# I'm sorry, but it's gone too far now



## Gunner (Jun 4, 2013)

Speaking about Lomanchenko



The Undefeated Gaul said:


> *I also agree with dealt_with by the way, I think he'd beat Mayweather in a 10-2 decision too..*
> 
> This is from a guy that states:
> 1. Mayweather is in my top 10 of all time, probably top 5 in terms of H2H ability
> 2. Mayweather was arguably the greatest 130lber of all time


This sort of thing cannot be allowed to go on


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Seriously man. He wouldn't be favored to beat Mikey Garcia right now, but he's gonna beat the best H2H 130 pounder ever easily?

Ffs. Wait for his ass to actually do something first


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

My argument is as follows, and it's a simple one:
1. Lomachenko had 30 rounds already at World Series of Boxing where he actually faced strong competition in a weight class that Lomachenko is actually relatively small for i.e A true amateur Great in Domenico Valentino, Albert Selimov who needs no introduction, and Bashenov who like Selimov, who were undefeated at WSB..do you know how fucking difficult it is to go undefeated in WSB? They're all top world level amateurs.

2. Those 30 rounds were more educational for Vasyl than the first 30 rounds Mayweather had (when Mayweather just beat Felipe Garcia). This is something that just can't be disputed. Mayweather was just knocking out bums in under 5 rounds. Lomachenko already knows of his punching power, he doesn't have to fight a bumbaklat to realise it. 
Vasyl was focussed on his game, but not necessarily his pacing. This is the only issue I admit Vasyl has looking at the Ramirez fight, but it's something that'll easily be learned as he gets a little more fighting experience.

3. Add on the four rounds it took to beat Jose Ramirez, Vasyl's 'rounds fought' is the same as Mayweather when Mayweather was at Hector Aroyo, the year when Mayweather actually won the world title against Genaro Hernandez. (Mayweather didn't even have experience past 10 rounds before the Genaro fight). If Vasyl goes 12 rounds with Salido, he would have fought as many rounds as Mayweather when Mayweather was fighting either Cuello or Tony Pep!

4. Recall that Mayweather was just 18 when he turned pro, Vasyl is 25 - Vasyl doesn't need that extra experience, he's already an amateur veteran who has his brain adjusted to elite level competition. Mayweather was not a complete fighter, Vasyl is right now..Mayweather's the best he's ever been at age 36 although physically he was the best at 130lbs.

5. Vasyl at amateurs would have beaten Mayweather at amateurs. Some Lomahaters even admitted that Vasyl would have beaten Pernell Whitaker at amateurs, I am arrogantly sure that Vasyl would beat Mayweather of the amateurs.

6. Vasyl has a pro style, obviously Mayweather is the king of pros, but Mayweather's style needed a little more adjustments to do due to lack of experience and strategies to go 12 rounds. 

7. Vasyl can deal with speed, counter punching (i.e Toledo, Valentino) very well, it's just a style that Vasyl is good at handling. 

This isn't even going to the breakdown of the actual fight itself. I can guarentee you theres not a single Lomahater on this site who has seen enough of Loma to give a good breakdown of Loma, let alone how he'd fare against Mayweather at 130.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

bballchump11 said:


> Seriously man. He wouldn't be favored to beat Mikey Garcia right now, but he's gonna beat the best H2H 130 pounder ever easily?
> 
> Ffs. Wait for his ass to actually do something first


Chavez is very underrated as far as H2H 130-lbers IMO. People immediately tend to just think "Floyd, Arguello, Nelson" when Julio had a good section of his prime here with a lot of quality wins. Not that I disagree re: Floyd.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

We give sound reasoning, all you guys do is moan and say 'he's only 1-0' when you know that's not painting an accurate picture of Loma.


----------



## Relentless (Nov 24, 2012)

Lomachenko would KO Floyd Joy Sinclaire in 3 rounds. quote me on it.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

I'm finding this whole thing terribly entertaining actually :lol:


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Relentless said:


> Lomachenko would KO *Floyd Joy Sinclaire* in 3 rounds. quote me on it.


:lol:


----------



## Gunner (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> We give sound reasoning, all you guys do is moan and say 'he's only 1-0' when you know that's not painting an accurate picture of Loma.


10-2?


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> I'm finding this whole thing terribly entertaining actually :lol:


:lol: I wouldn't be saying any of this if I didn't find it funny and entertaining. I believe what I'm saying is true, but it's still hilarious.


----------



## Jonnybravo (Jun 4, 2013)

Loma is the truth!


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

396-1.


----------



## Danimal (Oct 9, 2013)

Why get so excited about a 1 fight pro? Many fighters look great early in their careers, but very few make manage to sustain it until they're in their late 30's. If Loma still looks good in 5 or 10 years and racks up a great resume, I can understand people comparing him to Floyd. I will never understand why someone would want to pretend he could beat the P4P #1 at this point though. It makes even less sense to me that they bring up other amateurs he beat and talk about his 4 rounds as pro as if they justify any argument for pro-boxing supremacy. Very bizarre.


----------



## FloydPatterson (Jun 4, 2013)

Is that a Morales thread I see?


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Gunner said:


> 10-2?


2013 FOTY so far - Arakawa-Figueroa was 10-2 to Figueroa, but the scorecards gave no indication whatsoever on how close the fight actually was.


----------



## Gunner (Jun 4, 2013)

Danimal said:


> Why get so excited about a 1 fight pro? Many fighters look great early in their careers, but very few make manage to sustain it until they're in their late 30's. If Loma still looks good in 5 or 10 years and racks up a great resume, I can understand people comparing him to Floyd. I will never understand why someone would want to pretend he could beat the P4P #1 at this point though. It makes even less sense to me that they bring up other amateurs he beat and talk about his 4 rounds as pro as if they justify any argument for pro-boxing supremacy. Very bizarre.


I'm very excited about him as a pro, I followed his career and loved him in the amateuers. However that doesn't mean I feel the need to go _too far_..


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Danimal said:


> Why get so excited about a 1 fight pro? Many fighters look great early in their careers, but very few make manage to sustain it until they're in their late 30's. If Loma still looks good in 5 or 10 years and racks up a great resume, I can understand people comparing him to Floyd. I will never understand why someone would want to pretend he could beat the P4P #1 at this point though. It makes even less sense to me that they bring up other amateurs he beat and talk about his 4 rounds as pro as if they justify any argument for pro-boxing supremacy. Very bizarre.


Probably because he is arguably the greatest amateur in history (? That isn't really my thing honestly) but he's certainly not just any mere 1-0 pro.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Andrew Wiggins is better than Lebron man. He'd beat him one on one and would improve any team more than Lebron would. 
I don't need to wait to see him develop as a pro. I know for sure just based off his high school games and and 2 college games


----------



## bjl12 (Jun 5, 2013)

Danimal said:


> Why get so excited about a 1 fight pro? Many fighters look great early in their careers, but very few make manage to sustain it until they're in their late 30's. If Loma still looks good in 5 or 10 years and racks up a great resume, I can understand people comparing him to Floyd. I will never understand why someone would want to pretend he could beat the P4P #1 at this point though. It makes even less sense to me that they bring up other amateurs he beat and talk about his 4 rounds as pro as if they justify any argument for pro-boxing supremacy. Very bizarre.












THERE'S NO BLUEPRINT!!!!


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> :lol: I wouldn't be saying any of this if I didn't find it funny and entertaining. I believe what I'm saying is true, but it's still hilarious.


You and Dealt With are lunatics :rofl But forums thrive on characters who pull no punches on how they feel regarding various topics, even if it overwhelmingly goes against the majority. It probably won't be long until he is the most discussed fighter on this forum and that's due in large part to you two. Unless he gets stopped by Salido or something.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Andrew Wiggins would beat Lebron James 10-2 in a game of one on one


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Lomachenko got the job done, but didn't look all that spectacular against Ramirez. But he'd beat the Mayweather that beat Corrales?


----------



## Reppin501 (May 16, 2013)

Floyd beats the piss out of this cat...


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Meh. Gaul doesn't really like Mayweather, let him have the win.


----------



## PivotPunch (Aug 1, 2012)

Dealt_with is slowly but surely going insane seriously what did he post about before Lomachenko said he would go pro :lol:


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Danimal said:


> Why get so excited about a 1 fight pro? Many fighters look great early in their careers, but very few make manage to sustain it until they're in their late 30's. If Loma still looks good in 5 or 10 years and racks up a great resume, I can understand people comparing him to Floyd. I will never understand why someone would want to pretend he could beat the P4P #1 at this point though. It makes even less sense to me that they bring up other amateurs he beat and talk about his 4 rounds as pro as if they justify any argument for pro-boxing supremacy. Very bizarre.


1. He's the greatest amateur of all time. I don't even think he's one of the greatest, I think he's THE greatest:
a. Only one loss which was twice avenged. 
b. At least 250-1 amateur record, I will continue to say 396-1 until it's proven wrong. 
c. Val Barker Trophy IN 08' + Gold - not even Ray Leonard won a VB.T
d. 2xWorld Champ Gold medalist - 1 of them was where he broke his hand early in the tournament (it was a hand break that actually was pretty bad and left him out of competition for a very long time after the tournament), yet still only conceded 7 points against very good opposition. Who does that? Oh, only Loma. 
e. He moved up to lightweight because amateurs eradicated featherweight division, he was actually small for the division and the guys he fought are actually 140lbers in the amateurs or pro's right now when Loma only rehydrated to 129lbs on his debut :lol: This wasn't a problem, he whooped their bitchasses anyway and won another Worlds and another Olympics. 
f. Very good opponents in ams.

- ok that's that done. Ok, now imagine all of this, but with a very pro style, punching power that would damage 147lbers even though he's a featherweight, someone who's also one of the very best you've ever seen, someone who can take a punch against these bigger guys, someone who is known for their fitness and stamina. That's not even opinion either.

He boxed four rounds but he fought those four rounds mentally wrestling with the idea of pacing...but still made easy work of a big contender who was a professional title holder (WBO International FW champ).

Literally all of the grey areas when it comes to an amateur transitioning into a pro, has been ticked. The only thing left is his understanding of pacing earlier on in the fight as he was going far too slow.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Meh. Gaul doesn't really like Mayweather, let him have the win.


I love Mayweather, I really don't want to because of all of this 'Money Team' bullshit but I can't help it because of his PBF days and it was great to know that I had one of the GOATS in terms of ability in an era when I was young and growing up. He's one of my top 5 favourite boxers of all time. I can promise you this.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

I want Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux. Probably at a Rigo demanded 124.

Vasyl only weighed 129 on the night against Ramirez.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

I have to admit,dealt_with convinced me that Loma is certainly special.
But beating Floyd at 130 based on one pro fight(and at the end of the day there have been magnificent ams who amounted to very little as pros) and a admittedly special amateur career is just too much.
It's a safe call to make because Loma fans know it will never happen.You could argue that Marquez/Pacquaio/Barrera/Morales would all beat Loma at 130 at this stage.
Only time will tell but at this stage it's a ludicrous call to make.If he's making claims to be the best of his generation in 5 years then it might have some substance,but it's a silly claim at this point.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> Lomachenko got the job done, but didn't look all that spectacular against Ramirez. But he'd beat the Mayweather that beat Corrales?


Yes. Especially after he understands pacing, he'll be the full package. What you guys don't understand is that it's so hard to be consistent at the top level. We're looking at a fighter that's a better and greater amateur than Andre Ward (who hadn't lost a fight since he was 12 years old). He's a veteran. Have a look at top amateurs medal records, their records against elite opposition like in WSB, and especially the way he does it, with all of the other factors I've mentioned. It's just impossible for me to think Lomachenko isn't going to be a GOAT.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

PityTheFool said:


> Mike McCallum underrated as fuck.


:deal


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Yes. Especially after he understands pacing, he'll be the full package. *What you guys don't understand is that it's so hard to be consistent at the top level.* We're looking at a fighter that's a better and greater amateur than Andre Ward (who hadn't lost a fight since he was 12 years old). He's a veteran. Have a look at top amateurs medal records, their records against elite opposition like in WSB, and especially the way he does it, with all of the other factors I've mentioned. It's just impossible for me to think Lomachenko isn't going to be a GOAT.


Like being undefeated at the top of the sport for 16 years in a career that spans 5 different weight classes, 8 world titles and 3 lineal titles? Sound logic.

No amateur system, be it the Olympics or the WSB is 'the top of the sport'. It's far, far, far from it.

Suggesting Lomachenko comfortably beats Mayweather based on an amateur career and one professional fight which he didn't even look that great in is just plain silly, and you deserve to be clowned on for it.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Andrew Wiggins would beat Lebron James 10-2 in a game of one on one


Imagine Andrew Wiggins is 25 years old, considered as one of the best if not, the best amateur ever, and Lebron James is 21. 
It's widely agreed upon that Andrew would have beaten Lebron in College basketball, Andrew was definitely considered greater. 
Andrew faced more skilled opponents than Lebron did by the time Lebron was 21. Andrew has a dunking ability that is collosal i.e punching power (Loma's power would be good for a 147lber if he was to get into the ring as a featherweight). Andrew has been in a game with 2 quarters, and gained a lot more knowledge as a result, rather than Lebron finishing a game off within a quarter, or within the first two quarters, against high school teams. Lebron had only gone 3 quarters before the world championship match against say, the Boston Celtics. So even Lebron hadn't gone the full 4 quarters either (Mayweather only went 10 rounds maximum i.e against Cuello and Pep, before taking on Genaro). 
Andrew is fully developed as a basketball player and is 100% suited for the pro game, whereas Lebron is still developing. 
Andrew has expressed skills that are at least on Lebron's level when Lebron was 21, Andrew is also known for his stamina and fitness and it's mentioned in every single game, it's that impressive. 
Andrew as also dealt with similar styles to Lebron with relative ease.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bjl12 said:


> THERE'S NO BLUEPRINT!!!!


:deal


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

TFG said:


> Like being undefeated at the top of the sport for 16 years in a career that spans 5 different weight classes, 8 world titles and 3 lineal titles? Sound logic.
> 
> No amateur system, be it the Olympics or the WSB is 'the top of the sport'. It's far, far, far from it.
> 
> Suggesting Lomachenko comfortably beats Mayweather based on an amateur career and one professional fight which he didn't even look that great in is just plain silly, and you deserve to be clowned on for it.


Actually 4 lineal titles :good
130 vs Genaro
135 vs Castillo
147 vs Baldomir (Mosley and/or guerreo?)
154 vs Canelo


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Imagine Andrew Wiggins is 25 years old, considered as one of the best if not, the best amateur ever, and Lebron James is 21.
> It's widely agreed upon that Andrew would have beaten Lebron in College basketball, Andrew was definitely considered greater.
> Andrew faced more skilled opponents than Lebron did by the time Lebron was 21. Andrew has a dunking ability that is collosal i.e punching power (Loma's power would be good for a 147lber if he was to get into the ring as a featherweight). Andrew has been in a game with 2 quarters, and gained a lot more knowledge as a result, rather than Lebron finishing a game off within a quarter, or within the first two quarters, against high school teams. Lebron had only gone 3 quarters before the world championship match against say, the Boston Celtics. So even Lebron hadn't gone the full 4 quarters either (Mayweather only went 10 rounds maximum i.e against Cuello and Pep, before taking on Genaro).
> Andrew is fully developed as a basketball player and is 100% suited for the pro game, whereas Lebron is still developing.
> ...


:lol:


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> I have to admit,dealt_with convinced me that Loma is certainly special.
> But beating Floyd at 130 based on one pro fight(and at the end of the day there have been magnificent ams who amounted to very little as pros) and a admittedly special amateur career is just too much.
> It's a safe call to make because Loma fans know it will never happen.You could argue that Marquez/Pacquaio/Barrera/Morales would all beat Loma at 130 at this stage.
> Only time will tell but at this stage it's a ludicrous call to make.If he's making claims to be the best of his generation in 5 years then it might have some substance,but it's a silly claim at this point.


Well, I'd pick Rigondeaux over the four you just mentioned (Marquez, Pacquiao, Barrera, Morales) imagining they're all the same weight. Rigondeaux would embarrass the living shit out of my second favourite fighter of all time in Morales. Same with Marquez. Rigondeaux is too slick. I don't believe it should be ludicrous for people to have fought that Rigondeaux post-Cordoba would have beaten Donaire as easily as he did. It was so easy for Rigo, that Rigo would have beaten Donaire on his professional debut. And Loma is better than Rigo when it comes to the pro game.

Why in 5 years? Why not 3? 
W Gamboa
W Mikey
W Donaire
W Mares
W Rigondeaux
W Russel Jr
W Salido
W Ramirez


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Well, I'd pick Rigondeaux over the four you just mentioned (Marquez, Pacquiao, Barrera, Morales) imagining they're all the same weight. Rigondeaux would embarrass the living shit out of my second favourite fighter of all time in Morales. Same with Marquez. Rigondeaux is too slick. I don't believe it should be ludicrous for people to have fought that Rigondeaux post-Cordoba would have beaten Donaire as easily as he did. It was so easy for Rigo, that Rigo would have beaten Donaire on his professional debut. And Loma is better than Rigo when it comes to the pro game.
> 
> Why in 5 years? Why not 3?
> W Gamboa
> ...


That would be one hell of a 8-0.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> I want Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux. Probably at a Rigo demanded 124.
> 
> Vasyl only weighed 129 on the night against Ramirez.


I want this too but I do think Vasyl may be a little drained. I was expecting him to come in at 134lbs on fight night, he looked gaunt before the fight and during the right. I don't think Vasyl's camp understand how to do the weigh in business.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> You and Dealt With are lunatics :rofl But forums thrive on characters who pull no punches on how they feel regarding various topics, even if it overwhelmingly goes against the majority. It probably won't be long until he is the most discussed fighter on this forum and that's due in large part to you two. Unless he gets stopped by Salido or something.


:beer:rasta

I think he probably is the most popular topic of discussion here haha

We should never feel ashamed to say what we feel. This is about something greater than the dialogue, this is about speaking up for what you believe to be true! :ibutt:jmm


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

TFG said:


> Like being undefeated at the top of the sport for 16 years in a career that spans 5 different weight classes, 8 world titles and 3 lineal titles? Sound logic.
> 
> No amateur system, be it the Olympics or the WSB is 'the top of the sport'. It's far, far, far from it.
> 
> Suggesting Lomachenko comfortably beats Mayweather based on an amateur career and one professional fight which he didn't even look that great in is just plain silly, and you deserve to be clowned on for it.


Well I'm not comparing Lomachenko now, to Mayweather at age 36. Mayweather now > Mayweather at age 21.

Well, I think Rigondeaux would beat the likes of Zaragoza. Zaragoza is a HOF'er. H2H and accomplishments are two different things, especially taking into account the sentence I've written above.

10-2 again, by no means have to be comfortable. I referenced Arakawa-Figueroa which was a 10-2 decision for Figueroa, but that was competitive as hell.

Olympics I am afraid, is the top of the sport. Olympic boxers are kings of that style of boxing, the skill level, the strategy etc. in amateur boxing is insane. Isn't it amazing that Lomachenko was the standout fighter whilst having a pro style? Look at Abner Mares, he got knocked out in the first round of the Olympics, now he's H2H Top 10 in todays generation.

WSB is also the top of the sport when you're fighting boxers who have proven themselves against other fighters in a pro setting. It's like a young Abner Mares going into WSB rather than fight a bunch of bumbaklats.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Actually 4 lineal titles :good
> 130 vs Genaro
> 135 vs Castillo
> 147 vs Baldomir (Mosley and/or guerreo?)
> 154 vs Canelo


Watch out everybody, Baldomir is coming through.


----------



## fists of fury (May 24, 2013)

So what's a Lomahater?


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Well, I'd pick Rigondeaux over the four you just mentioned (Marquez, Pacquiao, Barrera, Morales) imagining they're all the same weight. Rigondeaux would embarrass the living shit out of my second favourite fighter of all time in Morales. Same with Marquez. Rigondeaux is too slick. I don't believe it should be ludicrous for people to have fought that Rigondeaux post-Cordoba would have beaten Donaire as easily as he did. It was so easy for Rigo, that Rigo would have beaten Donaire on his professional debut. And Loma is better than Rigo when it comes to the pro game.
> 
> Why in 5 years? Why not 3?
> W Gamboa
> ...


Look up my thread from esb called why Rigondeaux will beat Nonito Donaire. I broke down the fight flawlessly, but I'd confidently say he wouldn't have gone into his pro debut and beat Donaire


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

TFG said:


> Like being undefeated at the top of the sport for 16 years in a career that spans 5 different weight classes, 8 world titles and 3 lineal titles? Sound logic.
> 
> No amateur system, be it the Olympics or the WSB is 'the top of the sport'. It's far, far, far from it.
> 
> Suggesting Lomachenko comfortably beats Mayweather based on an amateur career and one professional fight which he didn't even look that great in is just plain silly, and you deserve to be clowned on for it.






Watch what this little kid Robeisy Ramirez was able to do, in his LOSS against Yeraliyev last month in world champs. There are things Robeisy has done that shits on what Danny Garcia or Amir Khan can do for example. Ramirez is only a kid, and he's going to kiss everybody in the aaaasssssssssss - you just know someone like this kid is going to be a great pro (providing he has a chin, stamina, heart all that stuff).


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Watch out everybody, Baldomir is coming through.


He's better than fucking Jose Ramirez. He was slow and less skilled than Zab and still beat him because the pro game has many dimensions to it


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

fists of fury said:


> So what's a Lomahater?


I'd prefer the term Lomadoubter really, but I guess to doubt in this context is to hate.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Well I'm not comparing Lomachenko now, to Mayweather at age 36. Mayweather now > Mayweather at age 21.
> 
> Well, I think Rigondeaux would beat the likes of Zaragoza. Zaragoza is a HOF'er. H2H and accomplishments are two different things, especially taking into account the sentence I've written above.
> 
> ...


You're speculating and projecting that much, it isn't even worth reading anymore. You're trying to compare things that aren't comparable in the slightest.

Lomachenko is unproven at the top level of the sport, that is a simple fact that you can't seem to understand. Olympic boxing may be the top of the amateur sport, but it's still leaps and bounds away from professional prize fighting. It's not just to do with skill, power etc, it's a whole plethora of factors. How many times has Lomachenko got a cut in his amateur days? How many times has he had everything weighted against him (Gloves, ring size, weight etc)? How many times has he fought at a high pace for 12 rounds? He hasn't done any of this. He could have 1500 amateur fights, it doesn't prepare him for stuff like that. I haven't even mentioned the fact he's been fighting guys with padded gloves and referee's who jump in as soon as a clean punch lands.

Lomachenko is a great fighter, but he needs to prove him self before your outlandish statements can be respected in any sense.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> He's better than fucking Jose Ramirez. He was slow and less skilled than Zab and still beat him because the pro game has many dimensions to it


I wasn't saying that he was worse than Jose Ramirez. By the time Mayweather fought Baldomir, he was a very experienced pro, whereas Ramirez is just the GOAT pro debut win.


----------



## 941jeremy (Jun 12, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> I want this too but I do think Vasyl may be a little drained. I was expecting him to come in at 134lbs on fight night, he looked gaunt before the fight and during the right. I don't think Vasyl's camp understand how to do the weigh in business.


Let me get this straight. Loma rehydrated to 129 but you don't think he'd be capable of making 124? I think he'd actually make 122.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> I wasn't saying that he was worse than Jose Ramirez. By the time Mayweather fought Baldomir, he was a very experienced pro, whereas Ramirez is just the GOAT pro debut win.


well Baldomir beat Zab who beat spinks who beat mayorga who beat Forrest who beat Mosley and so on.

That's what lineal is. this is a big downfall dealt with had. Discrediting Floyd's resume on order to hype Lomchenko's non resume


----------



## fists of fury (May 24, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> I'd prefer the term Lomadoubter really, but I guess to doubt in this context is to hate.


:lol: Okay.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Well, I'd pick Rigondeaux over the four you just mentioned (Marquez, Pacquiao, Barrera, Morales) imagining they're all the same weight. Rigondeaux would embarrass the living shit out of my second favourite fighter of all time in Morales. Same with Marquez. Rigondeaux is too slick. I don't believe it should be ludicrous for people to have fought that Rigondeaux post-Cordoba would have beaten Donaire as easily as he did. It was so easy for Rigo, that Rigo would have beaten Donaire on his professional debut. And Loma is better than Rigo when it comes to the pro game.
> 
> Why in 5 years? Why not 3?
> W Gamboa
> ...


