-
Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
I enjoy seeing greatness. I like seeing dynasties. Pick a sport, when someone is doing what hasn’t been done, I’m interested. Motocross, I watched Ricky Carmichael, don’t even really care about Motocross. F1 I watched Michael Schumacher, don’t even really care about F1. But at those times I cared. Sport to sport to sport greatness is interesting. But boxing, it’s my sport. I always care about it all. The most exhilarating is upsets of course but top guys can’t get upsets because top guys are favorites. And this is why I am hard on Loma...
I think he is great, the question is how great. Aggressive fighters are always overrated compared to defensive fighters. Pac-Man was going to destroy Mayweather because offensive fighters look better against inferior competition. But that isn’t how it really is. Tyson was unbeatable, except no.
In the end greatness is judged on what you do. Not fake accomplishments like fastest to, but real accomplishment like SRL beating Hearns. Not people saying you are... but proving you are... And my issue is this...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QZXZQfy-ln0
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IpO_hVmzePc
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=14Ctt9DWjQo
And so on.
Greatest ever should not be a debate, yet. Top now? If he beats the Commey/Lopez winner to unify he will still be behind Crawford since Crawford already did everything he is trying to do and without losing to a journeyman. But I don’t even say he can’t be the best ever, or say he can’t pass Crawford. My thing is only that there is more to do to do it. I want to see him unify, I want to see him fight Tank, fight Garcia, fight Berchelt. Depending on the order I may root for him in all these fights because my desire to see greatness will take over.
My thing is that I don’t like seeing it said BEFORE HE HAS PROVEN IT.
Fair or foul?
(FTR I don’t ask to grandstand. I ask because I’m willing to accept I get things wrong. Lord knows I never imagined a scumbag like Trump could be POTUS. And the board is slow so...)
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Agree. Gotta be fair, Crawford isn’t the only one I would put above him either. Inoue, Canelo?
P4p is a meaningless crock of shit. I love watching Loma box, but he spent most of his career in the amateurs, so to achieve what others have in the professional ranks, he will ALWAYS be playing catch up.
People love to put guys on a pedestal, only to shoot them down.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Lomachenko's issue is that there's nobody as special as he is around for him to fight. In his 14 pro fights he has fought: Rigondeaux, Linares, Nicholas Walters, Gary Russell Jr. and he's beaten them pretty good, kinda cut it close with Russell Jr.
I think the fights that have to be made are either Gervonta Davis steps up to Lightweight which he's only 24 he hasn't done it ALL at super featherweight just yet (so maybe HE wants to take his time getting to Loma) or Loma is going to have to bulk up and get to welterweight and lord knows how he'd do there with the extra weight. He's a talented enough boxer, but timing, opponents, those are seemingly working against him at present.
I wouldn't put Lomachenko at outright #1 but he has been a very impressive fighter as a pro. I think Bud Crawford (and Errol Spence for that matter) deserves a shot vs Pac or Floyd and he should remain focused on those 2. Canelo as P4P? Please dude he's a Golden Boy protected asset he's been gifted decisions vs GGG and he's been popped for PEDs as well.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
I say you are being too harsh on Loma.
In the short space of time he has achieved more than most fighters, fought top competition and is winning very impressively.
Crawford has done the same by winning at 3 weights but I do not rate him as the best welterweight.
Loma is a joy to watch and a marvel at the art of boxing. He is very special and should be appreciated. I think he is undersized at lightweight and fighting bigger men which makes his achievements even better.
Give the man a chance.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
I say you are being too harsh on Loma.
In the short space of time he has achieved more than most fighters, fought top competition and is winning very impressively.
Crawford has done the same by winning at 3 weights but I do not rate him as the best welterweight.
Loma is a joy to watch and a marvel at the art of boxing. He is very special and should be appreciated. I think he is undersized at lightweight and fighting bigger men which makes his achievements even better.
Give the man a chance.
Sometimes there’s a common link.
Some hate Mayweather (Master) so would jump at the chance to put anyone above him.
El kabong made some valid points about the Loma division etc.
I like Loma and put him above a drugs cheat like Canelo...Canelo is a great fighter but put a special top tier Boxer against him he gets outboxed as already proved when a out of prime, old Mayweather beat him him 11 rounds to 1.
Loma has superb footwork and can use his skills to nullify long reach and weight against him and I like his style..it’s refreshing and dangerous.
He is also a southpaw which is another advantage against everyone else..I see Loma and Crawford as the top fighters today and if Crawford beats Spence and unfifys the 147 division then I would want to see Loma beating Tank, Haney and Lopez by close of 2020.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
I say you are being too harsh on Loma.
In the short space of time he has achieved more than most fighters, fought top competition and is winning very impressively.
(Space of time is irrelevant, only matters what you do)
Crawford has done the same by winning at 3 weights but I do not rate him as the best welterweight.
(You can’t knock a guy down P4P because he moves to a strong division, that’s ass backwards)
Loma is a joy to watch and a marvel at the art of boxing. He is very special and should be appreciated. I think he is undersized at lightweight and fighting bigger men which makes his achievements even better.
(Undersized is another fallacy like time used to prop him up. He fought at lightweight as an amateur, he’s a lightweight. He fought as a lightweight as a professional in World Boxing Series before “turning professional”, he’s a lightweight. He weighed 144.5 at his 30 day weigh in, he’s a lightweight)
Give the man a chance.
I am giving him a chance. What I’m not doing is giving him credit for what he hasn’t done yet.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
I don’t fault fans for putting Loma at #1, but I do think that there is pressure sometimes. He is one of the fighters who has been pushed from day 1. I have always had Crawford over Loma. Loma is #2, but I don’t think that Usyk or Inoue are far behind.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
I want to see more of Usyk at heavyweight. Usyk vs AJ-Ruiz 2 winner would be mint
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
I don’t fault fans for putting Loma at #1, but I do think that there is pressure sometimes. He is one of the fighters who has been pushed from day 1. I have always had Crawford over Loma. Loma is #2, but I don’t think that Usyk or Inoue are far behind.
I don’t mind if they say “I just think he’s better”. It’s when fake things like quicker, or he’s small get elevated. He’s the same age as Crawford, he fought for his first title and lost the same exact day. Quicker from when a person turned pro is as fake as an accomplishment can be. He has a good shot of becoming number 1, earning it, let him earn it.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
What Loma's achieved in 15 fights is unprecedented. 15 fights at championship level. One reason some "genuine" fans don't appreciate Loma is they're so used to seeing "padded" records. 35-0 looks more impressive that 14-1... until you look under the bonnet.
Lets start by comparing Crawford's first 15 fights with Loma's? It is laughable. Crawford had 15 fights against club fighters/"bums" (which is the norm). 19 fights before his first 10-rounder. 22 before his first "world" title shot.
If Crawford had Loma's schedule when he started, he'd have fought Nate Campbell for the WBO title in his 2nd fight, Juan Guzman in his 3rd, Edwin Valero in his 8th and Juan Manuel Marquez in his 11th or 12th. I kid you not.
Crawford has faced 7 former "world" champs in 12 years.
Loma has faced 9 former "world" champs in 6 years.
Crawford's light-welter unification - Dulorme (WBO), Postol (WBC), Indongo (IBF/WBA).
