Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1

[Alpha]

His skill speaks for itself, he's tremendous. But I need to see him face more adversity and pressure, simply see more. Every fighter on the list can be hacked apart if based on competition. He lost to Salido. Martinez arguably also lost to Salido rematch. Can anyone name unranked Russells most impressive 'huge fight' victory prior to facing Loma? I'm still wondering when Walters actually quit in that fight, was it on his stool and after a couple rounds of being bedazzled. Sosa had no business there and clearly lost to Walters. All a guy can do is dominate his opponents and it becomes a double edge sword. I believe Crawford has shown just as much if not more adjustment in a ring when breaking down his opponent and he actually had to work for and earn his professional network spot and platform.

That's what I'm saying apart from Walters who was possibly #1 at 126 Loma hasn't really fought the best in his division(s). I doubt Russell was ranked and if he was it was bottom half. Martinez and Sosa were not at the top. Ward stepped up a division to fight Kov; considered the best at 175. I thought Kov won. Gonzalez has been in with the best of 4 divisions and should still be undefeated. Crawford beat Postol who was considered the #2 and biggest challenge in the division. Garcia holds wins over Salido, Martinez and took out Zlaticanin who was considered the #2 guy at 135 (and who Linares had arguably avoided) making Garcia a 3 weight champion. I understand the buzz and watching Loma fight it is hard to deny those skills but personally I feel many are getting ahead of themselves.

That's not even taking into account a guy like Shinsuke Yamanaka. Even Inoue's record is arguably better than Loma's. Rigo ain't done sh-t lately but at least he beat a P4P guy in Donaire.

"Crawford beat Postol who was regarded no.2" - This is where ranking fighters from different divisions by who beat whom becomes a farce. Just because Postol was rated no.2 at 140 it doesn't mean he was realistically better than the no.10 ranked featherweight or no.12 middleweight or no.5 cruiserweight etc.

What made Postol no.2? He beat a "shot" Matthysse. He was no.2 because the division is really weak compared to others.

In fact Crawford's record is really weak for a P4P guy. Garcia's isn't much better. You see.. start ripping apart fighters records, all of a sudden everyone is crap (). Loma's wins stack up with anything Crawford has done.

So Matthysse was shot now? I'm sure he was the fav going in? The fight with Crawford was a unification and they were considered the 2 best in the division. Sure the division may have been weak according to you but 126 wasn't much better. Crawford has been considered the lineal champ at both 135 and 140. Garcia holds a win over the guy that beat Loma and beat the other guy (Martinez) who you rate as one of Loma's best 3. He was also considered lineal at 126. Probably would have been at 130 as well had he not had the layoff. You said you have him clear at #1. That's fine you are entitled to your opinion. I'm just listing reasons as to why I would rate other fighters ahead of him. The cool thing is we have all these fighters that we can include in the debate and many of them are challenging themselves. Ward & Kov are set to go at it again. Crawford is taking on Diaz. Gonzalez will potentially rematch Cuardas or Wangek. Garcia looks on a collision course with Linares. Good times ahead.

Yeah I think Matthysee has been a shadow since Garcia seriously damaged his eye. I put shot in quotation marks as it's just my opinion not a fact. The Matthysee from a few years ago would have decapitated Postol.

Regardless of "lineal" or ranking position per division I think Walters and Russell Jr are much better than Postol. And Walters was no.1 at featherweight anyway before moving to superfeather.

Rocky Martinez is one of Garcia's best wins in 36 fights, Loma has had just 9.

All my point is - is that even ignoring Loma's incredible skillset, his competition isn't that far off everyone elses barring Ward and Chocolatito. That's all.

OK I understand what you meant now and I agree Loma is not far off. But I have to disagree with "Clear #1" for the reasons I've stated previously.

Matthysse may have slipped but he was coming in off the Provodnikov win where he looked good. Russell Jr had fought no one going into their bout and I rate Postol's loss to Crawford about the same as Russell's to Loma. No shame in losing to a class fighter. Also Postol took his loss like a man so I could never rate Walters ahead of him. He may have been #1 at 126 but the fight took place at 130 where he hadn't won a title and his only fight was the "draw" with Sosa.

[Fenster]

I thought I made it clear that I said "clear" as I based it on talent/skill/abilty more than records. Clearly I didn't make that clear ().

@Master - Brook weighed 160 like all Golovkin's other middleweight opponents. It's irrelevant though as you've stated Golovkin let him do better than the others.

If you believe it's illogical that fighters moving up in weight can't be tougher than men that already fight at the weight, I suggest you take a look back through the history of boxing. You will get the shock of your life mate.

