fighting at 126 tbh.


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> And I think the same of you if you can't see that. Happy days


Yeah uh huh.

I'm just going to keep this for a bit.










Maybe you'll repent later, :lol:


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

browsing said:


> Yeah uh huh.
> 
> I'm just going to keep this for a bit.
> 
> ...


Please do hold onto that, in a couple of years when he's unanimously considered the #1 p4p boxer I'd like my apologies and acknowledgement for what I've said in this thread.


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Please do hold onto that, in a couple of years when he's unanimously considered the #1 p4p boxer I'd like my apologies and acknowledgement for what I've said in this thread.


Has Loma boxed a 12 rounder yet?


----------



## BUMPY (Jul 26, 2012)

@Dealt_with Loma does not have the reflexes of featherweight Floyd man.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

If current Lomachenko fights featherweight Mayweather he gets knocked out.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

BUMPY said:


> @Dealt_with Loma does not have the reflexes of featherweight Floyd man.


Yeah you're right, Lomachenko is almost impossible to hit when he's on the front foot. So yeah he would have better reflexes than Floyd ever did.






Honestly, compare that to this guy:






Compare their movement, activity etc. I have no doubt that Lomachenko dominates Floyd at that weight. Look at Castillo's success. I love how hyped up fighters can get in the pro game, when has Floyd ever looked unbeatable. Faded De La Hoya and faded Cotto gave him tough fights. Floyd isn't the unstoppable master he's made out to be, everyones beatable. Floyd Mayweather 84-6 as an amateur, Lomachenko 396-1 and two gold medals. They both started as kids and Lomachenko has the more aggressive, pro style from the get go. Honestly, Floyd gets shitted on.


----------



## BUMPY (Jul 26, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> Yeah you're right, Lomachenko is almost impossible to hit when he's on the front foot. So yeah he would have better reflexes than Floyd ever did.


Yea I've seen that fight, he is a good fighter and I know he looks well rounded, but really you can't make a true judgement until hes been in with good pros. Either way Mayweather at featherweight would of been far too fast for loma


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

Here's the update from page 8 that most probably missed due to all the arguing the last couple pages.



Vysotsky said:


> He gave a interview since returning from America saying
> 
> - He has a contract now and should be signing it in a week or two after reviewing everything (didn't name the promotional comapany)
> - Should make his debut in mid-late October at FW
> ...


----------



## Michael (Jun 8, 2012)

Would Loma even be allowed to fight for a title his debut? Wouldn't he have to be in the top 15 rankings of the organization who's belt hes fighting for.


----------



## Royal-T-Bag (Jun 5, 2013)

Lomachenko will be a good champion but dealt with it is a loony. I expect him to have a good career but this fool is claiming GOAT status for a guy who hasn't even turned pro and making ludicrous claims like he would beat mayweather. I expect a Cotto'esque career, HOF but not ATG


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

BUMPY said:


> Yea I've seen that fight, he is a good fighter and I know he looks well rounded, but really you can't make a true judgement until hes been in with good pros. Either way Mayweather at featherweight would of been far too fast for loma


I updated the post with Floyd vs Corrales. Compare them, I don't know how you can say that. No one is far too fast for Lomachenko, get real. The guy Loma is fighting there is a world championship winning amateur at a higher weight division than Loma, and it's not like Corrales was ever hard to find and put down. Some objectivity please.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Royal-T-Bag said:


> Lomachenko will be a good champion but dealt with it is a loony. I expect him to have a good career but this fool is claiming GOAT status for a guy who hasn't even turned pro and making ludicrous claims like he would beat mayweather. I expect a Cotto'esque career, HOF but not ATG


That's fine, you'll soon see how wrong you are.


----------



## Royal-T-Bag (Jun 5, 2013)

Vysotsky said:


> Here's the update from page 8 that most probably missed due to all the arguing the last couple pages.


Salido would be risky as hell for a first pro fight, Salidos gonna body the **** dude.

To go from ams who have to be clean as fuck to a full out rough dirty mutherfucker like Salido in your first fight isn't a great idea, in time he can easily deal with someone of Salidos level but he needs to get in there with some lower level dirty brawlers first imo.

if he fights and beats Salido in his first fight that would be incredible. realistically i doubt he'll get a title shot until 4-5 fights which is still unreal.


----------



## BUMPY (Jul 26, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> I updated the post with Floyd vs Corrales. Compare them, I don't know how you can say that. No one is far too fast for Lomachenko, get real. The guy Loma is fighting there is a world championship winning amateur at a higher weight division than Loma, and it's not like Corrales was ever hard to find and put down. Some objectivity please.


No I'm deadly serious and objective with this, Floyds _is _faster than Loma and his jab to the body would land all night Loma wouldn't touch him.

By the way I think he's very good but you are getting ahead of yourself stating he'd shit on Mayweather.


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

BUMPY said:


> No I'm deadly serious and objective with this, Floyds _is _faster than Loma and his jab to the body would land all night Loma wouldn't touch him.
> 
> By the way I think he's very good but you are getting ahead of yourself stating he'd shit on Mayweather.


Corrales was landing on Floyd but Lomachenko wouldn't touch him? Fighting hyperbole with hyperbole doesn't make you any better.


----------



## BUMPY (Jul 26, 2012)

Vysotsky said:


> Corrales was landing on Floyd but Lomachenko wouldn't touch him? Fighting hyperbole with hyperbole doesn't make you any better.


This is bordering on silly now.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

BUMPY said:


> No I'm deadly serious and objective with this, Floyds _is _faster than Loma and his jab to the body would land all night Loma wouldn't touch him.
> 
> By the way I think he's very good but you are getting ahead of yourself stating he'd shit on Mayweather.


Play those videos at the same time. No way Mayweather is faster than Lomachenko. And Lomachenko unlike Mayweather can be on full defensive mode while he is in the middle of a combo (not that Floyd throws combos), on the inside. I was trying to be reasonable and diplomatic when comparing Mayweather and Lomachenko at first but honestly, Lomachenko is superior in every aspect of boxing. The problem is that everyone thinks olympic boxing isn't actually boxing. Rigo is seen as an anomaly but as Roy Jones says you have to be something very special to win two gold medals.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Royal-T-Bag said:


> Salido would be risky as hell for a first pro fight, Salidos gonna body the **** dude.
> 
> To go from ams who have to be clean as fuck to a full out rough dirty mutherfucker like Salido in your first fight isn't a great idea, in time he can easily deal with someone of Salidos level but he needs to get in there with some lower level dirty brawlers first imo.
> 
> if he fights and beats Salido in his first fight that would be incredible. realistically i doubt he'll get a title shot until 4-5 fights which is still unreal.


If there was a US fighter who went 396-1 in the amateurs, won two gold medals in two different divisions, two world champs in different divisions and a val barker trophy and turned pro at 25... would you honestly still say you expect him to have a 'Cotto' level pro career?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Vysotsky said:


> Corrales was landing on Floyd but Lomachenko wouldn't touch him? Fighting hyperbole with hyperbole doesn't make you any better.


I'll cool it once Lomachenko is showing and proving in the paid ranks, but at the moment people just don't know. I'm telling them!


----------



## Royal-T-Bag (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> If there was a US fighter who went 396-1 in the amateurs, won two gold medals in two different divisions, two world champs in different divisions and a val barker trophy and turned pro at 25... would you honestly still say you expect him to have a 'Cotto' level pro career?


yup........

rigo was considered nearly as good as loma and i doubt he'll have a career that ranks higher than Cottos when all is said and done.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

BUMPY said:


> This is bordering on silly now.


It's really a valid point though isn't it? How much better are Corrales, Castillo, De La Hoya, Cotto than Lomachenko? Judah won rounds from Mayweather. Those guys can land regularly on Floyd but Lomachenko can't? I think the silly part was what you said.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Royal-T-Bag said:


> yup........
> 
> rigo was considered nearly as good as loma and i doubt he'll have a career that ranks higher than Cottos when all is said and done.


I'd consider Rigo's career at least as good as Cotto's, he beat a better fighter than Cotto ever beat in only his 12th fight. Cotto has been done by Pac, Mayweather, Trout, Margarito. Do you think Lomachenko is going to lose every time he steps up? You're the crazy one here if you believe that.


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

Royal-T-Bag said:


> yup........
> 
> rigo was considered nearly as good as loma and i doubt he'll have a career that ranks higher than Cottos when all is said and done.


He's already had a win better than any other victory on Cotto's resume.


----------



## Michael (Jun 8, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> I'd consider Rigo's career at least as good as Cotto's, he beat a better fighter than Cotto ever beat in only his 12th fight. Cotto has been done by Pac, Mayweather, Trout, Margarito. Do you think Lomachenko is going to lose every time he steps up? You're the crazy one here if you believe that.


Rigo's career is nowhere near Cotto's for depth. Fair enough beating Donaire is porbabl as good if not better than anyone Cotto beat, but Migul won world titles in 3 weight class, has wins over Malignaggi, Clottey, Mosley, Judah, Quintana, Bailey as well as a win over Margarito in the rematch, plus quite a few other good results. And are you really holding his losses against him? Pac and Mayweather are two top 30 ATG's, Margarito was almost certainly using loaded gloves against him in their first fight and Cotto was past it when he lost to Trout. At his very best, circa 2006/2007, Cotto was damn good, and his career is greater than Rigos.