Loma's lightweight unification - Linares (WBA), Pedraza (WBO), Campbell (WBC) ..... *And either Commey/Lopez (IBF).*
Crawford is a great fighter, HOFamer, however, even without the "eye test," there's no comparison between the two. Loma is special level talent. (now I read a thousand accusations of "liar" and "dickrider" and "KKK member" :D)
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Dickrider
Problem with Loma is I'm bored of people bumming him, I'd have enjoyed the fight on Saturday night if it wasn't for Timothy Bradley's excessive bumming
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Dickrider
Problem with Loma is I'm bored of people bumming him, I'd have enjoyed the fight on Saturday night if it wasn't for Timothy Bradley's excessive bumming
You know the trouble with you is that you do not appreciate quality boxing of the highest order if it punched you in the face and knocked you out.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Dickrider
Problem with Loma is I'm bored of people bumming him, I'd have enjoyed the fight on Saturday night if it wasn't for Timothy Bradley's excessive bumming
You know the trouble with you is that you do not appreciate quality boxing of the highest order if it punched you in the face and knocked you out.
No I do, I just don't appricate constant bumming, Loma can throw no punches in a round and he the best technician in history and his footwork is amazing and he's so sexy, and he won 396 fights and lost 1 which he avenged twice and he won all loads of belts in just 12 fights, best ever
Get a grip Bradley, he hasn't thrown a punch for the last 3 minutes you balloon, mention that, or the fact that he just lost the first 3 rounds clearly
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
Dickrider
Problem with Loma is I'm bored of people bumming him, I'd have enjoyed the fight on Saturday night if it wasn't for Timothy Bradley's excessive bumming
You know the trouble with you is that you do not appreciate quality boxing of the highest order if it punched you in the face and knocked you out.
No I do, I just don't appricate constant bumming, Loma can throw no punches in a round and he the best technician in history and his footwork is amazing and he's so sexy, and he won 396 fights and lost 1 which he avenged twice and he won all loads of belts in just 12 fights, best ever
Get a grip Bradley, he hasn't thrown a punch for the last 3 minutes you balloon, mention that, or the fact that he just lost the first 3 rounds clearly
Have you heard about Andre Ward not losing a boxing match since he was 12?
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
You know what tho they were bumming loma right through the undercard, when buatsi was fighting they rarely talked about the fight, which was actually a reasonably entertaining fight
They just bummed loma all the way through it
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Have you heard the one about Roberto Duran knocking out a horse?
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
What Loma's achieved in 15 fights is unprecedented. 15 fights at championship level. One reason some "genuine" fans don't appreciate Loma is they're so used to seeing "padded" records. 35-0 looks more impressive that 14-1... until you look under the bonnet.
Lets start by comparing Crawford's first 15 fights with Loma's? It is laughable. Crawford had 15 fights against club fighters/"bums" (which is the norm). 19 fights before his first 10-rounder. 22 before his first "world" title shot.
If Crawford had Loma's schedule when he started, he'd have fought Nate Campbell for the WBO title in his 2nd fight, Juan Guzman in his 3rd, Edwin Valero in his 8th and Juan Manuel Marquez in his 11th or 12th. I kid you not.
Crawford has faced 7 former "world" champs in 12 years.
Loma has faced 9 former "world" champs in 6 years.
Crawford's light-welter unification - Dulorme (WBO), Postol (WBC), Indongo (IBF/WBA).
Loma's lightweight unification - Linares (WBA), Pedraza (WBO), Campbell (WBC) ..... *And either Commey/Lopez (IBF).*
Crawford is a great fighter, HOFamer, however, even without the "eye test," there's no comparison between the two. Loma is special level talent. (now I read a thousand accusations of "liar" and "dickrider" and "KKK member" :D)
Nobody needs to accuse you. You expose yourself.
You use the fake thing of how fast, because you are presenting a fake argument because you are fake. They are the same age, they fought for titles on the same day, Loma lost. Get at me when Crawford loses to someone with 14 losses. Won’t happen.
So you’ll come back and excuse his loss because “so fast” about a 26 year old man with over 400 fights. You’ll talk about another fake number of 2 pro fights. Ignoring the 6 pro fights he had with WBS. Ignoring that he was an amateur so long because he was PAID TO FIGHT as an amateur too. So fast builds him and is also plot armor for him. Because it is a plot, it’s not truth, it’s a story. So of course you’re here to tell it.
Tell us how he’s small too because I’d like to see you make all the fake points
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
To be totally honest and fair. While Loma may be a little over-rated by some you do seem to have a massive issue with him Ron. It is not just begrudging respect from you, more like a bit of a desperate search for excuses to dismiss many of his achievements so far, which does leave me scratching my head a little.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
To be totally honest and fair. While Loma may be a little over-rated by some you do seem to have a massive issue with him Ron. It is not just begrudging respect from you, more like a bit of a desperate search for excuses to dismiss many of his achievements so far, which does leave me scratching my head a little.
Explain, what achievement do I diminish? The time thing is fake, clearly, he fought as a pro and it’s completely ignored. And even if it wasn’t fake it doesn’t mean anything. What he has done by 31 is what he has done
FTR, I have him number 2 P4P.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Swanson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
To be totally honest and fair. While Loma may be a little over-rated by some you do seem to have a massive issue with him Ron. It is not just begrudging respect from you, more like a bit of a desperate search for excuses to dismiss many of his achievements so far, which does leave me scratching my head a little.
Explain, what achievement do I diminish? The time thing is fake, clearly, he fought as a pro and it’s completely ignored. And even if it wasn’t fake it doesn’t mean anything. What he has done by 31 is what he has done
FTR, I have him number 2 P4P.
It is way too early for him to be given some of the accolades he has, but there is no denying the meteoric nature of his rise. You diminish that by pretending losing to Salido was any indication of his quality and by elevating Crawford into something he isn't yet. It took Crawford 22 fights before he was ready to go 12 rounds with Ricky Burns. God bless the guy, heart of a lion, but Ricky Burns was still dong Saturdays at his local shop at the time. You can't carry on pretending that the pro and amateur games are the same because of something like money either or that everyone is more gullible or less knowledgeable than you, or worse still, racist because they disagree. It undermines your whole argument.
If you believe in such an abstract thing as P4P and have him at 2 anyway I don't even see what your argument is really.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Swanson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
To be totally honest and fair. While Loma may be a little over-rated by some you do seem to have a massive issue with him Ron. It is not just begrudging respect from you, more like a bit of a desperate search for excuses to dismiss many of his achievements so far, which does leave me scratching my head a little.
Explain, what achievement do I diminish? The time thing is fake, clearly, he fought as a pro and it’s completely ignored. And even if it wasn’t fake it doesn’t mean anything. What he has done by 31 is what he has done
FTR, I have him number 2 P4P.
It is way too early for him to be given some of the accolades he has, but there is no denying the meteoric nature of his rise. You diminish that by pretending losing to Salido was any indication of his quality and by elevating Crawford into something he isn't yet. It took Crawford 22 fights before he was ready to go 12 rounds with Ricky Burns. God bless the guy, heart of a lion, but Ricky Burns was still dong Saturdays at his local shop at the time. You can't carry on pretending that the pro and amateur games are the same because of something like money either or that everyone is more gullible or less knowledgeable than you, or worse still, racist because they disagree. It undermines your whole argument.