Did you just say Loma is a better pro than Rigo when he's 1-0?
And I'd be happy to settle for 3 years if that's the route he takes,but isn't Mares with GBP?

At this stage,there is absolutely no way he is better than Rigo at 1-0.Sorry,but it just cannot be argued on the basis of one fight.
And I want to make it clear,I have been very impressed by Loma.


----------



## PityTheFool (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> :deal


Word:bart


----------



## 941jeremy (Jun 12, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Andrew Wiggins is better than Lebron man. He'd beat him one on one and would improve any team more than Lebron would.
> I don't need to wait to see him develop as a pro. I know for sure just based off his high school games and and 2 college games


Exactly. I also remember all the hype that followed Stephen Strausberg, he was supposed to be the best pitching prospect ever and he was pretty good but still hasn't lived up to the hype. I doubt that Loma becomes just as successful in the pros. He seems to not want to be carefully matched so I see him with an L within the next 3 years. Then the Lomatards will be saying he peaked too early, he reached his prime in the ams, etc.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

TFG said:


> You're speculating and projecting that much, it isn't even worth reading anymore. You're trying to compare things that aren't comparable in the slightest.
> 
> Lomachenko is unproven at the top level of the sport, that is a simple fact that you can't seem to understand. Olympic boxing may be the top of the amateur sport, but it's still leaps and bounds away from professional prize fighting. It's not just to do with skill, power etc, it's a whole plethora of factors. How many times has Lomachenko got a cut in his amateur days? How many times has he had everything weighted against him (Gloves, ring size, weight etc)? How many times has he fought at a high pace for 12 rounds? He hasn't done any of this. He could have 1500 amateur fights, it doesn't prepare him for stuff like that. I haven't even mentioned the fact he's been fighting guys with padded gloves and referee's who jump in as soon as a clean punch lands.
> 
> Lomachenko is a great fighter, but he needs to prove him self before your outlandish statements can be respected in any sense.


No.

- He's unproven at the top level of the PROFESSIONALS, not the top level of sport. I pick Sugar Ray Leonard's amateur win over Andres Aldama ahead of Mayweather's win over Shane Mosley for example. Simply because Andres at ams displayed more skill, ability in the amateur game than Mosley of 10' for the pro game. Just because it has a different premise, it doesn't make it better...some top pros will be shit amateurs. Double standards.

- Well, a lot of the time actually. See, now I know you haven't watched a single amateur fight to say 'How many times has he had everything weighted against him (Gloves, ring size, weight etc)?' Why are you commenting on Lomachenko when you're not aware that Lomachenko in 2011 beat Denys Berinchyk who went on to win silver at olympics 2012, at light welterweight? What happened to Loma's 2011 and 2012 win over Yasnier Toledo Lopez, who just won the silver medal at Worlds last month at 140? What I'm trying to say is that Lomachenko was heavily disadvantaged in terms of weight when they got rid of the featherweight division. Look how small he looks compared to most of his opponents from 2011 to WSB. It's a shame Lomachenko couldn't have pro gloves because he landed knockdowns on 3 opponents and bloodied Valentino's face up (he didn't knock Valentino down) in WSB, and these guys are 135lbs or 140lbs! They would have been brutal KO's or stoppages.

- How many times have top pros like Froch been able to perform in the way that's required to be able to beat a monster like Vodoyapanov in the amateurs (which isn't even the top 5 names on his resume).

- Yes, as I've said, the pacing is an issue which Lomachenko will have overcome. He still cruised past Ramirez, a world contender + titleholder in the oh so amazing pro ranks, even though Loma was going too slowly and not being 'Lomachenko'.


----------



## BUMPY (Jul 26, 2012)

How much does this mug even weigh? I'd bet I can have him in a 1 round fight.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

941jeremy said:


> Let me get this straight. Loma rehydrated to 129 but you don't think he'd be capable of making 124? I think he'd actually make 122.


Take what you just said, now contextualise it with the fact that Lomachenko beat elite Amateur GREATS at 140lbs, and other top amateur level fighters who fight at 140lbs, as well as the likes of the younger Ramirez who is currently known as a huge puncher at 140lbs in the pros. It's like a 154lb Miguel Cotto (who is small for the weight) having devestating punching power and beating top ELITE opponents at 172lbs i.e light heavyweight.

Just for your entertainment, this is what the guy who can 'make 122'lbs did to a 140lber, with pillow gloves:





And people say Lomachenko may not be great? :lol: That's like telling me that Mayweather fought the best opposition throughout his career. Please.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

PityTheFool said:


> Did you just say Loma is a better pro than Rigo when he's 1-0?
> And I'd be happy to settle for 3 years if that's the route he takes,but isn't Mares with GBP?
> 
> At this stage,there is absolutely no way he is better than Rigo at 1-0.Sorry,but it just cannot be argued on the basis of one fight.
> And I want to make it clear,I have been very impressed by Loma.


Lomachenko isn't greater than Rigo in pros, but better..yes of course.

It doesn't matter, Loma will fight then all. Line them up. Everyone is too pussy to fight Uchiyama, expect Loma to take that fight in the future. 
It's not just 1 fight. You didn't even see Lomachenko fight in his pro debut. All I saw was a confused Loma trying to understand pacing, but just owning Ramirez in the process. Ramirez wasn't even that much on Loma's mind during the fight, the pacing was the main focus. I'm not just chatting shit, watch what happens after Lomachenko knocks Ramirez down in the first round, he looks to his corner and is like 'I don't know' and shrugs after his corner say something to him, and then Loma decides not to go for the knockout as he wants to get the ring eperienc.e


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> No.
> 
> - He's unproven at the top level of the PROFESSIONALS, not the top level of sport. I pick Sugar Ray Leonard's amateur win over Andres Aldama ahead of Mayweather's win over Shane Mosley for example. Simply because Andres at ams displayed more skill, ability in the amateur game than Mosley of 10' for the pro game. Just because it has a different premise, it doesn't make it better...some top pros will be shit amateurs. Double standards.
> 
> ...


You're a complete nutcase. Professional prizefighting is the pinnacle of the sport. Mayweather v Mosley was the two best welterweights in the world facing off against each other. It's infinitely harder to gain that status in the pro ranks, you could ask any professional fighter that and they would tell you it straight up. I could sit here all day and criticize amateur boxing to the finest detail, the scoring has been pathetic for a long time, the rules regarding eight counts are pathetic, the gloves are rubbish, the fighters often lack inside fighting games, the list could go on forever. I'm not going to entertain that with you though, because I'm already questioning your sanity.

That's your retort, seriously? That's Lomachenko conditioned to the pro game, having to fight against a few guys were slightly bigger than him? Fighting people bigger than you is something that happens at all levels of the sport, from your first few fights as an amateur, to fights at the highest level (professional boxing). I was talking about having everything stacked against you, not just a few pounds. Not to mention that being the lighter guy has often suited Lomachenko, just like it suited Pacquiao for a long time. Weight isn't a huge factor in this sport, never has been, you can use it to your advantage. It's often beneficial for a guy who adopts lots of movement to be lighter than his opponent. Next excuse please.

See this is the kind of stuff shows you have some serious problems. There's no room for this kind of deductive reasoning:

- Lomachenko bloodies Valentino's face, doesn't even knock him down.

+ 10 pounds

- Lomachenko brutally KO's Valentino.

And you're seriously asking why you're being made fun of in this thread?

Is that the excuse you're going to keep bringing up when Lomachenko gradually looks worse and worse? 'It's not Lomachenko', 'he's not the same'? It's called stepping up in levels. By your logic, Ramirez was a pretty poor fighter, given that he's only beat up a few pro bums, and lost to a few as well. He's obviously wouldn't be a match for someone like Maxwell. Yet he still exposed flaws in Lomachenko's game that was not to do with pacing. Salido will expose even more flaws very soon and you will soon realize that it's not as easy as Lomachenko simply getting better and better. Fighters peak, he's peaked just as he has entered the sport. He isn't going to keep on improving like you think he is.


----------



## 941jeremy (Jun 12, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Take what you just said, now contextualise it with the fact that Lomachenko beat elite Amateur GREATS at 140lbs, and other top amateur level fighters who fight at 140lbs, as well as the likes of the younger Ramirez who is currently known as a huge puncher at 140lbs in the pros. It's like a 154lb Miguel Cotto (who is small for the weight) having devestating punching power and beating top ELITE opponents at 172lbs i.e light heavyweight.
> 
> Just for your entertainment, this is what the guy who can 'make 122'lbs did to a 140lber, with pillow gloves:
> 
> ...


Fats hands and good power, but I do believe the last 3 body shots were undeniably low. Yet and still I see your point. He looks like a pro among amateurs, but you and dealt with probably take that as an insult because you both believe that the ams is the biggest and most difficult stage for boxers.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

TFG said:


> *You're a complete nutcase.* Professional prizefighting is the pinnacle of the sport. Mayweather v Mosley was the two best welterweights in the world facing off against each other. It's infinitely harder to gain that status in the pro ranks, you could ask any professional fighter that and they would tell you it straight up. I could sit here all day and criticize amateur boxing to the finest detail, the scoring has been pathetic for a long time, the rules regarding eight counts are pathetic, the gloves are rubbish, the fighters often lack inside fighting games, the list could go on forever. I'm not going to entertain that with you though, because I'm already questioning your sanity.
> 
> That's your retort, seriously? That's Lomachenko conditioned to the pro game, having to fight against a few guys were slightly bigger than him? Fighting people bigger than you is something that happens at all levels of the sport, from your first few fights as an amateur, to fights at the highest level (professional boxing). I was talking about having everything stacked against you, not just a few pounds. Not to mention that being the lighter guy has often suited Lomachenko, just like it suited Pacquiao for a long time. Weight isn't a huge factor in this sport, never has been, you can use it to your advantage. It's often beneficial for a guy who adopts lots of movement to be lighter than his opponent. Next excuse please.
> 
> ...


:rofl

I don't necessarily agree with what you're saying. You're giving too much weighting to certain barriers from the professional ranks, when certain professionals may find that a lot easier than the barriers that come with being an elite amateur being able to beat someone like Andres Aldama. I think you should also make it your priority to ask Abner Mares about the ams, and he's not even the best example. Danny Garcia could only be national champ. 
The rules regarding 8 counts are good because these fighters have to fight once every two days, it aint no professional rank where you can be Andre Ward and go missing since the dinosaur age. I'm not saying the overall quality of the fighter is better in the ams whatsoever, I'm talking about how hard it is to beat them within that construct. You've deviated like a gnostic gospel writer.

That's what I said yes, as you raised the issue about the weight, I answered it and now you've gone off on one again. What about having it stacked against you in a tournament when you've broken your hand at the start of it, and yet still only conceding 7 points in the whole tournament? You've resorted to such micro points.

Think about it, if they were professional gloves, how long would you think that Valentino fight would have lasted? Be honest. Well, according to Vasyl himself, he felt he had even more power because the pro gloves enabled him to clench his fist which makes a big difference, and laws of physics seem to agree. 
p.s smaller fighter vs Lomachenko = good luck dealing with Loma's punching power...look what he did to the similar sized Ramirez, he was literally rolling around.

I think Ramirez, the world level contender was actually the GOAT debut, yet he's still no Albert Selimov.

This fight will be difficult because Lomachenko isn't fully adjusted, of course. It's not the style that Lomachenko would want, but whatever Mikey can do, Loma will do better. I expect knockdowns, and will even do a 2 week ban bet with anyone who thinks that Lomachenko won't land knockdowns in that fight, and Lomachenko may not have to worry about going 12 with Salido because Salido was never been hit by someone as powerful or as skilled as Loma.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

941jeremy said:


> Exactly. I also remember all the hype that followed Stephen Strausberg, he was supposed to be the best pitching prospect ever and he was pretty good but still hasn't lived up to the hype. I doubt that Loma becomes just as successful in the pros. He seems to not want to be carefully matched so I see him with an L within the next 3 years. Then the Lomatards will be saying he peaked too early, he reached his prime in the ams, etc.


Pedro Martinez was God.


----------



## Danimal (Oct 9, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> No.
> 
> - He's unproven at the top level of the PROFESSIONALS, not the top level of sport. I pick Sugar Ray Leonard's amateur win over Andres Aldama ahead of Mayweather's win over Shane Mosley for example. Simply because Andres at ams displayed more skill, ability in the amateur game than Mosley of 10' for the pro game. Just because it has a different premise, it doesn't make it better...some top pros will be shit amateurs. Double standards.
> 
> ...


Do you have something personally against professional boxing? It seems really bizarre to me that you insist amateur boxing is in some way on par with the pro game. I don't think I've ever heard someone directly compare am and pro wins in a serious way.

Less rounds, headgear, big gloves, relatively inexperienced competition, fewer world class coaches, point scoring systems, etc. How do you not see these things make a difference?


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Danimal said:


> Do you have something personally against professional boxing? It seems really bizarre to me that you insist amateur boxing is in some way on par with the pro game. I don't think I've ever heard someone directly compare am and pro wins in a serious way.
> 
> Less rounds, headgear, big gloves, relatively inexperienced competition, fewer world class coaches, point scoring systems, etc. How do you not see these things make a difference?


More rounds, no headgear, small gloves, experienced competition, world class coaches, 10-9 systems have created professional champion monsters like Carlos Baldomir, Derek Chisora, Tyson Fury, whilst Gaydarbek Gaydabekov, Valeri Popenchenko and Oleksandr Usyk do not amount to shit.

No I like professional boxing and talk about it a lot obviously, otherwise I wouldn't be here right now. But its a case-by-case scenario.


----------



## FelixTrinidad (Jun 3, 2013)

No i get what they are saying.

2-0 Anthony Joshua will probably beat 2-0 Muhammad Ali. I'm dead serious. I sort of get what the Lomatards are saying.

It sort of make sense.

I'm not saying Joshua will have a BETTER CAREER than Ali.. or Prime Joshua would beat PRIME Ali... 

But as of right now 2-0 Joshua will brutally KTFO 2-0 version of Ali.

Everyone go watch Joshua vs Butlin and watch Ali's 2nd fight. Ali would have gotten kayoed.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Too bad Taylor vs Chavez Sr wasn't an amateur fight

Or Hank Lundy vs Molina
Or Judah vs Baldomir
Or Moorer vs Foreman
Or Khan vs Peterson
Or do you get the point?


----------



## JMP (Jun 3, 2013)

The pinnacle of recent heavyweight boxing










No fucking way a journeyman like Michael Sprott could spark him.


----------



## FelixTrinidad (Jun 3, 2013)

JMP said:


> The pinnacle of recent heavyweight boxing
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's a tough subject. Because as Joshua shown.. Am's don't mean shit since his improvement have been 10x in just 2 fights in the Pros.

but as Lewis and Wlad showed.. AM'S DO MEAN SOMETHING.. etc... I think it varies.


----------



## JMP (Jun 3, 2013)

FelixTrinidad said:


> It's a tough subject. Because as Joshua shown.. Am's don't mean shit since his improvement have been 10x in just 2 fights in the Pros.
> 
> but as Lewis and Wlad showed.. AM'S DO MEAN SOMETHING.. etc... I think it varies.


Any chance I get on the Ali Raymi Super Salami Express?


----------



## fists of fury (May 24, 2013)

We have 'Lomatards.'
We have 'Lomahaters.'

The stage has been set.


----------



## Danimal (Oct 9, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> More rounds, no headgear, small gloves, experienced competition, world class coaches, 10-9 systems have created professional champion monsters like Carlos Baldomir, Derek Chisora, Tyson Fury, whilst Gaydarbek Gaydabekov, Valeri Popenchenko and Oleksandr Usyk do not amount to shit.
> 
> No I like professional boxing and talk about it a lot obviously, otherwise I wouldn't be here right now. But its a case-by-case scenario.


You talk as if you don't see that the competition and experience level in amateur boxing is much lower than in the pros. You also talk as if you believe pro boxing is not inherently more challenging than amatuer boxing. I don't believe that you really believe these things. You seem too intelligent for that to really be the case.


----------



## fists of fury (May 24, 2013)

In fairness though, while pro boxing is by far the harder of the two, it's definitely easier to win a 'world' title than it is to win a gold medal at the Olympics. With the sheer amount of belts on offer and with shrewd management, a merely good pro can win a strap. I don't think a merely good amateur can win a gold.


----------



## Danimal (Oct 9, 2013)

fists of fury said:


> In fairness though, while pro boxing is by far the harder of the two, it's definitely easier to win a 'world' title than it is to win a gold medal at the Olympics. With the sheer amount of belts on offer and with shrewd management, a merely good pro can win a strap. I don't think a merely good amateur can win a gold.


I don't really know if this is a fair comparison, but I'd say unifying titles and being the consensus #1 in a pro division is as hard or harder than winning Olympic gold. Now add in the potential to do it in multiple weight classes.


----------



## fists of fury (May 24, 2013)

Danimal said:


> I don't really know if this is a fair comparison, but I'd say unifying titles and being the consensus #1 in a division is as hard or harder than winning Olympic gold. Now add in the potential to do it in multiple weight classes.


Oh for sure. No doubt about that. I'm saying that if you consider holding just any strap a 'world' title, then it's hard, but not that hard, to win one.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

fists of fury said:


> In fairness though, while pro boxing is by far the harder of the two, it's definitely easier to win a 'world' title than it is to win a gold medal at the Olympics. With the sheer amount of belts on offer and with shrewd management, a merely good pro can win a strap. I don't think a merely good amateur can win a gold.


How about a merely good amateur that is older and more experienced than his olympic competitors?


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> More rounds, no headgear, small gloves, experienced competition, world class coaches, 10-9 systems have created professional champion monsters like Carlos Baldomir, Derek Chisora, Tyson Fury, *whilst Gaydarbek Gaydabekov*, Valeri Popenchenko and Oleksandr Usyk do not amount to shit.
> 
> No I like professional boxing and talk about it a lot obviously, otherwise I wouldn't be here right now. But its a case-by-case scenario.


That poor man.


----------



## Danimal (Oct 9, 2013)

fists of fury said:


> Oh for sure. No doubt about that. I'm saying that if you consider holding just any strap a 'world' title, then it's hard, but not that hard, to win one.


Fully agree!


----------



## fists of fury (May 24, 2013)

Thing is, you're going to meet the best guys at the Olympics, and to win gold you have to beat the best. In the pro game, you can hold a 'world' title for years and never even be the best guy in the division. That fighter may never actually fight the best available competition.


----------



## FelixTrinidad (Jun 3, 2013)

JMP said:


> Any chance I get on the Ali Raymi Super Salami Express?


Raymi is always looking to expand his harem.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Danimal said:


> You talk as if you don't see that the competition and experience level in amateur boxing is much lower than in the pros. You also talk as if you believe pro boxing is not inherently more challenging than amatuer boxing. I don't believe that you really believe these things. You seem too intelligent for that to really be the case.


Experience doesn't necessarily matter either for the amateurs. Daniyar Yeleussinov was born in 1991 like me, and he's the world amateur champion now for welterweight. He beat Despaigne (31 years old) who has always been a top amateur (he beat Golovkin too by the way). Just watch the guy fight, is this not a showcase of great strategy and also great ability?




and think, Daniyar is going to be extremely hard to beat now with the way the amateur construct has become. It worked towards his favour, otherwise he would have been another amateur who would have possibly faired better as a pro than he did an amateur.

As other posters have mentioned, there are numerous paper titles. Random fighters are world title holders now, guys who are less specialised as a pro than someone like Yeleussinov is at amateurs.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

FelixTrinidad said:


> Raymi is always looking to expand his harem.


lool just read the last part of your sig


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

fists of fury said:


> Thing is, you're going to meet the best guys at the Olympics, and to win gold you have to beat the best. In the pro game, you can hold a 'world' title for years and never even be the best guy in the division. That fighter may never actually fight the best available competition.


:deal


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> That poor man.


:err What happened to him?


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

JMP said:


> The pinnacle of recent heavyweight boxing
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's a huge difference between a pro past prime Audley who wasn't suited to pros, and the greatest amateur of all time who is suited to pros.

*It's a case-by-case scenario, people need to stop painting Lomachenko with the same brush they paint other amateurs, it is dishonest and ignorant. *


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> :err What happened to him?


That name, man!

Anyway, prime 160-168 James Toney is a Top 10 ATG in terms of ability and skills as far as I'm concerned and your brother DW agrees.


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Andrew Wiggins is better than Lebron man. He'd beat him one on one and would improve any team more than Lebron would.
> I don't need to wait to see him develop as a pro. I know for sure just based off his high school games and and 2 college games


OT: I'm thinking Jabari Parker is going to be the better of the two. Just a hunch, but I think he'll use the perception he's second best fuel him and add to his already dynamic game.


----------



## FelixTrinidad (Jun 3, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> That name, man!
> 
> Anyway, prime 160-168 James Toney is a Top 10 ATG in terms of ability and skills as far as I'm concerned and your brother DW agrees.


HE'S ON IN 15-20 MINS..DUDE CATCH THE FUCKING FIGHTS.

It's gonna be great. TONEY IN 3 ROUNDERS.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> That name, man!
> 
> Anyway, prime 160-168 James Toney is a Top 10 ATG in terms of ability and skills as far as I'm concerned and your brother DW agrees.


:gayfight2

I'd have to watch more of Toney tbh. lol Me and Dealt don't have to agree with everything, for example he isn't impressed with Monzon and doesn't think he could beat Roy Jones. I however feel that Monzon would beat RJJ.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

FelixTrinidad said:


> HE'S ON IN 15-20 MINS..DUDE CATCH THE FUCKING FIGHTS.
> 
> It's gonna be great. TONEY IN 3 ROUNDERS.


Oh my God, when is it the Anthony Joshua fight? (How many minutes?) I cannot miss that!!!


----------



## FelixTrinidad (Jun 3, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Oh my God, when is it the Anthony Joshua fight? (How many minutes?) I cannot miss that!!!


Before the Prize Fighter Finals. THIS IS ACTUALLY A GOOD CARD ROFL.
FUCKING TONEY IN 3 ROUNDERS is epic. Imagine if he gets kayoed cold.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

'He took them apart, that's what you expect from an olympian, especially an olympic gold medalist' - David Price about Anthony Joshua.


----------



## FelixTrinidad (Jun 3, 2013)

Price's chin is awful rofl.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> :gayfight2
> 
> I'd have to watch more of Toney tbh. lol Me and Dealt don't have to agree with everything, for example he isn't impressed with Monzon and doesn't think he could beat Roy Jones. I however feel that Monzon would beat RJJ.


I found @Dealt_with breakdown of Carlito Monzon to be both largely accurate (aside from the small aggression bit) and hilarious. :rofl This is what I mean by not pulling punches. The man has eyes and it's clear by taking note of Toney's GOAT level in-fighting skill, upper body defensive movement and hard, accurate counters with above average hand speed that he surpasses Monzon as far as the eye test is concerned. His left hook to the body and uppercuts on the inside are also beauties. The 1991 versions of both undefeated P4P #2 Michael Nunn (36-0) and ATG technician/#1 MW Mike McCallum (42-1) who had avenged his only loss to the supremely talented defensive stylist Sumbu Kalambay (that Nunn KO'ed in 1 round) are both better top wins than anything on Carlito's resume. Hell, they're better than the top wins on a lot of fighter's resumes and we aren't even really talking resume here. He was also a 20-1 (yes) and 5-2 underdog when he pulled off these wins.

That said, I'm not saying he'd rate higher as an ATG MW or that Monzon doesn't actually pose stylistic problems in a H2H encounter between the two: He has the ring generalship, jab and control of distance although I really believe he lacks the footspeed to truly take advantage of Toney's primary weakness (comparatively bum wheels to other ATG elites).

Has @turbotime countered that Monzon over RJJ prediction? :lol: Carlito would be discombobulated. Lomachenko could probably even style on him for a few rounds with a 30+ lb weight disadvantage.


----------



## JMP (Jun 3, 2013)

JeffJoiner said:


> OT: I'm thinking Jabari Parker is going to be the better of the two. Just a hunch, but I think he'll use the perception he's second best fuel him and add to his already dynamic game.


