Where do you rank Vasyl Lomachenko P4P?

[p4pking]

I think peoples lists are crazy. Chocolatito, Loma and Rigo are far far better than Ward or Kovalev. Granted they are right at the top but there is a big gap between the top 3 and Ward/Kovalev.

And each is multiple weight champions. It's not like they are unproven. Maybe they don't get quite the stage but they are better. And better is what P4P should be.

Ward was my number 1b a few years back with mayweather. The only reason I didn't have him above mayweather was because he never lost it. Ward in the top few best fighters that I've watched for the past 15 years.

He has declined a little but showed against kovalev that he is still really good. No other guy on your top 3 has moved up in weight to fight anyone anywhere near the level of kovalev.

Chocolatito has won titles in 4 divisions. He's already fighting people far bigger than him.

I give Ward respect for moving up to fight Kovalev but 3 out of 4 people think he lost. How you perform matters. Loma isn't turning a boxing match into a tussle because he's getting pounded when he tries to box. Nobody wants to box with Rigo. Chocolatito doesn't need to use tricks, he'll just throw 1000 punches always with perfect balance, perfect timing, perfect selection from perfect positioning.

4 years ago the gap would be closer, but Ward was never as good as these guys. These guys are special.

This is what so many people seem to omit, and I don't understand it. Why else even talk about it.

[g3org3]

He's top 5 and could easily be number 1 in the next year depends who he gets next

[Primo Carnera]

I've always said P4P rankings are a complete waste of time and a crock of shit after working out the Best fighter on the Planet and maybe #2 & #3. It's so subjective and there are too many parameters. I would probably say.
1. Chocolatito
2.Ward
3.Crawford
I would stop there. everything else is meaningless bollocks. GGG is nowhere near it, not all his fault, but he hasn't fought enough quality opposition and he has only operated at one weight. I wouldn't have Kovalev either , because he did lose to Ward whether we like it or not. and even if he beat Ward, we did see him struggle to impose his fight on him. And I wouldn't have Rigo for the same reasons that I didn't have Ward a while back..... a lack of meaningful fights. Again, not all his fault, but to be the best on the Planet means constantly proving that.

[mikeeod]

P4P is subjective and different (in my opinion) than historical ranking. I rank P4P based on who I think would beat every other fighter if we could somehow magically shrink/grow them all to the same size while maintaining proportional speed, power, reflexes...etc. Historical ranking to me is based on resume' and accomplishment.

With that in mind, when I look at what Loma did to Walters, and what Rigo did to Donaire, I place them as my 1 and 2. Kov and Ward are tough as nails, great boxers, and worthy of P4P ranking, but neither would be able to handle what Loma Rigo do in the ring. Ward is a little more willing to grapple/make things ugly, but I don't think even that would matter due to Loma/Rigo footwork.

GGG and Crawford are impressive in their own way. GGG is an aggressive, technically sound boxer with scary power in both hands. He's great at cutting off the ring, but he has never faced the skills Loma/Rigo bring and think the would both have him walking into big shots for as long as the fight lasts. Crawford may be on par with both, but I haven't seen him in the ring with a fighter as good as Donaire/Walters (Gamboa was small and rusty).

Chocolatito is solid and looks to be a smaller version of GGG to me. Very aggressive, solid fundamentals, applies constant pressure and looks for the ko in every fight. I feel like he does have better movement/footwork than GGG, so I feel like he presents additional dimensions/concerns for other fighters and can see a solid case for ranking him above Loma/Rigo. That being said, I have him #3 on my list behind Rigo/Loma.

This brings me to my toughest dilemma: how to rank Loma/Rigo against each other. Hard to be unbiased in this one because we (fight fans) tend to rank/admire offensive fighters higher than more defensive fighters due to aesthetics. Think Julio Ceasar Chavez and Pernell Whitaker.