If you believe in such an abstract thing as P4P and have him at 2 anyway I don't even see what your argument is really.
If people don’t see the blatant racism in boxing I genuinely pity them.
But that’s beside the point. Again, 22 fights, 2 fights, it doesn’t matter if they are both 26. Suggesting 2 26 year olds should be judged differently giving one guy both CREDIT for and a FREE PASS FROM is a double standard!
Time is not different, both 26, both fought for titles on the same day. Same is same, it’s not different.
This is why I find it frustrating. I am stating simple facts. Two guys that are the same age are the same age, this is not deniable.(technically there is like 5 months difference in age but c’mon, that’s the same) The same day is the same day, this is not deniable. The amount of time between 3/1/2014 and now is the same for both. These are undeniable facts
My argument is not against his greatness. My point is people shouldn’t give value to fake things like fast. This should be really simple to see “what you have done by 31 is what you have done”, it should not be an argument. But somehow it is. Not only do I have to give him credit for what he has done but also bonus points for something meaningless. My issue is entirely on the fake bonus, you see every argument is about the fake bonus.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Not a fan of Tim Bradley on the commentary..how dare he not know which Fury was fighting Povetkin?!
Hughie is future PPV.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Swanson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Swanson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
To be totally honest and fair. While Loma may be a little over-rated by some you do seem to have a massive issue with him Ron. It is not just begrudging respect from you, more like a bit of a desperate search for excuses to dismiss many of his achievements so far, which does leave me scratching my head a little.
Explain, what achievement do I diminish? The time thing is fake, clearly, he fought as a pro and it’s completely ignored. And even if it wasn’t fake it doesn’t mean anything. What he has done by 31 is what he has done
FTR, I have him number 2 P4P.
It is way too early for him to be given some of the accolades he has, but there is no denying the meteoric nature of his rise. You diminish that by pretending losing to Salido was any indication of his quality and by elevating Crawford into something he isn't yet. It took Crawford 22 fights before he was ready to go 12 rounds with Ricky Burns. God bless the guy, heart of a lion, but Ricky Burns was still dong Saturdays at his local shop at the time. You can't carry on pretending that the pro and amateur games are the same because of something like money either or that everyone is more gullible or less knowledgeable than you, or worse still, racist because they disagree. It undermines your whole argument.
If you believe in such an abstract thing as P4P and have him at 2 anyway I don't even see what your argument is really.
If people don’t see the blatant racism in boxing I genuinely pity them.
But that’s beside the point. Again, 22 fights, 2 fights, it doesn’t matter if they are both 26. Suggesting 2 26 year olds should be judged differently giving one guy both CREDIT for and a FREE PASS FROM is a double standard!
Time is not different, both 26, both fought for titles on the same day. Same is same, it’s not different.
This is why I find it frustrating. I am stating simple facts. Two guys that are the same age are the same age, this is not deniable.(technically there is like 5 months difference in age but c’mon, that’s the same) The same day is the same day, this is not deniable. The amount of time between 3/1/2014 and now is the same for both. These are undeniable facts
My argument is not against his greatness. My point is people shouldn’t give value to fake things like fast. This should be really simple to see “what you have done by 31 is what you have done”, it should not be an argument. But somehow it is. Not only do I have to give him credit for what he has done but also bonus points for something meaningless. My issue is entirely on the fake bonus, you see every argument is about the fake bonus.
I agree it is much harder to make it to the top if you are a European.
I think the fake bonus thing is not so much fake as over emphasized. The guy had way less professional fights to get to were he is and that is more than just a little unusual. You can't just pretend it isn't there. It is indisputable. Campbell removed some of that shine but again I think his problems adjusting to the pro game has made him under-rated. His loss to Mendy led to many just dismissing him but boxing does not work like that.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Swanson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Swanson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
To be totally honest and fair. While Loma may be a little over-rated by some you do seem to have a massive issue with him Ron. It is not just begrudging respect from you, more like a bit of a desperate search for excuses to dismiss many of his achievements so far, which does leave me scratching my head a little.
Explain, what achievement do I diminish? The time thing is fake, clearly, he fought as a pro and it’s completely ignored. And even if it wasn’t fake it doesn’t mean anything. What he has done by 31 is what he has done
FTR, I have him number 2 P4P.
It is way too early for him to be given some of the accolades he has, but there is no denying the meteoric nature of his rise. You diminish that by pretending losing to Salido was any indication of his quality and by elevating Crawford into something he isn't yet. It took Crawford 22 fights before he was ready to go 12 rounds with Ricky Burns. God bless the guy, heart of a lion, but Ricky Burns was still dong Saturdays at his local shop at the time. You can't carry on pretending that the pro and amateur games are the same because of something like money either or that everyone is more gullible or less knowledgeable than you, or worse still, racist because they disagree. It undermines your whole argument.
If you believe in such an abstract thing as P4P and have him at 2 anyway I don't even see what your argument is really.
If people don’t see the blatant racism in boxing I genuinely pity them.
But that’s beside the point. Again, 22 fights, 2 fights, it doesn’t matter if they are both 26. Suggesting 2 26 year olds should be judged differently giving one guy both CREDIT for and a FREE PASS FROM is a double standard!
Time is not different, both 26, both fought for titles on the same day. Same is same, it’s not different.
This is why I find it frustrating. I am stating simple facts. Two guys that are the same age are the same age, this is not deniable.(technically there is like 5 months difference in age but c’mon, that’s the same) The same day is the same day, this is not deniable. The amount of time between 3/1/2014 and now is the same for both. These are undeniable facts
My argument is not against his greatness. My point is people shouldn’t give value to fake things like fast. This should be really simple to see “what you have done by 31 is what you have done”, it should not be an argument. But somehow it is. Not only do I have to give him credit for what he has done but also bonus points for something meaningless. My issue is entirely on the fake bonus, you see every argument is about the fake bonus.
Now I’m very close to your View on Loma and some of the points you made. But to bang on about “Blatant Racism in Boxing” is wrong.
Nearly all the greatest ever fighters are black, nearly all the richest fighters ever are black. I’m not sure where the racism is?
I certainly see racism in many other sports , and certainly in certain aspects of life in general, but not really in Boxing.
I genuinely think the problem is with the media. There is so much money in the sport right now, and consequently in order to “justify” that , along with the sports biggest ever earner exiting stage left, they need to manufacture a “Legend”
Loma is a lovely fighter, and I don’t think you’ve been disrespectful to him in any way. I just believe he has been overhyped.
He’s arguably the greatest Amateur that has ever lived, but in order to make that legacy, it is to the detriment of his pro career, because he simply won’t have time to reach greatness in my opinion.
I don’t believe he will ever be p4p #1 . But hey, I might be wrong.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Loma has packed plenty of names into his short pro career.
The hype has been way OTT, but at least Loma walks it, despite the hype not coming from him or his training camp.
Fans enjoy the fights of his short Pro career while it lasts.Young boxers enjoy his demonstrations e.g the one he gave recently at a London club.