----------



## BUMPY (Jul 26, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> It's really a valid point though isn't it? How much better are Corrales, Castillo, De La Hoya, Cotto than Lomachenko? Judah won rounds from Mayweather. Those guys can land regularly on Floyd but Lomachenko can't? I think the silly part was what you said.


Two very different games amateur and professional, I would not compare lomanchenko who has never fought a 12 round pro fight to De La Hoya.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> He's a different sort of fighter, obviously a lot more offence-minded than Mayweather so it's hard to make a comparison. Lomachenko doesn't get hit even though he's aggressive. Right now his reflexes and athleticism are greater than Floyd's, versus the Corrales version it's very even. Gun to my head and I say Lomachenko is the more complete boxer, the more skilled boxer.
> I might be wrong.. but I've been following boxing for many years and from my eyes I've never seen a fighter as complete as Lomachenko. My other favourite boxers over the years have been Roy Jones, Hopkins, Toney, Whitaker... currently my favourites are Dirrell, GGG, Gamboa and Rigondeaux. I'm always objective when judging these things as I don't have any silly nationalistic biases.
> We'll see what happens when he turns pro. Right or wrong I can't wait to see him in action.


 Holy fuck. More skilled boxer then FMJ? But you didn't answer the question. How would he do against 130 lb Mayweather who fought Corrales? How would the fight go, in your opinion?


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Never mind, dude...I read back. You did answer the question. You honestly think Lomachenko would beat 130lb Mayweather? The one who fought Corrales? You honestly believe that, or are you just trying to hype your man up?


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Rigo vs Cotto in terms of careers was mentioned here. Well, Rigondeaux is clearly a better fighter than a prime 140lb Cotto. 
Rigo has the best win than anything on Cotto's resume (the best of Cotto's resume is a win against an 07' Mosley). 
Rigo can't even get any fights...so whether he makes HOF or not doesn't change the fact that he's a complete MONSTER.

As for Loma vs 130lb PBF, I think we have to see how Loma adapts to 12 rounds first. 130lb PBF is a monster who would beat any of the 130lbs greats i.e Arguello, Nelson, Chavez. Let's just wait.

In the meantime, watch his absolute schooling of Oscar Valdez who is a legit good prospect:


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Yeah you're right, Lomachenko is almost impossible to hit when he's on the front foot. So yeah he would have better reflexes than Floyd ever did.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think..I'll even...get started on this.

Keep dreaming bro.
Fighting Dreamer!

You're comparing a AM, fighting in Europe, to the American great WW and FWs in their defeat against Pretty Boy Floyd...

No words.

Yea... Keep dreaming though.


----------



## Rooster (Jul 14, 2013)

C'mon now @Dealt_with I mean I love hyping up prospects more than most but to say Lomachenko beats 130lb Mayweather as he is now? No, son. :verysad Loma is a beast, I think he'll be top10 P4P in 2-3 years or so as it looks like he's going to be moved very quickly. But I'll wait until he's proven against top pros before saying he beats Pretty Boy Floyd.

Felix Verdejo, on the other hand, is a completely different story. Future P4P#1. Future GOAT. Future Lommy boys' daddy. :deal


----------



## steven_z (Jul 20, 2013)

Royal-T-Bag said:


> Salido would be risky as hell for a first pro fight, Salidos gonna body the **** dude.
> 
> To go from ams who have to be clean as fuck to a full out rough dirty mutherfucker like Salido in your first fight isn't a great idea, in time he can easily deal with someone of Salidos level but he needs to get in there with some lower level dirty brawlers first imo.
> 
> if he fights and beats Salido in his first fight that would be incredible. realistically i doubt he'll get a title shot until 4-5 fights which is still unreal.


From Loma last interview he wants to debut in October and then fight Salido-Cruz winner, so it will be his second fight.
He is not a regular fighter and does tremendous amount of work outside the ring - for example 5 hours swimming, 3.5 hours running, etc.
I can not envision that he's going to have some problems beating Salido, but we'll see.


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

Abraham said:


> Never mind, dude...I read back. You did answer the question. You honestly think Lomachenko would beat 130lb Mayweather? The one who fought Corrales? You honestly believe that, or are you just trying to hype your man up?


He's just hyping up his man.

Corrales would pound away at every man that's ever stood before Lomachencko in the ring. It wouldn't even be a contest.
Corrales would murder Lomachenko as is. This is not serious. This man is just delusional. Lomachenko is a good boxer but he is not elite, far from it.

You can't compare him and Rigo just beceause they've got nice am-records.

Rigo came out cuban-am hell.
Loma comes out of euro-am, which is unimpressive.

Lomachenko is a hopeful, but that's just what he is. I've watched him box, he is not nearly as exciting in action as Dealt_with is making him out to be.

I think this is nationalist hype type thing on his part. He's possibly upping his countryman.


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Rigo vs Cotto in terms of careers was mentioned here. Well, Rigondeaux is clearly a better fighter than a prime 140lb Cotto.
> Rigo has the best win than anything on Cotto's resume (the best of Cotto's resume is a win against an 07' Mosley).
> Rigo can't even get any fights...so whether he makes HOF or not doesn't change the fact that he's a complete MONSTER.
> 
> ...


Yeah, Mayweather tools Arguello and handily beats Nelson, however, Chavez is a bit of a stylistic nightmare and would beat Floyd, in my opinion, prime for prime.


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

browsing said:


> He's just hyping up his man.
> 
> Corrales would pound away at every man that's ever stood before Lomachencko in the ring. It wouldn't even be a contest.
> Corrales would murder Lomachenko as is. This is not serious. This man is just delusional. Lomachenko is a good boxer but he is not elite, far from it.
> ...


Although I do agree dealt_with is somewhat overrating Vasyl's ability in contrast to other fighters, saying Lomachenko is "good but not elite" is also an equally spurious thing to say. We're talking about a guy who is legitimately arguably the best amateur of all time, having almost 400 bouts and losing but one, to a quality fighter in Selimov. Lomachenko then beat him twice in rematches, winning two gold-medals along the way.

It wouldn't be hyperbole or over-the-top to say he is the most impressive and accomplished amateur boxer to ever compete. Saying Lomachenko came out of a "European" amateur scene whilst Rigondeaux came out of a "Cuban" scene is also ridiculous considering both have matched up against the elite fighters in and around their weight classes. Vasyl has faced opponents of various nationalities in world tournaments and came out on top in just about each and every one.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Rooster said:


> Felix Verdejo, on the other hand, is a completely different story. Future P4P#1. Future GOAT. Future Lommy boys' daddy. :deal


Loma is already Verdejo's daddy. He's already beaten him in the amateurs.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

browsing said:


> He's just hyping up his man.
> 
> Corrales would pound away at every man that's ever stood before Lomachencko in the ring. It wouldn't even be a contest.
> Corrales would murder Lomachenko as is. This is not serious. This man is just delusional. Lomachenko is a good boxer but he is not elite, far from it.
> ...


You do know that the russians teached the cubans amateur boxing?


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Lomachenko is the Word and the Truth and the Power and the Glory and that is all ye know and all ye need know.


----------



## Rooster (Jul 14, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Loma is already Verdejo's daddy. He's already beaten him in the amateurs.


Yeah but that's in the past. Fuckall you can do about now. :conf The son will become the father. Truss.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Rooster said:


> Yeah but that's in the past. Fuckall you can do about now. :conf The son will become the father. Truss.


That is shit logic. :lol:

He only sonn'ed Verdejo last year in 2012!


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

browsing said:


> He's just hyping up his man.
> 
> Corrales would pound away at every man that's ever stood before Lomachencko in the ring. It wouldn't even be a contest.
> Corrales would murder Lomachenko as is. This is not serious. This man is just delusional. Lomachenko is a good boxer but he is not elite, far from it.
> ...


I don't understand how anyone with a shred of boxing knowledge could honestly look themselves in the mirror and truly believe that Lomachenko could beat 130lb, Corrales fight Mayweather. Lomachenko has never fought anyone even close to being on that level. If dealt_with really believes that then...I don't even know what else to say.


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

LuckyLuke said:


> You do know that the russians teached the cubans amateur boxing?


I don't know about this, but even if it is true. What is your point exactly? The cuban's have been a force in boxing for years, their skill and technique doesn't even need to be mentioned, it's already known and recognized by the boxing-heads all over the world.

Russia on the other hand. :huh



O59 said:


> Although I do agree dealt_with is somewhat overrating Vasyl's ability in contrast to other fighters, saying Lomachenko is "good but not elite" is also an equally spurious thing to say. We're talking about a guy who is legitimately arguably the best amateur of all time, having almost 400 bouts and losing but one, to a quality fighter in Selimov. Lomachenko then beat him twice in rematches, winning two gold-medals along the way.
> 
> It wouldn't be hyperbole or over-the-top to say he is the most impressive and accomplished amateur boxer to ever compete. Saying Lomachenko came out of a "European" amateur scene whilst Rigondeaux came out of a "Cuban" scene is also ridiculous considering both have matched up against the elite fighters in and around their weight classes. Vasyl has faced opponents of various nationalities in world tournaments and came out on top in just about each and every one.