Loma is much more aesthetically pleasing and exciting in the ring, has great defense, and is able to shut down elite fighters' offense. Rigo is a freak of nature athletically, not as offensive minded or explosive, but likely better at shutting down and frustrating an opponent. These two are unbelievably skilled and talented, but if I have to pick between them I guess I will have to go with Loma due to his offensive capabilities and punch output. So... I place Loma at #1 right now.

[vidgil]

To me, P4P is not simply about who you think has the best skills, it's also about achievement.

Vasyl has achieved a lot in his short career. I imagine he's achieved more in 8 fights than anyone in boxing history. But I think he needs to win more big fights to achieve that #1 spot.

It's hard to rank him above a guy like Andre Ward, who has spent years beating the top contenders and just pulled off the victory of a life time over Kovalev. As much as I feel Kovalev won, it was a very close fight and Ward got the judges nod in the end, so the result must be respected.

[powerpuncher]

Most people are the same when it comes to ranking fighters. They look at the last few fights and see this unstoppable fighter that can't be beaten and forget about their struggles.

I remember when pac was having his impressive run, there were people asking if he were the best fighter ever. It was ridiculous, but at the time, he was looking really good. Now that everything has settled down, most people have understood that he is an ATG, but nowhere near the best ever.

This is the case with Loma and rigo. I remember watching rigo struggle earlier in his career and seeing him get hurt/knocked down. He looked good but not great. Then he beats donaire and a few other guys and people see him as this guy who literally shuts out every guy he has ever fought. That's just not true. He hasn't beaten enough good competition for me to say that he is the best boxer. I don't have enough evidence.

Loma is the same. He struggled with salido, and even struggled at times against Russell. I scored that fight 8-4 for Loma. Loma couldn't just make him quit like he did with Walters. It was still an impressive win, but he lost rounds still and showed vulnerabilities.

But as I said before, when someone has a few really impressive fights in a row, we tend to forget their struggles previously and act as if they shut out all of their opponents.

Therefore, kovalev and ward are the best on my list because they have both proven to be dominant for a long time and against a lot more opponents.

[iwng100]

P4P is subjective and different (in my opinion) than historical ranking. I rank P4P based on who I think would beat every other fighter if we could somehow magically shrink/grow them all to the same size while maintaining proportional speed, power, reflexes...etc. Historical ranking to me is based on resume' and accomplishment.

With that in mind, when I look at what Loma did to Walters, and what Rigo did to Donaire, I place them as my 1 and 2. Kov and Ward are tough as nails, great boxers, and worthy of P4P ranking, but neither would be able to handle what Loma Rigo do in the ring. Ward is a little more willing to grapple/make things ugly, but I don't think even that would matter due to Loma/Rigo footwork.

GGG and Crawford are impressive in their own way. GGG is an aggressive, technically sound boxer with scary power in both hands. He's great at cutting off the ring, but he has never faced the skills Loma/Rigo bring and think the would both have him walking into big shots for as long as the fight lasts. Crawford may be on par with both, but I haven't seen him in the ring with a fighter as good as Donaire/Walters (Gamboa was small and rusty).

Chocolatito is solid and looks to be a smaller version of GGG to me. Very aggressive, solid fundamentals, applies constant pressure and looks for the ko in every fight. I feel like he does have better movement/footwork than GGG, so I feel like he presents additional dimensions/concerns for other fighters and can see a solid case for ranking him above Loma/Rigo. That being said, I have him #3 on my list behind Rigo/Loma.

This brings me to my toughest dilemma: how to rank Loma/Rigo against each other. Hard to be unbiased in this one because we (fight fans) tend to rank/admire offensive fighters higher than more defensive fighters due to aesthetics. Think Julio Ceasar Chavez and Pernell Whitaker.

Loma is much more aesthetically pleasing and exciting in the ring, has great defense, and is able to shut down elite fighters' offense. Rigo is a freak of nature athletically, not as offensive minded or explosive, but likely better at shutting down and frustrating an opponent. These two are unbelievably skilled and talented, but if I have to pick between them I guess I will have to go with Loma due to his offensive capabilities and punch output. So... I place Loma at #1 right now.