Seriously, these fighters will blow your mind - start with a Filipino fella named Manny Pacquiao, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya, Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.

[Beanz]

I thought I made it clear that I said "clear" as I based it on talent/skill/abilty more than records. Clearly I didn't make that clear (). @Master - Brook weighed 160 like all Golovkin's other middleweight opponents. It's irrelevant though as you've stated Golovkin let him do better than the others.If you believe it's illogical that fighters moving up in weight can't be tougher than men that already fight at the weight, I suggest you take a look back through the history of boxing. You will get the shock of your life mate.Seriously, these fighters will blow your mind - start with a Filipino fella named Manny Pacquiao, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya, Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.

Never heard of em :-)

[Master]

I thought I made it clear that I said "clear" as I based it on talent/skill/abilty more than records. Clearly I didn't make that clear (). @Master - Brook weighed 160 like all Golovkin's other middleweight opponents. It's irrelevant though as you've stated Golovkin let him do better than the others.If you believe it's illogical that fighters moving up in weight can't be tougher than men that already fight at the weight, I suggest you take a look back through the history of boxing. You will get the shock of your life mate.Seriously, these fighters will blow your mind - start with a Filipino fella named Manny Pacquiao, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya, Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.

Never heard of em :-)

Brook does not compare to these fighters

[Gandalf]

I thought I made it clear that I said "clear" as I based it on talent/skill/abilty more than records. Clearly I didn't make that clear (). @Master - Brook weighed 160 like all Golovkin's other middleweight opponents. It's irrelevant though as you've stated Golovkin let him do better than the others.If you believe it's illogical that fighters moving up in weight can't be tougher than men that already fight at the weight, I suggest you take a look back through the history of boxing. You will get the shock of your life mate.Seriously, these fighters will blow your mind - start with a Filipino fella named Manny Pacquiao, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya, Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.

Never heard of em :-)

Brook does not compare to these fighters

Exactly, Brook went up and got beaten up then went down again. Pac, Leonard, and Duran went up and they were still demonic.

[Fenster]

I thought I made it clear that I said "clear" as I based it on talent/skill/abilty more than records. Clearly I didn't make that clear (). @Master - Brook weighed 160 like all Golovkin's other middleweight opponents. It's irrelevant though as you've stated Golovkin let him do better than the others.If you believe it's illogical that fighters moving up in weight can't be tougher than men that already fight at the weight, I suggest you take a look back through the history of boxing. You will get the shock of your life mate.Seriously, these fighters will blow your mind - start with a Filipino fella named Manny Pacquiao, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya, Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.

Never heard of em :-)

Brook does not compare to these fighters

Exactly, Brook went up and got beaten up then went down again. Pac, Leonard, and Duran went up and they were still demonic.

I never said Brook compares to those fighters. I helped Master understand the history of boxing.

Those fighters are an example of why it's NOT illogical for a fighter two weights below to be tougher than contenders/ex champions at the weight the champion fights at.

Hope this helps.

How can a fighter two weights below be tougher fight that contenders/ex champions at the weight the champion fights at?

Illogical, but if it keeps you happy to think it does, then so be it.

[Master]

No it does not help, you are in the wrong but will not admit that Brook was nothing compared to real middleweights he has faced.

[ryanman]

I thought I made it clear that I said "clear" as I based it on talent/skill/abilty more than records. Clearly I didn't make that clear (). @Master - Brook weighed 160 like all Golovkin's other middleweight opponents. It's irrelevant though as you've stated Golovkin let him do better than the others.If you believe it's illogical that fighters moving up in weight can't be tougher than men that already fight at the weight, I suggest you take a look back through the history of boxing. You will get the shock of your life mate.Seriously, these fighters will blow your mind - start with a Filipino fella named Manny Pacquiao, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya, Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.

Never heard of em :-)

+1 for classic Saddo humour.

[TitoFan]

Well I never heard of McKenzie, but that's probably my fault.

[ryanman]

Well I never heard of McKenzie, but that's probably my fault.

Never heard of the Duke Tito?

I'll give you that. But I know a wise ancient old timer () like you wouldn't entertain Kov banging out JC.

[TitoFan]

Well I never heard of McKenzie, but that's probably my fault.

Never heard of the Duke Tito?

I'll give you that. But I know a wise ancient old timer () like you wouldn't entertain Kov banging out JC.

Hey I can sympathize with how you guys feel about Joe. I cherish my own superheroes too.

[TitoFan]

I thought I made it clear that I said "clear" as I based it on talent/skill/abilty more than records. Clearly I didn't make that clear ().