Racism? Kindly elaborate for discussion.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Loma from the get go was about instant super stardom and all the rewards from fighter to promoter that came with it. I don't see this particular racism angle in regards to Crawford v Loma. Honestly I wasn't fond of Loma and the microwave type push he had rolled out to him based on Amatuer and Gold medal accolades from the beginning. It was surreal to see a guy handed a title shot as headliner on HBO in only his second 'pro' fight. He was HBO ppv in debut. I remember De La Hoya making his post Gold medal debut as some 6 rounder v the guy running the beer stand at the Great Western Forum. But honestly and with respect to some ok'ish guys over his first year..you could have skipped them all and gone 1-0 right into his 1st trinket too. It's padding as much as it's a normal mostly excepted process for a fighter of high caliber to showcase..market..grow seats and fans before having it handed a trinket on a silver platter. The learning craft and honing skills feels secondary for some early on. No sane individual can deny Lomas skill and he is very much a pleasure to watch aside from some clowning and mocking from time to time. But rarely if ever has a fighter been given the opportunities, for the sake of a promoter too, that he has been given. Every record in history can be torn apart but truth be told aside from Walters and Russell Jr, Linares on the rebound just to get ko'd next, where were these fresh undefeated top division threats he vanquished. Rigo again two divisions is two divisions. Feel the same way about it as with Mikey up for Spence, Brook up for GGG so on and so forth. I don't mind Loma at all but make no mistake right now he and Arum more so are about collecting trinkets, not being involved in super fights.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Loma from the get go was about instant super stardom and all the rewards from fighter to promoter that came with it. I don't see this particular racism angle in regards to Crawford v Loma. Honestly I wasn't fond of Loma and the microwave type push he had rolled out to him based on Amatuer and Gold medal accolades from the beginning. It was surreal to see a guy handed a title shot as headliner on HBO in only his second 'pro' fight. He was HBO ppv in debut. I remember De La Hoya making his post Gold medal debut as some 6 rounder v the guy running the beer stand at the Great Western Forum. But honestly and with respect to some ok'ish guys over his first year..you could have skipped them all and gone 1-0 right into his 1st trinket too. It's padding as much as it's a normal mostly excepted process for a fighter of high caliber to showcase..market..grow seats and fans before having it handed a trinket on a silver platter. The learning craft and honing skills feels secondary for some early on. No sane individual can deny Lomas skill and he is very much a pleasure to watch aside from some clowning and mocking from time to time. But rarely if ever has a fighter been given the opportunities, for the sake of a promoter too, that he has been given. Every record in history can be torn apart but truth be told aside from Walters and Russell Jr, Linares on the rebound just to get ko'd next, where were these fresh undefeated top division threats he vanquished. Rigo again two divisions is two divisions. Feel the same way about it as with Mikey up for Spence, Brook up for GGG so on and so forth. I don't mind Loma at all but make no mistake right now he and Arum more so are about collecting trinkets, not being involved in super fights.
Loma's had it "handed on a platter?" If what he's done is so "easy" why haven't others done it? Why waste their time with all the training camps and obligations whilst receiving peanuts when they can jump in the deep end? He's not half the star in America guys like Oscar was when he turned pro. There are literally dozens of American fighters who could CHOOSE Loma's path and get the same TREATMENT from Bob, Eddie, Al, Oscar, any top promoter.
You'd prefer Loma had "earned" a title shot by having 15-20 fights against the guy who runs the beer stand? Then maybe a championship rated fighter or two - like Ramirez - before the alphabet org allowed him the honour of paying for a shot?
He didn't bypass "learning the craft and honing skills" against club fighters because he was "handed it on a silver platter," the risk/gamble paid off. He proved to be the real deal, not just an outstanding amateur.
Robeisy Ramirez? Heard of him? Two-time olympic gold medalist? Massive bidding war between promoters to sign him, went with Bob. Last month he got knocked down 30 seconds into his debut and lost the fight against a 4-2-2 hotdog seller.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Swanson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
What Loma's achieved in 15 fights is unprecedented. 15 fights at championship level. One reason some "genuine" fans don't appreciate Loma is they're so used to seeing "padded" records. 35-0 looks more impressive that 14-1... until you look under the bonnet.
Lets start by comparing Crawford's first 15 fights with Loma's? It is laughable. Crawford had 15 fights against club fighters/"bums" (which is the norm). 19 fights before his first 10-rounder. 22 before his first "world" title shot.
If Crawford had Loma's schedule when he started, he'd have fought Nate Campbell for the WBO title in his 2nd fight, Juan Guzman in his 3rd, Edwin Valero in his 8th and Juan Manuel Marquez in his 11th or 12th. I kid you not.
Crawford has faced 7 former "world" champs in 12 years.
Loma has faced 9 former "world" champs in 6 years.
Crawford's light-welter unification - Dulorme (WBO), Postol (WBC), Indongo (IBF/WBA).
Loma's lightweight unification - Linares (WBA), Pedraza (WBO), Campbell (WBC) ..... *And either Commey/Lopez (IBF).*
Crawford is a great fighter, HOFamer, however, even without the "eye test," there's no comparison between the two. Loma is special level talent. (now I read a thousand accusations of "liar" and "dickrider" and "KKK member" :D)
Nobody needs to accuse you. You expose yourself.
You use the fake thing of how fast, because you are presenting a fake argument because you are fake. They are the same age, they fought for titles on the same day, Loma lost. Get at me when Crawford loses to someone with 14 losses. Won’t happen.
So you’ll come back and excuse his loss because “so fast” about a 26 year old man with over 400 fights. You’ll talk about another fake number of 2 pro fights. Ignoring the 6 pro fights he had with WBS. Ignoring that he was an amateur so long because he was PAID TO FIGHT as an amateur too. So fast builds him and is also plot armor for him. Because it is a plot, it’s not truth, it’s a story. So of course you’re here to tell it.
Tell us how he’s small too because I’d like to see you make all the fake points
I know for a fact you wont know who these people are (I don't give a fuck how old you are, means nothing on boxing forums, middle-aged men are just as moronic as kids) If Crawford fought Nate Campbell, Juan Diaz, Joan Guzman or Edwin Valero in his first few fights, is there a chance he'd have lost?
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
OK hate on Loma for getting a title shot immediately, then where's the hate for Guillermo Rigondeaux for getting one so quickly? Where's the hate for Zhou Shiming?
Lomachenko was a stud amateur. Being a stud amateur doesn't mean for certain you'll be any good at all as a pro, but Loma has delivered on the big stage. If anything staying in the amateurs SHOULD have limited his development as a fighter not made him better.
There have been plenty of "Golden Boys" out there, cash cows who get fat off of bums and then fold when the going gets tough...that's not Lomachenko. He's a good fighter as far as record goes and a great fighter by what I've seen in the ring, but that is a label you place on someone at the end of their career so as of now I can only say he LOOKS great in fights but he's yet to become a great fighter, we'll see what happens.
Who should he have fought by now? People hating on him think he's picking his opponents because he can beat them? Floyd did that his entire career and BLATANTLY later on in his career, but he's still great. I don't see the need to put down Bud Crawford either he's a heck of a figther too, Bud being phenomenal and Loma being phenomenal aren't mutually exclusive. Errol Spence is damn impressive too!