I agree with everything you said.

[J_Undisputed]

A lot of very good points made, Gents...

Especially poignant is that its kind of hard to measure by accomplishments, being all the fighters started at different times with different levels of competition around them. Ward gets credit for the super six. How many fighters are presented with that kind of tournament opportunity, where your opponents are of the upper echelon in your division and are just lined up and brought to you with no haggling.

I also agree with Ron's point about how a fighter performs. So the spoiling costs ward some style points in my opinion. But also by that same token, GGG also loses points for getting punched in the face on purpose in order to walk down and corner the inflated brook for the sake of "big drama fight". Crawfords late round antics against postol also fall under this category, for me. Capable of better, committed to worse.

Chocolatito, seemed more tested in his last fight. As did Kovalev . Loma should have been but the axeman became the tin man but that's not Loma's fault.

So based the criteria of primarily skill, bringing honor to the sport (after all this is supposed to represent the best boxing has to offer) and then longevity at a high level and

1. Chocolatito (skills, all business and no douchey personas, etc. His time at the top beats Loma because hes been active. His careers on hold now to take care of his trainer --so we'll see what happens)
2. Lomanchecko (Skills abound-- can't say enough, was willing to pay an opponent from his own purse to get competition, is so far above his competition)
3. Golovkin (He has a lot of Skill, but doesn't always use it - The disparity in skill under the super skillful Rigo unfortunately is just a hair smaller than GGG's edge in activity over rigo)
4. Rigo - Serious skills and an improved style should have him in at number 3 he has the longevity edge over loma- but his Longevity is offset by his inactivity, and his fighting in obscurity when he does fight do to contract and money issues. He can leapfrog GGG if his activity catches up to his mouth.
5. Kovalev -Not as skillful as Gonzalez, Loma, Rigo or even GGG... but Just as active as GGG (unfortunately the gap between his and Rigos skillset in rigos favor is larger than the difference in their activity levels), Kovalev beats stiff competition, and has most of the belts and tried to get stevenson in the ring on multiple occasions - His unofficial victory over ward should have him ranked higher but that would be including the accomplishments/opportunity others may have not been privy to.
6. Ward (Fights his fight and had a good skillset - Spoiling costs him as we've seen with Dawson, he doesn't have to resort to it as much), has longevity (cut short by self imposed layoff), Looked rusty against brand; desperate against kovalev and cares more about his money and power than he does about the actual fights)

Honorable Mention: Crawford (Good skillset, but i'm not sure he's in the same class as the seemingly naturally gifted Gonzalez, Loma and Rigo. He's ready to leapfrog Ward if he can keep the glory hound inside him at bay and outclass good fighters the way he has. I believe size advantage has played a factor in how good he's looked thus far... which is why Molina is a good fight as many of molina's accomplishments have come off his ability to curt weight. Should be a skill fight...except molina may be a little shopworn) Just my two cents..

[Ron Swanson]

Most people are the same when it comes to ranking fighters. They look at the last few fights and see this unstoppable fighter that can't be beaten and forget about their struggles.

I remember when pac was having his impressive run, there were people asking if he were the best fighter ever. It was ridiculous, but at the time, he was looking really good. Now that everything has settled down, most people have understood that he is an ATG, but nowhere near the best ever.

This is the case with Loma and rigo. I remember watching rigo struggle earlier in his career and seeing him get hurt/knocked down. He looked good but not great. Then he beats donaire and a few other guys and people see him as this guy who literally shuts out every guy he has ever fought. That's just not true. He hasn't beaten enough good competition for me to say that he is the best boxer. I don't have enough evidence.

Loma is the same. He struggled with salido, and even struggled at times against Russell. I scored that fight 8-4 for Loma. Loma couldn't just make him quit like he did with Walters. It was still an impressive win, but he lost rounds still and showed vulnerabilities.

But as I said before, when someone has a few really impressive fights in a row, we tend to forget their struggles previously and act as if they shut out all of their opponents.