I don't know who Selimov is, but I do know who Gamboa is, and who Mendez is, and Mares is, and Gamboa is said to have beat all of them in the Am's.

I don't mean to down play Lomanchenko, I recognize his potential as a fighter but I also see plenty in him that gets beat by top competitors in the pro's. Dealt_with posts his guy against these laughable guys in Euro-Ams fights and claims this guy is faster than Floyd against great fighters when it should be clear that his competition isn't that good at all. If Loma fought the likes of Jorge Linares he would get soundly out-boxed, out-sped and out-pointed. I hope they put this guy up against some competition soon so Dealt_with can be silenced soundly.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

browsing said:


> I don't know about this, but even if it is true. What is your point exactly? The cuban's have been a force in boxing for years, their skill and technique doesn't even need to be mentioned, it's already known and recognized by the boxing-heads all over the world.
> 
> Russia on the other hand. :huh
> 
> ...


You clearly dont know anything about amateur boxing then...
Russia always had great fighters who couldnt turn pro because pro boxing was forbidden. And yes the sovjets teached the cubans boxing.


----------



## O59 (Jul 8, 2012)

browsing said:


> I don't know about this, but even if it is true. What is your point exactly? The cuban's have been a force in boxing for years, their skill and technique doesn't even need to be mentioned, it's already known and recognized by the boxing-heads all over the world.
> 
> Russia on the other hand. :huh
> 
> ...


Selimov is a very good, world-class amateur. Tricky, tough southpaw competitor who would probably do quite in the well professional ranks himself.

Valentino isn't "laughable" mate, if that's who you're getting at. I've seen Lomachenko against plenty of very good fighters, including two highly-touted unbeaten professionals in Oscar Valdez and Felix Verdejo. Lomachenko usually completely dominates his opponents, who are often very, _very_ good amateurs. Saying Linares soundly outboxes Lomachenko is absolutely laughable, sorry. He's been pounded on by the likes of Antonio DeMarco, Sergio Thompson and Juan Carlos Salgado. Why would you think Lomachenko loses to him?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steven_z said:


> He is not a regular fighter and does tremendous amount of work outside the ring - for example 5 hours swimming, 3.5 hours running, etc.
> I can not envision that he's going to have some problems beating Salido, but we'll see.


You got that from 'his' twitter didn't you? It's BS.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Rooster said:


> C'mon now @Dealt_with I mean I love hyping up prospects more than most but to say Lomachenko beats 130lb Mayweather as he is now? No, son. :verysad Loma is a beast, I think he'll be top10 P4P in 2-3 years or so as it looks like he's going to be moved very quickly. But I'll wait until he's proven against top pros before saying he beats Pretty Boy Floyd.
> 
> Felix Verdejo, on the other hand, is a completely different story. Future P4P#1. Future GOAT. Future Lommy boys' daddy. :deal


Verdejo is good but Lomachenko didn't have to get out of second gear to beat him, and the scores were very generous to Verdejo. He's a very good prospect though, someone who I actually think will have a Cotto-esque sort of career.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

browsing said:


> He's just hyping up his man.
> 
> Corrales would pound away at every man that's ever stood before Lomachencko in the ring. It wouldn't even be a contest.
> Corrales would murder Lomachenko as is. This is not serious. This man is just delusional. Lomachenko is a good boxer but he is not elite, far from it.
> ...


I'm just upping the greatest fighter I've ever seen. I'm a fan of boxing and Lomachenko is a boxing genius. Corrales (RIP) was a good entertaining fighter in his own right but he wasn't exactly elite, look at how Cassa handled him. Lomachenko is on another planet compared to these guys we're talking about. The amateurs at the highest level is an international competition, everyone fights everyone. And statistically Loma was more successful then Rigo (who is also one of my favourite fighters).
I'm not hopeful at all, as you can see from posts my confidence in Lomachenko is basically a certainty. I'm a logical person, for Lomachenko to not be what I'm saying he'll be in the pro game then something would have to go seriously wrong (injury, personal issues etc.).


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> .
> 
> In the meantime, watch his absolute schooling of Oscar Valdez who is a legit good prospect:


Here's a better quality version of that fight, the one you posted is one of a number of 2009 World fights our friend StevenZ posted. I think he used a mobile to record an internet stream.






I remember before that fight there were interviews with Valdez and he was talking about how Lomachenko is the best in the world, he's been studying his fights, he's seen some weaknesses etc. Lomachenko was his big target that he was training for and Valdez is obviously no slouch. Then you look at the fight.


----------



## conradically (Jul 12, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I'm just upping the greatest fighter I've ever seen. I'm a fan of boxing and Lomachenko is a boxing genius. Corrales (RIP) was a good entertaining fighter in his own right but he wasn't exactly elite, look at how Cassa handled him. Lomachenko is on another planet compared to these guys we're talking about. The amateurs at the highest level is an international competition, everyone fights everyone. And statistically Loma was more successful then Rigo (who is also one of my favourite fighters).
> I'm not hopeful at all, as you can see from posts my confidence in Lomachenko is basically a certainty. I'm a logical person, for Lomachenko to not be what I'm saying he'll be in the pro game then something would have to go seriously wrong (injury, personal issues etc.).


Don't you think maybe it's going overboard to call an amateur featherweight with an ersatz Mike Tyson style the best fighter ever?

Grinding out a split decision win over a gimpy mediocrity named Albert in a "team boxing" event doesn't indicate to me that SRR's days atop the ATG list are numbered.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I'm just upping the greatest fighter I've ever seen. I'm a fan of boxing and Lomachenko is a boxing genius. Corrales (RIP) was a good entertaining fighter in his own right but he wasn't exactly elite, look at how Cassa handled him. Lomachenko is on another planet compared to these guys we're talking about. The amateurs at the highest level is an international competition, everyone fights everyone. And statistically Loma was more successful then Rigo (who is also one of my favourite fighters).
> I'm not hopeful at all, as you can see from posts my confidence in Lomachenko is basically a certainty. I'm a logical person, for Lomachenko to not be what I'm saying he'll be in the pro game then something would have to go seriously wrong (injury, personal issues etc.).


I believe that you truly believe Lomachenko is beyond great, but I don't believe that you truly believe, at his current state, he can beat guys like Broner, and the topic you keep avoiding...130lb Mayweather.


----------



## artful (May 10, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> It's because my prefrontal lobe is more developed than yours. Evolve and catch up bruh


Dude Ive seen Lomachenko a few times and ive yet to see him stop any decent amatuers what he gonna do when he turns pro??


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

conradically said:


> Don't you think maybe it's going overboard to call an amateur featherweight with an ersatz Mike Tyson style the best fighter ever?
> 
> Grinding out a split decision win over a gimpy mediocrity named Albert in a "team boxing" event doesn't indicate to me that SRR's days atop the ATG list are numbered.


That's the problem most here have, they only follow well known professional boxers, or people of their own nationality. So they completely disregard these guys they haven't heard of, and deduct from that that Lomachenko has never fought legit competition. Real boxing fans who follow all competition amateur or pro, who have been watching boxing for years, who can understand styles and the sport can recognise the prodigious talent and ability that Lomachenko possesses. The others think that Floyd is an unbeatable monster because of a pre fight hype show, the WWE and his persona. Looking at actual boxing then Floyd has never been as beastly as some fans say. Canelo is a 50/50 fight to me.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> I believe that you truly believe Lomachenko is beyond great, but I don't believe that you truly believe, at his current state, he can beat guys like Broner, and the topic you keep avoiding...130lb Mayweather.


I'm not avoiding anything, 100% he beats Broner today or anytime, Mayweather at his best I favour Lomachenko 70:30.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

artful said:


> Dude Ive seen Lomachenko a few times and ive yet to see him stop any decent amatuers what he gonna do when he turns pro??


Not too familiar with Am boxing huh?


----------



## conradically (Jul 12, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> That's the problem most here have, they only follow well known professional boxers, or people of their own nationality. So they completely disregard these guys they haven't heard of, and deduct from that that Lomachenko has never fought legit competition. Real boxing fans who follow all competition amateur or pro, who have been watching boxing for years, who can understand styles and the sport can recognise the prodigious talent and ability that Lomachenko possesses. The others think that Floyd is an unbeatable monster because of a pre fight hype show, the WWE and his persona. Looking at actual boxing then Floyd has never been as beastly as some fans say. Canelo is a 50/50 fight to me.


dealt_with's ATG list:

1. Lomachenko
2. Albert "gimp" Selimov (famous for his trilogy with Lomachenko)
3. Oscar Valdez
4. Felix Verdejo
5. SRR


----------



## artful (May 10, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Not too familiar with Am boxing huh?


Audley Harrison looked great as an amateur...Ive see Loma vs Maxwell in the WSB and maxwell will never amount to anything as a pro yet Loma didnt impress me he should stop these sort of guys.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

artful said:


> Audley Harrison looked great as an amateur...


Not really, he did some good things at the right time but as a whole his am career wasn't particularly impressive. He obviously had a lot of flaws and he sure as hell didn't go almost undefeated over 400 fights and win two gold medals. Whitaker, Jones, Ali, SRL also looked great as amateurs. Different sports man, fencing with gloves :rolleyes


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I'm not avoiding anything, 100% he beats Broner today or anytime, Mayweather at his best I favour Lomachenko 70:30.