Bottom line, Lomachenko is an exciting fighter and people (not just the hardcore fans) love watching him work in the ring....enjoy it.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Loma from the get go was about instant super stardom and all the rewards from fighter to promoter that came with it. I don't see this particular racism angle in regards to Crawford v Loma. Honestly I wasn't fond of Loma and the microwave type push he had rolled out to him based on Amatuer and Gold medal accolades from the beginning. It was surreal to see a guy handed a title shot as headliner on HBO in only his second 'pro' fight. He was HBO ppv in debut. I remember De La Hoya making his post Gold medal debut as some 6 rounder v the guy running the beer stand at the Great Western Forum. But honestly and with respect to some ok'ish guys over his first year..you could have skipped them all and gone 1-0 right into his 1st trinket too. It's padding as much as it's a normal mostly excepted process for a fighter of high caliber to showcase..market..grow seats and fans before having it handed a trinket on a silver platter. The learning craft and honing skills feels secondary for some early on. No sane individual can deny Lomas skill and he is very much a pleasure to watch aside from some clowning and mocking from time to time. But rarely if ever has a fighter been given the opportunities, for the sake of a promoter too, that he has been given. Every record in history can be torn apart but truth be told aside from Walters and Russell Jr, Linares on the rebound just to get ko'd next, where were these fresh undefeated top division threats he vanquished. Rigo again two divisions is two divisions. Feel the same way about it as with Mikey up for Spence, Brook up for GGG so on and so forth. I don't mind Loma at all but make no mistake right now he and Arum more so are about collecting trinkets, not being involved in super fights.
Loma's had it "handed on a platter?" If what he's done is so "easy" why haven't others done it? Why waste their time with all the training camps and obligations whilst receiving peanuts when they can jump in the deep end? He's not half the star in America guys like Oscar was when he turned pro. There are literally dozens of American fighters who could
CHOOSE Loma's path and get the same
TREATMENT from Bob, Eddie, Al, Oscar, any top promoter.
You'd prefer Loma had "earned" a title shot by having 15-20 fights against the guy who runs the beer stand? Then maybe a championship rated fighter or two - like Ramirez - before the alphabet org
allowed him the honour of paying for a shot?
He didn't bypass "learning the craft and honing skills" against club fighters because he was "handed it on a silver platter," the
risk/gamble paid off. He
proved to be the real deal, not just an outstanding amateur.
Robeisy Ramirez? Heard of him? Two-time olympic gold medalist? Massive bidding war between promoters to sign him, went with Bob. Last month he got knocked down 30 seconds into his debut and lost the fight against a 4-2-2 hotdog seller.
Yes handed on a platter. The immediate championship opportunity that is. I didn't say easy, not his opposition not his dedication...but the professional doors afforded and maybe I'm thick..ok I'll spot you that one.. but I don't think their are dozens that could simply dictate demands for roll out multi title shots as they please. Let alone be literally promised a title fight by a 2nd pro start. Even if you lose, you'll get matched for it again right away v a guy not even ranked by say the Ring. What fighter doesn't have risk/reward. And it paid off on the second try. Loma was fortunate to have outside guarantees from the fat cats. He is the exception..in skill as well as his professional start.
Yeh maybe I'm old fashion but I like a guy to build up. Not talking 20-30 gimmes but what is so wrong with a guy regardless of stature actually being required to have a few fights where the lights are a little less blinding. Loma in a way is a representation of our want for immediate gratification and how the sport has changed exposure and media wise. Beer vendors have to work to. Journeymen and contenders have to eat too. Guys like Narciso Valenzuela have to make money grubbers like Bob Arum choke on those hot dogs for a split second when they drop Oscar on his arse. And fans of every ilk want to see the next coming. Oscar may have been huge coming out but guys then didn't have the easy amatuer fan following and point and click of today. Fans would have called foul if an Oscar would have been allowed to jump right into a title. Shat you can't even get fans to find a consensus on what actually constitutes a 'pro' fight vs an amatuer bout today. But I get it..times change and honestly man I'm not hating on the individual or faulting the man for maximizing advantages and shooting for history. Jebus the last thing I want is to defend trinket syndicates or fooking Oscar types but yeh if you're whole thing is covering yourself in those same trinkets like a gawdy Christmas tree than why shouldn't one be expected to get in line. What I want from a guy many are calling an all time great ffs are career defining fights. More so for fans, a super fight but as of late Arum looks content of some big showcases where Loma as expected will dazzle.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Could Teofilo Stevenson or Felix Savon have immediately gotten GIGANTIC fights vs Ali/Holmes/Tyson?
Hmmmm
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Could Teofilo Stevenson or Felix Savon have immediately gotten GIGANTIC fights vs Ali/Holmes/Tyson?
Hmmmm
Those fighters were all great. No way would Loma have been able to step up to fighters of that caliber on his second fight. Salido was a rough and experienced fighter, but not the most skillful.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Loma from the get go was about instant super stardom and all the rewards from fighter to promoter that came with it. I don't see this particular racism angle in regards to Crawford v Loma. Honestly I wasn't fond of Loma and the microwave type push he had rolled out to him based on Amatuer and Gold medal accolades from the beginning. It was surreal to see a guy handed a title shot as headliner on HBO in only his second 'pro' fight. He was HBO ppv in debut. I remember De La Hoya making his post Gold medal debut as some 6 rounder v the guy running the beer stand at the Great Western Forum. But honestly and with respect to some ok'ish guys over his first year..you could have skipped them all and gone 1-0 right into his 1st trinket too. It's padding as much as it's a normal mostly excepted process for a fighter of high caliber to showcase..market..grow seats and fans before having it handed a trinket on a silver platter. The learning craft and honing skills feels secondary for some early on. No sane individual can deny Lomas skill and he is very much a pleasure to watch aside from some clowning and mocking from time to time. But rarely if ever has a fighter been given the opportunities, for the sake of a promoter too, that he has been given. Every record in history can be torn apart but truth be told aside from Walters and Russell Jr, Linares on the rebound just to get ko'd next, where were these fresh undefeated top division threats he vanquished. Rigo again two divisions is two divisions. Feel the same way about it as with Mikey up for Spence, Brook up for GGG so on and so forth. I don't mind Loma at all but make no mistake right now he and Arum more so are about collecting trinkets, not being involved in super fights.
Loma's had it "handed on a platter?" If what he's done is so "easy" why haven't others done it? Why waste their time with all the training camps and obligations whilst receiving peanuts when they can jump in the deep end? He's not half the star in America guys like Oscar was when he turned pro. There are literally dozens of American fighters who could
CHOOSE Loma's path and get the same
TREATMENT from Bob, Eddie, Al, Oscar, any top promoter.
You'd prefer Loma had "earned" a title shot by having 15-20 fights against the guy who runs the beer stand? Then maybe a championship rated fighter or two - like Ramirez - before the alphabet org
allowed him the honour of paying for a shot?
He didn't bypass "learning the craft and honing skills" against club fighters because he was "handed it on a silver platter," the
risk/gamble paid off. He
proved to be the real deal, not just an outstanding amateur.
Robeisy Ramirez? Heard of him? Two-time olympic gold medalist? Massive bidding war between promoters to sign him, went with Bob. Last month he got knocked down 30 seconds into his debut and lost the fight against a 4-2-2 hotdog seller.