Therefore, kovalev and ward are the best on my list because they have both proven to be dominant for a long time and against a lot more opponents.

Wait, the little guys get marked down for struggling and marked down for losing rounds but Ward and Kovalev don't get marked down for struggling/losing rounds and for Wards inability to box with Kovalev and Kovalevs inability to infight? Kovalev was literally holding Wards head down and lifting one leg to block body shots. Not just once, I can show multiple pictures. That is crap, and completely wildly illegal, infighting. But no mark down for that clear missing skillset? Why are there different criteria?

My post may sound very argumentative, I'm not so good at expressing myself online. Often my tone is not exactly as it comes off in text.(I joke often and I'm sure people read it as very harsh) I'm really just asking because we've seen Ward struggle and lose riunds, we've seen Kovalev struggle and lose rounds.

[Silkeyjoe]

My current top 10

1. Roman Gonzalez
2. Andre Ward
3. Vasyl Lomachenko
4. Guillermo Rigo
5. GGG
6. Naoya Inoue
7. Terrence Crawford
8. Carl Frampton
9. Sergey Kovalev
10. Saul Alvarez

[powerpuncher]

Most people are the same when it comes to ranking fighters. They look at the last few fights and see this unstoppable fighter that can't be beaten and forget about their struggles.

I remember when pac was having his impressive run, there were people asking if he were the best fighter ever. It was ridiculous, but at the time, he was looking really good. Now that everything has settled down, most people have understood that he is an ATG, but nowhere near the best ever.

This is the case with Loma and rigo. I remember watching rigo struggle earlier in his career and seeing him get hurt/knocked down. He looked good but not great. Then he beats donaire and a few other guys and people see him as this guy who literally shuts out every guy he has ever fought. That's just not true. He hasn't beaten enough good competition for me to say that he is the best boxer. I don't have enough evidence.

Loma is the same. He struggled with salido, and even struggled at times against Russell. I scored that fight 8-4 for Loma. Loma couldn't just make him quit like he did with Walters. It was still an impressive win, but he lost rounds still and showed vulnerabilities.

But as I said before, when someone has a few really impressive fights in a row, we tend to forget their struggles previously and act as if they shut out all of their opponents.

Therefore, kovalev and ward are the best on my list because they have both proven to be dominant for a long time and against a lot more opponents.

Wait, the little guys get marked down for struggling and marked down for losing rounds but Ward and Kovalev don't get marked down for struggling/losing rounds and for Wards inability to box with Kovalev and Kovalevs inability to infight? Kovalev was literally holding Wards head down and lifting one leg to block body shots. Not just once, I can show multiple pictures. That is crap, and completely wildly illegal, infighting. But no mark down for that clear missing skillset? Why are there different criteria?

My post may sound very argumentative, I'm not so good at expressing myself online. Often my tone is not exactly as it comes off in text.(I joke often and I'm sure people read it as very harsh) I'm really just asking because we've seen Ward struggle and lose riunds, we've seen Kovalev struggle and lose rounds.

Aside from the ward/kovalev fight, ward rarely ever lost rounds. He basically shut people out and if did lose a round, it was an early round where not much was happening. Kovalev rarely loses rounds either. The chilemba match was I think an anomaly but he basically destroys all of his opponents. Even an old Hopkins was a good fighter and kovalev beat him every single round. Because both ward and kovalev are so good, they made a close fight.

For example, if rigo and Loma fought each other to a draw, I can't say that they are both docked points in my mind because they lost rounds to an exceptional fight. If anything, it shows how good they both are.

Think of Floyd vs pac. Pac losing most rounds to Floyd doesn't show how bad pac is but how good Floyd is. So as in ward and kovalev, I think that fight showed how good they both were and not how bad either one is.

I think I answered your question.

Anyways, I see what you are saying with a pure who you think is better, but if I thought that Loma was the best p4p right now, I would say he is most likely a sure top 5 ever by the end of his career and I'm not willing to accept that at the moment.