:lol: you've got to be kidding me! Dude, I know you and I have exchanged unpleasant words a few times, but I do admit that you seem to possess respectable amount of boxing knowledge (aside from scoring the fight for PM over Broner :-() but you are either incredibly delusional, or disturbingly obsessed with Lomachenko is you think - for crisssakes! 70-30! You think he, at his current state, has a 70% chance of beating 130lb Mayweather??? I'd give him a 3% chance at best! He would get absolutely schooled. I can appreciate the fact that you are a fan of a guy who is extraordinarily talented, but come the fuck on, dude. The 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers are arguably the greatest college team ever, and they'd get steamrolled by '08 Detroit Lions, who went 0-16.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

conradically said:


> dealt_with's ATG list:
> 
> 1. Lomachenko
> 2. Albert "gimp" Selimov (famous for his trilogy with Lomachenko)
> ...


You've go to drop SRR, and throw Rigonduex in there. :lol:


----------



## artful (May 10, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Not really, he did some good things at the right time but as a whole his am career wasn't particularly impressive. He obviously had a lot of flaws and he sure as hell didn't go almost undefeated over 400 fights and win two gold medals. Whitaker, Jones, Ali, SRL also looked great as amateurs. Different sports man, fencing with gloves :rolleyes


The pro game aint fencing with gloves.. you need to have power in the pro ranks and Loma doesn't have that..


----------



## steven_z (Jul 20, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> You got that from 'his' twitter didn't you? It's BS.


No, that's from Lomachenko himself.
For example, here is his quote from the below documentary (in russian): "last 1.5-2 hours of swimming we were starving because organism spent a lot of energy". Usyk tried to swim with him, but couldn't do the whole 8.5 km.


----------



## conradically (Jul 12, 2013)

Abraham said:


> You've go to drop SRR, and throw Rigonduex in there. :lol:


yeah, SRR, goes down an unspecified number of slots because, to be honest, no way he survives three rounds with the hunchback Albert Selimov, even at 147.

6. Serafim Todorov
7. Rigondeaux
...
...
SRR


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> :lol: you've got to be kidding me! Dude, I know you and I have exchanged unpleasant words a few times, but I do admit that you seem to possess respectable amount of boxing knowledge (aside from scoring the fight for PM over Broner :-() but you are either incredibly delusional, or disturbingly obsessed with Lomachenko is you think - for crisssakes! 70-30! You think he, at his current state, has a 70% chance of beating 130lb Mayweather??? I'd give him a 3% chance at best! He would get absolutely schooled. I can appreciate the fact that you are a fan of a guy who is extraordinarily talented, but come the fuck on, dude. The 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers are arguably the greatest college team ever, and they'd get steamrolled by '08 Detroit Lions, who went 0-16.


Your big mistake is comparing amateurs to professionals in other sports and then thinking that boxing is the equivalent. Amateur and Professional are misnomers in boxing, as Rigo demonstrated against Donaire. Corrales was never some unbeatable monster, Lomachenko has toyed with far more talented boxers than Corrales.
I look at it from a styles perspective, purely from what they can do in the ring. Lomachenko is a more complete fighter than Mayweather, he is better on the inside, better movement and work rate (though it is a bit unfair to compare 5 rounds to 12). Mayweather still looks exactly the same as he did as an amateur, just less athletic.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steven_z said:


> No, that's from Lomachenko himself.
> For example, here is his quote from the below documentary (in russian): "last 1.5-2 hours of swimming we were starving because organism spent a lot of energy". Usyk tried to swim with him, but couldn't do the whole 8.5 km.


I was talking more about the running, whoever runs his twitter was saying that he runs 45km for his roadwork. Which would be absolutely stupid and leave him broken down for boxing. If he actually did do that I'd be less certain about his pro aspirations, because that's some stupid ass training.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Your big mistake is comparing amateurs to professionals in other sports and then thinking that boxing is the equivalent. Amateur and Professional are misnomers in boxing, as Rigo demonstrated against Donaire. Corrales was never some unbeatable monster, Lomachenko has toyed with far more talented boxers than Corrales.
> I look at it from a styles perspective, purely from what they can do in the ring. Lomachenko is a more complete fighter than Mayweather, he is better on the inside, better movement and work rate (though it is a bit unfair to compare 5 rounds to 12). Mayweather still looks exactly the same as he did as an amateur, just less athletic.


Rigo beating Doniare was more of a stylistic thing, imo. Rigo is very talented, but also, let's not lose sight of the fact that he was basically a pro fighting in the amateurs. Your big mistake is thinking skill the only factor in who wins a fight. If this were the case, guys like Mayorga would never beat guys like Forrest. The reason I keep using ams to pros in other sports as an analogy for Lomachenko is because I view him as an incredibly skilled, advanced young fighter who's skills wouldn't be enough get him by if he stepped into the ring against these elite level, experienced fighters you think he could beat. Hell, I think Burgos would trouble Lomachenko. You also underestimate how very different pro boxing is than am boxing, even for ams with a pro style.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> Rigo beating Doniare was more of a stylistic thing, imo. Rigo is very talented, but also, let's not lose sight of the fact that he was basically a pro fighting in the amateurs. Your big mistake is thinking skill the only factor in who wins a fight. If this were the case, guys like Mayorga would never beat guys like Forrest. The reason I keep using ams to pros in other sports as an analogy for Lomachenko is because I view him as an incredibly skilled, advanced young fighter who's skills wouldn't be enough get him by if he stepped into the ring against these elite level, experienced fighters you think he could beat. Hell, I think Burgos would trouble Lomachenko. You also underestimate how very different pro boxing is than am boxing, even for ams with a pro style.


Rigo dominated in the amateurs and in the pros with the same style. Lomachenko dominated in the amateurs with a more pro style. He's more suited for the pro game than Rigo if anything. Rigo beat Doniare because he was always controlling range, he doesn't fight to a set rhythm, he had better balance, footwork and reflexes. He was simply a better boxer. But Rigo does have weaknesses against certain styles, as he has a very set style himself. Lomachenko has fought in every style I can think of. There is literally nothing he can't do in the ring, there isn't a style he can't adapt against. His record reflects that.
I think you're greatly overestimating the difference between am and pro boxing. Look at the WSB fight and the Valdez fight in this thread - that is boxing. Lomachenko's uppercuts and body shots are still uppercuts and body shots in the pro game. I understand that there are certain variables other than skill involved in pro boxing (toughness, mental stamina, chin etc.) but you see indications of deficiencies in those areas in the amateurs if a fighter possesses them. Guys like Khan, Price, Bute etc. all showed the same weaknesses in the amateurs. Amateur boxing is still boxing, there are some modifications when trying to be more fan friendly and fighting for 12 rounds but it's the same sport and historically a good amateur career is a good indication of a good pro career. Not always obviously because deficiencies can emerge over 12 rounds, fighters may be at a different level of boxing maturity, and you often have more attention/pressure as a pro. Lomachenko has had that attention and pressure since 2008, he's not even pro yet and he's had a number of documentaries on him. Lomachenko has never shown any weaknesses in 400 fights, in his WSB fights (which are pro fights in every sense of the word) and he obviously shares the same opinion as me if he only wants to fight the best and fight in championship fights before he's even signed the pro contract.
The pro-amateur analogies don't work. Look at some of the champs in 'pro' boxing. Broner ffs can call himself a 3 weight world champion. Olympic boxing is more professional than 'pro' boxing. Just like Whitaker and Rigo, Lomachenko considered the gold medal the pinnacle of the sport and everything else just the cherry on top.


----------



## steven_z (Jul 20, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I was talking more about the running, whoever runs his twitter was saying that he runs 45km for his roadwork. Which would be absolutely stupid and leave him broken down for boxing. If he actually did do that I'd be less certain about his pro aspirations, because that's some stupid ass training.


You can see him running in the movie as well at around 10:45 time point. It took him 3 hours 25 minutes to complete running in the film. Besides, he mentioned running marathon in other interviews. My understanding he doesn't run it routinely, but do this and swimming once in a while as a psychological training.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Well, dealt_with, I guess it would be easier to ask who you think Lomachenko _can't_ beat.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

Featherweight Mayweather knocks current Lomachenko out.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steven_z said:


> You can see him running in the movie as well at around 10:45 time point. It took him 3 hours 25 minutes to complete running in the film. Besides, he mentioned running marathon in other interviews. My understanding he doesn't run it routinely, but do this and swimming once in a while as a psychological training.


Fair enough. A bit pointless imo but I guess it works for him.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> Well, dealt_with, I guess it would be easier to ask who you think Lomachenko _can't_ beat.


Somebody too big for him who is a cautious counter puncher, who is a southpaw and can bang.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

LuckyLuke said:


> Featherweight Mayweather knocks current Lomachenko out.


Lomachenko wins 10-2.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Somebody too big for him who is a cautious counter puncher, who is a southpaw and can bang.


Too big for him, as in a few weight classes north, or a big featherweight? Let me put it this way. What style do you think would cause him the most trouble?


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Lomachenko wins 10-2.


:lol:


----------



## stevebhoy87 (Jun 4, 2013)

I love Lomachenko but there's very little chance he could turn pro and beat in his first fight someone as good as Mayweather was at 130lbs, which was outstanding. 