Yes handed on a platter. The immediate championship opportunity that is. I didn't say easy, not his opposition not his dedication...but the professional doors afforded and maybe I'm thick..ok I'll spot you that one.. but I don't think their are dozens that could simply dictate demands for roll out multi title shots as they please. Let alone be literally promised a title fight by a 2nd pro start. Even if you lose, you'll get matched for it again right away v a guy not even ranked by say the Ring. What fighter doesn't have risk/reward. And it paid off on the second try. Loma was fortunate to have outside guarantees from the fat cats. He is the exception..in skill as well as his professional start.
Yeh maybe I'm old fashion but I like a guy to build up. Not talking 20-30 gimmes but what is so wrong with a guy regardless of stature actually being required to have a few fights where the lights are a little less blinding. Loma in a way is a representation of our want for immediate gratification and how the sport has changed exposure and media wise. Beer vendors have to work to. Journeymen and contenders have to eat too. Guys like Narciso Valenzuela have to make money grubbers like Bob Arum choke on those hot dogs for a split second when they drop Oscar on his arse. And fans of every ilk want to see the next coming. Oscar may have been huge coming out but guys then didn't have the easy amatuer fan following and point and click of today. Fans would have called foul if an Oscar would have been allowed to jump right into a title. Shat you can't even get fans to find a consensus on what actually constitutes a 'pro' fight vs an amatuer bout today. But I get it..times change and honestly man I'm not hating on the individual or faulting the man for maximizing advantages and shooting for history. Jebus the last thing I want is to defend trinket syndicates or fooking Oscar types but yeh if you're whole thing is covering yourself in those same trinkets like a gawdy Christmas tree than why shouldn't one be expected to get in line. What I want from a guy many are calling an all time great ffs are career defining fights. More so for fans, a super fight but as of late Arum looks content of some big showcases where Loma as expected will dazzle.
Pete Rademacher? 1956 USA Gold medalist. On his debut fought Floyd Patterson for THE world championship (the days of ONE champion). Teofilo Stevenson and Felix Savon, offered absolute fortunes, tens of millions, to fight Ali and Tyson on debut. These guys were much more famous than Loma.
I don't think your view is old school, it represents the modern model created by multiple alphabets. Every org with their own ratings. There's no set method to getting a title shot, never has been. You don't get what you "deserve," you get what you negotiate. And fighters have a say in their matches, they're not forced into facing the hotdog seller or "world" champion.
If Loma represents "modern-day gratification," and what he's achieved isn't unique, we'll be seeing plenty of fighters emulating him - 14 championship level fights in a row. Fantastic.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
imp
Not a fan of Tim Bradley on the commentary..how dare he not know which Fury was fighting Povetkin?!
Hughie is future PPV.
Id go as far as saying Bradley is fuckin shit at commentary and espn should really look for someone else otherwise people are gonna switch off
Ward wasn't much better either, almost as boring as his fights
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Loma from the get go was about instant super stardom and all the rewards from fighter to promoter that came with it. I don't see this particular racism angle in regards to Crawford v Loma. Honestly I wasn't fond of Loma and the microwave type push he had rolled out to him based on Amatuer and Gold medal accolades from the beginning. It was surreal to see a guy handed a title shot as headliner on HBO in only his second 'pro' fight. He was HBO ppv in debut. I remember De La Hoya making his post Gold medal debut as some 6 rounder v the guy running the beer stand at the Great Western Forum. But honestly and with respect to some ok'ish guys over his first year..you could have skipped them all and gone 1-0 right into his 1st trinket too. It's padding as much as it's a normal mostly excepted process for a fighter of high caliber to showcase..market..grow seats and fans before having it handed a trinket on a silver platter. The learning craft and honing skills feels secondary for some early on. No sane individual can deny Lomas skill and he is very much a pleasure to watch aside from some clowning and mocking from time to time. But rarely if ever has a fighter been given the opportunities, for the sake of a promoter too, that he has been given. Every record in history can be torn apart but truth be told aside from Walters and Russell Jr, Linares on the rebound just to get ko'd next, where were these fresh undefeated top division threats he vanquished. Rigo again two divisions is two divisions. Feel the same way about it as with Mikey up for Spence, Brook up for GGG so on and so forth. I don't mind Loma at all but make no mistake right now he and Arum more so are about collecting trinkets, not being involved in super fights.
Loma's had it "handed on a platter?" If what he's done is so "easy" why haven't others done it? Why waste their time with all the training camps and obligations whilst receiving peanuts when they can jump in the deep end? He's not half the star in America guys like Oscar was when he turned pro. There are literally dozens of American fighters who could
CHOOSE Loma's path and get the same
TREATMENT from Bob, Eddie, Al, Oscar, any top promoter.
You'd prefer Loma had "earned" a title shot by having 15-20 fights against the guy who runs the beer stand? Then maybe a championship rated fighter or two - like Ramirez - before the alphabet org
allowed him the honour of paying for a shot?
He didn't bypass "learning the craft and honing skills" against club fighters because he was "handed it on a silver platter," the
risk/gamble paid off. He
proved to be the real deal, not just an outstanding amateur.
Robeisy Ramirez? Heard of him? Two-time olympic gold medalist? Massive bidding war between promoters to sign him, went with Bob. Last month he got knocked down 30 seconds into his debut and lost the fight against a 4-2-2 hotdog seller.
Yes handed on a platter. The immediate championship opportunity that is. I didn't say easy, not his opposition not his dedication...but the professional doors afforded and maybe I'm thick..ok I'll spot you that one.. but I don't think their are dozens that could simply dictate demands for roll out multi title shots as they please. Let alone be literally promised a title fight by a 2nd pro start. Even if you lose, you'll get matched for it again right away v a guy not even ranked by say the Ring. What fighter doesn't have risk/reward. And it paid off on the second try. Loma was fortunate to have outside guarantees from the fat cats. He is the exception..in skill as well as his professional start.
Yeh maybe I'm old fashion but I like a guy to build up. Not talking 20-30 gimmes but what is so wrong with a guy regardless of stature actually being required to have a few fights where the lights are a little less blinding. Loma in a way is a representation of our want for immediate gratification and how the sport has changed exposure and media wise. Beer vendors have to work to. Journeymen and contenders have to eat too. Guys like Narciso Valenzuela have to make money grubbers like Bob Arum choke on those hot dogs for a split second when they drop Oscar on his arse. And fans of every ilk want to see the next coming. Oscar may have been huge coming out but guys then didn't have the easy amatuer fan following and point and click of today. Fans would have called foul if an Oscar would have been allowed to jump right into a title. Shat you can't even get fans to find a consensus on what actually constitutes a 'pro' fight vs an amatuer bout today. But I get it..times change and honestly man I'm not hating on the individual or faulting the man for maximizing advantages and shooting for history. Jebus the last thing I want is to defend trinket syndicates or fooking Oscar types but yeh if you're whole thing is covering yourself in those same trinkets like a gawdy Christmas tree than why shouldn't one be expected to get in line. What I want from a guy many are calling an all time great ffs are career defining fights. More so for fans, a super fight but as of late Arum looks content of some big showcases where Loma as expected will dazzle.
Pete Rademacher? 1956 USA Gold medalist. On his debut fought Floyd Patterson for THE world championship (the days of
ONE champion). Teofilo Stevenson and Felix Savon, offered absolute fortunes, tens of millions, to fight Ali and Tyson on debut. These guys were much more famous than Loma.