Wouldn't doubt it one bit. Parker reminds me of a hybrid of a younger Paul Pierce and Carmelo Anthony. I don't know who Wiggins reminds me of. It's certainly not LeBron James, though. He's never had that type of court vision, strength, size, or all-around skill-set, which is why I've always found the comparisons kind of silly. He seems more of a freak athlete with unbelievable hops/first step who does most of his damage off the ball on quick cuts as well as on the break. He really needs to improve his shooting, ball handling, and offensive skill-set in the half court.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

JeffJoiner said:


> OT: I'm thinking Jabari Parker is going to be the better of the two. Just a hunch, but I think he'll use the perception he's second best fuel him and add to his already dynamic game.


yeah man he looked better imo 2 nights ago. Wiggins may turn out to be better though if he works on his game and bulks up. If possible, he should train with Lebron in the off season


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

941jeremy said:


> Exactly. I also remember all the hype that followed Stephen Strausberg, he was supposed to be the best pitching prospect ever and he was pretty good but still hasn't lived up to the hype. I doubt that Loma becomes just as successful in the pros. He seems to not want to be carefully matched so I see him with an L within the next 3 years. Then the Lomatards will be saying he peaked too early, he reached his prime in the ams, etc.


yeah this is exactly what I'm talking about. I get really excited about prospects too and young players/athletes. I never straight up talk about them being the best though. I always talk about their potential and their ceiling. Strasburg is a good example. He's a pretty good pitcher, but no CY Young winner as of right now. They hyped the shit out of Jorge Linares and in the same fight, a few rounds later he gets KTFO


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> yeah this is exactly what I'm talking about. I get really excited about prospects too and young players/athletes. I never straight up talk about them being the best though. I always talk about their potential and their ceiling. Strasburg is a good example. He's a pretty good pitcher, but no CY Young winner as of right now. They hyped the shit out of Jorge Linares and in the same fight, a few rounds later he gets KTFO


Please no more mentioning of Linares who doesn't have a chin. People hyping Linares based on how he was when he was 15 years old! I read somewhere, it could have been on your thread that he used to gas out after 6 rounds. He wasn't even an elite amateur, just an elite talent. Lomachenko at 25 years old is an elite, realised and complete fighter, he's no longer a prospect-talent.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Please no more mentioning of Linares who doesn't have a chin. People hyping Linares based on how he was when he was 15 years old! I read somewhere, it could have been on your thread that he used to gas out after 6 rounds. He wasn't even an elite amateur, just an elite talent. Lomachenko at 25 years old is an elite, realised and complete fighter, he's no longer a prospect-talent.


The same point stands though. You haven't been as bad as dealt_with overall, but there is just too many assumptions and projections on Loma. Boxing is a sport, especially professional boxing where too many intangibles take place that you can for sure predict any outcome with 100$ certainty. Doing it for one or 2 fights is one thing. Doing it for a fighter's who career is another.

Most of the forum generally like Lomachenko and believe he can potentially and most likely go on to do great things. But only a couple think he can beat the GOAT at a weight class higher than him right at this moment.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> I found @Dealt_with breakdown of Carlito Monzon to be both largely accurate (aside from the small aggression bit) and hilarious. :rofl This is what I mean by not pulling punches. The man has eyes and it's clear by taking note of Toney's GOAT level in-fighting skill, upper body defensive movement and hard, accurate counters with above average hand speed that he surpasses Monzon as far as the eye test is concerned. His left hook to the body and uppercuts on the inside are also beauties. The 1991 versions of both undefeated P4P #2 Michael Nunn (36-0) and ATG technician/#1 MW Mike McCallum (42-1) who had avenged his only loss to the supremely talented defensive stylist Sumbu Kalambay (that Nunn KO'ed in 1 round) are both better top wins than anything on Carlito's resume. Hell, they're better than the top wins on a lot of fighter's resumes and we aren't even really talking resume here. He was also a 20-1 (yes) and 5-2 underdog when he pulled off these wins.
> 
> That said, I'm not saying he'd rate higher as an ATG MW or that Monzon doesn't actually pose stylistic problems in a H2H encounter between the two: He has the ring generalship, jab and control of distance although I really believe he lacks the footspeed to truly take advantage of Toney's primary weakness (comparatively bum wheels to other ATG elites).
> 
> Has @turbotime countered that Monzon over RJJ prediction? :lol: Carlito would be discombobulated. Lomachenko could probably even style on him for a few rounds with a 30+ lb weight disadvantage.


Yes, he is an outstanding fighter, however Monzon has the style that would work well against Toney. He would tag him from the outside. If it was taken to the inside, then Toney could possibly get the better of him, especially with his speed however Monzon would be able to control the fight from the outside, imposing an outside battle, I don't think you should forget Monzon's highly accurate punch placement on the counters too - this plays a big part in his outside game against Toney. 
Toney has an awesome chin, Monzon aint KO'ing shit. 10-2 decision for Monzon LOL We're talking feet now...Monzon will dance around Toney. You guys are making out that he's the slowest thing since a tortoise!


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> The same point stands though. You haven't been as bad as dealt_with overall, but there is just too many assumptions and projections on Loma. Boxing is a sport, especially professional boxing where too many intangibles take place that you can for sure predict any outcome with 100$ certainty. Doing it for one or 2 fights is one thing. Doing it for a fighter's who career is another.
> 
> Most of the forum generally like Lomachenko and believe he can potentially and most likely go on to do great things. But only a couple think he can beat the GOAT at a weight class higher than him right at this moment.


Of course, I've always acknowledged that, but I'm trying to formulate arguments and discussions - some of it will require speculation to some extent as it's a hypothetical discussion.

The main intangibles are ones that I have thus addressed. Heart, chin, power, ambition, stamina, ability to transition into having a sound professional style. They're the factors that affect whether a top amateur will be a top pro. I've argued for all of these points being good for Loma, I can break it down..?


----------



## FelixTrinidad (Jun 3, 2013)

JMP said:


> Wouldn't doubt it one bit. Parker reminds me of a hybrid of a younger Paul Pierce and Carmelo Anthony. I don't know who Wiggins reminds me of. It's certainly not LeBron James, though. He's never had that type of court vision, strength, size, or all-around skill-set, which is why I've always found the comparisons kind of silly. He seems more of a freak athlete with unbelievable hops/first step who does most of his damage off the ball on quick cuts as well as on the break. He really needs to improve his shooting, ball handling, and offensive skill-set in the half court.


Andrew Wiggins is a poor man's Dariuz Miles.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Yes, he is an outstanding fighter, however Monzon has the style that would work well against Toney. He would tag him from the outside. If it was taken to the inside, then Toney could possibly get the better of him, especially with his speed however Monzon would be able to control the fight from the outside, imposing an outside battle, I don't think you should forget Monzon's highly accurate punch placement on the counters too - this plays a big part in his outside game against Toney.
> Toney has an awesome chin, Monzon aint KO'ing shit. 10-2 decision for Monzon *LOL We're talking feet now*...Monzon will dance around Toney. You guys are making out that he's the slowest thing since a tortoise!


:staredog

Not in the sense I'd prefer. ( I know, you think thats nasty :lol: )

Fact of the matter is, Monzon IS all wrong for Toney. I just think James supposed complete inability to work his way inside and out of Monzon's comfort sweet spot tends to be a bit overblown. Nunn was levels faster on his feet (not to mention how quick he could get his combinations off and slide step back out of range) and Toney was still ripping him with body shots in the rounds he was being soundly outboxed from outside. The problem is I dont envision Monzon gassing in the same manner from them, much less getting stopped though it was really the only time in his career that either ever happened to Nunn.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Toney and Nunn could probably box with Monzon from the outside. James' jab is underrated as is his ability to get inside. Look at him work his way in against McCallum.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Toney and Nunn could probably box with Monzon from the outside. James' jab is underrated as is his ability to get inside. Look at him work his way in against McCallum.


Yeah I just mentioned its overblown. Its just something I acknowledge from the start so that it isnt brought to me in a manner as if I'm not aware of it or something.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Andrew Wiggins is better than Lebron man. He'd beat him one on one and would improve any team more than Lebron would.
> I don't need to wait to see him develop as a pro. I know for sure just based off his high school games and and 2 college games


Kareem was ready right out of high school.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> Yeah I just mentioned its overblown. Its just something I acknowledge from the start so that it isnt brought to me in a manner as if I'm not aware of it or something.


Yeah, it bugs me too :lol: But it doesn't seem that reading from a lot of people's posts that they watched a lot of Jones/Toney/MCCallum/Nunn/Kalambay in their athletic primes like we did :lol:

Not to be an elitist of course


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Yeah, it bugs me too :lol: But it doesn't seem that reading from a lot of people's posts that they watched a lot of *Jones/Toney/MCCallum/Nunn/Kalambay* in their athletic primes like we did :lol:
> 
> Not to be an elitist of course


Fucking hell, what talent. atsch


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Though Roy was a wee bit late to the meet, those guys pretty much all tested themselves against eachother. That Four is more interesting to me than the 'Fab 4' atm simply because I've had about enough talking that. And MW/SMW is such a delicious division... Small enough to be immensely skilled and coordinated, big enough to really hurt. Man-sized fighters still.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

@Powerpuncher calls that the deepest middleweight division of all time. It's Damn good.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> Though Roy was a wee bit late to the meet, those guys pretty much all tested themselves against eachother. That Four is more interesting to me than the 'Fab 4' atm simply because I've had about enough talking that. And MW/SMW is such a delicious division... Small enough to be immensely skilled and coordinated, big enough to really hurt.


And don't forget Jackson, Eubank, Benn, Watson, and McClellan.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

@Powerpuncher is a G. :lol:


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

LittleRed said:


> And don't forget Jackson, Eubank, Benn, Watson, and McClellan.


Of course, not.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Ridiculous era.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Ridiculous era.


Yuh, and imagine leaving it alone for a solid three years or so and coming back to it. I havent got anywhere near my fill.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

LittleRed said:


> Kareem was ready right out of high school.


Kareem was a beast in college too, I agree


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> Yuh, and imagine leaving it alone for a solid three years or so and coming back to it. I havent got anywhere near my fill.


 @bballchump11 should sit down and watch that era of guys box whenever he can. Even reggie Johnson


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Well, it looks like we're always hitting the same brick wall when talking about Lomachenko. 

The main critique is 'he's only 1-0, there's no way you can say he can beat Mayweather at 130lbs'

I believe I have successfully dismantled that argument at many fronts. Notice that I acknowledged that there is uncertainty, I'm just trying to make the best estimate of Lomachenko's ability in the face of uncertainty, just as we make judgements on a Mayweather-Pacquiao fight or even a Monzon-Jones Jr fight. 

The argument from 'lack of ring experience over 12' is not a serious enough argument and can be diminished based on three main contentions:
1. Lomachenko is a complete fighter at age 25 and does not require anymore developing, whereas Mayweather at 21 years of age when he fought Genaro Hernandez had a lot of room for improvement and experience to be gained in becoming a complete fighter.

2. Lomachenko has already fought 34 rounds, and if Salido lasts the distance against Lomachenko, that's 46 rounds, which is virtually the same number of rounds as Mayweather before his fight against Tony Pep. Mayweather had only gone 10 rounds prior to this. Lomachenko's 34 or 46 rounds were far more educational than Mayweather's KO's against bums. 

3. Lomachenko was noted as having outstanding stamina and fitness over 5 rounds, so he will not fall at the hurdle that other amateur boxers fall. 

Lomachenko's chin:
I've seen him get hit by some good shots against 140lbers and take it well. Albeit it's with padded gloves, but they were still bigger. Ramirez's shots seemed like complete powderpuff punches against Lomachenko. 
Have fun trying to land cleanly. Lomachenko's defense is astounding. I have seen some good shots landed, but none completely clean. 

Lomachenko's heart:
Watch his interviews, get an idea of his character, he's really not going to back down like a bitch. To be 2xOlympic Gold, 2xWorld Gold and only 1 loss in your career and coming back from behind to beat the only guy who gave you a loss, in great style, is not the act of a man who has no heart. It's more reasonable to lean to the notion of Lomachenko having heart. 

This is a very good position for Lomatards to be in without actually having seen Lomachenko fight someone like Salido.

Don't disregard these points. Tell me WHY exactly you still will say 'whatever, he's only had one fight', rather than being on automated passive mode.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

turbotime said:


> @bballbchump should sit down and watch that era of guys box whenever he can. Even reggie Johnson


I think he's fucking sick of hearing about them already. I've unintentionally been talking these guys nonstop in threads he's been trying to have separate conversations in.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

TKO11 Michael Nunn seriously has to be one of the greatest wins ever that wasn't against a 'prime ATG' even though his talent was, and he had a more than worthy HOF career.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Well, it looks like we're always hitting the same brick wall when talking about Lomachenko.
> 
> The main critique is 'he's only 1-0, there's no way you can say he can beat Mayweather at 130lbs'
> 
> ...


Sorry guys, I think we should keep on topic lol Too many michael nunns


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Well, it looks like we're always hitting the same brick wall when talking about Lomachenko.
> 
> The main critique is 'he's only 1-0, there's no way you can say he can beat Mayweather at 130lbs'
> 
> ...


You're starting to remind me of HeadBanger from ESB


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

I like Vasyl


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> TKO11 Michael Nunn seriously has to be one of the greatest wins ever that wasn't against a 'prime ATG' even though his talent was, and he had a more than worthy HOF career.


Did Nunn make the Hall?


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

How do we feel about Toney-Johnson. I recall it being close in rounds, closer with the knockdown. Peach of a shot if I remember.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> You're starting to remind me of HeadBanger from ESB


Who's headbanger? I think you've only seen Ramirez, Valentino and the 2008 Olympic final and made your decision on how good you think Loma is. I've seen probably 30+ fights, and many of them again numerously, I know this guy.

Whereas, all you've done is just say the same things without going further into it, and have just moaned whenever you've been given reasons that counter the very simplistic contentions you hold.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Who's headbanger? I think you've only seen Ramirez, Valentino and the 2008 Olympic final and made your decision on how good you think Loma is. I've seen probably 30+ fights, and many of them again numerously, I know this guy.
> 
> Whereas, all you've done is just say the same things without going further into it, and have just moaned whenever you've been given reasons that counter the very simplistic contentions you hold.


Huge Calzaghe fan and would always post about Calzaghe, you're like a mixture of him and @bailey in regards to Joe C, but for Loma :lol:

I've read it numerous times, you've posted the same stuff numerous times. I agree he's an elite talent. I did before the ramirez fight. What more do you want? I just said Amateur stuff doesn't do a lot for me anymore and I like watching him in the pros.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

turbotime said:


> @*bballchump11* should sit down and watch that era of guys box whenever he can. Even reggie Johnson


I do like watching the 90's a lot. Meldrick Taylor is my second favorite fighter of all time. It's one of my go to things to mention when I talk about the regression of boxing. The p4p list back then was so more stacked than it is now.

1996

1. Roy Jones Jr.
2. Oscar De La Hoya
3. Pernell Whitaker
4. Felix Trinidad
5. Ricardo Lopez
6. Junior Jones
7. Kostya Tszyu
8. Terry Norris
9. Evander Holyfield
10. Mark Johnson

This is what Gary Russel Jr is trying to be








Hands of Iron said:


> I think he's fucking sick of hearing about them already. I've unintentionally been talking these guys nonstop in threads he's been trying to have separate conversations in.


:smile


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

I wish @~Cellzki~ dug some of these fighters more. :lol: How people can't like dudes as talented and skilled as Toney, Kalambay, Nunn, et al is crazy. All of them underrated today.



turbotime said:


> Did Nunn make the Hall?


He damn well should be. He's serving time for dealing narcotics I think, so I dont know if thats been held against him or what. He most definiteoy deserves it, look at his record and accomplishments. Peach of an article right here:

http://www.boxing.com/in_the_matter_of_michael_nunn.html

_"As a boxer, a pure boxer&#8230;he was almost perfect."-Al Bernstein

When you think of Nunn, you think of words like articulate, affable, good looking, tall, left-handed, stylist, speed, sharp reflexes, fantastic foot movement, great technique, and solid defensive skills. He also had an unappreciated ability to take out his opponents with power punching and the record bears this out. He was a rangy and slick southpaw who gave his opponents fits and was a master of the slip and slide move. His jab was a punishing jackhammer. These were his trademarks in the ring and provided great entertainment. Unfortunately, his career defining fight ended by a sudden and brutal knockout at the hands of James Toney in a fight that affirmed Toney's nickname "Lights Out."_

He was stopped a grand total of 0 times aside from Toney.



LittleRed said:


> How do we feel about Toney-Johnson. I recall it being close in rounds, closer with the knockdown. Peach of a shot if I remember.


Working around to re-scoring, it's all been out of order and all over the map.

@The Undefeated Gaul






Kalambay stopped a grand total of 0 times aside from Nunn.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Huge Calzaghe fan and would always post about Calzaghe, you're like a mixture of him and @bailey in regards to Joe C, but for Loma :lol:
> 
> I've read it numerous times, you've posted the same stuff numerous times. I agree he's an elite talent. I did before the ramirez fight. What more do you want? I just said Amateur stuff doesn't do a lot for me anymore and I like watching him in the pros.


People keep mentioning it, so why not mention it again?

I think the only difference between us is the analysis of Lomachenko's fight game, I've analysed it in a way where I've addressed so many points, so much, that I know how he'd be in the pro game. I really do believe he'd beat a 21 year old Mayweather of the Genaro night, and I've been told that this contention is a joke, but I wouldn't believe it if was a joke.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> People keep mentioning it, so why not mention it again?
> 
> I think the only difference between us is the analysis of Lomachenko's fight game, I've analysed it in a way where I've addressed so many points, so much, that I know how he'd be in the pro game. I really do believe he'd beat a 21 year old Mayweather of the Genaro night, and I've been told that this contention is a joke, but I wouldn't believe it if was a joke.


How you feel he'd do against Casamayor at 130 ? Another great amateur star


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> People keep mentioning it, so why not mention it again?
> 
> I think the only difference between us is the analysis of Lomachenko's fight game, I've analysed it in a way where I've addressed so many points, so much, that I know how he'd be in the pro game. I really do believe he'd beat a 21 year old Mayweather of the Genaro night, and I've been told that this contention is a joke, but I wouldn't believe it if was a joke.


I've been comparing him mostly to the Mayweather who beat Corrales. Maybe that's why we got such different points of views.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> How you feel he'd do against Casamayor at 130 ? Another great amateur star


I genuinely predict a stoppage for Lomachenko for a Casa fight.


----------



## Powerpuncher (May 20, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> I found @Dealt_with breakdown of Carlito Monzon to be both largely accurate (aside from the small aggression bit) and hilarious. :rofl This is what I mean by not pulling punches. The man has eyes and it's clear by taking note of Toney's GOAT level in-fighting skill, upper body defensive movement and hard, accurate counters with above average hand speed that he surpasses Monzon as far as the eye test is concerned. His left hook to the body and uppercuts on the inside are also beauties. The 1991 versions of both undefeated P4P #2 Michael Nunn (36-0) and ATG technician/#1 MW Mike McCallum (42-1) who had avenged his only loss to the supremely talented defensive stylist Sumbu Kalambay (that Nunn KO'ed in 1 round) are both better top wins than anything on Carlito's resume. Hell, they're better than the top wins on a lot of fighter's resumes and we aren't even really talking resume here. He was also a 20-1 (yes) and 5-2 underdog when he pulled off these wins.
> 
> That said, I'm not saying he'd rate higher as an ATG MW or that Monzon doesn't actually pose stylistic problems in a H2H encounter between the two: He has the ring generalship, jab and control of distance although I really believe he lacks the footspeed to truly take advantage of Toney's primary weakness (comparatively bum wheels to other ATG elites).
> 
> Has @turbotime countered that Monzon over RJJ prediction? :lol: Carlito would be discombobulated. Lomachenko could probably even style on him for a few rounds with a 30+ lb weight disadvantage.


Personally I think Monzon is made to measure for RJJ styles wise with a slower temp boxing match it suits RJJ down to the ground. On that basis I see it as pretty 1 sided.

Toney's wins over Nunn and McCallum are 2 of the best in MW history. McCallum though was a bit past his best against Toney and I thought got the better of the first 24 rounds in my opinion. I still feel McCallum remains underrated. Nunn's star at the time was sky high though.

Toney is a skill level above Monzon and more explosive but Monzon is more consistent throughout a fight without trying to steal breaks.



The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Yes, he is an outstanding fighter, however Monzon has the style that would work well against Toney. He would tag him from the outside. If it was taken to the inside, then Toney could possibly get the better of him, especially with his speed however Monzon would be able to control the fight from the outside, imposing an outside battle, I don't think you should forget Monzon's highly accurate punch placement on the counters too - this plays a big part in his outside game against Toney.
> Toney has an awesome chin, Monzon aint KO'ing shit. 10-2 decision for Monzon LOL We're talking feet now...Monzon will dance around Toney. You guys are making out that he's the slowest thing since a tortoise!


I disagree. Monzon hasn't faced anyone in Toney's league and he's winning 10-2 when Valdez/Griffith pushed him harder than that? He may edge it at best I feel. As for Monzon bossing it with his jab outside, how easy was Toney to hit with a jab, a slowish one at that?



Hands of Iron said:


> :staredog
> 
> Not in the sense I'd prefer. ( I know, you think thats nasty :lol: )
> 
> Fact of the matter is, Monzon IS all wrong for Toney. I just think James supposed complete inability to work his way inside and out of Monzon's comfort sweet spot tends to be a bit overblown. Nunn was levels faster on his feet (not to mention how quick he could get his combinations off and slide step back out of range) and Toney was still ripping him with body shots in the rounds he was being soundly outboxed from outside. The problem is I dont envision Monzon gassing in the same manner from them, much less getting stopped though it was really the only time in his career that either ever happened to Nunn.


I don't think it's a bad style match up for Toney either, Monzon is the more efficient and consistent over the distance but Toney has plenty of advantages and never really had too much issue with size/reach, especially against slower opponents. I think it's a close fight similar to McCallum and personally I think prime McCallum is better than Monzon, although not too many will agree with that. Either way it's a decision down to the wire type of affair.



turbotime said:


> Yeah, it bugs me too :lol: But it doesn't seem that reading from a lot of people's posts that they watched a lot of Jones/Toney/MCCallum/Nunn/Kalambay in their athletic primes like we did :lol:
> 
> Not to be an elitist of course


It's a pity we didn't get Kalambay against Toney or Jones or a Nunn match that went the distance for that matter.



LittleRed said:


> And don't forget Jackson, Eubank, Benn, Watson, and McClellan.


You can't leave Bomber Graham off such a list and Reggie Johnson, Collins, Barkley and ofcourse Leonard, Hearns and Duran around the division. It's a pity more match ups between them all didn't happen, but having them primed with months of prep for each fight was somewhat compensation.


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

That's a very, very deep division. Some great fights too.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Powerpuncher said:


> Personally I think Monzon is made to measure for RJJ styles wise with a slower temp boxing match it suits RJJ down to the ground. On that basis I see it as pretty 1 sided.
> 
> Toney's wins over Nunn and McCallum are 2 of the best in MW history. McCallum though was a bit past his best against Toney and I thought got the better of the first 24 rounds in my opinion. I still feel McCallum remains underrated. Nunn's star at the time was sky high though.
> 
> ...


This was worth the wait.

I shot you a PM a little earlier about something else


----------



## Vic (Jun 7, 2012)

Haha, aw man, Lomachenko is going to create so many crazy discussions during his career in this board :lol:


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> I do like watching the 90's a lot. Meldrick Taylor is my second favorite fighter of all time. It's one of my go to things to mention when I talk about the regression of boxing. The p4p list back then was so more stacked than it is now.
> 
> 1996
> 
> ...


Too Sharp was awesome. That P4P list was ridiculous and just before Morales and Shane Mosley made the list. Crazy


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> This was worth the wait.
> 
> I shot you a PM a little earlier about something else


love the hijack :lol: :yep like the ol days :happy :happy


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

LittleRed said:


> How do we feel about Toney-Johnson. I recall it being close in rounds, closer with the knockdown. Peach of a shot if I remember.


I'm gonna rewatch that one tomorrow. Another great technical battle.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

turbotime said:


> love the hijack :lol: :yep like the ol days :happy :happy


Definitely fun when there are other boxing fans just as passionate and in some cases even more knowledgeable. Once LittleRed mentioned PP I had to double it and get him in here. :lol:


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> Definitely fun when there are other boxing fans just as passionate and in some cases even more knowledgeable. Once LittleRed mentioned PP I had to double it and get him in here. :lol:


I admire PP so much, like I was saying, it's hard to debate with the older guys and PP has his beliefs in the newer gen and he would go toe to toe with them and I agree with him on everything almost :deal


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

turbotime said:


> I admire PP so much, like I was saying, it's hard to debate with the older guys and PP has his beliefs in the newer gen and he would go toe to toe with them and I agree with him on everything almost :deal


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


>


I watched this over and over :lol: :lol:


----------



## Rigondeaux (Jun 3, 2013)

No body and i mean NO BODY beats Mayweather 10-2


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Rigondeaux said:


> No body and i mean NO BODY beats Mayweather 10-2


Tell em Rigo.