I think he could beat a world title holder,and with his skillset, with some pro experience maybe he will turn into a fighter that can be mentioned at the Mayweather level, it's certainly possible, though nothing is certain in boxing. But beat him in his first fight over 12 rounds, nah.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> Too big for him, as in a few weight classes north, or a big featherweight? Let me put it this way. What style do you think would cause him the most trouble?


Somebody 5'9 plus, over 140. Already mentioned the style.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Loma landed the more telling blows in the fight but man, Jose Carlos Ramirez did very well. Especially considering Jose was only around 18 at the time. This is the sort of fighter Loma will struggle with.
Note: Loma is debuting at 126lbs, Ramirez started at light welterweight.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

artful said:


> Dude Ive seen Lomachenko a few times and ive yet to see him stop any decent amatuers what he gonna do when he turns pro??


I think I saw him KO one of his opponents, I don't know where the link is.

Having said that, you can see him drop Jose Carlos Ramirez, Bashenov and someone else in WSB (I forgot who) all with one punch, and Loma is a lot smaller than these guys!


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Loma landed the more telling blows in the fight but man, Jose Carlos Ramirez did very well. Especially considering Jose was only around 18 at the time. This is the sort of fighter Loma will struggle with.
> Note: Loma is debuting at 126lbs, Ramirez started at light welterweight.


Ramirez is a good prospect, like Verdejo and Valdez I expect him to be a titleholder at some point. At those 2011 Worlds Lomachenko didn't look his best, I think he was still adapting to the higher weight class at the time.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> I think I saw him KO one of his opponents, I don't know where the link is.
> 
> Having said that, you can see him drop Jose Carlos Ramirez, Bashenov and someone else in WSB (I forgot who) all with one punch, and Loma is a lot smaller than these guys!


Gold medal match at the olympics in the 1st round, I'm not sure that's been done before:






2006 - Junior World Champs (Agadir, MAR) 1st place - 51KG Won against Alberto Portuondo (CUB) RSCO 3rd round in the final; Won against Rahim Najafov (AZE) RSCO 3rd round in the semifinal; Won against Andrew Selby (WAL) RSCO 3rd round in the quarterfinal; Won against Sergey Vodopyanov (RUS) 37:17 in the second round; Won against Derenik Gizhlaryan (ARM) 34:14 in the first round

-Some world class names there.

And against larger fighters..

World championships, 1:52






World championship final against a Cuban, 4:00






4:35






And in 3 or 5 round fights against top opposition it's highly unlikely you're going to stop opponents. Golovkin wasn't stopping everybody he fought either. If a fighter gets stopped within 3 rounds it's a complete mismatch, that doesn't happen in the olympics.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Ramirez is a good prospect, like Verdejo and Valdez I expect him to be a titleholder at some point. At those 2011 Worlds Lomachenko didn't look his best, I think he was still adapting to the higher weight class at the time.


I can't wait to see Ramirez up against the 140 and 147lbers. He is a serious prospect. That fight against Loma was one of the best performances in amateur history to push Loma to the wire like that in a fight Loma arguably lost. It seems they're taking Jose's career pretty slow but I guess he's only 20 so why not? I expect to see him as world champ within 3 years.


----------



## mrtony80 (Jun 8, 2013)

I find it appalling and incomprehensible that anyone in their right mind could think Lomachenko could beat featherweight Mayweather.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> I can't wait to see Ramirez up against the 140 and 147lbers. He is a serious prospect. That fight against Loma was one of the best performances in amateur history to push Loma to the wire like that in a fight Loma arguably lost. It seems they're taking Jose's career pretty slow but I guess he's only 20 so why not? I expect to see him as world champ within 3 years.


Personally I don't think Ramirez was that successful against Loma, like Froch against Dirrell I think the guy who seemed to want it more is given a bit more credit than they deserve. Ramirez controlled the centre of the ring well, wrestled and imposed his size, snapped Loma's head back with a jab in the second round. But in terms of landing power punches he didn't really land anything imo, I think that was a reasonably comfortable win for Lomachenko, especially under amateur rules.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

mrtony80 said:


> I find it appalling and incomprehensible that anyone in their right mind could think Lomachenko could beat featherweight Mayweather.


I find it appalling and incomprehensible that anyone in their right mind could think Mayweather could beat Lomachenko. Things will change soon, I have a feeling Canelo might show us what Floyd is really about and Lomachenko is going to tear through the pro ranks soon. Wait and see...


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

I'm not sure about pro ranks yet as I said earlier, but I certainly have an amateur Vasyl beating an amateur Floyd.


----------



## conradically (Jul 12, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Loma landed the more telling blows in the fight but man, Jose Carlos Ramirez did very well. Especially considering Jose was only around 18 at the time. This is the sort of fighter Loma will struggle with.
> Note: Loma is debuting at 126lbs, Ramirez started at light welterweight.


look especially at the sequence starting at 7:02 in the video.

of course, none of those body punches "counted", because, you know, it was the amateurs. But they were landing.

We have to keep in my mind that 18 year old Jose Ramirez is NO prime 130 pound Floyd Mayweather. Ramirez is several spots higher than Floyd on the ATG list, ranking just below Albert Selimov.


----------



## mrtony80 (Jun 8, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I find it appalling and incomprehensible that anyone in their right mind could think Mayweather could beat Lomachenko. Things will change soon, I have a feeling Canelo might show us what Floyd is really about and Lomachenko is going to tear through the pro ranks soon. Wait and see...


You saying Canelo will expose Floyd?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

mrtony80 said:


> You saying Canelo will expose Floyd?


I hate it when people say 'exposed'. Floyd is proven, he's not as good as his fans make out though and he hasn't been particularly impressive for a while. Canelo can beat him, I won't be completely shocked if he stops Mayweather. He has boxing skills and a punch, Mayweather last fought a guy like that in 2007 (De La Hoya, albeit a faded version who Floyd was deathly afraid to trade with). There's a big difference between the Ortiz and Guerrero's of the world compared to Canelo. I was very surprised when Floyd made the fight. Maybe Floyd sees something he can exploit, but I see a very tough night of boxing for Floyd.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

conradically said:


> look especially at the sequence starting at 7:02 in the video.
> 
> of course, none of those body punches "counted", because, you know, it was the amateurs. But they were landing.
> 
> We have to keep in my mind that 18 year old Jose Ramirez is NO prime 130 pound Floyd Mayweather. Ramirez is several spots higher than Floyd on the ATG list, ranking just below Albert Selimov.


From 7:00 to 7:30 Ramirez throws a total of three left hooks to the body, that Lomachenko all turned into with his right elbow to block. Maybe invest in a pair of glasses? In that sequence is the only clean punch Ramirez lands for the whole fight, the jab/straight left that snaps Lomachenko's head back.
We have to keep in mind that Lomachenko is nowhere near as skilled as Judah, Castillo, Cotto, De La Hoya, Augustus and all the fighters who have landed and taken rounds off Floyd.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Styles make fights, the Olympic Floyd doesn't have the style to beat Loma IMO, and Jose Ramirez does. 
I mean we could kinda pick out anything from Floyd's amateur career tbh, Augie landed clean quite often in their fight. Augie is no Ramirez.


----------



## mrtony80 (Jun 8, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I hate it when people say 'exposed'. Floyd is proven, he's not as good as his fans make out though and he hasn't been particularly impressive for a while. Canelo can beat him, I won't be completely shocked if he stops Mayweather. He has boxing skills and a punch, Mayweather last fought a guy like that in 2007 (De La Hoya, albeit a faded version who Floyd was deathly afraid to trade with). There's a big difference between the Ortiz and Guerrero's of the world compared to Canelo. I was very surprised when Floyd made the fight. Maybe Floyd sees something he can exploit, but I see a very tough night of boxing for Floyd.


Wow. You are clearly biased. Lomachenko looked spectacular in only one of his WSB fights...I forget the guy's name, but you may have seen my comment on the YouTube vid. I thought Floyd's work vs Mosley, Ortiz, and Rob G. was brilliant, more impressive than anything Lomachenko displayed in his WSB fights.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

mrtony80 said:


> Wow. You are clearly biased. Lomachenko looked spectacular in only one of his WSB fights...I forget the guy's name, but you may have seen my comment on the YouTube vid. I thought Floyd's work vs Mosley, Ortiz, and Rob G. was brilliant, more impressive than anything Lomachenko displayed in his WSB fights.


I'm clearly biased and yet you don't address any point I made? Of course you're going to be more impressed by Floyd, he's the fighter you poorly try to emulate when you're in the gym. I liked Floyd against Mosley, Ortiz was neither here nor there due to the quality of the opposition and Guerrero was a pathetic performance, a completely outclassed, harmless fighter that Floyd felt like he had to run from. Shades of Baldomir in that one.
How do you think Floyd will do against Canelo?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Styles make fights, the Olympic Floyd doesn't have the style to beat Loma IMO, and Jose Ramirez does.
> I mean we could kinda pick out anything from Floyd's amateur career tbh, Augie landed clean quite often in their fight. Augie is no Ramirez.


I disagree, I think amateur Floyd would have a better chance to beat Lomachenko than Ramirez. You obviously see something in that Ramirez performance that I don't, I put it on the same level as Verdejo's peformance against Loma. Respectable showing but never posing a real threat.


