Re: Lomachenko? Name 1-3 fighters he needs to face to satisfy you.
Body shots ruined Loma in his first loss.
https://youtu.be/18xFTNGE2xs
Re: Lomachenko? Name 1-3 fighters he needs to face to satisfy you.
There's a reason why Floyd, Ward and Calzaghe will retire undefeated..they are special.
Loma has a long road ahead of him so let's not jump the gun and follow all the hype.
Re: Lomachenko? Name 1-3 fighters he needs to face to satisfy you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ykdadamaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
In four years/10 fights Loma has fought 5 "world" champions and a further three world title challengers. Ward has been a pro for 13 years, fought 7 "world" champions in 32 fights.
Ward is undefeated too. Plus he is in a heavier weight class and guys duck him more than the other way around.
Ward "ducked?" Never has a fighter been more mollycoddled than him. He's had every meaningful fight at home on his promotion - judges, officials, never even left America. Made his name in the super-six yet refused to fight Dirrell. Forced Dawson to near kill himself to get to 168.
Chayaphon Moonsri is a 47-0 WBC champion. Don't see you boys waffling about his P4P-ness because he's unbeaten?
Might be mistaken and don't know this Moonsri but weren't you the one discounting the p4p'ness of Ricardo Lopez a bit because of the obscure names and same division ;D. Truth be told I can't stand Ward and while both are clearly p4p on skills and both rode amateur success, Wards roll out cannot compare to the way Loma was coddled with pre set 'greatness' blabber and network stroking. A debut on ppv right under the guy you'll be fighting for the title next fight ffs. All that said, Loma did beat Russell in his 3rd fight and that seems to be dismissed to easily.
Re: Lomachenko? Name 1-3 fighters he needs to face to satisfy you.
Context, @Spicoli, it's all about context. I don't recall the Lopez thing, however, I wouldn't put it past me. I may have been trying to show why Lopez is an all-time great even though he doesn't have a bunch of famous fighters on his ledger. Fans love shitting on fighters that don't have "great" names on their record yet conveniently ignore this qualifier when dealing with their own "great" favourtites like Lopez (cutmemeick :D).
What I personally think and what is fair/reasonable/inconsistent/hypocritical/flawed reasoning are two entirely different things. What I say is not always meant to be taken literally.
As far as this thread goes - a guy says Loma needs to fight world champions, I provide world champions he's already faced, then I get a bunch of guys diving on me for making out Loma has a better record than Ward. Err.. what? All I did was provide a fact, never even expressed an opinion.
Re: Lomachenko? Name 1-3 fighters he needs to face to satisfy you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Context, @
Spicoli, it's all about context. I don't recall the Lopez thing, however, I wouldn't put it past me. I may have been trying to show why Lopez is an all-time great even though he doesn't have a bunch of famous fighters on his ledger. Fans love shitting on fighters that don't have "great" names on their record yet conveniently ignore this qualifier when dealing with their own "great" favourtites like Lopez (cutmemeick :D).
What I personally think and what is fair/reasonable/inconsistent/hypocritical/flawed reasoning are two entirely different things. What I say is not always meant to be taken literally.
As far as this thread goes - a guy says Loma needs to fight world champions, I provide world champions he's already faced, then I get a bunch of guys diving on me for making out Loma has a better record than Ward. Err.. what? All I did was provide a fact, never even expressed an opinion.
Man I totally get that and you're right about names. Just I don't think names are always big qualifier in p4p and can actually be additional knock on guys in 'smaller' divisions because they often get the cold shoulder. Strawweight wasn't even rated by some ranking rags, world bodies before Lopez came. Mick had it right ;D just watch a guy box p4p. Guess it all comes back to subjectivity of p4p, it's basically pick your preference and flavor of the month that fans are all so good at ;D. No one needs to be dived on for it. Frankly I can only defend Ward once in my life time and that was it. If I base it heavily on 'skill and just watch a guy box' Ward finishes lower. It's liked having a tooth pulled imo.
Re: Lomachenko? Name 1-3 fighters he needs to face to satisfy you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Context, @
Spicoli, it's all about context. I don't recall the Lopez thing, however, I wouldn't put it past me. I may have been trying to show why Lopez is an all-time great even though he doesn't have a bunch of famous fighters on his ledger. Fans love shitting on fighters that don't have "great" names on their record yet conveniently ignore this qualifier when dealing with their own "great" favourtites like Lopez (cutmemeick :D).