How do you feel about fighting Loma at 124?


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

turbotime said:


> I watched this over and over :lol: :lol:


He cracks me the fuck up :rofl


----------



## LittleRed (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> He cracks me the fuck up :rofl


I've seen Ray Robinson do a shimy while carrying Bobby *****.


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

If Loma gets sparked this forum will explode.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

LittleRed said:


> I've seen Ray Robinson do a shimy while carrying Bobby *****.


Weird coincidence. Check the front page.



MadcapMaxie said:


> If Loma gets sparked this forum will explode.


People will be looking to rub faces in feces.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Seriously man. He wouldn't be favored to beat Mikey Garcia right now, but he's gonna beat the best H2H 130 pounder ever easily?
> 
> Ffs. Wait for his ass to actually do something first


:cry


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> :cry


ghey


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

PivotPunch said:


> Dealt_with is slowly but surely going insane seriously what did he post about before Lomachenko said he would go pro :lol:


See I'm not insane, in fact I'm kind of rational
when I be asking you "Whose boxing is more majestical?"
This one or that one, the white one or the black one
pick the punk and Lomachenko will jump up divisions to attack son
Vasyl is just the guy to destroy the money crew
punch Floyd repeatedly in the face and win 10-2


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> ghey


Stop crying bball, you've been crying a lot lately.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Stop crying bball, you've been crying a lot lately.


I haven't cried in 8 years :nono


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

> Toney's wins over Nunn and McCallum are 2 of the best in MW history.


The most relevant point driven home in this entire thread.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> The most relevant point driven home in this entire thread.


I don't know enough about that era. It must be your favourite era?

Why did Nunn beat some amazing guys like Kalambay, Curry, Starling, but lose to other guys like Little and Lyles?


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

@Dealt_with...it might be easier to ask this, if you can be honest with yourself. What (viable) match up do you think is one where Lomachenko wouldn't come on top?


----------



## Lester1583 (Jun 30, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Why did Nunn beat some amazing guys like Kalambay, Curry, Starling, but lose to other guys like Little and Lyles?


Drugs, laziness, decline.

And the Liles fight was very close/controversial.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> @Dealt_with...it might be easier to ask this, if you can be honest with yourself. What (viable) match up do you think is one where Lomachenko wouldn't come on top?


He's the best fighter I've ever seen... why would I be picking someone against him? You constantly say/ask stupid things dude. Are you all there upstairs?
As I've said, Salido has the best chance out of anyone to beat him. Loma hasn't been 12 rounds yet, Salido is tough and relentless, and will be throwing bombs until the final bell. I expect Loma to have some shaky moments and for Loma to look the worst he will for his whole career. Salido is the toughest style match up for him at the toughest time for him. He'll get through it though, and he'll shine against boxers like Rigondeaux/Mares/Garcia/Gamboa. After the Salido win (with Loma looking shaky at times) some will be picking GRJ against him... after Lomachenko demolishes GRJ then the believers will start to outweigh the doubters, and everybody will understand what I've been seeing since 2007. Lomachenko is the truth, and I'm looking forward to saying "I told you so" to tards who DKSAB such as yourself.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Lester1583 said:


> Drugs, laziness, decline.
> 
> And the Liles fight was very close/controversial.


Nunn was no joke, a p4p guy who threw fluid combinations out of that 6'2 southpaw stance. Drugs and Toney ruined him, he was still a great fighter but should've been greater.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> He's the best fighter I've ever seen... why would I be picking someone against him? You constantly say/ask stupid things dude. Are you all there upstairs?
> As I've said, Salido has the best chance out of anyone to beat him. Loma hasn't been 12 rounds yet, Salido is tough and relentless, and will be throwing bombs until the final bell. I expect Loma to have some shaky moments and for Loma to look the worst he will for his whole career. Salido is the toughest style match up for him at the toughest time for him. He'll get through it though, and he'll shine against boxers like Rigondeaux/Mares/Garcia/Gamboa. After the Salido win (with Loma looking shaky at times) some will be picking GRJ against him... after Lomachenko demolishes GRJ then the believers will start to outweigh the doubters, and everybody will understand what I've been seeing since 2007. Lomachenko is the truth, and I'm looking forward to saying "I told you so" to tards who DKSAB such as yourself.


I'm trying to discuss boxing with you, dude! How does that make me stupid? What the fuck is wrong with you? You honestly think he can beat every fighter, past and present? (within his weight range, of course)


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> I'm trying to discuss boxing with you, dude! How does that make me stupid? What the fuck is wrong with you? You honestly think he can beat every fighter, past and present? (within his weight range, of course)


Best fighter I've ever seen, and you're asking me who I pick to beat him? :huh


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Best fighter I've ever seen, and you're asking me who I pick to beat him? :huh


Now. At this stage in his career. 1-0. Don't go off potential.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> Now. At this stage in his career. 1-0. Don't go off potential.


No one. Lomachenko is complete. Maybe if he struggles against a small pressure fighter over 12 then I could say something like "Duran beats him". As I said, you ask some really stupid things.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> No one. Lomachenko is complete. Maybe if he struggles against a small pressure fighter over 12 then I could say something like "Duran beats him". As I said, you ask some really stupid things.


You're basing your thought that I ask "stupid things" on the fact that I give you way more credit for you boxing knowledge than you deserve. You think that Loma, at this stage of his career could beat prime

Alexis Argüello
Henry Armstrong
Marco Antonio Barrera
Érik Morales
Azumah Nelson
Willie Pep
Sandy Saddler

..just to name a few. I can appreciate the fact you're a hard core fan of his, but be honest with yourself for once.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> You're basing your thought that I ask "stupid things" on the fact that I give you way more credit for you boxing knowledge than you deserve. You think that Loma, at this stage of his career could beat prime
> 
> Alexis Argüello
> Henry Armstrong
> ...


The toughest guy on this list for Lomachenko will be Alexis Arguello, but I believe Loma would do the job on him.


----------



## Abraham (May 9, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> The toughest guy on this list for Lomachenko will be Alexis Arguello, but I believe Loma would do the job on him.


You've got to be kidding me. I know you're a nut hugger like Dealt, but I thought you had more sense than him. atsch


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> You're basing your thought that I ask "stupid things" on the fact that I give you way more credit for you boxing knowledge than you deserve. You think that Loma, at this stage of his career could beat prime
> 
> Alexis Argüello
> Henry Armstrong
> ...


Until I have reason to doubt Lomachenko.... I'm not going to. Kind of makes sense doesn't it? Skill for skill, athleticism for athleticism Lomachenko is the best I've ever seen. Why oh why would I then pick someone to beat him, why would I pick someone who has been beaten before to beat him? As I said, stupid questions. And trust me, I am being 100% honest with myself and everyone else. Just because you can't see doesn't mean it's not true, or that 'I'm lying to myself'. And I don't give a shit if Lomachenko or anybody else loses, they're not me and losing a boxing match means very little in the grand scheme of things. Why would I lie to myself over something that has nothing to do with myself? You're a seriously weird dude Abraham.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> You've got to be kidding me. I know you're a nut hugger like Dealt, but I thought you had more sense than him. atsch


Have you been to the alternate universe where the match up took place? Maybe STFU then and stop acting as if your opinion/viewpoint is anymore objectively valid than the opposing viewpoint.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Abraham said:


> You've got to be kidding me. I know you're a nut hugger like Dealt, but I thought you had more sense than him. atsch


Abz, what is the point of even asking me the question if you've already got a pre-conditioned response?

--------

People on this forum will go ape if Lomachenko loses to Salido. But I honestly believe that if Lomachenko will lose to anybody, it will be to Salido in his second pro fight for the reason I've discussed, and yes its not a good style for your second pro fight.

I will still be a Lomatard even if he loses because of what he learns from that loss would be actually quite scary. I don't see Lomachenko losing though. Salido isn't a typically good starter either by the way which works to Lomachenko's favour - important point.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Abz, what is the point of even asking me the question if you've already got a pre-conditioned response?
> 
> --------
> 
> ...


Agreed. I'll be relieved if Lomachenko can finish it early, Salido over 12 isn't the way you want an introduction to 12 rounds. As long as Loma takes the fight really seriously and has a plan A, B and C then he'll be fine. I don't think he really took the Ramirez fight seriously at all, I got the vibe he just wanted to get it out of the way and get some rounds in. Lomachenko should be motivated if he's fighting for history and a world title belt. Ramirez was an inconvenience, something he had to get out of the way to earn the fight he really wanted for his debut. Loma wanted to turn pro since 09, I hope he gets that pre-09 drive back for his upcoming challenges.


----------



## Danimal (Oct 9, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Experience doesn't necessarily matter either for the amateurs. Daniyar Yeleussinov was born in 1991 like me, and he's the world amateur champion now for welterweight. He beat Despaigne (31 years old) who has always been a top amateur (he beat Golovkin too by the way). Just watch the guy fight, is this not a showcase of great strategy and also great ability?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think it's very flawed to keep using the fact that one amateur beat another amateur as a sign of true greatness. Do you think the amateur version of GGG beats current, professionally trained GGG? Of course not. Amatuer boxers face generally softer competition in a much easier format. No amateur will ever be "top of the sport". Lomachenko is a 1 fight pro who I believe would be totally outclassed by the P4P #1 Floyd Mayweather and many other seasoned pro fighters. This may not be the case in 5 years, but for now, let's just enjoy watching him improve.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Danimal said:


> I think it's very flawed to keep using the fact that one amateur beat another amateur as a sign of true greatness. Do you think the amateur version of GGG beats current, professionally trained GGG? Of course not. Amatuer boxers face generally softer competition in a much easier format. No amateur will ever be "top of the sport". Lomachenko is a 1 fight pro who I believe would be totally outclassed by the P4P #1 Floyd Mayweather and many other seasoned pro fighters. This may not be the case in 5 years, but for now, let's just enjoy watching him improve.


If current GGG goes straight back into amateurs, he probably won't be world level - he wont be the fighter he was before! It's double standards. Im not saying it's a true sign of greatness, what I was trying to do was answer to the point about experience, by bringing up a fighter who is supremely experienced in the amateur ranks, in Despaigne.
No pro will never be top of the sport then, because they're both different arms of the same sport. 
'seasoned pro fighters' - I'm talking about the Mayweather of 130lbs, not the Mayweather of 147lbs at age 36! Mayweather wasn't the complete fighter then, Lomachenko IS complete and the perfect fighter, was older, more experienced - or are you going to overly glorify Mayweather's 4th round KO victories over cab drivers and overly glorify the fact that the maximum he went was 10 rounds before he fought Genaro - think about the logic there my man! I raised doubts about Lomachenko's finishing ability and wanted him to improve that, but his power in the pro ranks is so good that he's going to be finishing people anyway without it being his main focus.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Danimal said:


> I think it's very flawed to keep using the fact that one amateur beat another amateur as a sign of true greatness. Do you think the amateur version of GGG beats current, professionally trained GGG? Of course not. Amatuer boxers face generally softer competition in a much easier format. No amateur will ever be "top of the sport". Lomachenko is a 1 fight pro who I believe would be totally outclassed by the P4P #1 Floyd Mayweather and many other seasoned pro fighters. This may not be the case in 5 years, but for now, let's just enjoy watching him improve.


In the amateurs the best fight the best. All the Cubans, Eastern Europeans etc. who don't even entertain the idea of fighting in the 'pro' game are competing. Competition is truly international. You have to earn everything, you can't buy your way into a final and you can't buy a championship. Current GGG beats the amateur version of GGG because he is more experienced. 7 fight pro Rigondeaux is more experienced than the vast majority of professional boxers. That's why he's a master boxer. Lomachenko is more experienced than the vast majority of fighters, that's why he was clearly superior, more skilled and more composed than his 26 pro fight rival in his 'pro debut'.
GGG hasn't improved that much since turning pro, Rigondeaux hasn't, and neither will Lomachenko. He'll adapt to more rounds but all the work on his boxing and his skills has been done in the last 20 years of competition. Andre Ward, Gamboa etc. all did the majority of their boxing development well before they turned pro. 
Any bum can win a pro title, Adrien broner is a '3 weight division champion' ffs.
Lomachenko is the top of the sport, with his skill and ability there is very little room for improvement. Turning pro is to make money in the western world, you're kidding yourself if you think the hype game is the pinnacle of the 'sport'. It more closely resembles professional wrestling at times.


----------



## Danimal (Oct 9, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> If current GGG goes straight back into amateurs, he probably won't be world level - he wont be the fighter he was before! It's double standards. Im not saying it's a true sign of greatness, what I was trying to do was answer to the point about experience, by bringing up a fighter who is supremely experienced in the amateur ranks, in Despaigne.
> No pro will never be top of the sport then, because they're both different arms of the same sport.
> 'seasoned pro fighters' - I'm talking about the Mayweather of 130lbs, not the Mayweather of 147lbs at age 36! Mayweather wasn't the complete fighter then, Lomachenko IS complete and the perfect fighter, was older, more experienced - or are you going to overly glorify Mayweather's 4th round KO victories over cab drivers and overly glorify the fact that the maximum he went was 10 rounds before he fought Genaro - think about the logic there my man! I raised doubts about Lomachenko's finishing ability and wanted him to improve that, but his power in the pro ranks is so good that he's going to be finishing people anyway without it being his main focus.





Dealt_with said:


> In the amateurs the best fight the best. All the Cubans, Eastern Europeans etc. who don't even entertain the idea of fighting in the 'pro' game are competing. Competition is truly international. You have to earn everything, you can't buy your way into a final and you can't buy a championship. Current GGG beats the amateur version of GGG because he is more experienced. 7 fight pro Rigondeaux is more experienced than the vast majority of professional boxers. That's why he's a master boxer. Lomachenko is more experienced than the vast majority of fighters, that's why he was clearly superior, more skilled and more composed than his 26 pro fight rival in his 'pro debut'.
> GGG hasn't improved that much since turning pro, Rigondeaux hasn't, and neither will Lomachenko. He'll adapt to more rounds but all the work on his boxing and his skills has been done in the last 20 years of competition. Andre Ward, Gamboa etc. all did the majority of their boxing development well before they turned pro.
> Any bum can win a pro title, Adrien broner is a '3 weight division champion' ffs.
> Lomachenko is the top of the sport, with his skill and ability there is very little room for improvement. Turning pro is to make money in the western world, you're kidding yourself if you think the hype game is the pinnacle of the 'sport'. It more closely resembles professional wrestling at times.


Sorry guys, but IMO you really don't understand the sport the way you think you do. In the amateurs, the best amateurs fight the best amateurs. But the best overall are clearly pro fighters. Amateur boxing is at a lower level than pro boxing. The fighters are for many reasons worse. Pro and Am are not "two arms of the sport" that sit side by side. One is below the other. The sooner you see that, the sooner you will see why the vast majority of your arguments are bogus.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Danimal said:


> Sorry guys, but IMO you really don't understand the sport the way you think you do. In the amateurs, the best amateurs fight the best amateurs. But the best overall are clearly pro fighters. Amateur boxing is at a lower level than pro boxing. The fighters are for many reasons worse. Pro and Am are not "two arms of the sport" that sit side by side. One is below the other. The sooner you see that, the sooner you will see why the vast majority of your arguments are bogus.


The amateurs aren't even called the 'amateurs' anymore btw, there's also no headgear and the 10 must point system is used. There are countless amateurs who would've cleaned up the pro game, with more Cubans and Eastern Euro fighters turning pro now you're seeing it. You really don't know what you're talking about, it's you who doesn't understand the sport.


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> The toughest guy on this list for Lomachenko will be Alexis Arguello, but I believe Loma would do the job on him.


Majority of those are tried and tested HOFer, ATGs some of whom like Willie Pep are top 10 P4P of all time. Let alone their respective weight classes. Don't insult these legitimate ATG's who proved themselves in the ring by saying a guy who has had only one fucking fight against a fucking journeymen is going to beat them. Fuck me dead can you be that stupid. A "I don't know because Loma has done sweet fuck all in the pros let alone against the greatest at the weight ever" would suffice and would be logical. You're grabbing at straws that aren't there. Donald Curry doesn't come out of the pros and after 1 fight and beat Leonard. Seriously. Learn some boxing. Use some logic. Have a nice day.


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> The amateurs aren't even called the 'amateurs' anymore btw, there's also no headgear and the 10 must point system is used. There are countless amateurs who would've cleaned up the pro game, with more Cubans and Eastern Euro fighters turning pro now you're seeing it. You really don't know what you're talking about, it's you who doesn't understand the sport.


You and Tweedle-Dee keep saying this crap but that system wasn't even implemented till this year in July, which is well after the boxers held in conversation got out of the ams.

You and him really are literal idiots. :lol:


----------



## DrMo (Jun 6, 2012)

Why do people even bother trying to reason with these guys? 

Stop wasting your time & let this horrible thread die


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

browsing said:


> You and Tweedle-Dee keep saying this crap but that system wasn't even implemented till this year in July, which is well after the boxers held in conversation got out of the ams.
> 
> You and him really are literal idiots. :lol:


Is this a universal thing? I never heard about it? Or is just in the more elite forms of competition?


----------



## Danimal (Oct 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> The amateurs aren't even called the 'amateurs' anymore btw, there's also no headgear and the 10 must point system is used. There are countless amateurs who would've cleaned up the pro game, with more Cubans and Eastern Euro fighters turning pro now you're seeing it. You really don't know what you're talking about, it's you who doesn't understand the sport.


LOL. Did you always think amateur boxing was the pinnacle of the sport, or is this purely a tool to elevate Lomachecko prematurely?

I now think you're just trolling hard. Even if you were a young dude with very limited boxing knowledge, I don't see how you could genuinely believe the things you write. Based on his amateur career you think Loma easily beats Pep huh? Moving on...


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Danimal said:


> LOL. Did you always think amateur boxing was the pinnacle of the sport, or is this purely a tool to elevate Lomachecko prematurely?
> 
> I now think you're just trolling hard. Even if you were a young dude with very limited boxing knowledge, I don't see how you could genuinely believe the things you write. Based on his amateur career you think Loma easily beats Pep huh? Moving on...


No, I think on every aspect of boxing - skill, athleticism, eye test etc. Loma beats Pep and anyone else. Top competition, the best fighting the best is the pinnacle of the sport. That happens more often in the amateurs than pros, the standard of boxing at the olympics in general is higher than the standard of boxing in the pros in general. It's been said before that the amateur game is 'the sport' while the pro game is the 'money'.
When I didn't understand boxing as well I believed that Roy Jones demolishing a garbage man was the pinnacle of the sport, and that the amateurs was for kids. I still love Roy but I understand a lot more about the sport now, rarely does pro competition resemble proper athletic competition. Everyone wants to keep their zero and take the path of least resistance to make the most money.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

browsing said:


> You and Tweedle-Dee keep saying this crap but that system wasn't even implemented till this year in July, which is well after the boxers held in conversation got out of the ams.
> 
> You and him really are literal idiots. :lol:


I bring up the headgear because a lot of boxing fans who have never boxed think the headgear makes a difference.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I bring up the headgear because a lot of boxing fans who have never boxed think the headgear makes a difference.


It does, I've boxed before.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

browsing said:


> You and Tweedle-Dee keep saying this crap but that system wasn't even implemented till this year in July, which is well after the boxers held in conversation got out of the ams.
> 
> You and him really are literal idiots. :lol:


:rofl :rofl


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> The toughest guy on this list for Lomachenko will be Alexis Arguello, but I believe Loma would do the job on him.


atsch atsch


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> It does, I've boxed before.


Fuck off you have, there's no 76 pound division. Actually maybe when you're a little girl competing with other little girls the small things make a big difference.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Fuck off you have, there's no 76 pound division. Actually maybe when you're a little girl competing with other little girls the small things make a big difference.


:lol: Still waiting for you to post that pic fat boy :deal


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> :lol: Still waiting for you to post that pic fat boy :deal


You'll be waiting a long time Bieber. As a strength coach for a professional sporting team and a part time PT it would be a bit of a worry if I wasn't in shape. You need to eat something and pick something up, you look like a malnourished, 12 year old lesbian with osteoporosis.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> You'll be waiting a long time Bieber. As a strength coach for a professional sporting team and a part time PT it would be a bit of a worry if I wasn't in shape. You need to eat something and pick something up, you look like a malnourished, 12 year old lesbian with osteoporosis.


:lol: I'm sure you are. Better than being some *** holding another man's legs while he does drills "oooooohhh yeah gimme one more just like that *cum* on you can do it, lets hit the showers boys"


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> :lol: I'm sure you are. Better than being some *** holding another man's legs while he does drills "oooooohhh yeah gimme one more just like that *cum* on you can do it, lets hit the showers boys"


atsch
How old are you anyway? Maybe get your hormone levels checked out.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

The fuck is going on? :lol: atsch


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> atsch
> How old are you anyway? Maybe get your hormone levels checked out.


Should I? You're the one crying when you caught the schooling in the knowledgeable poster thread and crying whenever someone says a bad thing about Lomachenko. This is a man, mind you, your pussy gets bloodier by the minute discussing that dude yet my hormones are outta touch atsch


----------



## Danimal (Oct 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> No, I think on every aspect of boxing - skill, athleticism, eye test etc. Loma beats Pep and anyone else. Top competition, the best fighting the best is the pinnacle of the sport. That happens more often in the amateurs than pros, the standard of boxing at the olympics in general is higher than the standard of boxing in the pros in general. It's been said before that the amateur game is 'the sport' while the pro game is the 'money'.
> When I didn't understand boxing as well I believed that Roy Jones demolishing a garbage man was the pinnacle of the sport, and that the amateurs was for kids. I still love Roy but I understand a lot more about the sport now, rarely does pro competition resemble proper athletic competition. Everyone wants to keep their zero and take the path of least resistance to make the most money.


Troll on dude

:thumbsup


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

My testosterone level is around 800 (ng/dL) but unfortunately my credit isn't. :verysad


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

This thread lacks @Pedderrs :ibutt



The Undefeated Gaul said:


> I don't know enough about that era. It must be your favourite era?


:lol:

Honestly, I've been having some fun in this thread just for the sake of being over the top with it.

It's one of my favorites for the sheer talent contained within it. It certainly wasn't a case of a top dog (Hagler) retiring and then a division becoming "hot" -- these guys were all that good and would've been right at the top of his resume had they been in contention while he was on top and if he'd have beaten them, really no doubt about that. I also consider Toney-McCallum I to be the most skilled professional boxing match on film (mutually between two fighters, not necessarily an individual display) that Toney won 115-113. It was ruled a draw. Toney officially got the win in the second fight but his performance wasn't up to the same standard imo and he had problems making 160 by that point (it was his last fight at the weight). Work rate was never his biggest strength, but the shots he landed in the first were much more crisp, accurate and harder. He took it in 10-12 for me. Uploads of it are still dark ages YT when everything was in ten minute chunk clips.








Lester1583 said:


> Drugs, laziness, decline.
> 
> And the Liles fight was very close/controversial.





Dealt_with said:


> Nunn was no joke, a p4p guy who threw fluid combinations out of that 6'2 southpaw stance. Drugs and Toney ruined him, he was still a great fighter but should've been greater.


:deal



turbotime said:


> I'm gonna rewatch that one tomorrow. Another great technical battle.


Toney-Johnson

9-10
8-10
9-10
10-9
10-9
10-9
10-9
10-9
10-9
9-10
10-9
10-9

Toney 115-112


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

turbotime said:


> Should I? You're the one crying when you caught the schooling in the knowledgeable poster thread and crying whenever someone says a bad thing about Lomachenko. This is a man, mind you, your pussy gets bloodier by the minute discussing that dude yet my hormones are outta touch atsch


:lol: Poor Bieber


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

MadcapMaxie said:


> Majority of those are tried and tested HOFer, ATGs some of whom like Willie Pep are top 10 P4P of all time. Let alone their respective weight classes. Don't insult these legitimate ATG's who proved themselves in the ring by saying a guy who has had only one fucking fight against a fucking journeymen is going to beat them. Fuck me dead can you be that stupid. A "I don't know because Loma has done sweet fuck all in the pros let alone against the greatest at the weight ever" would suffice and would be logical. You're grabbing at straws that aren't there. Donald Curry doesn't come out of the pros and after 1 fight and beat Leonard. Seriously. Learn some boxing. Use some logic. Have a nice day.