I don't think your view is old school, it represents the modern model created by multiple alphabets. Every org with their own ratings. There's no set method to getting a title shot, never has been. You don't get what you "deserve," you get what you negotiate. And fighters have a say in their matches, they're not forced into facing the hotdog seller or "world" champion.
If Loma represents "modern-day gratification," and what he's achieved isn't
unique, we'll be seeing plenty of fighters emulating him - 14 championship level fights in a row. Fantastic.
100% agreed, Loma himself did not want easy fights to pad his record he wanted to go straight for titles. It would be a waste of time watching Loma beat up club fighters.
Loma is a marvel.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
100% agree with me? Are you ill? If not, you're gonna be fuming when you find out your kids have hacked your account. (:D)
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
@Master , Fenster's actually giddy you agree 100% with him. It's just a little awkward for him to admit it, since he's only used to people disagreeing with him. (That's what I'm here for).
In fact, Loma is one of those topics.
Not that it's really an arguable topic, since it really boils down to personal preference. Personally, I prefer the old style way of working your way up to a title shot. Not taxi cab drivers and Tijuana bartenders mind you. We're already had a redhead and a melon-head who've gone that route. No.... I mean a methodical route to a championship fight, with anywhere from 10-20 fights under your belt against constantly improving opposition.
It's arguable that Loma isn't the ONLY fighter in world boxing history with the initial talent to have merited a shot very close to the beginning of their pro boxing career. I refuse to adhere to the notion that Loma is several levels above any other fighter that ever lived. He's a special talent, to be sure. He also benefited from a long illustrious amateur career. How he got the title shot right out of the gate is beyond me. Promotion, string-pulling, bribes.... whatever. Most of us are not privy to the goings on behind the boxing scenes.
Still... there's something special about a prospect accumulating ever-increasing scalps on his resume until he finally gets his big shot.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Loma from the get go was about instant super stardom and all the rewards from fighter to promoter that came with it. I don't see this particular racism angle in regards to Crawford v Loma. Honestly I wasn't fond of Loma and the microwave type push he had rolled out to him based on Amatuer and Gold medal accolades from the beginning. It was surreal to see a guy handed a title shot as headliner on HBO in only his second 'pro' fight. He was HBO ppv in debut. I remember De La Hoya making his post Gold medal debut as some 6 rounder v the guy running the beer stand at the Great Western Forum. But honestly and with respect to some ok'ish guys over his first year..you could have skipped them all and gone 1-0 right into his 1st trinket too. It's padding as much as it's a normal mostly excepted process for a fighter of high caliber to showcase..market..grow seats and fans before having it handed a trinket on a silver platter. The learning craft and honing skills feels secondary for some early on. No sane individual can deny Lomas skill and he is very much a pleasure to watch aside from some clowning and mocking from time to time. But rarely if ever has a fighter been given the opportunities, for the sake of a promoter too, that he has been given. Every record in history can be torn apart but truth be told aside from Walters and Russell Jr, Linares on the rebound just to get ko'd next, where were these fresh undefeated top division threats he vanquished. Rigo again two divisions is two divisions. Feel the same way about it as with Mikey up for Spence, Brook up for GGG so on and so forth. I don't mind Loma at all but make no mistake right now he and Arum more so are about collecting trinkets, not being involved in super fights.
Loma's had it "handed on a platter?" If what he's done is so "easy" why haven't others done it? Why waste their time with all the training camps and obligations whilst receiving peanuts when they can jump in the deep end? He's not half the star in America guys like Oscar was when he turned pro. There are literally dozens of American fighters who could
CHOOSE Loma's path and get the same
TREATMENT from Bob, Eddie, Al, Oscar, any top promoter.
You'd prefer Loma had "earned" a title shot by having 15-20 fights against the guy who runs the beer stand? Then maybe a championship rated fighter or two - like Ramirez - before the alphabet org
allowed him the honour of paying for a shot?
He didn't bypass "learning the craft and honing skills" against club fighters because he was "handed it on a silver platter," the
risk/gamble paid off. He
proved to be the real deal, not just an outstanding amateur.
Robeisy Ramirez? Heard of him? Two-time olympic gold medalist? Massive bidding war between promoters to sign him, went with Bob. Last month he got knocked down 30 seconds into his debut and lost the fight against a 4-2-2 hotdog seller.
Yes handed on a platter. The immediate championship opportunity that is. I didn't say easy, not his opposition not his dedication...but the professional doors afforded and maybe I'm thick..ok I'll spot you that one.. but I don't think their are dozens that could simply dictate demands for roll out multi title shots as they please. Let alone be literally promised a title fight by a 2nd pro start. Even if you lose, you'll get matched for it again right away v a guy not even ranked by say the Ring. What fighter doesn't have risk/reward. And it paid off on the second try. Loma was fortunate to have outside guarantees from the fat cats. He is the exception..in skill as well as his professional start.
Yeh maybe I'm old fashion but I like a guy to build up. Not talking 20-30 gimmes but what is so wrong with a guy regardless of stature actually being required to have a few fights where the lights are a little less blinding. Loma in a way is a representation of our want for immediate gratification and how the sport has changed exposure and media wise. Beer vendors have to work to. Journeymen and contenders have to eat too. Guys like Narciso Valenzuela have to make money grubbers like Bob Arum choke on those hot dogs for a split second when they drop Oscar on his arse. And fans of every ilk want to see the next coming. Oscar may have been huge coming out but guys then didn't have the easy amatuer fan following and point and click of today. Fans would have called foul if an Oscar would have been allowed to jump right into a title. Shat you can't even get fans to find a consensus on what actually constitutes a 'pro' fight vs an amatuer bout today. But I get it..times change and honestly man I'm not hating on the individual or faulting the man for maximizing advantages and shooting for history. Jebus the last thing I want is to defend trinket syndicates or fooking Oscar types but yeh if you're whole thing is covering yourself in those same trinkets like a gawdy Christmas tree than why shouldn't one be expected to get in line. What I want from a guy many are calling an all time great ffs are career defining fights. More so for fans, a super fight but as of late Arum looks content of some big showcases where Loma as expected will dazzle.
Pete Rademacher? 1956 USA Gold medalist. On his debut fought Floyd Patterson for THE world championship (the days of
ONE champion). Teofilo Stevenson and Felix Savon, offered absolute fortunes, tens of millions, to fight Ali and Tyson on debut. These guys were much more famous than Loma.
I don't think your view is old school, it represents the modern model created by multiple alphabets. Every org with their own ratings. There's no set method to getting a title shot, never has been. You don't get what you "deserve," you get what you negotiate. And fighters have a say in their matches, they're not forced into facing the hotdog seller or "world" champion.
If Loma represents "modern-day gratification," and what he's achieved isn't
unique, we'll be seeing plenty of fighters emulating him - 14 championship level fights in a row. Fantastic.
Rademacher ;D come on now that's a stretch. He had to scrap up financial backing from friends, grant rights to Cus and still ended up in the red in that one. The match was widely dismissed as the eventual mismatch it turned into.