----------



## mrtony80 (Jun 8, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I'm clearly biased and yet you don't address any point I made? Of course you're going to be more impressed by Floyd, he's the fighter you poorly try to emulate when you're in the gym. I liked Floyd against Mosley, Ortiz was neither here nor there due to the qualibty of the opposition and Guerrero was a pathetic performance, a completely outclassed, harmless fighter that Floyd felt like he had to run from. Shades of Baldomir in that one.
> How do you think Floyd will do against Canelo?


I have YouTube vids proving I haven't always been a supporter of Mayweather, so your comment about me supporting him to the point where I'd emulate him in the gym is just an excuse to take another shot at me. I could just as easily pull something out of my ass, like you support Lomachenko so vehemently because you're physically attracted to him. See how that works?

To answer your question regarding the Canelo fight...Floyd will win by being careful and measured, a la the Baldomir fight. There is a good chance Canelo will make Floyd work for it, but I don't see him winning outside robbery.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

True, there's no way I see Canelo winning but that's a different topic for a different thread.


----------



## conradically (Jul 12, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I'm clearly biased and yet you don't address any point I made? Of course you're going to be more impressed by Floyd, he's the fighter you poorly try to emulate when you're in the gym. I liked Floyd against Mosley, Ortiz was neither here nor there due to the quality of the opposition and Guerrero was a pathetic performance, a completely outclassed,* harmless fighter* that Floyd felt like he had to run from. Shades of Baldomir in that one.
> How do you think Floyd will do against Canelo?


Lets talk about Robert Guerrero. Let's count his wins over former amateur olympians. I mean, that's pretty meaningful stuff, right? Olympians are the creme-de-la-creme of intenrational boxing. The best skilled fighters on the planet. The Selimov's, the Lomachenko's, the Valdez's.

R.G.'s wins over olympians:

1. Vincente Escobedo, 2004 Olympian
2. Selcyuk Aydin, 2004 Olympian
3. Andre Berto, 2004 Olympian
4. Michael Katsidis, 2000 Olympian
5. Joel Casamayor, 1992 Olympic gold medalist

In fact, Guerrero beat 5 consecutive former olympians before losing to Floyd. Not even a little credit for that?


----------



## Hook! (Jun 8, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> Lomachenko wins 10-2.


:rofl


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Lomachenko knocked Toledo down too. He's been knocking down many top amateurs.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

conradically said:


> Lets talk about Robert Guerrero. Let's count his wins over former amateur olympians. I mean, that's pretty meaningful stuff, right? Olympians are the creme-de-la-creme of intenrational boxing. The best skilled fighters on the planet. The Selimov's, the Lomachenko's, the Valdez's.
> 
> R.G.'s wins over olympians:
> 
> ...


Casamayor was shot. These fighters you listed were still world champions. I think an important thing to realise is how good some of Loma's opponents are compared to an Escobedo for example. Some Olympians flop in the pro scene/or aren't as good as they were in the amateur scene, of course. With Loma, he won't be one of them because he already has a very pro style anyway, whereas someone like Zhou Shiming....not so much lol


----------



## steven_z (Jul 20, 2013)

FYI, here is the 2006 World Junior Championships final. Lomachenko fighting cuban Portuondo. You can see evidence of speed and a little bit of power.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

mrtony80 said:


> I have YouTube vids proving I haven't always been a supporter of Mayweather, so your comment about me supporting him to the point where I'd emulate him in the gym is just an excuse to take another shot at me. I could just as easily pull something out of my ass, like you support Lomachenko so vehemently because you're physically attracted to him. See how that works?
> 
> To answer your question regarding the Canelo fight...Floyd will win by being careful and measured, a la the Baldomir fight. There is a good chance Canelo will make Floyd work for it, but I don't see him winning outside robbery.


Come on now, I've seen your sparring videos against kids and women. All those attempts at shoulder rolling and being defensive when you didn't have the basics anywhere close to being down, with you talking while getting beaten up. Maybe you were copying James Toney, but that's unlikely since you're a small dude.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steven_z said:


> FYI, here is the 2006 World Junior Championships final. Lomachenko fighting cuban Portuondo. You can see evidence of speed and a little bit of power.


You can tell he was a fan of Roy Jones at the time, with his movement and showboating


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Who do you guys got winning? 

Lomachenko vs Juan Manuel Marquez at 126


----------



## mrtony80 (Jun 8, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Come on now, I've seen your sparring videos against kids and women. All those attempts at shoulder rolling and being defensive when you didn't have the basics anywhere close to being down, with you talking while getting beaten up. Maybe you were copying Jjames Toney, but that's unlikely since you're a small dude.


If you're going to insult me, at least throw out accurate insults. One thing you did remind me though, is why I had your faggoty, bitch made ass on ignore on esb. So. Goodbye.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

mrtony80 said:


> If you're going to insult me, at least throw out accurate insults. One thing you did remind me though, is why I had your faggoty, bitch made ass on ignore on esb. So. Goodbye.


Such a sensitive dude... try meditation and leave the dogs alone :hey


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Who do you guys got winning?
> 
> Lomachenko vs Juan Manuel Marquez at 126


It's hard for me to envision the JMM who got beaten by Chris John to be able to cause any issues. JMM was a far better fighter at 135 and above imo


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Who do you guys got winning?
> 
> Lomachenko vs Juan Manuel Marquez at 126


Marquez. If Lomachenko is so much better than all these elites, you'd think he'd have gotten a stoppage in at least one of his WSB fights. And fuck that shit about "level of opposition" and "five rounders". If he is that damn advanced to the point where this delusional dick rider dealt_with thinks he could have beat 130lb Mayweather who was already on his 6th title fight vs Corrales, then he'd have gotten at least one stoppage, for fuck's sake. He is nowhere near as accurate and crisp with his shots as 130lb FMJ.

Shit. I really like Lomachenko. I knew about him before a lot of even hardcore fans knew who he was, and dealt_with's ridiculous exaggerating is putting me in the position where I have to talk shit about him. atsch


----------



## Earl-Hickey (Jul 26, 2012)

The lomachenko hype is one of the most ridiculous things i've seen


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Earl-Hickey said:


> The lomachenko hype is one of the most ridiculous things i've seen


He does deserve some hype, just like Lebron James deserved the hype he was getting in high school, but certain people just take the shit far. Saying he could beat 130lb Mayweather (10-2, no less) is one of the most ridiculous boxing opinions I have ever heard in my life. The worst part is, dealt_with isn't trolling. He really believes Lomachenko could beat featherweight versions of guys like JMM, Pep, Azumah Nelson, Hamed...the list goes on.


----------



## Earl-Hickey (Jul 26, 2012)

Abraham said:


> He does deserve some hype, just like Lebron James deserved the hype he was getting in high school, but certain people just take the shit far. Saying he could beat 130lb Mayweather (10-2, no less) is one of the most ridiculous boxing opinions I have ever heard in my life. The worst part is, dealt_with isn't trolling. He really believes Lomachenko could beat featherweight versions of guys like JMM, Pep, Azumah Nelson, Hamed...the list goes on.


He's a really exciting prospect and i look forward to seeing what he does as a pro, but opinions like the ones above are an insult to those great fighters at this stage.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

double post


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> Marquez. If Lomachenko is so much better than all these elites, you'd think he'd have gotten a stoppage in at least one of his WSB fights. And fuck that shit about "level of opposition" and "five rounders". If he is that damn advanced to the point where this delusional dick rider dealt_with thinks he could have beat 130lb Mayweather who was already on his 6th title fight vs Corrales, then he'd have gotten at least one stoppage, for fuck's sake. He is nowhere near as accurate and crisp with his shots as 130lb FMJ.
> 
> Shit. I really like Lomachenko. I knew about him before a lot of even hardcore fans knew who he was, and dealt_with's ridiculous exaggerating is putting me in the position where I have to talk shit about him. atsch


Did you know it's a fact that there are less stoppages in the WSB than in amateur boxing? It's one of the reasons AIBA have used to justify the removal of the headgear for amateur competition. 
How often have you seen top fighters KO each other within 5 rounds? It's rare. Add in the fact they use larger gloves than in the pros, Lomachenko's opponents generally covered up and tried to survive, and Lomachenko still managed to hurt most of his opponents; then I'd say his WSB showing was pretty damn impressive (especially considering he was using it to try different things and get prepared for the pros). Do you think 84-6, hard punching Mayweather would be stopping opponents if he was in the WSB? Since Manfredy in 1998 Floyd has one KO within 5 rounds, and that was against Ortiz with his hands down not looking.
Mayweather is a great fighter but the way you're trying to pass him off as an unbeatable monster is ludicrous, beating Corrales is the pinnacle? Everyone was accurate when fighting Corrales, he wasn't a defensive fighter and was the perfect style for Floyd to look good against. Mayweather was an unbeatable monster against Corrales yet Augustus gave him hell in his previous fight, and two fights later at 135 Castillo arguably beats him?
Oh but no way could the greatest amateur of all time trouble Money May, Lomachenko could never hold a candle to the likes of Augustus and Castillo :rolleyes