But you're isolating the resumes now, and not judging Vasyl with an eye test. That's like hating on a pre-Donaire Rigondeaux. Yeah, it's plausible to believe Rigo beats Barrera, Morales, Pac, Marquez, Zaragoza etc. but Rigondeaux had only fought 36 rounds before he was fighting Rico Ramos in Jan 2012. Lomachenko has already fought 34 rounds and is more suited to pros than Guillermo, hope you've realised that. 
How much do you think he benefitted from demolishing Rico Ramos in this fight? What do you think he really learned, Madcap? Especially when he's been up against complete skillful offensive/defensive masters in the amateurs?




Compare that to how much Lomachenko would have learned fighting Albert Selimov and winning 4-1 imo, over 5 rounds. 
You do realise I'm not pulling out logic from nowhere, it's well thought out.


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

Nobody is able to beat mighty Lomachenko! HEIL LOMACHENKO!


----------



## Mexi-Box (Jun 4, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> You'll be waiting a long time Bieber. As a strength coach for a professional sporting team and a part time PT it would be a bit of a worry if I wasn't in shape. You need to eat something and pick something up, you look like a malnourished, 12 year old lesbian with osteoporosis.


:rofl Holy shit, that was funny.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

browsing said:


> You and Tweedle-Dee keep saying this crap but that system wasn't even implemented till this year in July, which is well after the boxers held in conversation got out of the ams.
> 
> You and him really are literal idiots. :lol:


A 10-9 system with no headgear used to exist before you know. Besides, you can bash the other one calling it a point scoring fencing system but to be ace at that is fucking difficult, Zhou Shiming is an example of a highly skilled fighter who is a great, great fighter to watch with the point scoring systme but isn't so impressive as a pro, yet in that style he's far more impressive than someone like Danny Garcia who is touted to be in one of the best weights in boxing right now - this brings me back to my comment about specialisation mentioned earlier in this thread.

Brooo come at me


----------



## shaunster101 (Jun 3, 2012)

Dealt With is up there with Nallege and 'Bama in terms of being an pure shit talking troll who manages to keep so many people replying to him. In one way it's pretty genius, in another it makes me want to stab myself in the face.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

@the cobra I really hope you didn't score that fight for Johnson. (see above)


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> The toughest guy on this list for Lomachenko will be Alexis Arguello, but I believe Loma would do the job on him.


The difference between you and dealt with is he actually believes the retarded shit he says. I think you're just following along.

You don't honestly believe at this moment in time, he can beat the Barrera that beat Hamed


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> A 10-9 system with no headgear used to exist before you know. Besides, you can bash the other one calling it a point scoring fencing system _but to be ace at that is fucking difficult,_ *Zhou Shiming is an example of a highly skilled fighter who is a great, great fighter to watch with the point scoring systme but isn't so impressive as a pro, yet in that style he's far more impressive than someone like Danny Garcia who is touted to be in one of the best weights in boxing right now* - this brings me back to my comment about specialisation mentioned earlier in this thread.
> 
> Brooo come at me












You need to get your brain screwed on straight.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

You guys are all talking about inferior boxers to the shit I'm on about.



Deal with It. :deal


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> If current GGG goes straight back into amateurs, he probably won't be world level - he wont be the fighter he was before! It's double standards. Im not saying it's a true sign of greatness, what I was trying to do was answer to the point about experience, by bringing up a fighter who is supremely experienced in the amateur ranks, in Despaigne.
> No pro will never be top of the sport then, because they're both different arms of the same sport.
> 'seasoned pro fighters' - I'm talking about the Mayweather of 130lbs, not the Mayweather of 147lbs at age 36! Mayweather wasn't the complete fighter then, Lomachenko IS complete and the perfect fighter, was older, more experienced - or are you going to overly glorify Mayweather's 4th round KO victories over cab drivers and overly glorify the fact that the maximum he went was 10 rounds before he fought Genaro - think about the logic there my man! I raised doubts about Lomachenko's finishing ability and wanted him to improve that, but his power in the pro ranks is so good that he's going to be finishing people anyway without it being his main focus.


Lomachenko gets his ass whooped by this "incomplete" fighter


----------



## the cobra (Jun 6, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> @*the cobra* I really hope you didn't score that fight for Johnson. (see above)


Nah. Enough close rounds that, with the KD, I could certainly see a score for Johnson, but the right man won. Reggie's underrated. He was a real good fighter.

Hopkins beats Toney.


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> The difference between you and dealt with is he actually believes the retarded shit he says.* I think you're just following along.
> *
> 
> You don't honestly believe at this moment in time, he can beat the Barrera that beat Hamed











*"10-2 Tweedle Dee" *
"*Indeed *_ but I said 10-2 first Tweedle Dum." _


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Lomachenko gets his ass whooped by this "incomplete" fighter


He's trolling B, no guy that believes in Floyd enough to fight Golovkin and Martinez would pick Loma against him.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

the cobra said:


> Nah. Enough close rounds that, with the KD, I could certainly see a score for Johnson, but the right man won. Reggie's underrated. He was a real good fighter.
> 
> Hopkins beats Toney.


 @Drew101 scored it for Johnson by around six points. atsch


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Lomachenko gets his ass whooped by this "incomplete" fighter


:lol: Of course.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I bring up the headgear because a lot of boxing fans who have never boxed think the headgear makes a difference.





turbotime said:


> It does, I've boxed before.


yeah it does make a difference. Don't bring up your scientific study on concussions, I got first hand experience 


The Undefeated Gaul said:


> A 10-9 system with no headgear used to exist before you know. Besides, you can bash the other one calling it a point scoring fencing system but to be ace at that is fucking difficult, Zhou Shiming is an example of a highly skilled fighter who is a great, great fighter to watch with the point scoring systme but isn't so impressive as a pro, yet in that style he's far more impressive than someone like Danny Garcia who is touted to be in one of the best weights in boxing right now - this brings me back to my comment about specialisation mentioned earlier in this thread.
> 
> Brooo come at me


Zouu Shiming fucking sucks. If he and Garcia fought hypothetically and were the same size, he'd counter his ass with the same hook that put great amateur Amir Khan down


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

browsing said:


> *"10-2 Tweedle Dee" *
> "*Indeed *_ but I said 10-2 first Tweedle Dum." _


:lol: exactly, if you asked him a few months ago if Lomachenko would beat 130lb Mayweather 10-2, at the very most, he'd say the fight is a toss-up. But since Dealt_with said 10-2, he's going along with it


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

MexiBox is hanging off his nuts on the @turbotime insults.


----------



## Drew101 (Jun 30, 2012)

There are two possibilities to expain this statement

1.Trolling @Hands of Iron can troll.

2. I may well have been intoxicated when posting.

Either option is entirely plausible. 

In all honesty, I do recall scoring for Johnson, with the kd the deciding factor when I last watched the fight. But it's one of those either way affairs. Reggie was damned good, when he was at his best.


----------



## D-U-D-E (Jul 31, 2013)

shaunster101 said:


> Dealt With is up there with Nallege and 'Bama in terms of being an pure shit talking troll who manages to keep so many people replying to him. In one way it's pretty genius, in another it makes me want to stab myself in the face.


Bama is still the GOAT at that shit. Amazing troll.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Drew101 said:


> There are two possibilities to expain this statement
> 
> 1.Trolling @Hands of Iron can troll.
> 
> ...


:lol:

I do that stuff when I want an opinion of a poster I like and respect.


----------



## Drew101 (Jun 30, 2012)

Cheers, man :good

Yeah, Johnson-Toney was one of the more underrated middleweight title fights that I've watched ever since I got into boxing. Overshadowed by Toney-McCallum, but still features two really skilled guys at/near their best.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Drew101 said:


> Cheers, man :good
> 
> Yeah, Johnson-Toney was one of the more underrated middleweight title fights that I've watched ever since I got into boxing. Overshadowed by Toney-McCallum, but still features two really skilled guys at/near their best.


Remarkable (by modern standards) that he took Johnson on only six weeks after winning the title from Nunn.

I also gave opinion on Toney-Bodysnatcher at top of last page.


----------



## IntentionalButt (Jun 8, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> 2013 FOTY so far - Arakawa-Figueroa was 10-2 to Figueroa, but the scorecards gave no indication whatsoever on how close the fight actually was.


Segura vs. Marquez shits on Arakawa vs. Figueroa, FWIW...


----------



## Drew101 (Jun 30, 2012)

:deal

Segura-Marquez is also my front runner for FOTY, and Bradley-Provodnikov and Provo-Alvarado probably rate higher than Figueroa-Arikawa, too.


----------



## FelixTrinidad (Jun 3, 2013)

The difference is this Dealt_With.

Anthony Joshua in his 1st three Pro Fights LOOKED better than any Heavyweight ATG during their 1st three..

Lomachenko did not really impressed during his debut.

Obviously Joshua and all the other Heavyweights fought bums during their 1st few fights and Lomachenko fought a solid fighter.

But keep in mind Lomachenko got a LOT more Amateur experience than most of these legendary Heavys.. so he SHOULD fight a solid fighter.

If anything.. Lomachenko's decent but not dazzling debut... already proved that the Pros is different from the Am's.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

FelixTrinidad said:


> The difference is this Dealt_With.
> 
> Anthony Joshua in his 1st three Pro Fights LOOKED better than any Heavyweight ATG during their 1st three..
> 
> ...


You misunderstand. He's saying Lomachenko at 1-0 can beat these ATGs in their primes


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> The difference between you and dealt with is he actually believes the retarded shit he says. I think you're just following along.
> 
> You don't honestly believe at this moment in time, he can beat the Barrera that beat Hamed


Shut up Erislandy. I'm certain he can beat Barrera that beat Hamed. I think Rigo can also beat Barrera.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> yeah it does make a difference. Don't bring up your scientific study on concussions, I got first hand experience
> 
> Zouu Shiming fucking sucks. If he and Garcia fought hypothetically and were the same size, he'd counter his ass with the same hook that put great amateur Amir Khan down


You have reading comprehension problems and was not even following the conversation whatsoever that's been happening, hence you're complete misunderstanding of what I was saying.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Lomachenko gets his ass whooped by this "incomplete" fighter


Mayweather had Larry O'Shields issues and you're bringing up a Grigorio Vargas fight from way after the Genaro fight, I was talking of the Genaro fight and, I believe that Mayweather is actually a fair amount better now than he was then. Lomachenko doesn't need to school Grigorio Vargas's in the first place, it would be considered a very bad name on Lomachenko's resume from start to finish.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Shut up Erislandy. I'm certain he can beat Barrera that beat Hamed. I think Rigo can also beat Barrera.


If you think Salido can challenge Lomachenko because of his pressure, wtf do you think Barerra could do :nut He'd bend him over and fuck him in the corner also



The Undefeated Gaul said:


> You have reading comprehension problems and was not even following the conversation whatsoever that's been happening, hence you're complete misunderstanding of what I was saying.


So you're saying Zou Shiming in the old amateur system looks better than Danny Garcia in the 10-9 system?


----------



## MrJotatp4p (May 23, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> If you think Salido can challenge Lomachenko because of his pressure, wtf do you think Barerra could do :nut He'd bend him over and fuck him in the corner also
> 
> So you're saying Zou Shiming in the old amateur system looks better than Danny Garcia in the 10-9 system?


You're wasting your time!


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Mayweather had Larry O'Shields issues and you're bringing up a Grigorio Vargas fight from way after the Genaro fight, I was talking of the Genaro fight and, I believe that Mayweather is actually a fair amount better now than he was then. *Lomachenko doesn't need to school Grigorio Vargas's in the first place, it would be considered a very bad name on Lomachenko's resume from start to finish.*


Then why did he fight Jose Ramirez? And everybody is talking about Lomachenko vs the best version of Floyd as 130 including your boy Dealt_with



The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Mayweather had Larry O'Shields issues and you're bringing up a Grigorio Vargas fight from way after the Genaro fight, I was talking of the Genaro fight and, I believe that Mayweather is actually a fair amount better now than he was then. *Lomachenko doesn't need to school Grigorio Vargas's in the first place, it would be considered a very bad name on Lomachenko's resume from start to finish.*


Then why did he fight Jose Ramirez? And everybody is talking about Lomachenko vs the best version of Floyd as 130 including your boy Dealt_with

and yall talk about the eye test. Mayweather looks so much better than Lomachenko in this fight.


----------



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

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Shut up Erislandy. I'm certain he can beat Barrera that beat Hamed. I think Rigo can also beat Barrera.


:lol::lol::rofl:roflatsch


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Then why did he fight Jose Ramirez? And everybody is talking about Lomachenko vs the best version of Floyd as 130 including your boy Dealt_with


Why don't you use your brain? A title fight was not possible for a fucking debut, so they went for a world ranked opponent that is better than anyone a dwarf by the name of Russell Jr has fought in what, 4+ years of being pro? Wouldn't even be shocked if you told me he turned pro in 2002 but that's a different issue. 
Lomachenko doesn't need to fight a Grigorio Vargas for like his 25th fight when he's already fighting Salido in just his second.


----------



## FelixTrinidad (Jun 3, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Why don't you use your brain? A title fight was not possible for a fucking debut, so they went for a world ranked opponent that is better than anyone a *dwarf by the name of Russell Jr* has fought in what, 4+ years of being pro? Wouldn't even be shocked if you told me he turned pro in 2002 but that's a different issue.
> Lomachenko doesn't need to fight a Grigorio Vargas for like his 25th fight when he's already fighting Salido in just his second.


:lol: This was the best part of the entire thread. When you called Russell Jr a dwarf. Hahhaha


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> If you think Salido can challenge Lomachenko because of his pressure, wtf do you think Barerra could do :nut He'd bend him over and fuck him in the corner also
> 
> So you're saying Zou Shiming in the old amateur system looks better than Danny Garcia in the 10-9 system?


This was already explained. It's going to be the toughest challenge of Lomachenko's career simply because Lomachenko hasn't learned how to pace yet. A Lomachenko who has learned to pace himself would KO 5 Salido. Yes.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

FelixTrinidad said:


> :lol: This was the best part of the entire thread. When you called Russell Jr a dwarf. Hahhaha


You brainwashed me :lol:


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

IntentionalButt said:


> Segura vs. Marquez shits on Arakawa vs. Figueroa, FWIW...


Haven't watched the fight, I will watch it now that you and Drew said it beats Ara-Fig


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> yeah it does make a difference. Don't bring up your scientific study on concussions, I got first hand experience
> 
> Zouu Shiming fucking sucks.* If he and Garcia fought hypothetically and were the same size*, he'd counter his ass with the same hook that put great amateur Amir Khan down


atsch you have lost the plot Lara.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

MrJotatp4p said:


> You're wasting your time!


:lol: I know man. I'm sorry


The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Why don't you use your brain? A title fight was not possible for a fucking debut, so they went for a world ranked opponent that is better than anyone a dwarf by the name of Russell Jr has fought in what, 4+ years of being pro? Wouldn't even be shocked if you told me he turned pro in 2002 but that's a different issue.
> Lomachenko doesn't need to fight a Grigorio Vargas for like his 25th fight when he's already fighting Salido in just his second.


I am using my damn brain. Vargas didn't have a title. :roflatsch You're talking down on Vargas, but he's better than Ramirez and Floyd looked better in that fight than Lomachenko did vs Ramirez. I know it's unfair to compare the 2 since it was his debut, but we're talking about Lomachenko currently in a hypothetical fight. 
You used to say that Lomachenko would need like 10 fights and then we can put him in these types of matchups, but you let Dealt_with brain wash you

and fuck Gary Russel Jr. Why do you guys keep bringing him up to me?



The Undefeated Gaul said:


> This was already explained. It's going to be the toughest challenge of Lomachenko's career simply because Lomachenko hasn't learned how to pace yet. A Lomachenko who has learned to pace himself would KO 5 Salido. Yes.


But we're talking about the same version of Lomachenko vs Barrera as the one that'll be fighting Salido


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Sexy Sergio ( L E O N ) said:


> :lol::lol::rofl:roflatsch


:lol:

There have already been so many callbacks to this thread:
http://checkhookboxing.com/showthread.php?25169-Posters-That-Physically-Resemble-Pro-Boxers/page12

Never be the same again.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> yeah it does make a difference. Don't bring up your scientific study on concussions, I got first hand experience
> 
> Zouu Shiming fucking sucks. If he and Garcia fought hypothetically and were the same size, he'd counter his ass with the same hook that put great amateur Amir Khan down


I've got first hand experience myself as well.. headgear does fuck all other than obscure your vision, and causes more concussions than it prevents.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

FelixTrinidad said:


> The difference is this Dealt_With.
> 
> Anthony Joshua in his 1st three Pro Fights LOOKED better than any Heavyweight ATG during their 1st three..
> 
> ...


He stopped a guy with 26 fights who had never been stopped before with a body shot in the 4th round. In a scheduled 10 round fight.

I've watched the fight a few times and it's a very confused performance from Lomachenko, he didn't know what to do when he dropped Ramirez in the opening round, he wanted to get the rounds in so started boxing in a manner that isn't natural to him. He's an aggressor and he was forced to just hang around in the ring. In the second and third rounds Loma just let Ramirez come at him, Loma's usual style is to beat aggression with aggression. Lomachenko knew that he would stop the guy if he did that though. His father was telling him to pick it up during those round breaks. In the 4th round Lomachenko actually started fighting a bit like he usually does and he was landing at will, throwing a lot of punches. Have a look at the fight again, it's a different fighter at the start of the 4th. Vasyl could've easily got him out of there in the first if he wanted to, as soon as he knocked Ramirez down he backed off.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> If you think Salido can challenge Lomachenko because of his pressure, wtf do you think Barerra could do :nut He'd bend him over and fuck him in the corner also
> 
> So you're saying Zou Shiming in the old amateur system looks better than Danny Garcia in the 10-9 system?


Barrera was far more orthodox and predictable than Salido is. It's those looping power shots that are harder to defend against. Loma would absolutely school Barrera.


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> But you're isolating the resumes now, and not judging Vasyl with an eye test. That's like hating on a pre-Donaire Rigondeaux. Yeah, it's plausible to believe Rigo beats Barrera, Morales, Pac, Marquez, Zaragoza etc. but Rigondeaux had only fought 36 rounds before he was fighting Rico Ramos in Jan 2012. Lomachenko has already fought 34 rounds and is more suited to pros than Guillermo, hope you've realised that.
> How much do you think he benefitted from demolishing Rico Ramos in this fight? What do you think he really learned, Madcap? Especially when he's been up against complete skillful offensive/defensive masters in the amateurs?
> 
> 
> ...


Nah it's not. Willie Pep was described by our very own John Garfield (May he RIP) as the greatest defensive boxer he ever saw, including guys like Duran, Leonard, RJJ, Toney, Whitaker and Ali. Loma has faced nothing like him let alone over 15 rounds which Pep fought regularly. There is LITERALLY nothing to grab a hold of in saying Loma beats Pep.

Eye tests are limited; Monzon, Marciano, Lopez, Foreman, Ali and MANY more can be dismissed with a simple eye test. It factors in very little. There is a reason RJJ, Norris, Taylor and the rest aren't anywhere near considered the best fighters despite being amazing in the eye test.

Also I don't know why you talking about Rigo. I don't give a fuck about Rigo my response was in regards to legitimate, ATG's who proved themselves time and time again in REALITY not hypotheticals against opponents of a quality Loma has never shared the ring with. Ever. I don't even know why I'm typing this shit I mean a guy with 1 fight beatin Pep, Saddler, Arguello and the rest of them. Fuck me dead.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Barrera was far more orthodox and predictable than Salido is. It's those looping power shots that are harder to defend against. Loma would absolutely school Barrera.


You mean by more orthodox = less sloppy? An elite fighter can see those Salido haymakers coming from a mile away.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

MadcapMaxie said:


> Nah it's not. Willie Pep was described by our very own John Garfield (May he RIP) as the greatest defensive boxer he ever saw, including guys like Duran, Leonard, RJJ, Toney, Whitaker and Ali. Loma has faced nothing like him let alone over 15 rounds which Pep fought regularly. There is LITERALLY nothing to grab a hold of in saying Loma beats Pep.
> 
> Eye tests are limited; Monzon, Marciano, Lopez, Foreman, Ali and MANY more can be dismissed with a simple eye test. It factors in very little. There is a reason RJJ, Norris, Taylor and the rest aren't anywhere near considered the best fighters despite being amazing in the eye test.
> 
> Also I don't know why you talking about Rigo. I don't give a fuck about Rigo my response was in regards to legitimate, ATG's who proved themselves time and time again in REALITY not hypotheticals against opponents of a quality Loma has never shared the ring with. Ever. I don't even know why I'm typing this shit I mean a guy with 1 fight beatin Pep, Saddler, Arguello and the rest of them. Fuck me dead.


There's no point of the vast majority of discussions on this forum if you're going to be a resume nazi, seriously. What I'm trying to say when I talk about Rigo is very important and highlights why you haven't understood anything. People didn't have to watch the Nonito fight to realise how good Rigondeaux was, Rigondeaux didn't have to fight superb competition to allow for realisations of how good this guy is. There's a lot more to go by when talking of Loma's ability than there was with Rigondeaux by early 2012. Just because someone is proven against elite competition doesn't mean they're better. 
I rate the 19 year old Robeisy Ramirez over Amir Khan and I genuinely believe he'll be better than Amir Khan in the pros, I guess because I think this I must have some fucked up logic then by your standards..


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> There's no point of the vast majority of discussions on this forum if you're going to be a resume nazi, seriously. What I'm trying to say when I talk about Rigo is very important and highlights why you haven't understood anything. People didn't have to watch the Nonito fight to realise how good Rigondeaux was, Rigondeaux didn't have to fight superb competition to allow for realisations of how good this guy is. There's a lot more to go by when talking of Loma's ability than there was with Rigondeaux by early 2012. Just because someone is proven against elite competition doesn't mean they're better.
> I rate the 19 year old Robeisy Ramirez over Amir Khan and I genuinely believe he'll be better than Amir Khan in the pros, *I guess because I think this I must have some fucked up logic then by your standards.*.


Yeah yah do and not just by my standards by everyone else's bar Dealt With. Loma beating Mayweather 10:2, Loma beating Arguello, Pep, Saddler etc. Take a step back and evaluate the claims your making. Seriously.

Also "Just because someone is proven against elite competition doesn't mean they're better" No but when you've got someone who has beaten elite competition during a tougher era MULTIPLE times in dominant fashion versus someone who has beaten nobody logic favours the former. Do you see how that works?


----------



## conradically (Jul 12, 2013)

MadcapMaxie said:


> Nah it's not. Willie Pep was described by our very own John Garfield (May he RIP) as the greatest defensive boxer he ever saw, including guys like Duran, Leonard, RJJ, Toney, Whitaker and Ali. Loma has faced nothing like him let alone over 15 rounds which Pep fought regularly. There is LITERALLY nothing to grab a hold of in saying Loma beats Pep.
> 
> Eye tests are limited; Monzon, Marciano, Lopez, Foreman,* Ali *and MANY more can be dismissed with a simple eye test. It factors in very little. There is a reason RJJ, Norris, Taylor and the rest aren't anywhere near considered the best fighters despite being amazing in the eye test.
> 
> Also I don't know why you talking about Rigo. I don't give a fuck about Rigo my response was in regards to legitimate, ATG's who proved themselves time and time again in REALITY not hypotheticals against opponents of a quality Loma has never shared the ring with. Ever. I don't even know why I'm typing this shit I mean a guy with 1 fight beatin Pep, Saddler, Arguello and the rest of them. Fuck me dead.


Ali doesn't pass the eye test?

Prime Ali is an 11 on a scale of 1 to 10 on the eye test.


----------



## conradically (Jul 12, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> He stopped a guy with 26 fights who had never been stopped before with a body shot in the 4th round. In a scheduled 10 round fight.
> 
> I've watched the fight a few times and it's a very confused performance from Lomachenko, he didn't know what to do when he dropped Ramirez in the opening round, *he wanted to get the rounds* in so started boxing in a manner that isn't natural to him. He's an aggressor and he was forced to just hang around in the ring. In the second and third rounds Loma just let Ramirez come at him, Loma's usual style is to beat aggression with aggression. Lomachenko knew that he would stop the guy if he did that though. His father was telling him to pick it up during those round breaks. In the 4th round Lomachenko actually started fighting a bit like he usually does and he was landing at will, throwing a lot of punches. Have a look at the fight again, it's a different fighter at the start of the 4th. Vasyl could've easily got him out of there in the first if he wanted to, as soon as he knocked Ramirez down he backed off.