What I personally think and what is fair/reasonable/inconsistent/hypocritical/flawed reasoning are two entirely different things. What I say is not always meant to be taken literally.
As far as this thread goes - a guy says Loma needs to fight world champions, I provide world champions he's already faced, then I get a bunch of guys diving on me for making out Loma has a better record than Ward. Err.. what? All I did was provide a fact, never even expressed an opinion.
Man I totally get that and you're right about names. Just I don't think names are always big qualifier in p4p and can actually be additional knock on guys in 'smaller' divisions because they often get the cold shoulder. Strawweight wasn't even rated by some ranking rags, world bodies before Lopez came. Mick had it right ;D just watch a guy box p4p. Guess it all comes back to subjectivity of p4p, it's basically pick your preference and flavor of the month that fans are all so good at ;D. No one needs to be dived on for it. Frankly I can only defend Ward once in my life time and that was it. If I base it heavily on 'skill and just watch a guy box' Ward finishes lower. It's liked having a tooth pulled imo.
You seem to think i'm arguing the very opposite of what i'm arguing. ;D
With mick I was the one highlighting Lopez is an all-time great without having a resume full of famous all-time great opponents. I've never said Lopez isn't a great (again, you've probably misconstrued my argument, there's a world of difference between highlighting someones hypocrisy and my own personal opinion).
Couldn't agree with you more about P4P, i've been saying the same for years. Some guys don't understand it's a fantasy concept, fun, they believe there's a right or wrong. Hence I like to point out inconsistencies, hypocrisy and flaws in some arguments.
Re: Lomachenko? Name 1-3 fighters he needs to face to satisfy you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Might be mistaken and don't know this Moonsri but weren't you the one discounting the p4p'ness of Ricardo Lopez a bit because of the obscure names and same division
I just realised that you thought that I personally was saying this guy is P4P. No, I was showing Imp (and his ilk) that if unbeaten records are so important then why not give this unbeaten champ a mention?
Obviously because he's not known. Popular.
Re: Lomachenko? Name 1-3 fighters he needs to face to satisfy you.
Arum saying it's down to Rigo or Salido next.
Re: Lomachenko? Name 1-3 fighters he needs to face to satisfy you.
So is Loma P4P 1 when he beats up the little old boy?
Re: Lomachenko? Name 1-3 fighters he needs to face to satisfy you.
I’m not saying it won’t be an impressive win but it can only hold so much weight when Rigo has to step up two weight classes to get the fight. I will most likely still have Crawford as #1.
Re: Lomachenko? Name 1-3 fighters he needs to face to satisfy you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
So is Loma P4P 1 when he beats up the little old boy?
Nah.
Crawford is still breathing.
Re: Lomachenko? Name 1-3 fighters he needs to face to satisfy you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
I’m not saying it won’t be an impressive win but it can only hold so much weight when Rigo has to step up two weight classes to get the fight. I will most likely still have Crawford as #1.
Everyone is ignoring the weight issue on this occasion...but would Lomo jump up two weight classes to fight someone...mmmmmm.
Re: Lomachenko? Name 1-3 fighters he needs to face to satisfy you.
I saw a youtube video where Mikey Garcia dropped by at a sort of press conference Lomachenko was doing. Loma stood up to go and shake hands with him and the first thing that stood out to me was how much more massive Garcia is. My first impression was wow. Broader shoulders, everything. Even though he's just a bit taller.
Garcia was puking in the lift for one of his last fights at Loma's weight. I haven't seen Loma and Rigo face to face yet though but still.
Re: Lomachenko? Name 1-3 fighters he needs to face to satisfy you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
imp
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
I’m not saying it won’t be an impressive win but it can only hold so much weight when Rigo has to step up two weight classes to get the fight. I will most likely still have Crawford as #1.
Everyone is ignoring the weight issue on this occasion...but would Lomo jump up two weight classes to fight someone...mmmmmm.
They be conning us fans with these shit mismatches.
Re: Lomachenko? Name 1-3 fighters he needs to face to satisfy you.
He's a white fighter so clearly he is overhyped and has had everything handed to him on a silver spoon. He should have had 17 fights against bums before stepping up then maybe we could give him some respect. How dare he win a world title in 3 fights against a genuine grade A fighter and make a mockery of the boxing status quo of having to learn how to be a pro by taking part in mismatches for a few years