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Did you know it's a fact that there are less stoppages in the WSB than in amateur boxing? It's one of the reasons AIBA have used to justify the removal of the headgear for amateur competition.
> How often have you seen top fighters KO each other within 5 rounds? It's rare. Add in the fact they use larger gloves than in the pros, Lomachenko's opponents generally covered up and tried to survive, and Lomachenko still managed to hurt most of his opponents; then I'd say his WSB showing was pretty damn impressive (especially considering he was using it to try different things and get prepared for the pros). Do you think 84-6, hard punching Mayweather would be stopping opponents if he was in the WSB? Since Manfredy in 1998 Floyd has one KO within 5 rounds, and that was against Ortiz with his hands down not looking.
> Mayweather is a great fighter but the way you're trying to pass him off as an unbeatable monster is ludicrous, beating Corrales is the pinnacle? Everyone was accurate when fighting Corrales, he wasn't a defensive fighter and was the perfect style for Floyd to look good against. Mayweather was an unbeatable monster against Corrales yet Augustus gave him hell in his previous fight, and two fights later at 135 Castillo arguably beats him?
> Oh but no way could the greatest amateur of all time trouble Money May, Lomachenko could never hold a candle to the likes of Augustus and Castillo :rolleyes


I didn't say 130lb was unbeatable, but I most certainly think he'd beat Lomachenko, as would 99% of people who know anything about boxing. The Corrales fight isn't the only fight where he displayed his extraordinary accuracy. I just used that as an example. And yes, 130lb FMJ would shellack those WSB guys Lomachenko fought, or at least beat them more impressively than Loma did. As I told you before, I don't know a whole lot about the WSB, but I do know that it isn't a crop of guys who could hang with elite level pros.

I find it amusing that detractors use fights like Augustus and Castillo to point out Floyd's shortcomings. Augustus had some success, but ultimately got his ass kicked. Castillo had some success, but mainly from exploiting a injured Mayweather's reluctance to be offensive, i.e., he wasn't out-boxing or out-skilling Mayweather by any means. He deserved a draw at best.

You want to talk about close fights, how about Loma's London bout with Toledo? How do you think Toledo would do against 130lb Mayweather? The WSB Selimov was close.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> I didn't say 130lb was unbeatable, but I most certainly think he'd beat Lomachenko, as would 99% of people who know anything about boxing. The Corrales fight isn't the only fight where he displayed his extraordinary accuracy. I just used that as an example. And yes, 130lb FMJ would shellack those WSB guys Lomachenko fought, or at least beat them more impressively than Loma did. As I told you before, I don't know a whole lot about the WSB, but I do know that it isn't a crop of guys who could hang with elite level pros.
> 
> I find it amusing that detractors use fights like Augustus and Castillo to point out Floyd's shortcomings. Augustus had some success, but ultimately got his ass kicked. Castillo had some success, but mainly from exploiting a injured Mayweather's reluctance to be offensive, i.e., he wasn't out-boxing or out-skilling Mayweather by any means. He deserved a draw at best.
> 
> You want to talk about close fights, how about Loma's London bout with Toledo? How do you think Toledo would do against 130lb Mayweather? The WSB Selimov was close.


Mayweather would run for the hills rather than fight a 5'10 southpaw Cuban like Toledo so it's hard to say. Selimov won one round against Loma, and Selimov would easily be a titlist in the pro game. Mayweather wasn't 1/10th the amateur Lomachenko was so I don't understand how you can say that Mayweather would've beaten guys like Selimov easily in the WSB.
Your problem is the way you view the amateurs compared to the pro game, your perspective is out of whack. Think of it as the sport of boxing versus boxing as entertainment/business.
Mayweather is deep into his pro career and still fighting guys like Guerrero, Selimov I would back 100% to beat Guerrero. Canelo is a good step up for Mayweather, let's see what happens there.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Mayweather would run for the hills rather than fight a 5'10 southpaw Cuban like Toledo so it's hard to say. Selimov won one round against Loma, and Selimov would easily be a titlist in the pro game. Mayweather wasn't 1/10th the amateur Lomachenko was so I don't understand how you can say that Mayweather would've beaten guys like Selimov easily in the WSB.
> Your problem is the way you view the amateurs compared to the pro game, your perspective is out of whack. Think of it as the sport of boxing versus boxing as entertainment/business.
> Mayweather is deep into his pro career and still fighting guys like Guerrero, Selimov I would back 100% to beat Guerrero. Canelo is a good step up for Mayweather, let's see what happens there.


No, no, no. We're talking about 130lb Mayweather vs the WSB guys, not amateur Mayweather. I haven't seen enough of FMJ's amateur footage to gauge how good he was, but since you think guys like Toldeo, Selimov, and Lomachenko could beat 130lb Floyd, that's the perspective I'm coming from. What YOUR problem is, is that you think extraordinary amateurs like Rigo are ubiquitous. They aren't. They are very rare. Hell, I think Jose Benavidez is as impressive as those guys are. WSB fighters are better than most entry level pros, but to say they are ALL already on the level of elite pros? Give me a fucking break.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> No, no, no. We're talking about 130lb Mayweather vs the WSB guys, not amateur Mayweather. I haven't seen enough of FMJ's amateur footage to gauge how good he was, but since you think guys like Toldeo, Selimov, and Lomachenko could beat 130lb Floyd, that's the perspective I'm coming from. What YOUR problem is, is that you think extraordinary amateurs like Rigo are ubiquitous. They aren't. They are very rare. Hell, I think Jose Benavidez is as impressive as those guys are. WSB fighters are better than most entry level pros, but to say they are ALL already on the level of elite pros? Give me a fucking break.


When did I say every WSB fighter is the equivalent of an elite pro? Guys like Selimov, Valentino and Bashenov would likely all be titlists in the pro game. But it's rare for a titlist in the pro game to be an elite pro. Look at Broner for instance. I still think that the 130 pro version of Mayweather wouldn't be able to do any better than Loma did in the WSB, he sure as hell wouldn't have stopped anyone. And amateur Mayweather loss to lesser fighters than Toledo and Selimov, despite starting boxing at roughly the same age as Lomachenko. Amateur Mayweather is essentially the same fighter we see today:






Compare that 57kg Mayweather to 57kg Lomachenko:






An absolute mismatch, amateur Lomachenko beats amateur Mayweather 100 out of 100 times. Lomachenko at that weight is faster and more athletic than Mayweather ever was, a higher percentage style and a far greater inside fighter.

Another thing to take into account is that everyone Lomachenko fought in the WSB was larger than him.
I understand that amateurs like Rigo are extremely rare. What is even more rare is a fighter with the talent of Lomachenko. You'll see.


----------



## stevebhoy87 (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> No, no, no. We're talking about 130lb Mayweather vs the WSB guys, not amateur Mayweather. I haven't seen enough of FMJ's amateur footage to gauge how good he was, but since you think guys like Toldeo, Selimov, and Lomachenko could beat 130lb Floyd, that's the perspective I'm coming from. What YOUR problem is, is that you think extraordinary amateurs like Rigo are ubiquitous. They aren't. They are very rare. Hell, I think Jose Benavidez is as impressive as those guys are. WSB fighters are better than most entry level pros, but to say they are ALL already on the level of elite pros? Give me a fucking break.


Toledo and Selimov are definetly not Rigondeaux level talents. They are very accomplished fighters in their own rights, Selimov particuarly who I would give a good shot, with time and experience to down the line win a world title in the pro ranks, but they are not other worldly talents.

Lomachenko though, I truly believe he is, this kid is super special, just like Rigondeaux, and does have the advantage of being more pro like in his style, and also will be turning over earlier in his career which is a plus point. I'd be shocked as hell if at the least he didn't win a world title, and I think he's miles better than Benevidez. There nothing absolutly guaranteed of course, but he's as close as a sure bet as you will ever get IMO.

That does not mean I think he can beat Floyd at 130lbs in his first fight, because I don't. Floyd at that weight was a super level fighter, one of the best I've seen. I dont think the difference between the ams and the pros is as much as some do, but there is when we are talking about facing a 130lb Mayweather. It's nigh on impossible to expect that Lomachenko, could beat that Floyd, when its his first 12 rounder, 7 rounds more than he's ever done before, with smaller gloves than he's use to, and at weight class above where he wants to start as a pro, when his opponent will be IMO 130lb best ever boxer, who is better than anyone he's ever fought before, and be a good distance too.

Now Lomachenko with some pro experience, who knows its not impossible he can get to the level where this is a fair discussion, he has the skillset where it's feasible enough, but he would experience over the 12 round distance first before we can really see, and we need to know if some of the intangibles are there with him, i expect they are but you'd never know.

I do think he could win a world title on his pro debut, but I'm not actually convinced he would beat a Mikey Garcia or Abner Mares that early, never mind 130lbs Floyd who would annihlate those 2 I just mentioned. Give Lomachenko a few fights and some expereince, then it's more interesting.