Why would the GOAT, someone who could beat prime 130 Mayweather 10:2 need to _get rounds _with Jose "the other" Ramirez_?
_
That doesn't add up.


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

conradically said:


> Ali doesn't pass the eye test?
> 
> Prime Ali is an 11 on a scale of 1 to 10 on the eye test.


I was thinking the later versions that still manged to clean up the division.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

MadcapMaxie said:


> Yeah yah do and not just by my standards by everyone else's bar Dealt With. Loma beating Mayweather 10:2, Loma beating Arguello, Pep, Saddler etc. Take a step back and evaluate the claims your making. Seriously.
> 
> Also "Just because someone is proven against elite competition doesn't mean they're better" No but when you've got someone who has beaten elite competition during a tougher era MULTIPLE times in dominant fashion versus someone who has beaten nobody logic favours the former. Do you see how that works?


No your logic is still fucked. A was able to beat B, C, D, E. 
F has not faced anyone on B, C, D, E's calibre. 'F therefore cannot beat A' is *not* the conclusion that logically follows. Again, let's rephrase it so your dumbass can try to comprehend..being proven against B, C, D, E does not mean you will prove to beat F. I'm going to get pissed off actually, I want to argue, but not with people who don't understand basic fucking logic.

You can fuck off if you think it's pathetic to believe a pre-Donaire Rigo couldn't beat ATG's like Morales, Barrera etc. because it's certainly seen as plausible.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

conradically said:


> Why would the GOAT, someone who could beat prime 130 Mayweather 10:2 need to _get rounds _with Jose "the other" Ramirez_?
> _
> That doesn't add up.


Because he wants to take the opportunity to become the best version of himself. Being the best fighter does not mean you are the best that you can ever be. Lomachenko needs to learn pacing.


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> No your logic is still fucked. A was able to beat B, C, D, E.
> F has not faced anyone on B, C, D, E's calibre. 'F therefore cannot beat A' is *not* the conclusion that logically follows. Again, let's rephrase it so your dumbass can try to comprehend..being proven against B, C, D, E does not mean you will prove to beat F. I'm going to get pissed off actually, I want to argue, but not with people who don't understand basic fucking logic.
> 
> You can fuck off if you think it's pathetic to believe a pre-Donaire Rigo couldn't beat ATG's like Morales, Barrera etc. because it's certainly seen as plausible.


Man who the FUCK is talking about Rigo? Did I say Rigo? No we're talking about Lomachenko they guy YOU said beats Arguello, Pep, Saddler and the rest of them. I SAID LOGIC "FAVOURS" PEP AND THE REST BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEATEN BETTER OPPOSITION MULTIPLE TIMES THEY ARE ACTUALLY PROVEN. LOMA HAS PROVED NOTHING NOW FUCKING READ THIS CAREFULLY AND STOP PULLING POINTS OUT OF YOUR ASS. Basic logic would say someone who is far more proven and far more experienced is likely to win. NOT THE FUCKING NEWBIE WHO HAS BEATEN NOBODY BUT HEY HE LOOKS PRETTY GOOD. FUCK SAKE YOU'RE A DUMB DELUSIONAL CUNT.


----------



## conradically (Jul 12, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Because he wants to take the opportunity to become the best version of himself. Being the best fighter does not mean you are the best that you can ever be. Lomachenko needs to learn pacing.


Oh I get it now. Mayweather would get his two rounds in the 11th and 12th because Loma (in this hypothetical) wouldn't quite have learned proper pacing yet. To learn pacing, he needs to learn how _not_ to knock out Jose Ramirez.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

MadcapMaxie said:


> Man who the FUCK is talking about Rigo? Did I say Rigo? No we're talking about Lomachenko they guy YOU said beats Arguello, Pep, Saddler and the rest of them. I SAID LOGIC "FAVOURS" PEP AND THE REST BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEATEN BETTER OPPOSITION MULTIPLE TIMES THEY ARE ACTUALLY PROVEN. LOMA HAS PROVED NOTHING NOW FUCKING READ THIS CAREFULLY AND STOP PULLING POINTS OUT OF YOUR ASS. Basic logic would say someone who is far more proven and far more experienced is likely to win. NOT THE FUCKING NEWBIE WHO HAS BEATEN NOBODY BUT HEY HE LOOKS PRETTY GOOD. FUCK SAKE YOU'RE A DUMB DELUSIONAL CUNT.


Too much beta aggression in one post to read.

Do some breathing exercises or pop some meds, whatever weird shit you need to do to pipe the fuck down, then come back to me.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

conradically said:


> Oh I get it now. Mayweather would get his two rounds in the 11th and 12th because Loma (in this hypothetical) wouldn't quite have learned proper pacing yet. To learn pacing, he needs to learn how _not_ to knock out Jose Ramirez.


Well this is the only reason why Salido will make this fight competitive. If Vasyl didn't have great punching power, he would have tried and tested more to see what works etc. in terms of pacing strategies, and thus have more experiences to learn from in the ring to help with this. Simple to grasp but you haven't managed to do so.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Too much beta aggression in one post to read.
> 
> Do some breathing exercises or pop some meds, whatever weird shit you need to do to pipe the fuck down, then come back to me.


:lol: Keep schooling these narrow minded, non-critical thinking clowns. Good example with Ramirez and Khan. I think you can apply the same thing to the likes of Broner, a '3 weight division champ' :-(


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> :lol: Keep schooling these narrow minded, non-critical thinking clowns. Good example with Ramirez and Khan. I think you can apply the same thing to the likes of Broner, a '3 weight division champ' :-(


:cheers

atsch '3 division champ', what a shambles :/


----------



## conradically (Jul 12, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Well this is the only reason why Salido will make this fight competitive. If Vasyl didn't have great punching power, he would have tried and tested more to see what works etc. in terms of pacing strategies, and thus have more *experiences to learn from in the ring* to help with this. Simple to grasp but you haven't managed to do so.


here is where you depart from dealt-with, who says there's simply nothing for him to "learn".

Even so, your admission that he needs to learn pacing makes the 10:2 Mayweather call even more absurd.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

conradically said:


> here is where you depart from dealt-with, who says there's simply nothing for him to "learn".
> 
> Even so, your admission that he needs to learn pacing makes the 10:2 Mayweather call even more absurd.


There is nothing to learn in terms of boxing skills etc. he's fully developed and a complete fighter, he's just simply being this same complete fighter that he is, and is looking to adapt to the 12 rounder, doing so in the most optimal way so his completeness as a boxer can shine forth.

No, it doesn't. The pacing issue becomes far less relevant against Mayweather than against Salido in a second fight. Styles make fights,


----------



## conradically (Jul 12, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> There is nothing to learn in terms of boxing skills etc. he's fully developed and a complete fighter, he's just simply being this same complete fighter that he is, and is looking to adapt to the 12 rounder, doing so in the most optimal way so his completeness as a boxer can shine forth.
> 
> No, it doesn't. The *pacing issue becomes far less relevant against Mayweather than against Salido* in a second fight. Styles make fights,


that is out and out lunacy.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

conradically said:


> that is out and out lunacy.


You don't know anything about Lomachenko's style whatsoever. Who are you trying to impress on this forum? Are you scared for your reputation or something? Why don't you just see the world from your own eyes because right now, you're clearly not.


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Barrera was far more orthodox and predictable than Salido is. It's those looping power shots that are harder to defend against. Loma would absolutely school Barrera.


Jesus christ... there is no evidence of loma being able to school someone of barrera's caliber, at all

Id like to see him handle barrera-esque pressure first


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Damn, we might not see Loma again until March.

http://www.boxingscene.com/salido-lomachenko-eyed-chavez-vs-vera-ii-card--71714


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> I've got first hand experience myself as well.. headgear does fuck all other than obscure your vision, and causes more concussions than it prevents.


Headgear is what allows Amir Khan to spar with Manny Pacquiao.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Headgear is what allows Amir Khan to spar with Manny Pacquiao.


Err no. And there's a big difference between using winning headgear and 16oz gloves versus competition headgear and gloves.


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Err no. And there's a big difference between using winning headgear and 16oz gloves versus competition headgear and gloves.


Which competitions have you fought in?


----------



## FelixTrinidad (Jun 3, 2013)

Nut Huggers Ring Rankings:

Champion: Vladimir23 (Wladimir Klitschko's dick holder)

1-Bailey (Calzaghe dick holder)
2-Dealt_With (Lomachenko dick holder)
3-MVC- (Floyd Dicker Holder)


----------



## FelixTrinidad (Jun 3, 2013)

Dealt With and Undefeated Gaul.

You two need to calm down. We must caution ourselves in regards to over hyping fighters and going over board. We also must limit our nut hugging and we must just learn to become fans OF THE SPORT and not of just certain fighters.

Although I troll sometimes, one thing that I'm very proud of myself for is that I never go overboard or buy into the hype of fighters. I don't have a favorite boxer, I LOVE BOXING as a sport. You will never see me clinging on the dicks of boxers as if my life depends on it. I am OBJECTIVE in my writings and I keep any hatred I have towards boxers to myself. I try my hardest to contribute to all the boxing forums in an intelligent and non bias way. 

Dealt_With and Undefeated Gaul....... don't take this the wrong way.. I mean no insult towards you two great posters.. but maybe just maybe you two should STOP HYPING PEOPLE UP TO THE SKIES!!!!!.

Learn to LOVE boxing man.........don't just love CERTAIN FIGHTERS!!!!


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Which competitions have you fought in?


The competition to see how far I can shove my cock up your mothers asshole. There's a lot of rivals though so mathematically I don't like my chances of winning.


----------



## FelixTrinidad (Jun 3, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> The competition to see how far I can shove my cock up your mothers asshole. There's a lot of rivals though so mathematically I don't like my chances of winning.


:lol:


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

FelixTrinidad said:


> Dealt With and Undefeated Gaul.
> 
> You two need to calm down. We must caution ourselves in regards to over hyping fighters and going over board. We also must limit our nut hugging and we must just learn to become fans OF THE SPORT and not of just certain fighters.
> 
> ...


:huh I do love boxing. From my point of view Lomachenko is the best I've ever seen, the most complete fighter. He represents the best of boxing with his attitude, skills, and athleticism. I'm a fan of a lot of fighters, I'm a fan of elite boxing and elite competition. I generally like Cuban boxing the most as they're pure boxers, they exemplify the sweet science. Lomachenko does that too, plus he is aggressive in the way he fights and the way he pursues making history. You can't really be a fan of boxing and not be a fan of Lomachenko. I'm not concerned if Lomachenko loses, everything I say is said as a matter of fact. There's no emotion and motives behind it, only my educated and honest point of view. What I say might come across as hyperbole in text but it's just what I believe. If I ever come across as passionate it's due to my dislike of idiots/non-critical thinkers, it's not in support of Lomachenko. 
If Loma gets sparked out by Salido, I'll say "I got it wrong, moving on.."
There are many fighters I'm excited to watch.


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> You can't really be a fan of boxing and not be a fan of Lomachenko


You can't really be a fan of boxing and not be a fan of Lomachenko

can't really be a fan of boxing and not be a fan of Lomachenko

can't be a fan of boxing and not a fan of Lomachenko

fan of boxing fan of Lomachenko

boxing=Lomachenko

 You can't really be a fan of boxing and not be a fan of Lomachenko


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> The competition to see how far I can shove my cock up your mothers asshole. There's a lot of rivals though so mathematically I don't like my chances of winning.


Well you at least seem quite adept at talking out of your own.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

FelixTrinidad said:


> Dealt With and Undefeated Gaul.
> 
> You two need to calm down. We must caution ourselves in regards to over hyping fighters and going over board. We also must limit our nut hugging and we must just learn to become fans OF THE SPORT and not of just certain fighters.
> 
> ...


Dude I swear you say the same stuff about Anthony Joshua.

- You cant love boxing and hate Lomachenko at the same time. He's a straight up guy who will fight anyone and everyone which is so refreshing and something I respect more after the Mayweather-Pacquiao duck mastery scarred us all. This is the reason why Mayweather or Pacquiao will never be my favourite fighters of all time.

- This really isn't nuthuggery. I can't believe how much hate he gets from a certain number of people on this forum. The hate is unwarranted, the arguments put up by the haters are unwarranted, it actually gets a little tiring because we've presented which exposes posters double standards and flawed logic. We've also openly admitted that Salido out of all people for a second fight is incredibly tough.

- It's hard not to be excited. I'm not excited about Lomachenko as an individual boxer per say. I'm excited for this era because it is going to be like the rising of Michael Jackson. The 90's era was FULL of ATG's. Do you just want to sit there and watch Robert Guerrero's, Felix? Mayweather, Pacquiao, Marquez, Wladmir, Froch are all leaving the sport in 2 years. That's 5 of the 10 P4P'ers, 4 of them being ATG's. It doesn't matter what race he's from, do you not want to witness an era where there is the continuation of the sweet science at its best? I'm excited about 2 fighters that I really think can carry that torch - Lomachenko and Robeisy Ramirez.

- This is why I truly believe that everyone should have the same attitude as us, with Lomachenko.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Dude I swear you say the same stuff about Anthony Joshua.
> 
> - You cant love boxing and hate Lomachenko at the same time. He's a straight up guy who will fight anyone and everyone which is so refreshing and something I respect more after the Mayweather-Pacquiao duck mastery scarred us all. This is the reason why Mayweather or Pacquiao will never be my favourite fighters of all time.
> 
> ...


Amen.

I can't picture Ramirez turning pro though.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Amen.
> 
> I can't picture Ramirez turning pro though.


We thought Khytrov wouldn't turn pro just recently! Keep the faith, it'll most likely (and hopefully will be) after 2016.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> We thought Khytrov wouldn't turn pro just recently! Keep the faith, it'll most likely (and hopefully will be) after 2016.


It's still very different with the Cubans though, with the Cubans able to fight in the WSB and make money now I think that further decreases the chances of Cubans turning over.


----------



## fists of fury (May 24, 2013)

Who's hating Lomachenko? I don't think anyone hates the guy...but of course when posters have extremely strong views of a fighter, you just know that there will be posters who take the opposite view, at least on the boards.


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

fists of fury said:


> Who's hating Lomachenko? I don't think anyone hates the guy...but of course when posters have extremely strong views of a fighter, you just know that there will be posters who take the opposite view, *at least on the boards*.


*and in real life*. Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum ain't bout shit but shit.

No one is hating on *Lomachenko,* we just retort, refute, rebuttal both of their silly, baseless and erroneous projections of a fighter who isn't nearly as good (or proven) as they want to claim he is.

From Tweedle-Dee's position, the more he talks about Vasyl, the better. He wants him to be recognized etc, so what better way to achieve that than to pin him to the greatest boxer active at the moment.

Tweedle-Dum's position is much the same.

No one is hating on Loma, we simply smash their shit talk every time they bring it up.

I've got especially no respect for Tweedle-Dee because I watched and saw him gearing up a year ago to get on this kick, the moment Rigondeaux beat Donaire, Tweedle-Dee flew off the handles with all his dumb-ass statements about Vasyl. Yoda is the one who gave Tweedle-Dee hope and the gall to tout Vasyl in such a ludicrous fashion before that he was on some small-talk time. After Yoda flunked Donaire's thesis: 'Boxing, my way' in front of everyone Tweedle-Dee went off!!!...Off about About Vasyl though..not Rigondeaux -which shows how transparent of a piece of shit he actually is. :lol: Its all on ESB and its pitiful and pathetic.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

browsing said:


> *and in real life*. Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum ain't bout shit but shit.
> 
> No one is hating on *Lomachenko,* *we just retort, refute, rebuttal both of their silly, baseless and erroneous projections of a fighter who isn't nearly as good (or proven) as they want to claim he is. *
> 
> ...


browsing you haven't established anything other than wittingly or unwittingly, along with your Loma haters, submitted to a logic which allows one to say 'Gabriel Rosado in 2013 is a better fighter than Rigondeaux was in 2010 and to say otherwise is an erroneous projection and must be considered silly.' Even though Rigo has learned but a mere microscopic amount at best since turning pro.


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

fists of fury said:


> Who's hating Lomachenko? I don't think anyone hates the guy...but of course when posters have extremely strong views of a fighter, you just know that there will be posters who take the opposite view, at least on the boards.


Nobody hates him. Fanboys just like to Claim that theire hero is hated.


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> browsing you haven't established anything other than wittingly or unwittingly, along with your Loma haters, submitted to a logic which allows one to say 'Gabriel Rosado in 2013 is a better fighter than Rigondeaux was in 2010 and to say otherwise is an erroneous projection and must be considered silly.' Even though Rigo has learned but a mere microscopic amount at best since turning pro.


I'm going to give you a second chance to make some sense.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

browsing said:


> I'm going to give you a second chance to make some sense.


Try and connect the dots. Judging by your low IQ, it will be a toughie...but good luck.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

fists of fury said:


> Who's hating Lomachenko? I don't think anyone hates the guy...but of course when posters have extremely strong views of a fighter, you just know that there will be posters who take the opposite view, at least on the boards.


If he loses to Salido, you won't see any of the Lomadoubters say 'Oh man, that sucks'. You'll see them tagging and bumping old quotes from us. They'd have the best time on CHB.


----------



## Berliner (Jun 6, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> If he loses to Salido, you won't see any of the Lomadoubters say 'Oh man, that sucks'. You'll see them tagging and bumping old quotes from us. They'd have the best time on CHB.


Lomadoubters? What is that? Who is that? And of course People will qoute your bold ass comments. Doesnt mean they are hating on Lomachenko. It means they laugh at you and Dealth-With because you two guys are big ass fanboys.


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Try and connect the dots. Judging by your low IQ, it will be a toughie...but good luck.


Aren't you a university student? That paragraph structure was unintelligible and sporadic. Do you really wan't to talk about IQ's with writing like that?

Let's not.

Again, I'm giving you a second chance at that.


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> If he loses to Salido, *you won't see any of the guys who disagree with us say 'Oh man, that sucks'. You'll see them tagging and bumping old quotes from us. They'd have the best time on CHB.*












:franklin

Lomadoubters? :lol:


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

MadcapMaxie said:


> You can't really be a fan of boxing and not be a fan of Lomachenko
> 
> can't really be a fan of boxing and not be a fan of Lomachenko
> 
> ...


:rofl


----------



## Drew101 (Jun 30, 2012)

bballchump11 said:


> :rofl


Yeah, I know, eh? I mean, I really like Vasyl's style and I think he's got a ton of potential, but c'mon now...people like what they're gonna like.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Drew101 said:


> Yeah, I know, eh? I mean, I really like Vasyl's style and I think he's got a ton of potential, but c'mon now...people like what they're gonna like.


:yep yeah, I haven't actually met anybody on this site who dislikes the guy. But I've read some asinine things in here


----------



## Bungle (Jun 5, 2013)

People on forums love to jump on the bandwagon of obscure foreign fighters, they did it with Matthysse and they are doing it with GGG and this guy.


----------



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

Bungle said:


> People on forums love to jump on the bandwagon of obscure foreign fighters, they did it with Matthysse and they are doing it with GGG and this guy.


emmanuel too


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

If Rigo learnt nothing since turning pro, how do you explain his poor showing against Cordoba vs his masterful showing against Ramos and Donaire?


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Bungle said:


> People on forums love to jump on the bandwagon of obscure foreign fighters, they did it with Matthysse and they are doing it with GGG and this guy.


Honestly, I wouldn't be raving about it for no reason. I stated the reason why I'm raving about Lomachenko in the previous page.

I'm not sorry for the fact that he's on par with Mayweather when Mayweather was younger, in terms of how good he is when you watch him.

No one has even had a discussion with me about the points I made because they don't have a case. All roads lead to Lomachenko.

The pro game has a bias towards rewarding Lomachenko's very pro style, in ways which wasn't in the amateurs even though he is widely regarded as one of the GOAT amateurs if not the GOAT.

Lomachenko can fight in a variety of ways and has and has so many gameplans watching his fights and even listening to his opponents talk about it, and has always done well against counter punchers and defensive fighters.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> If Rigo learnt nothing since turning pro, how do you explain his poor showing against Cordoba vs his masterful showing against Ramos and Donaire?


I didn't think it was a poor showing at all, and please don't talk about the knockdown which was really down to Rigo being unbalanced.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> I didn't think it was a poor showing at all, and please don't talk about the knockdown which was really down to Rigo being unbalanced.


It was caused by Rigo lunging into a punch


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

browsing said:


> *"10-2 Tweedle Dee" *
> "*Indeed *_ but I said 10-2 first Tweedle Dum." _


:rofl


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> I didn't think it was a poor showing at all, and please don't talk about the knockdown which was really down to Rigo being unbalanced.


I don't get your obsession with the knockdown.

I'm discussing how he looked during the fight. It was no where near how good he looked vs Ramos or Donaire.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> I didn't think it was a poor showing at all, and please don't talk about the knockdown which was really down to Rigo being unbalanced.


atsch Rigo got fucking buckled by a jab. a JAB. And it was a horrid, dreadful fight.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

wrong thread


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

raging Cow :rofl Forgot about that.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

turbotime said:


> raging Cow :rofl Forgot about that.


:lol: George was the best


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

So, I had some British tea with biscuits whilst compiling this from AIBA of the records for boxers who were about to go into the 2012 olympics..

I don't think you know how hard it is to win with the old system (not 10-9 must system), bare in mind that Vasyl managed to win with a pro style. 
In the past few years, here are the boxing records of the TOP amateurs i.e the frequent medalists:

Zhakypov 52-18
Ayrapetyan 49-10
Zou Shiming 53-8
Flissi 13-7
Veitia 50-9
---
Robeisy 57-12
Selby 45-22
Aloian 49-6
Tugstsogt 29-16

---
Nevin 54-16
Lazaro 54-13
Campbell 46-11
Vodopyanov 67-13
---
Petrauskas 48-10
Valentino 60-20
Han 17-18
Toledo 75-17
*Lomachenko 66-1 (but they didn't include a lot of scalps, which takes it up to approx 90-1)*
---
Yeleussinov 44-10
Lopes 64-27
Berinchyk 24-10
Iglesias 100+wins-22 losses
---
Kavaliauskas 46-25
Sapiyev 75-12
Shelestyuk 30-9
Evans 36-9
---
Khytrov 39-5
Gausha 17-9
Atoev 50-15
Esquiva 36-19
Murata 22-9
---
Gvozdyk 38-4
Niyazymbetov 29-13
Mekhontsev 53-6
Peraza 73-7
Yamaguchi 46-27
---
Beterbiev 77-7
Russo 60-15
Usyk 64-12
Mammadov 24-5
---
Joshua 21-2
Savon 53-14
Dychko 43-12
Medzhidov 22-5
Cammarelle 61-11

'Everyones beating eachother but no one's beating Lomachenko'


----------



## EngorgedW/Blood (Jun 5, 2013)

It's ridiculous. The guy would be at a disadvantage in every aspect. Height, reach, hand speed, defense. Lomachenko winning more than 2 rounds would be considered an upset.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

EngorgedW/Blood said:


> It's ridiculous. The guy would be at a disadvantage in every aspect. Height, reach, hand speed, defense. Lomachenko winning more than 2 rounds would be considered an upset.


Lomachenko was measured by Top Rank at 5'7, Mayweather is 5'8.
Lomachenko has already beaten some taller lightweights i.e Olympic silver medalist Han Soon Chul who is 5'10 with a very long reach, in the 2012 Olympic Final. 
Jose Carlos Ramirez who is 5'10 and has a 72.5' reach. 
Yasnier Toledo Lopez the 140lber who is a defensive slick cuban who is 5'9 and has a very long reach.

Hand speed?! Lomachenko was in AMATEUR BOXING, hello? He was also in the style where it wasn't a 10-9 must system, so speed would have been even more key. 
You haven't seen Lomachenko's defense.

Why comment? You haven't seen any of Lomachenko's fights otherwise you wouldn't use that argument. Lomachenko for the past few years has been unbeaten and dominating guys in a weightclass he is a little too small for!

lol no one has seen much of Lomachenko at all apart from me and Dealt.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

clueless motherfuckers


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> clueless motherfuckers


:deal You tell em devon alexander!