True enough, Stevenson and Savon had offers from both Arum and King because well that's what promoters do but in all reality those propositions were dead on arrival. They had no want for it and both amatuer stars were in no position to negotiate anything professional in Castros Cuba unless turning back on Country, fame and family was an option. Also Arum from what I understand wanted a series of Stevenson exhibitions for a rapidly declining Ali ', 3 rounders. Stevenson wins all that money and he would have kept none of it directly. I remember some mumbles of Savon and Tyson in mid 90's with the future up in the air for Mike who was fresh out of the clink. Speaking for myself it was respectfully laughable with major players..actual professionals like Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, Moorer etc there.
No I do think Loma is unique. In talent as well as ,again, early opportunities presented. It's not about the ranking bodies as the only rankings mentioned were The Ring. By my count Loma didn't start defeating those until going to second title run. This is all going backwards and Loma is where he is and as stated is special. But I simply do not believe amatuer stars, partial pro-amatuer phenoms, should bypass established professionals..be they fringe who get maybe 1 single shot in a career or be they legitimate long time contenders who have done the rounds and years and done the time for a major career defining opportunity. Sport is bigger than 20-40 'stars' greedy promoters trip over themselves fawning over.
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spicoli
Loma from the get go was about instant super stardom and all the rewards from fighter to promoter that came with it. I don't see this particular racism angle in regards to Crawford v Loma. Honestly I wasn't fond of Loma and the microwave type push he had rolled out to him based on Amatuer and Gold medal accolades from the beginning. It was surreal to see a guy handed a title shot as headliner on HBO in only his second 'pro' fight. He was HBO ppv in debut. I remember De La Hoya making his post Gold medal debut as some 6 rounder v the guy running the beer stand at the Great Western Forum. But honestly and with respect to some ok'ish guys over his first year..you could have skipped them all and gone 1-0 right into his 1st trinket too. It's padding as much as it's a normal mostly excepted process for a fighter of high caliber to showcase..market..grow seats and fans before having it handed a trinket on a silver platter. The learning craft and honing skills feels secondary for some early on. No sane individual can deny Lomas skill and he is very much a pleasure to watch aside from some clowning and mocking from time to time. But rarely if ever has a fighter been given the opportunities, for the sake of a promoter too, that he has been given. Every record in history can be torn apart but truth be told aside from Walters and Russell Jr, Linares on the rebound just to get ko'd next, where were these fresh undefeated top division threats he vanquished. Rigo again two divisions is two divisions. Feel the same way about it as with Mikey up for Spence, Brook up for GGG so on and so forth. I don't mind Loma at all but make no mistake right now he and Arum more so are about collecting trinkets, not being involved in super fights.
Loma's had it "handed on a platter?" If what he's done is so "easy" why haven't others done it? Why waste their time with all the training camps and obligations whilst receiving peanuts when they can jump in the deep end? He's not half the star in America guys like Oscar was when he turned pro. There are literally dozens of American fighters who could
CHOOSE Loma's path and get the same
TREATMENT from Bob, Eddie, Al, Oscar, any top promoter.
You'd prefer Loma had "earned" a title shot by having 15-20 fights against the guy who runs the beer stand? Then maybe a championship rated fighter or two - like Ramirez - before the alphabet org
allowed him the honour of paying for a shot?
He didn't bypass "learning the craft and honing skills" against club fighters because he was "handed it on a silver platter," the
risk/gamble paid off. He
proved to be the real deal, not just an outstanding amateur.
Robeisy Ramirez? Heard of him? Two-time olympic gold medalist? Massive bidding war between promoters to sign him, went with Bob. Last month he got knocked down 30 seconds into his debut and lost the fight against a 4-2-2 hotdog seller.
Yes handed on a platter. The immediate championship opportunity that is. I didn't say easy, not his opposition not his dedication...but the professional doors afforded and maybe I'm thick..ok I'll spot you that one.. but I don't think their are dozens that could simply dictate demands for roll out multi title shots as they please. Let alone be literally promised a title fight by a 2nd pro start. Even if you lose, you'll get matched for it again right away v a guy not even ranked by say the Ring. What fighter doesn't have risk/reward. And it paid off on the second try. Loma was fortunate to have outside guarantees from the fat cats. He is the exception..in skill as well as his professional start.
Yeh maybe I'm old fashion but I like a guy to build up. Not talking 20-30 gimmes but what is so wrong with a guy regardless of stature actually being required to have a few fights where the lights are a little less blinding. Loma in a way is a representation of our want for immediate gratification and how the sport has changed exposure and media wise. Beer vendors have to work to. Journeymen and contenders have to eat too. Guys like Narciso Valenzuela have to make money grubbers like Bob Arum choke on those hot dogs for a split second when they drop Oscar on his arse. And fans of every ilk want to see the next coming. Oscar may have been huge coming out but guys then didn't have the easy amatuer fan following and point and click of today. Fans would have called foul if an Oscar would have been allowed to jump right into a title. Shat you can't even get fans to find a consensus on what actually constitutes a 'pro' fight vs an amatuer bout today. But I get it..times change and honestly man I'm not hating on the individual or faulting the man for maximizing advantages and shooting for history. Jebus the last thing I want is to defend trinket syndicates or fooking Oscar types but yeh if you're whole thing is covering yourself in those same trinkets like a gawdy Christmas tree than why shouldn't one be expected to get in line. What I want from a guy many are calling an all time great ffs are career defining fights. More so for fans, a super fight but as of late Arum looks content of some big showcases where Loma as expected will dazzle.
Pete Rademacher? 1956 USA Gold medalist. On his debut fought Floyd Patterson for THE world championship (the days of
ONE champion). Teofilo Stevenson and Felix Savon, offered absolute fortunes, tens of millions, to fight Ali and Tyson on debut. These guys were much more famous than Loma.
I don't think your view is old school, it represents the modern model created by multiple alphabets. Every org with their own ratings. There's no set method to getting a title shot, never has been. You don't get what you "deserve," you get what you negotiate. And fighters have a say in their matches, they're not forced into facing the hotdog seller or "world" champion.
If Loma represents "modern-day gratification," and what he's achieved isn't
unique, we'll be seeing plenty of fighters emulating him - 14 championship level fights in a row. Fantastic.
100% agreed, Loma himself did not want easy fights to pad his record he wanted to go straight for titles. It would be a waste of time watching Loma beat up club fighters.
Loma is a marvel.
See. Alwaaaaays knew you mod wankers were in some sort of reach around gang ;D
-
Re: Why I’m hard on Loma, fair or foul?
It's very simple why Loma got an alphabet shot in his second fight, there's nothing "shady," no conspiracy, it's how every single fight is made between fighters, promoters and governing body.
Promoters/managers canvass alphabet organisations on behalf of their fighters. The higher profile, the more the org is interested, as the dough they receive (sanction fees) is bigger and the publicity and promotion propels their business .
Loma asked his promoter, Bob, to get a title fight, the WBO and Nevada commission agreed he's safe and competent to challenge no.7 contender Ramirez, he accepted. Loma destroyed him, therefore proving to the WBO he was a worthy challenger for their champion. Salido accepted the challege. The Texas commission approved it. TV company bought it. Worldwide TV bought it. And everyone made a little coin.
If you don't accept that's the norm, feel free to explain how anyone "deserves" a shot at an alphabet?