There is no massive rush with him though and he should take a few fights 5 or 6 before going for a world title. He's got time on his side, he's younger than fellow olympic gold medalist Luke Campbell for instance who only turned pro last week, and the WSB fights were certainly harder than Campbell debut and gives him very valuable experience. Campbell will probably need 20 fights before looking for a world title, Lomachenko doesn't need anywhere close to that.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Like I said, I like Lomachenko, and you're making me feel the need to talk shit about him with your over hyping, so I'm gonna stop discussing it now. You're right. We will see how he progresses, and you'll see Mayweather show what he's worth vs Alvarez, although I can easily see you downplaying things if he ends up winning via thorough domination. But let me test you on something. Let's see where your boxing knowledge truly is. Watch from 8:26 to 8:30 and tell me in detail what you see happen there.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

stevebhoy87 said:


> Toledo and Selimov are definetly not Rigondeaux level talents. They are very accomplished fighters in their own rights, Selimov particuarly who I would give a good shot, with time and experience to down the line win a world title in the pro ranks, but they are not other worldly talents.
> 
> Lomachenko though, I truly believe he is, this kid is super special, just like Rigondeaux, and does have the advantage of being more pro like in his style, and also will be turning over earlier in his career which is a plus point. I'd be shocked as hell if at the least he didn't win a world title, and I think he's miles better than Benevidez. There nothing absolutly guaranteed of course, but he's as close as a sure bet as you will ever get IMO.
> 
> ...


Now, all of this, unlike dealt_with's posts, sounds perfectly reasonable.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

stevebhoy87 said:


> Toledo and Selimov are definetly not Rigondeaux level talents. They are very accomplished fighters in their own rights, Selimov particuarly who I would give a good shot, with time and experience to down the line win a world title in the pro ranks, but they are not other worldly talents.
> 
> Lomachenko though, I truly believe he is, this kid is super special, just like Rigondeaux, and does have the advantage of being more pro like in his style, and also will be turning over earlier in his career which is a plus point. I'd be shocked as hell if at the least he didn't win a world title, and I think he's miles better than Benevidez. There nothing absolutly guaranteed of course, but he's as close as a sure bet as you will ever get IMO.
> 
> ...


Just to clarify, I'm saying talent for talent Lomachenko beats Mayweather. That's with the assumption that Lomachenko is acclimatised to 12 round fights. First pro fight for Lomachenko and I'd have it closer to 50/50.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> Like I said, I like Lomachenko, and you're making me feel the need to talk shit about him with your over hyping, so I'm gonna stop discussing it now. You're right. We will see how he progresses, and you'll see Mayweather show what he's worth vs Alvarez, although I can easily see you downplaying things if he ends up winning via thorough domination. But let me test you on something. Let's see where your boxing knowledge truly is. Watch from 8:26 to 8:30 and tell me in detail what you see happen there.


A quick jab, hook, straight right combo as Mosley moves straight forward with his hands down, not moving his head, as he was trying to jab to Floyd's body, after he did the stupid little feint he always does before he jabs to the body. Mayweather ducked down prior to the combination to change levels, Mayweather stood up as Mosley copied him subconsciously to say "I can match you" as he threw his jab, Floyd took the opportunity to punch down on Mosley with the jab, then the hook to level him, as Mosley stood up the straight right was thrown angled up to take advantage of the leverage available due to Mosley's position..
What's the relevance of that to what we're talking about? Lomachenko would never be that stupid, technically poor and open. Lomachenko is a leader in the ring, not a follower like Mosley is. The disparity in technical ability between Lomachenko and Mosley is ridiculous. Floyd is great and if he fought better opposition he'd probably be one of my favourite fighters, but there isn't any area he is superior to Lomachenko in. Lomachenko is simply the better fighter. Wait and see.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> A quick jab, hook, straight right combo as Mosley moves straight forward with his hands down, not moving his head, as he was trying to jab to Floyd's body, after he did the stupid little feint he always does before he jabs to the body. Mayweather ducked down prior to the combination to change levels, Mayweather stood up as Mosley copied him subconsciously to say "I can match you" as he threw his jab, Floyd took the opportunity to punch down on Mosley with the jab, then the hook to level him, as Mosley stood up the straight right was thrown angled up to take advantage of the leverage available due to Mosley's position..
> What's the relevance of that to what we're talking about? Lomachenko would never be that stupid, technically poor and open. Lomachenko is a leader in the ring, not a follower like Mosley is. The disparity in technical ability between Lomachenko and Mosley is ridiculous. Floyd is great and if he fought better opposition he'd probably be one of my favourite fighters, but there isn't any area he is superior to Lomachenko in. Lomachenko is simply the better fighter. Wait and see.


I wasn't even comparing FMJ to Lomachenko in that instance, but what you described is accurate, but you missed pointing out something someone with an eye for it would notice. Mosley was trying that jab to the body, right over the top combo that stunned Floyd in the previous round, but was nullified quickly by Mayweather's ring smarts and ability to adjust. Since you brought it up, that is a clear area where he is Loma's superior. I have seen Loma make plenty of mistakes in his olympic and wsb fights that Mayweather would take advantage of in spades.


----------



## steven_z (Jul 20, 2013)

Abraham said:


> He does deserve some hype, just like Lebron James deserved the hype he was getting in high school, but certain people just take the shit far.


I would agree. I'm huge Lomachenko fan, but this euphoria about him looks unhealthy. Let's just see how he actually does in the pro without getting too far ahead on pure speculation.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> I wasn't even comparing FMJ to Lomachenko in that instance, but what you described is accurate, but you missed pointing out something someone with an eye for it would notice. Mosley was trying that jab to the body, right over the top combo that stunned Floyd in the previous round, but was nullified quickly by Mayweather's ring smarts and ability to adjust. Since you brought it up, that is a clear area where he is Loma's superior. I have seen Loma make plenty of mistakes in his olympic and wsb fights that Mayweather would take advantage of in spades.


:lol: You asked me what I saw in that time period and then you expect me to tell you about it in relation to the ebbs and flow of the whole fight? And then something as ambiguous as 'ring smarts' and 'ability to adjust'? What gives you any indication that Mosley was intending to throw the right anyway? He had it hanging out there in front of his body like he always does.
I'd love to hear about and see all these mistakes Lomachenko has made that has left him with a record of over 400 wins and 1 loss :rolleyes


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Yeah I agree with a lot of the posters here.

Can he beat a 130lb Mayweather after *10* fights? _Possibly_ Mayweather who is an ATG as it is, was at his best at 130lbs, he was as near as invincible at 130lbs as you could get. So it's going to be a huge demand. Within his first 2-3 fights, no chance. Amateur Loma schools amateur Mayweather though....

I will not speak of this Mayweather-Lomachenko discussion there, for now..


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Abraham said:


> He does deserve some hype, just like Lebron James deserved the hype he was getting in high school, but certain people just take the shit far. Saying he could beat 130lb Mayweather (10-2, no less) is one of the most ridiculous boxing opinions I have ever heard in my life. The worst part is, dealt_with isn't trolling. He really believes Lomachenko could beat featherweight versions of guys like JMM, Pep, Azumah Nelson, Hamed...the list goes on.


:clap:


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Did you know it's a fact that there are less stoppages in the WSB than in amateur boxing? It's one of the reasons AIBA have used to justify the removal of the headgear for amateur competition.
> How often have you seen top fighters KO each other within 5 rounds? It's rare. Add in the fact they use larger gloves than in the pros, Lomachenko's opponents generally covered up and tried to survive, and Lomachenko still managed to hurt most of his opponents; then I'd say his WSB showing was pretty damn impressive (especially considering he was using it to try different things and get prepared for the pros). Do you think 84-6, hard punching Mayweather would be stopping opponents if he was in the WSB? Since Manfredy in 1998 Floyd has one KO within 5 rounds, and that was against Ortiz with his hands down not looking.
> Mayweather is a great fighter but the way you're trying to pass him off as an unbeatable monster is ludicrous, beating Corrales is the pinnacle? Everyone was accurate when fighting Corrales, he wasn't a defensive fighter and was the perfect style for Floyd to look good against. Mayweather was an unbeatable monster against Corrales yet Augustus gave him hell in his previous fight, and two fights later at 135 Castillo arguably beats him?
> Oh but no way could the greatest amateur of all time trouble Money May, Lomachenko could never hold a candle to the likes of Augustus and Castillo :rolleyes


A 135 Castillo would give Lomachenko all sorts of hell


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> A 135 Castillo would give Lomachenko all sorts of hell


A 135 lb Castillo wasn't 135. He was a very big lightweight. Wasn't he 10 or 12 pounds heavier than Mayweather in their fights?


----------



## Sexy Sergio ( L E O N ) (May 19, 2013)

LittleRed said:


> A 135 lb Castillo wasn't 135. He was a very big lightweight. Wasn't he 10 or 12 pounds heavier than Mayweather in their fights?


Josue was 147 on fight night. FLoyd has been the smaller man ever since he left the super feather division.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

LittleRed said:


> A 135 lb Castillo wasn't 135. He was a very big lightweight. Wasn't he 10 or 12 pounds heavier than Mayweather in their fights?


yeah he was pretty big


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Floyd at sfw was a complete fighter. Ive seen nothing from lomachenko to suggest he is at that level yet.


----------



## LuckyLuke (Jun 6, 2013)

Luf said:


> Floyd at sfw was a complete fighter. Ive seen nothing from lomachenko to suggest he is at that level yet.


He dindt even turn pro yet. To suggest he would win 10-2 against featherweight Mayweather is too much. 
I will wait and see how Lomachenko does in the pro game. How he fights in a 12 round fight, how his punch resistance is, what power he has ect.


----------