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> :deal You tell em devon alexander!


yeah man, after watching more of Loma, I realized you and Dealt_With are right. I think I'd pick Lomachenko to beat Pernell Witaker at 135. Roberto Duran would probably beat him though


----------



## EngorgedW/Blood (Jun 5, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Lomachenko was measured by Top Rank at 5'7, Mayweather is 5'8.
> Lomachenko has already beaten some taller lightweights i.e Olympic silver medalist Han Soon Chul who is 5'10 with a very long reach, in the 2012 Olympic Final.
> Jose Carlos Ramirez who is 5'10 and has a 72.5' reach.
> Yasnier Toledo Lopez the 140lber who is a defensive slick cuban who is 5'9 and has a very long reach.
> ...


You do realize that fighting a boxer of Mayweather's height with Mayweather's style, is a completely different ballgame than fighting a tall reckless Mexican brawler?

I hope you understand how height and reach would differ with styles?

This discussion is absolutely pointless. Lomachenko will never have the privilege of getting his ass kicked by Floyd. Fantasize all you want, wait till Rigondeaux, basically a Floyd clone, gets his hands on Lomachenko and takes him to school.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

EngorgedW/Blood said:


> You do realize that fighting a boxer of Mayweather's height with Mayweather's style, is a completely different ballgame than fighting a tall reckless Mexican brawler?
> 
> I hope you understand how height and reach would differ with styles?
> 
> This discussion is absolutely pointless. Lomachenko will never have the privilege of getting his ass kicked by Floyd. Fantasize all you want, wait till Rigondeaux, basically a Floyd clone, gets his hands on Lomachenko and takes him to school.


Well that's why I mentioned Yasnier Toledo, a guy that Loma beat twice in the amateurs even though Loma is a lot smaller than him. An important point to take from this is that Loma does well against a style like Mayweather's. Jose Carlos Ramirez = not Jose ***** Ramirez, and he isn't a brawler iehter.


----------



## conradically (Jul 12, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Well that's why I mentioned Yasnier Toledo, a guy that Loma beat twice in the amateurs even though Loma is a lot smaller than him. *An important point to take from this is that Loma does well against a style like Mayweather's*. Jose Carlos Ramirez = not Jose ***** Ramirez, and he isn't a brawler iehter.


Jose Carlos Ramirez was a 19 year old and rather crude fighter who gave Loma some problems. Yasniel Toledo does not really fight like Mayweather and he's not nearly as good. He was, moreover, recently beaten by 17 year old Erickson Lubin. So these examples don't really advance your case.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

conradically said:


> Jose Carlos Ramirez was a 19 year old and rather crude fighter who gave Loma some problems. Yasniel Toledo does not really fight like Mayweather and he's not nearly as good. He was, moreover, recently beaten by 17 year old Erickson Lubin. So these examples don't really advance your case.


Yeah, so what? Lomachenko actually beat him pretty easy, Jose wasn't landing with anything. I've seen the fight 4 times, first I thought it was close but I was passively watching it. Sidenote, he knocked down Jose even though Jose is so much bigger, I mean look at the size difference. 
He is still a defensive, slick counter puncher so he does have some form of similarity, and although he lost to a boxing prodigy in Lubin, you have to ask what Toledo turned up, and you also have to give weighting to Toledo's more positive side i.e 2xWorld Silver, one being at light welterweight last month, and Gold at PanAm, having beaten the World lightweight silver medalist 2013 for the Gold). The Toledo that showed up in BOTH occasions was ready and on point.
You've basically pissed on an amateur Great in Toledo, you're a shit poster conradically as usual.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

conradically said:


> Jose Carlos Ramirez was a 19 year old and rather crude fighter who gave Loma some problems. Yasniel Toledo does not really fight like Mayweather and he's not nearly as good. He was, moreover, recently beaten by 17 year old Erickson Lubin. So these examples don't really advance your case.


naw Toledo has a bronze and so does Floyd so Floyd=Toledo


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> naw Toledo has a bronze and so does Floyd so Floyd=Toledo


Rigondeaux lost to Mammadov. Donaire was a 30 year old + veteran pro when he got schooled by Rigondeaux. Donaire aint no Mammadov..

..even in your sarcastic humour, you thought you were making a point but you weren't.

:gunner


----------



## conradically (Jul 12, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> naw Toledo has a bronze and so does Floyd so Floyd=Toledo


Lubin beat Toledo. Toledo's style is like SRR. Lubin beats prime 147 SRR 10:2. easy work.


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> yeah man, after watching more of Loma, I realized you and Dealt_With are right. I think I'd pick Lomachenko to beat Pernell Witaker at 135. Roberto Duran would probably beat him though


If I was next time you when you typed this shit I'd slap the shit out of you to get your brains back right homie*. Real talk.*

You're letting tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum do what they want, which is, if they mention shit enough ppl will start to buy it.

:lol: Sweat Pea losing to Loma at 135 based on what you've seen from him so far? atsch


----------



## conradically (Jul 12, 2013)

browsing said:


> If I was next time you when you typed this shit I'd slap the shit out of you to get your brains back right homie*. Real talk.*
> 
> You're letting tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum do what they want, which is, if they mention shit enough ppl will start to buy it.
> 
> :lol: Sweat Pea losing to Loma at 135 based on what you've seen from him so far? atsch


bball is dead-panning I believe.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Rigondeaux lost to Mammadov. Donaire was a 30 year old + veteran pro when he got schooled by Rigondeaux. Donaire aint no Mammadov..
> 
> ..even in your sarcastic humour, you thought you were making a point but you weren't.
> 
> :gunner


So I guess Mammadov is the best amateur of all time then?



conradically said:


> Lubin beat Toledo. Toledo's style is like SRR. Lubin beats prime 147 SRR *10:2*. easy work.


Wow, shows how much boxing you know. Even in your sarcastic humor, you thought you were being smart, but showed your lack of knowledge.

Lubin would beat SRR *13:2 *:deal



browsing said:


> If I was next time you when you typed this shit I'd slap the shit out of you to get your brains back right homie*. Real talk.*
> 
> You're letting tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum do what they want, which is, if they mention shit enough ppl will start to buy it.
> 
> :lol: Sweat Pea losing to Loma at 135 based on what you've seen from him so far? atsch


Yeah dude, Lomachenko has better defense than Locche. 
He has more punching power than GGG. Can in fight better than James Toney. Can control distance better than Wlad. Can counterpunch better than Sweet Pea himself. And has an iron chin.

The only question is whether he can beat Duran or not at that weight


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> So I guess Mammadov is the best amateur of all time then?


No I was using double standards.

No offense but you guys are some of the dumbest guys I've communicated with. No critical thinking whatsoever. Complete shambles and just bs remarks all the time and no interest in an actual discussion. :-(


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

conradically said:


> Jose Carlos Ramirez was a 19 year old and rather crude fighter who gave Loma some problems. Yasniel Toledo does not really fight like Mayweather and he's not nearly as good. He was, moreover, recently beaten by 17 year old Erickson Lubin. So these examples don't really advance your case.


Yall need to stop entertaining tweedle-dum's silly assertions in relation to Mayweather. As if any fighter in the world is a good gauge for how someone will deal with the GrandMaster Boxing-Fu Dragon Mayweather Jr. :-( :lol:

No one is a good gauge for him which is half of the god damn problem everyone has when fighting against him. It's hard to prepare for Mayweather because you can't get in the sparring guys who are going to prepare you for him.

Now WTF does a dumbass like tweedle-dee look like comparing some* Amateurs* to Mayweather in skills or boxing IQ.

Don't get sucked into their game dude. :lol:


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

browsing said:


> Yall need to stop entertaining tweedle-dum's silly assertions in relation to Mayweather. As if any fighter in the world is a good gauge for how someone will deal with the GrandMaster Boxing-Fu Dragon Mayweather Jr. :-( :lol:
> 
> No one is a good gauge for him which is half of the god damn problem everyone has when fighting against him. It's hard to prepare for Mayweather because you can't get in the sparring guys who are going to prepare you for him.
> 
> ...


Yawn.

21 y/o Mayweather is special but he was inexperienced and not the finished package. Loma has already had better competition than Mayweather fighting cab drivers virtually up until the point of fighting Genaro.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> If Rigo learnt nothing since turning pro, how do you explain his poor showing against Cordoba vs his masterful showing against Ramos and Donaire?


Styles? Are you new to boxing? Any cautious southpaw counter puncher is going to make Rigo look less impressive, Rigo is a counter puncher.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> clueless motherfuckers


Give yourself a bit of credit, you're not completely clueless.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

EngorgedW/Blood said:


> You do realize that fighting a boxer of Mayweather's height with Mayweather's style, is a completely different ballgame than fighting a tall reckless Mexican brawler?
> 
> I hope you understand how height and reach would differ with styles?
> 
> This discussion is absolutely pointless. Lomachenko will never have the privilege of getting his ass kicked by Floyd. Fantasize all you want, wait till Rigondeaux, basically a Floyd clone, gets his hands on Lomachenko and takes him to school.


Talks about height and reach... either a boxing noob or the clueless motherfucker bball was talking about.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

browsing said:


> If I was next time you when you typed this shit I'd slap the shit out of you to get your brains back right homie*. Real talk.*
> 
> You're letting tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum do what they want, which is, if they mention shit enough ppl will start to buy it.
> 
> :lol: Sweat Pea losing to Loma at 135 based on what you've seen from him so far? atsch


Fark you are a dumb motherfucker.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

:rofl


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> No I was using double standards.
> 
> No offense but you guys are some of the dumbest guys I've communicated with. No critical thinking whatsoever. Complete shambles and just bs remarks all the time and no interest in an actual discussion. :-(


:rofl


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Fark you are a dumb motherfucker.


Don't try to dismiss me with your stupid pandering idiot.

Go pick up something heavy. :lol:


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Yawn.
> 
> 21 y/o Mayweather is special but he was inexperienced and not the finished package. Loma has already had better competition than Mayweather fighting cab drivers virtually up until the point of fighting Genaro.


:lol: You're a fucking idiot. If you think Lomachenko as he is now is good enough to take on the PRO game you're dumber than I thought. How old is Lomachenko in his first Pro fight? Okay then. Fuck outta

I almost feel sorry for you and dealt_With as you'll both never find the satisfaction in Lomachenko's career as true boxing fans find in Mayweather and his accomplishments. Maybe after you finish school and get a ob or in seven years Loma will have a strong career, but until then -until Loma has a stellar careers, dishes out a one handed win with a dislocated shoulder, until he bodies some legends in multiple weight classes, until he manages to secure mega-fight after mega-fight and demolish boxing threats, etc, etc, until has multiple title defenses in multiple weight classes and manages to show up like a pure Boxing-Fu Dragon- then all you've got is your weak ass message board posts and ludicrous dreams, you and that boxingcraft failer dealt_with.

:lol: Both of and Tweedle-dee keep it up, cause without your awful theorycraft i know you'd have no reason to post on the forums.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

browsing said:


> :lol: You're a fucking idiot. If you think Lomachenko as he is now is good enough to take on the PRO game you're dumber than I thought. How old is Lomachenko in his first Pro fight? Okay then. Fuck outta
> 
> I almost feel sorry for you and dealt_With as you'll both never find the satisfaction in Lomachenko's career as true boxing fans find in Mayweather and his accomplishments. Maybe after you finish school and get a ob or in seven years Loma will have a strong career, but until then -until Loma has a stellar careers, dishes out a one handed win with a dislocated shoulder, until he bodies some legends in multiple weight classes, until he manages to secure mega-fight after mega-fight and demolish boxing threats, etc, etc, until has multiple title defenses in multiple weight classes and manages to show up like a pure Boxing-Fu Dragon- then all you've got is your weak ass message board posts and ludicrous dreams, you and that boxingcraft failer dealt_with.
> 
> :lol: Both of and Tweedle-dee keep it up, cause without your awful theorycraft i know you'd have no reason to post on the forums.


Pure boxing-fu dragon? :lol:
How'd Floyd look against Augustus, Castillo, old ass Cotto? Floyd is human, a great fighter but he is beatable. You have him on a pedestal as some sort of boxing god, now I understand what a true nuthugger is. You're looking up at Floyd's nuts in awe trying to avoid being blinded by the sun shining out of his ass.
So this is why you're so mad, somebody had the audacity to mention that an athlete in a sport could beat another athlete in a sport. Floyd has a shit resume and avoided the toughest fights. You mad bruh?


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> *. You have him on a pedestal as some sort of boxing god, now I understand what a true nuthugger is.*


Come on man. Really?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Come on man. Really?


Dude, let me get this straight. I do not think Lomachenko or anybody else is unbeatable. Lomachenko losing would not personally affect me. It's others who hold professional boxers and their 'achievements' in such high regard who are 'nuthugging'. I take a fighter on face value. Lomachenko is the best I've ever seen. I don't have him on a pedestal, I'm stating what I see.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Titles dont really mean a lot imo. Ability/Skills + CV.

The first is highly subjective, and the latter sometimes debatable.


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Pure boxing-fu dragon? :lol:
> How'd Floyd look against Augustus, Castillo, old ass Cotto? Floyd is human, a great fighter but he is beatable. You have him on a pedestal as some sort of boxing god, now I understand what a true nuthugger is. You're looking up at Floyd's nuts in awe trying to avoid being blinded by the sun shining out of his ass.
> So this is why you're so mad, somebody had the audacity to mention that an athlete in a sport could beat another athlete in a sport. Floyd has a shit resume and avoided the toughest fights. You mad bruh?


You dumb pandering bitch. Of course Floyd is a Boxing-Fu Dragon. Over a decade of pure dominance with the most cerebral style in all of boxing with one of the best resumes ever.

How'd he look against Augustus? Ask Augustus. How'd he look against Castillo? Amazing. He beat him with one hand, and he came back and white washed his ass with two. How about Cotto? :lol: A superb fight against Cotto at his best.

Is Floyd beatable? Of course. Absolutely. Has he been beat? Nope. Floyd is the master of Boxing-Fu, in and out of the ring. I've got nothing to be mad about. Floyd has the fame, prestige and riches *all well deserved. 
*Jealous ******* like you love to try to siphon off that boxing excellence bytossing out whack ass assertions but true boxing fans like me will always be around to remind idiots like you that no matter how much you wish and cry about it your unproven untested fighters will never be shit compared to Mayweather or OTHERS, until they've done something worth a damn. So I'll see you in seven years. If Lomachenko is around that long. :lol: I know you mad about it, but fuck you. :lol:


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

browsing said:


> Is Floyd beatable? Of course. Absolutely. Has he been beat? Nope. Floyd is the master of Boxing-Fu, in and out of the ring. I've got nothing to be mad about. Floyd has the fame, prestige and riches *all well deserved. *


*

So you're excited about another mans money? Newsflash, you're not Floyd, and his achievements don't reflect on you :lol:*


----------



## browsing (Jun 9, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> So you're excited about another mans money? Newsflash, you're not Floyd, and his achievements don't reflect on you :lol:


Oh, I already know you know he's 45-0, so there isn't any point in bringing that up. Go ahead and tell me all those no-named euro bums from WSB that Loma beat though, Casanova and Valentino and Mario Bello. :lol:


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Dude, let me get this straight. I do not think Lomachenko or anybody else is unbeatable. Lomachenko losing would not personally affect me. It's others who hold professional boxers and their 'achievements' in such high regard who are 'nuthugging'. I take a fighter on face value. Lomachenko is the best I've ever seen. I don't have him on a pedestal, I'm stating what I see.


You don't think he's unbeatable, but you have him beating every single atg from 126 to 130? You have to have him on a pedestal when you give him this accolades when he hasn't proven himself vs top competition in the pros? "But he beat really good amateurs". Yeah but we're talking about the pros right now and he'd fight all these hypothetical fights in a pro fight.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> You don't think he's unbeatable, but you have him beating every single atg from 126 to 130? You have to have him on a pedestal when you give him this accolades when he hasn't proven himself vs top competition in the pros? "But he beat really good amateurs". Yeah but we're talking about the pros right now and he'd fight all these hypothetical fights in a pro fight.


Well we disagree when it comes to the amateurs. He's proven himself against Valdez, Verdejo, Ramirez, Toledo, Selimov. 
Lomachenko is the first fighter I've seen that has no visible weaknesses, until I see them in a 12 round fight I'm not going to assume they exist and that other fighters would beat him. I don't hold fighters in regard because they're 'pro', the best 'pros' are guys like Ward, GGG, Rigondeaux. Guys who were great in the amateurs. You look at them fight in the amateurs and there's very little that has changed up to this point when it comes to fundamentals and boxing ability.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Well we disagree when it comes to the amateurs. He's proven himself against Valdez, Verdejo, Ramirez, Toledo, Selimov.
> Lomachenko is the first fighter I've seen that has no visible weaknesses, until I see them in a 12 round fight I'm not going to assume they exist and that other fighters would beat him. I don't hold fighters in regard because they're 'pro', the best 'pros' are guys like Ward, GGG, Rigondeaux. Guys who were great in the amateurs. You look at them fight in the amateurs and there's very little that has changed up to this point when it comes to fundamentals and boxing ability.


I understand if you think he'll reach that level where he can defeat all these guys, but you think he was capable of doing it in his debut. All those guys needed time to adjust to the pros.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> I understand if you think he'll reach that level where he can defeat all these guys, but you think he was capable of doing it in his debut. All those guys needed time to adjust to the pros.


Those adjustments.. pacing and that's it. If you have a guy who trains hard and is mentally focused then it's nothing.


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Well we disagree when it comes to the amateurs. He's proven himself against Valdez, Verdejo, Ramirez, Toledo, Selimov.
> *Lomachenko is the first fighter I've seen that has no visible weaknesses, until I see them in a 12 round fight I'm not going to assume they exist and that other fighters would beat him*. I don't hold fighters in regard because they're 'pro', the best 'pros' are guys like Ward, GGG, Rigondeaux. Guys who were great in the amateurs. You look at them fight in the amateurs and there's very little that has changed up to this point when it comes to fundamentals and boxing ability.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

MadcapMaxie said:


>


Makes sense doesn't it? Why would I just assume he has a weakness when he's never shown one? I've seen 50+ Lomachenko fights and I've seen him deal with every style. Maybe one of those styles could give him problems over 12 but until I see that it would be irrational and foolish of me to pretend that he has weaknesses.


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)




----------



## adamcanavan (Jun 5, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> Makes sense doesn't it? Why would I just assume he has a weakness when he's never shown one? I've seen 50+ Lomachenko fights and I've seen him deal with every style. Maybe one of those styles could give him problems over 12 but until I see that it would be irrational and foolish of me to pretend that he has weaknesses.


The only weakness I've seen from loma is that he's open to body shots, salido is the perfect man to exploit that and then we'll find out just how great loma is. I think Loma has the potential to be the greates of this era and is gonna shine against salido personally, but a lot of questions will be asked and hopefully answered in this fight


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

Meh. I wasn't all that impressed. He is 25 and close to his prime, so why should we give him the same curve as someone 5-6 years younger?


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

adamcanavan said:


> The only weakness I've seen from loma is that he's open to body shots, salido is the perfect man to exploit that and then we'll find out just how great loma is. I think Loma has the potential to be the greates of this era and is gonna shine against salido personally, but a lot of questions will be asked and hopefully answered in this fight


Yeah, sometimes he stands up too straight or bends at the waist instead of the knees leaving his body open. I've never seen anyone really capitalise on it though, so I struggle to call it a weakness at this point.
Apparently Lomachenko requested that the Salido fight be pushed back a month, due to hand issues. I know Lomachenko had serious hand issues ~2009 so hopefully this isn't an issue that plagues him throughout his career.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

steviebruno said:


> Meh. I wasn't all that impressed. He is 25 and close to his prime, so why should we give him the same curve as someone 5-6 years younger?


He stopped a ranked guy in the 4th round of his debut and he's fighting for a world title in his next bout. Who's giving him a learning curve? He's jumping straight into the fire, the fact is that he's never been 12 before so it remains to be seen how he paces himself.
You weren't impressed with Lomachenko's debut?


----------



## adamcanavan (Jun 5, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> Yeah, sometimes he stands up too straight or bends at the waist instead of the knees leaving his body open. I've never seen anyone really capitalise on it though, so I struggle to call it a weakness at this point.
> Apparently Lomachenko requested that the Salido fight be pushed back a month, due to hand issues. I know Lomachenko had serious hand issues ~2009 so hopefully this isn't an issue that plagues him throughout his career.


The only knockdown in his career was a body shot too. Shame if the hands are a persistent issue, as long as the Salido fight happens I'll be happy. He'll be matching mikey garcia's best win in his 2nd pro fight, just incredible


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

adamcanavan said:


> The only knockdown in his career was a body shot too.


It was? How do you know that? I've heard Vasyl talk about it once and there was no mention of it being a body shot.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> He stopped a ranked guy in the 4th round of his debut and he's fighting for a world title in his next bout. Who's giving him a learning curve? He's jumping straight into the fire, the fact is that he's never been 12 before so it remains to be seen how he paces himself.
> You weren't impressed with Lomachenko's debut?


I cant imagine what the reaction would've been if the fight went the distance :lol: Ramirez was a damn solid opponent for a first professional fight, usually guys with a favorable won-loss record is fairly rare no matter who they are much less 25-3 and coming off what could legitimately be called a career best win and had never been stopped before. He drops the guy twice and stops him in the fourth round (on a body shot, no less) and it isnt impressive? The hell? :rofl

Salido was the legitimate 126 World Champ within just the last 12 months, this is a very tough challenge going in and I expect him to try and get quite physical and dirty, particularly with who he's going to be looking across the ring at.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> I cant imagine what the reaction would've been if the fight went the distance :lol: Ramirez was a damn solid opponent for a first professional fight, usually guys with a favorable won-loss record is fairly rare no matter who they are much less 25-3 and coming off what could legitimately be called a career best win and had never been stopped before. He drops the guy twice and stops him in the fourth round (on a body shot, no less) and it isnt impressive? The hell? :rofl
> 
> Salido was the legitimate 126 World Champ within just the last 12 months, this is a very tough challenge going in and I expect him to try and get quite physical and dirty, particularly with who he's going to be looking across the ring at.


:lol: Exactly, and people are claiming that there are no 'Lomachenko haters' :rolleyes
Lomachenko better not lose a round to Salido, otherwise he'll really have been exposed for the hypejob he is. You have the right idea, you're hyped about a guy being so ambitious and seeking greatness. Others were actually calling for Lomachenko to fight lesser competition before his debut, build a record on bums to build hype. Then you have others such as the guy I quoted and posters like bball who think that Lomachenko wasn't impressive stopping a guy early in a scheduled 10 rounder with a body shot, against a 28 fight pro who had never been stopped before.
There is always going to be irrational criticism of Lomachenko, which is why I don't care who is or isn't a fan of him. I'm going to enjoy watching a rare talent with a rare desire to fight the best, attempt to make history win or lose. I just feel sorry for everyone else waiting and hoping for him to fail, and I have to question how much of a boxing fan they actually are.


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

I'm just putting this out there nobody hates Lomachenko. I don't recall anyone calling a Loma a hype job beyond responding to the ridiculous claims you've instilled him with.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

MadcapMaxie said:


> I'm just putting this out there nobody hates Lomachenko. I don't recall anyone calling a Loma a hype job beyond responding to the ridiculous claims you've instilled him with.


If you think that Lomachenko wasn't impressive in his debut then:
a) YDKSAB
b) You're a hater
c) Both (the most likely option)

I think he's the best I've ever seen. You might disagree. But that's no reason not to take the performance in his debut on face value and recognise the prodigious boxing talent in front of you. I've seen many say that Lomachenko wasn't that impressive in his pro debut. Call that what you want, but I call it those aforementioned options. As early as round 2 in his debut we had people saying that Lomachenko isn't all that, without any consideration for the situation and the opponent. If I saw Floyd fighting Baldomir as his debut I could say "This is meant to be an all time great?". And Floyd doesn't have the excuse of it being the first time he set foot in the pro ring. People lack perspective and objectivity. In terms of fundamental boxing skills and ability Lomachenko is complete and the best I've ever seen. Pacing is something he has to learn, but just because he is learning to pace himself doesn't mean he's going to be losing rounds. It just means he might not be busy and perfect for every second of a fight until he has a few 12 rounders under his belt.