[mikeeod]

Loma could very well be headed toward ATG territory. But I have a problem talking p4p about someone with 9 professional fights.

I can see your point, but I tend to look at it from the perspective that 3 of those 9 were Russell, Salido, and Walters. I've watched boxing for 30 years and I've NEVER seen a guy with 9 pro fights fighting ANYONE NEAR the level of those three. I've never even heard of anyone fighting that level of comp so early. Evander would be the closest when he fought Qawi in his 15th fight, but that still leaves him two shy. Loma will be an ATG, I have no doubt.

[holmcall]

Number one with no hesitation.

[Ron Swanson]

Most people are the same when it comes to ranking fighters. They look at the last few fights and see this unstoppable fighter that can't be beaten and forget about their struggles.

I remember when pac was having his impressive run, there were people asking if he were the best fighter ever. It was ridiculous, but at the time, he was looking really good. Now that everything has settled down, most people have understood that he is an ATG, but nowhere near the best ever.

This is the case with Loma and rigo. I remember watching rigo struggle earlier in his career and seeing him get hurt/knocked down. He looked good but not great. Then he beats donaire and a few other guys and people see him as this guy who literally shuts out every guy he has ever fought. That's just not true. He hasn't beaten enough good competition for me to say that he is the best boxer. I don't have enough evidence.

Loma is the same. He struggled with salido, and even struggled at times against Russell. I scored that fight 8-4 for Loma. Loma couldn't just make him quit like he did with Walters. It was still an impressive win, but he lost rounds still and showed vulnerabilities.

But as I said before, when someone has a few really impressive fights in a row, we tend to forget their struggles previously and act as if they shut out all of their opponents.

Therefore, kovalev and ward are the best on my list because they have both proven to be dominant for a long time and against a lot more opponents.

Wait, the little guys get marked down for struggling and marked down for losing rounds but Ward and Kovalev don't get marked down for struggling/losing rounds and for Wards inability to box with Kovalev and Kovalevs inability to infight? Kovalev was literally holding Wards head down and lifting one leg to block body shots. Not just once, I can show multiple pictures. That is crap, and completely wildly illegal, infighting. But no mark down for that clear missing skillset? Why are there different criteria?

My post may sound very argumentative, I'm not so good at expressing myself online. Often my tone is not exactly as it comes off in text.(I joke often and I'm sure people read it as very harsh) I'm really just asking because we've seen Ward struggle and lose riunds, we've seen Kovalev struggle and lose rounds.

Aside from the ward/kovalev fight, ward rarely ever lost rounds. He basically shut people out and if did lose a round, it was an early round where not much was happening. Kovalev rarely loses rounds either. The chilemba match was I think an anomaly but he basically destroys all of his opponents. Even an old Hopkins was a good fighter and kovalev beat him every single round. Because both ward and kovalev are so good, they made a close fight.

For example, if rigo and Loma fought each other to a draw, I can't say that they are both docked points in my mind because they lost rounds to an exceptional fight. If anything, it shows how good they both are.

Think of Floyd vs pac. Pac losing most rounds to Floyd doesn't show how bad pac is but how good Floyd is. So as in ward and kovalev, I think that fight showed how good they both were and not how bad either one is.

I think I answered your question.

Anyways, I see what you are saying with a pure who you think is better, but if I thought that Loma was the best p4p right now, I would say he is most likely a sure top 5 ever by the end of his career and I'm not willing to accept that at the moment.

I think highly of both Ward and Kovalev. Although I really need to see a rematch to see if deficiencies were just in the moment or part of who they are. As the fight progressed Ward had Kov following him like a dog. Does Ward use this knowledge to exploit him in a rematch? Does Kovalev use this knowledge and cut off the ring? Or is Ward forced to muddy the waters again. And if Ward does muddy the waters does Kovalev come back with some plan to fight on the inside. These questions and their answers are critical to their placement for me.

[powerpuncher]

Agreed