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> :lol: Exactly, and people are claiming that there are no 'Lomachenko haters' :rolleyes
> Lomachenko better not lose a round to Salido, otherwise he'll really have been exposed for the hypejob he is. You have the right idea, you're hyped about a guy being so ambitious and seeking greatness. Others were actually calling for Lomachenko to fight lesser competition before his debut, build a record on bums to build hype. Then you have others such as the guy I quoted and posters like bball who think that Lomachenko wasn't impressive stopping a guy early in a scheduled 10 rounder with a body shot, against a 28 fight pro who had never been stopped before.
> There is always going to be irrational criticism of Lomachenko, which is why I don't care who is or isn't a fan of him. I'm going to enjoy watching a rare talent with a rare desire to fight the best, attempt to make history win or lose. I just feel sorry for everyone else waiting and hoping for him to fail, and I have to question how much of a boxing fan they actually are.


I think he can handle Salido and look impressive doing it. You guys keep mentioning pacing, I'd also add poise and patience against Orlando. Vasyl has the tools of punching form, speed, accuracy, placement and variety - at least from what I can tell - to make him pay hard for the relentless aggression and pressure he's planning on bringing. He'll be wide open in a lot of instances flinging those looping shots. It's just a matter of weathering the rough and tumble moments that I won't be a bit surprised to see occur. Salido is no fuckin egg to be easily cracked, so I'm practically dying in anticipation to see where his power (impressive as the KO4 was) and physical strength at the weight are really at though with all the aforementioned factors it really needn't be anything more than above average. All pissing contests aside this is a tremendously exciting fight for boxing. I mean even if you think he's a hype job for whatever silly reason, then you should be equally excited as the buck stops here, no? :think I don't see that type of confidence in a Salido victory when I look around though... just what Lomachenko hasn't done yet.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> I think he can handle Salido and look impressive doing it. You guys keep mentioning pacing, I'd also add poise and patience against Orlando. Vasyl has the tools of punching form, speed, accuracy, placement and variety - at least from what I can tell - to make him pay hard for the relentless aggression and pressure he's planning on bringing. He'll be wide open in a lot of instances flinging those looping shots. It's just a matter of weathering the rough and tumble moments that I won't be a bit surprised to see occur. Salido is no fuckin egg to be easily cracked, so I'm practically dying in anticipation to see where his power (impressive as the KO4 was) and physical strength at the weight are really at though with all the aforementioned factors it really needn't be anything more than above average. All pissing contests aside this is a tremendously exciting fight for boxing. I mean even if you think he's a hype job for whatever silly reason, then you should be equally excited as the buck stops here, no? :think I don't see that type of confidence in a Salido victory when I look around though... just what Lomachenko hasn't done yet.


:deal Well said. 
One thing that concerns me is that Lomachenko only came into the ring at 129 for his debut. He's been fighting in the amateurs for so long where you basically have to fight at your training weight. Salido and his future opponents are going to weigh a lot more than him in the ring if he keeps doing it like that. He looked gaunt against Ramirez, he needs to drain himself and come into the ring as the big 126 he is rather than trying to literally shrink himself down, he should be 135+ in the ring.


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> Styles? Are you new to boxing? Any cautious southpaw counter puncher is going to make Rigo look less impressive, Rigo is a counter puncher.


nah followed boxing since the days of Bruno.

I disagree. I think if today's Rigo fought that version of Cordoba he'd dominate him.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

browsing said:


> :lol: You're a fucking idiot. If you think Lomachenko as he is now is good enough to take on the PRO game you're dumber than I thought. How old is Lomachenko in his first Pro fight? Okay then. Fuck outta
> 
> I almost feel sorry for you and dealt_With as you'll both never find the satisfaction in Lomachenko's career as true boxing fans find in Mayweather and his accomplishments. Maybe after you finish school and get a ob or in seven years Loma will have a strong career, but until then -until Loma has a stellar careers, dishes out a one handed win with a dislocated shoulder, until he bodies some legends in multiple weight classes, until he manages to secure mega-fight after mega-fight and demolish boxing threats, etc, etc, until has multiple title defenses in multiple weight classes and manages to show up like a pure Boxing-Fu Dragon- then all you've got is your weak ass message board posts and ludicrous dreams, you and that boxingcraft failer dealt_with.
> 
> :lol: Both of and Tweedle-dee keep it up, cause without your awful theorycraft i know you'd have no reason to post on the forums.


You're arguing your point from a flawed premise and you're trying too hard to hammer it home, it's just not happening. Well, he's proven he can handle adversity i.e fought with a broken hand throughout the world amateur championships in which he only conceded a total of 7 points out of all of the 5 people he faced.

No. 'Until he does this, that and the other'...that's like me saying until a pre-Donaire Rigondeaux beats legends etc. I can't consider him on the class of Hamed, Barrera etc. Just like I was able to see Mayweather pre-Genaro and say 'wow, this guy is elite', I can do so with Lomachenko. I take it you've never heard of apriori before.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> Come on man. Really?


Who in history do you have him beating? Because using your logic, you sure as hell can't say he beats Duran, Chavez etc. because there's a difference between a Corrales and a Duran. I'm going to hold you and your fanboys to double standards. I freely believe he'd SD Duran and UD Chavez.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

browsing said:


> Oh, I already know you know he's 45-0, so there isn't any point in bringing that up. Go ahead and tell me all those no-named euro bums from WSB that Loma beat though, Casanova and Valentino and Mario Bello. :lol:


Oh wow, 45-0 with a huge chunk of them being bums and the vast majority of bigger names not being as good as Robert Guerrero's daddy, Salido :lol: Lomachenko is too great to share the ring with a bum.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> You don't think he's unbeatable, but you have him beating every single atg from 126 to 130? You have to have him on a pedestal when you give him this accolades when he hasn't proven himself vs top competition in the pros? "But he beat really good amateurs". Yeah but we're talking about the pros right now and he'd fight all these hypothetical fights in a pro fight.


From a guy who thinks Amir Khan is better than Robeisy Ramirez atsch


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

The top amateurs today, a good proportion who will make very good pros, have many losses on the top level. Lomachenko however has always risen to the occasion and there's no one style that is his achilles hill and he's proven that. This is what you call 'the complete fighter'.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

Luf said:


> nah followed boxing since the days of Bruno.
> 
> I disagree. I think if today's Rigo fought that version of Cordoba he'd dominate him.


Based on what? Rigo fights exactly the same as he did as an amateur, maybe just a bit less aggressive. He'll look less than spectacular against another defensive counter puncher if he fights another one. People act like he suddenly became an amazing fighter against Donaire, he's always been brilliant. But styles make fights, and there are styles that can give Rigo a lot of trouble. I think Rigo was dominant against Cordoba anyway, he just took his foot off the gas in the second half to get the 12 rounds in. The knockdown was just a balance thing and the scorecards were way too close.


----------



## Paddy85 (Oct 12, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> The top amateurs today, a good proportion who will make very good pros, have many losses on the top level. Lomachenko however has always risen to the occasion and there's no one style that is his achilles hill and he's proven that. This is what you call 'the complete fighter'.


One of the main differences between amateur and pro boxing is that a pro fight is much longer. What's remarkable about Lomachenko is that even fighting top amateurs he managed to win consistently over what's a relatively short fight. A lot of boxers need more time to really get on top of their opponents. The flip side of that is that it's not clear if he can be worn down over a long fight, since he hasn't had any. There's not much doubt that he could be competitive against anyone over 3 rounds, but in terms of 12 round fights you need to see him fight those before you can judge him as a top level pro.

He beat Selimov on a split decision in the WSB. I can't really remember the fight too well, but it wasn't an easy fight for him and I think he got worse as the fight went on.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Paddy85 said:


> One of the main differences between amateur and pro boxing is that a pro fight is much longer. What's remarkable about Lomachenko is that even fighting top amateurs he managed to win consistently over what's a relatively short fight. A lot of boxers need more time to really get on top of their opponents. The flip side of that is that it's not clear if he can be worn down over a long fight, since he hasn't had any. There's not much doubt that he could be competitive against anyone over 3 rounds, but in terms of 12 round fights you need to see him fight those before you can judge him as a top level pro.
> 
> He beat Selimov on a split decision in the WSB. I can't really remember the fight too well, but it wasn't an easy fight for him and I think he got worse as the fight went on.


When I first watched the Selimov fight, I thought it was a very close 3-2 decision, but watching it 4 more times, I realised that it's a 4-1 decision for Lomachenko. Selimov has always been the one to cause problems, Selimov is clearly going to be a great pro if he ever decides to turn. Selimov, like many of the others, hit Lomachenko's gloves quite often.

I'd say at this stage that Lomachenko has experience as a 5 round fighter now with his 6 wins at WSB. He's proven his quality as if you've seen WSB records across all weight divisions, I don't think you'll actually find someone with a 6-0 record, it's simply so hard to do as everyones beating eachother but no one's beating Lomachenko.

Fortunately for Lomachenko, he spars 15 rounds with bigger fighters and is known for his fitness (it's mentioned in almost every fight of his from WSB to amateurs), so it doesn't appear that he will be worn out.

Lomachenko is also very lucky in that the professional style of scoring is bias towards his style, and that wasn't necessarily the case for the amateurs, so the pro ranks will be more rewarding of Loma. Lomachenko also said in a recent interview that it helps him more that it's over 12 rounds because it allows him to slow down and think more. Lomachenko is already a cerebral fighter who can think at ridiculously fast levels, hence his great amateur record, so just imagine how he'd be if he's given more time and space to think? You're giving a cerebral fighter more time and space to be more cerebral, that's scary. He'd pick his punches even better and will be extremely efficient. I wouldn't be shocked if I see him land 60%+ of his power punches in his fights down the line.

Everything I have said here logically follows eachother and doesn't sound farfetched when you break it down, but the Lomahaters will look at this and be like 'what a joke etc.', highlighting their poor critical thinking abilities.

It's pretty much agreed upon by everyone that amateur Loma beats amateur Mayweather...but pro Mayweather has more time to think and adapt/adjust....well, it's a two way street, considerably for Loma and his style too, he has more time to think and adapt/adjust too. Woah, holy shit, what I've just written right now has actually made me even more excited for Loma's career, EVEN IF HE LOSES AGAINST SALIDO (even though he wont).


----------



## Paddy85 (Oct 12, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> When I first watched the Selimov fight, I thought it was a very close 3-2 decision, but watching it 4 more times, I realised that it's a 4-1 decision for Lomachenko. Selimov has always been the one to cause problems, Selimov is clearly going to be a great pro if he ever decides to turn. Selimov, like many of the others, hit Lomachenko's gloves quite often.
> 
> I'd say at this stage that Lomachenko has experience as a 5 round fighter now with his 6 wins at WSB. He's proven his quality as if you've seen WSB records across all weight divisions, I don't think you'll actually find someone with a 6-0 record, it's simply so hard to do as everyones beating eachother but no one's beating Lomachenko.
> 
> ...


12 round fights might suit him well, but we know they suit Mayweather well. Lomachenko has huge potential as a pro, and it's a safe bet that he'll at the very least make a good pro, but you just can't know how he'll do against the best over 12 rounds. Of course against most opponents 12 rounds is going to suit Lomachenko better than his opponent, but there's no guarantee that that's also true against the best pros in the world. Sparring 15 rounds isn't really relevant, Lomachenko has proven himself over 3 rounds and 5 rounds against top level boxers, but he has to prove himself over 12 against the best before it's reasonable to claim that he's as good as you claim. He might turn out to be as good as you say he is, but it doesn't mean that predicting it without seeing him actually fight anyone really good over a fight scheduled for 12 rounds makes sense.


----------



## ponysmallhorse (Jun 7, 2013)

Breaking news!!!!
Lomachenko - Salido WILL HAPPEN!!! On march 1st on Chavez - Vera undercart in Texas or LA!!!! 
You heard it here first!!!


----------



## DrMo (Jun 6, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> I'd say at this stage that Lomachenko has experience as a 5 round fighter now with his 6 wins at WSB. He's proven his quality as if you've seen WSB records across all weight divisions, I don't think you'll actually find someone with a 6-0 record, it's simply so hard to do as everyones beating eachother but no one's beating Lomachenko.


Selby is 7-0, Clemente Russo is 17-1 (went 16-0) & Derevyanchenko is 19-1 (went 16-0)

There probably more guys that've gone 6-0 or better but I wouldn't claim any of them can beat every ATG in their weight division


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

DrMo said:


> Selby is 7-0, Clemente Russo is 17-1 (went 16-0) & Derevyanchenko is 19-1 (went 16-0)
> 
> There probably more guys that've gone 6-0 or better but I wouldn't claim any of them can beat every ATG in their weight division


Yeah I know, but that's why I said 'virtually'. My point does still stand. Derevyanchenko is 18-2 in my eyes because he clearly lost to Mytrofanov. 
One notable point about Selby is that he's 7-0 but against the weakest competition in the series, whereas Lomachenko fought beasts. 
Russo is a beast who would be a very good pro btw but again, his competition wasn't as strong as Lomachenko's either.


----------



## DrMo (Jun 6, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Yeah I know, but that's why I said 'virtually'. *My point does still stand. *Derevyanchenko is 18-2 in my eyes because he clearly lost to Mytrofanov.
> One notable point about Selby is that he's 7-0 but against the weakest competition in the series, whereas Lomachenko fought beasts.
> Russo is a beast who would be a very good pro btw but again, his competition wasn't as strong as Lomachenko's either.


Your point seems to be that because Loma had 6 fights in the WSB, he beats Arguello.

Selby beat some good fighters & in a weight class above his natural one.

Usyk fought tougher competition in the WSB than Loma did. Russo isn't a beast, he's an awful spoiler these days.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

DrMo said:


> Your point seems to be that because Loma had 6 fights in the WSB, he beats Arguello.
> 
> Selby beat some good fighters & in a weight class above his natural one.
> 
> Usyk fought tougher competition in the WSB than Loma did. Russo isn't a beast, he's an awful spoiler these days.


Your clasping onto straws here. 
The only good fighter Selby beat was Toitov and the bantamweight is 50-54kg in WSB, which means there are many more smaller guys. 126lbs was abolished in amateurs, which meant Lomachenko HAD to move up and he was small for the weight, you can see that. I mean, give Lomachenko a slight weight advantage and he'll KO everybody just like he did to none other than Andrew Selby :lol:
Usyk is one of my faves, he's not as good as Loma in WSB. 
King Russo!!!
My point is that Lomachenko had 34 rounds, with a world ranked fighter and very good amateurs/amateur Greats, and ones that look like they'll make v.good pros and had very good WSB careers so far. This is far more educational then a TKO6 over Rico Ramos, or any bum that Rigondeaux has faced. The fact that Donaire was schooled the way he was shows that Rigondeaux supporters should not have been hated on if they felt Rigondeaux was one of the very best they've seen. He certainly is in my opinion, someone who can beat the likes of a Barrera, Hamed or Morales for example, and beating Donaire just strengthens that already existing opinion and offers it that extra bit of plausibility. I really think people are being lazy mentally and too scared to think for themselves and say 'Yes, I know Lomachenko hasn't been 12 rounds before, but then again, nor did Mayweather until his 3rd title fight yet he beat one of the greatest 130lbers ever in Genaro Hernandez. The point is, Lomachenko can handle the best'. I believe in my understanding of boxing, enough to say I think Lomachenko beats Arguello despite the points raised by those who doubt.


----------



## conradically (Jul 12, 2013)

Paddy85 said:


> 12 round fights might suit him well, but we know they suit Mayweather well. Lomachenko has huge potential as a pro, and it's a safe bet that he'll at the very least make a good pro, but you just can't know how he'll do against the best over 12 rounds. Of course against most opponents 12 rounds is going to suit Lomachenko better than his opponent, but there's no guarantee that that's also true against the best pros in the world. Sparring 15 rounds isn't really relevant, Lomachenko has proven himself over 3 rounds and 5 rounds against top level boxers, but he has to prove himself over 12 against the best before it's reasonable to claim that he's as good as you claim. He might turn out to be as good as you say he is, but it doesn't mean that predicting it without seeing him actually fight anyone really good over a fight scheduled for 12 rounds makes sense.


yet another patient (and particularly good) explanation of the key issues.

Lomachenko is a superb prospect. He will very likely be a great pro. We don't know how great. We cannot know. We can only _project_ and projection is fallible.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Who in history do you have him beating? Because using your logic, you sure as hell can't say he beats Duran, Chavez etc. because there's a difference between a Corrales and a Duran. I'm going to hold you and your fanboys to double standards. I freely believe he'd SD Duran and UD Chavez.


Who do I have beating Mayweather? At 130, I think he's capable of beating anybody there. The division didn't exist when Henry Armstrong was around and Pep, so I'm leaving fighters from that era at. 
I think Floyd is all wrong for Alexis Arguello and he'd beat Azumah Nelson also. His toughest fight would be Chavez at that weight. I've always envisioned Mayweather losing a close SD/MD to Chavez and then winning a rematch and a third fight wider.

At 135, Duran beats him for sure. Floyd would beat Duran at 154. The Floyd that beat Canelo takes the Duran that lost to Benítez and Laing



The Undefeated Gaul said:


> From a guy who thinks Amir Khan is better than Robeisy Ramirez atsch


If you're going to reply to me, don't come back with some stupid shit like this


----------



## Luf (Jun 6, 2012)

Dealt_with said:


> Based on what? Rigo fights exactly the same as he did as an amateur, maybe just a bit less aggressive. He'll look less than spectacular against another defensive counter puncher if he fights another one. People act like he suddenly became an amazing fighter against Donaire, he's always been brilliant. But styles make fights, and there are styles that can give Rigo a lot of trouble. I think Rigo was dominant against Cordoba anyway, he just took his foot off the gas in the second half to get the 12 rounds in. The knockdown was just a balance thing and the scorecards were way too close.


Based on me thinking he looks to have improved a lot over his few pro fights.

taking foot off the gas or not, he lost rounds to Cordoba that he just wouldn't lose today. There's no way he'd have a close fight with Cordoba given how good he is now.


----------



## DrMo (Jun 6, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Your clasping onto straws here.
> The only good fighter Selby beat was Toitov and the bantamweight is 50-54kg in WSB, which means there are many more smaller guys.







Loma hasn't fought 34 rounds as a pro, WSB is not professional boxing.


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

DrMo said:


> Loma hasn't fought 34 rounds as a pro, WSB is not professional boxing.


No, but it's a pro-setting pretty much, and fairfax calls it pros, although I don't call it completely pro per say, I still think that these 30 rounds should be considered for discussions.

Ok I forgot Conlan, BUT I don't really rate Conlan as a pro/WSB boxer so much. Lomachenko completely outclassed all of his competition (who were very good) in a Roy Jones esque fashion, apart from Selimov in which I feel it was a competitive 4-1 decision for Loma.


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

Dealt_with said:


> Those adjustments.. pacing and that's it. If you have a guy who trains hard and is mentally focused then it's nothing.


I think it's more than just that. Pacing goes into a part of this, but I've seen him fade a little in the WSB toward rounds 4/5. He has a high energy style, so it'd make sense if he did and that's why he's working on his pacing now of course. It was especially in the Selimov fight where it seemed like his body punching was wearing him down a little. 
This probably won't be an issue in the future, but this is why we have to see him vs elite *pros * first over 10-12 rounds. A style that you don't see as often in the amateurs where a fighter will throw away the early rounds and start investing to body. I think we both know Saldio is the fighter that fits that description.

You think it won't be an issue at all, but the truth is, neither of us really know. That's everybody who's opposite of your stance is saying. There's too many projections, assumptions and unknown variables to outright proclaim the things you're saying at this moment in time. 
I forgot whether it was you or @The Undefeated Gaul who said not to obsess over resumes and use the eye test. But one reason resumes are so important, because to quote Andre Ward "We all look like KO artist against C level opposition".

One thing that makes Roy such a H2H monster for a lot of people was that he looked untouchable vs weak competition yes, but he was also spectacular vs great competition in James Toney and Hopkins


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Lucky he didn't rupture and tear the ligaments in his right knee. That looked potentially catastrophic.


----------



## Rudyard (May 23, 2013)

WOW, I'm lost for words as to why these two stans could fix their mouth to say something so silly!:-(


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Rudyard said:


> WOW, I'm lost for words as to why these two stans could fix their mouth to say something so silly!:-(


----------



## Hands of Iron (Jun 27, 2012)

Gunner said:


> Speaking about Lomanchenko
> 
> This sort of thing cannot be allowed to go on


:lol:


----------



## Gunner (Jun 4, 2013)

:think


----------



## Atlanta (Sep 17, 2012)

Have these retards killed themselves yet?


----------



## Rudyard (May 23, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


>


:lol: I thought he was going to win snitch?


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Rudyard said:


> :lol: I thought he was going to win snitch?


Yeah shame, so did 18/21 boxing experts.


----------



## Rudyard (May 23, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> Yeah shame, so did 18/21 boxing experts.


whatever you say snitch:lol:


----------



## DrMo (Jun 6, 2012)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> We give sound reasoning, all you guys do is moan and say 'he's only 1-0' when you know that's not painting an accurate picture of Loma.


Correct

He's 1-1, not 1-0


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> I think it's more than just that. Pacing goes into a part of this, but I've seen him fade a little in the WSB toward rounds 4/5. He has a high energy style, so it'd make sense if he did and that's why he's working on his pacing now of course. It was especially in the Selimov fight where it seemed like his body punching was wearing him down a little.
> This probably won't be an issue in the future, but this is why we have to see him vs elite *pros * first over 10-12 rounds. A style that you don't see as often in the amateurs where a fighter will throw away the early rounds and start investing to body. I think we both know Saldio is the fighter that fits that description.
> 
> You think it won't be an issue at all, but the truth is, neither of us really know. That's everybody who's opposite of your stance is saying. There's too many projections, assumptions and unknown variables to outright proclaim the things you're saying at this moment in time.
> ...


:deal


----------



## DaCrooked (Jun 6, 2013)

lol


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> I think it's more than just that. Pacing goes into a part of this, but I've seen him fade a little in the WSB toward rounds 4/5. He has a high energy style, so it'd make sense if he did and that's why he's working on his pacing now of course. It was especially in the Selimov fight where it seemed like his body punching was wearing him down a little.
> This probably won't be an issue in the future, but this is why we have to see him vs elite *pros * first over 10-12 rounds. A style that you don't see as often in the amateurs where a fighter will throw away the early rounds and start investing to body. I think we both know Saldio is the fighter that fits that description.
> 
> You think it won't be an issue at all, but the truth is, neither of us really know. That's everybody who's opposite of your stance is saying. There's too many projections, assumptions and unknown variables to outright proclaim the things you're saying at this moment in time.
> ...


This was a piss poor post. Body punching wasn't wearing Loma down at all, and not in the Salido fight either especially considering a lot of them didnt land but you and other judges wrongly gave him credit for that.

Salido didn't throw away the early rounds, Lomachenko threw it away with his strategy.
http://checkhookboxing.com/showthre...-WON-the-fight-Post-your-SCORECARDS-Here*-*-*


----------



## steviebruno (Jun 5, 2013)

I think that Loma failed the eye test last night.


----------



## Cableaddict (Jun 6, 2013)

Hands of Iron said:


> I'm finding this whole thing terribly entertaining actually :lol:


:deal


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> This was a piss poor post. Body punching wasn't wearing Loma down at all, and not in the Salido fight either especially considering a lot of them didnt land but you and other judges wrongly gave him credit for that.
> 
> Salido didn't throw away the early rounds, Lomachenko threw it away with his strategy.
> http://checkhookboxing.com/showthre...-WON-the-fight-Post-your-SCORECARDS-Here*-*-*


the main point is Lomachenko hasn't fought top competition yet, so you can make all the dumbass assumptions and projections you were making. He didn't get the pacing right for the pros and I knew it was going to be an issue. Instead of him going too fast though, he did the opposite and went too slow.

It all equals to one thing though, 1-1


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> the main point is Lomachenko hasn't fought top competition yet, so you can make all the dumbass assumptions and projections you were making. He didn't get the pacing right for the pros and I knew it was going to be an issue. Instead of him going too fast though, he did the opposite and went too slow.
> 
> It all equals to one thing though, 1-1


They weren't dumbass assumptions at all. But I did make the assumption when making the prediction that he'd have learned from the Ramirez fight.


----------



## Zopilote (Jun 5, 2013)

:rofl:rofl:rofl

great bump!


----------



## tommygun711 (Jun 4, 2013)

The Undefeated Gaul said:


> They weren't dumbass assumptions at all. But I did make the assumption when making the prediction that he'd have learned from the Ramirez fight.


And of course you were wrong, he got outhustled.


----------