@Master - Brook weighed 160 like all Golovkin's other middleweight opponents. It's irrelevant though as you've stated Golovkin let him do better than the others.

If you believe it's illogical that fighters moving up in weight can't be tougher than men that already fight at the weight, I suggest you take a look back through the history of boxing. You will get the shock of your life mate.

Seriously, these fighters will blow your mind - start with a Filipino fella named Manny Pacquiao, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya, Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.

All the fighters you mentioned, and you could include a few others as well, worked their way up through the weight divisions. Brook had fought exclusively at welter and jumped up to middleweight in one fell swoop to challenge one of the best MW's in history out of the blue. Big difference. Once he gets beaten he goes right back down. Again... big difference. Not taking anything away from the man. But it was a bad experiment gone wrong. Brook couldn't hurt GGG, and they both knew it.

[Fenster]

I thought I made it clear that I said "clear" as I based it on talent/skill/abilty more than records. Clearly I didn't make that clear ().

@Master - Brook weighed 160 like all Golovkin's other middleweight opponents. It's irrelevant though as you've stated Golovkin let him do better than the others.

If you believe it's illogical that fighters moving up in weight can't be tougher than men that already fight at the weight, I suggest you take a look back through the history of boxing. You will get the shock of your life mate.

Seriously, these fighters will blow your mind - start with a Filipino fella named Manny Pacquiao, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya, Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.

All the fighters you mentioned, and you could include a few others as well, worked their way up through the weight divisions. Brook had fought exclusively at welter and jumped up to middleweight in one fell swoop to challenge one of the best MW's in history out of the blue. Big difference. Once he gets beaten he goes right back down. Again... big difference. Not taking anything away from the man. But it was a bad experiment gone wrong. Brook couldn't hurt GGG, and they both knew it.

I never said Brook compares to those fighters. I helped Master understand the history of boxing.

Those fighters are an example of why it's NOT illogical for a fighter two weights below to be tougher than contenders/ex champions at the weight the champion fights at.

How can a fighter two weights below be tougher fight that contenders/ex champions at the weight the champion fights at?

Illogical, but if it keeps you happy to think it does, then so be it.

I'm here to help.

[TitoFan]

I thought I made it clear that I said "clear" as I based it on talent/skill/abilty more than records. Clearly I didn't make that clear ().

@Master - Brook weighed 160 like all Golovkin's other middleweight opponents. It's irrelevant though as you've stated Golovkin let him do better than the others.

If you believe it's illogical that fighters moving up in weight can't be tougher than men that already fight at the weight, I suggest you take a look back through the history of boxing. You will get the shock of your life mate.

Seriously, these fighters will blow your mind - start with a Filipino fella named Manny Pacquiao, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya, Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.

All the fighters you mentioned, and you could include a few others as well, worked their way up through the weight divisions. Brook had fought exclusively at welter and jumped up to middleweight in one fell swoop to challenge one of the best MW's in history out of the blue. Big difference. Once he gets beaten he goes right back down. Again... big difference. Not taking anything away from the man. But it was a bad experiment gone wrong. Brook couldn't hurt GGG, and they both knew it.

I never said Brook compares to those fighters. I helped Master understand the history of boxing.

Those fighters are an example of why it's NOT illogical for a fighter two weights below to be tougher than contenders/ex champions at the weight the champion fights at.

How can a fighter two weights below be tougher fight that contenders/ex champions at the weight the champion fights at?

Illogical, but if it keeps you happy to think it does, then so be it.

I'm here to help.

"I'm here to help." =

[Master]

I thought I made it clear that I said "clear" as I based it on talent/skill/abilty more than records. Clearly I didn't make that clear ().

@Master - Brook weighed 160 like all Golovkin's other middleweight opponents. It's irrelevant though as you've stated Golovkin let him do better than the others.

If you believe it's illogical that fighters moving up in weight can't be tougher than men that already fight at the weight, I suggest you take a look back through the history of boxing. You will get the shock of your life mate.

Seriously, these fighters will blow your mind - start with a Filipino fella named Manny Pacquiao, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, Hearns, De La Hoya, Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.

All the fighters you mentioned, and you could include a few others as well, worked their way up through the weight divisions. Brook had fought exclusively at welter and jumped up to middleweight in one fell swoop to challenge one of the best MW's in history out of the blue. Big difference. Once he gets beaten he goes right back down. Again... big difference. Not taking anything away from the man. But it was a bad experiment gone wrong. Brook couldn't hurt GGG, and they both knew it.

I never said Brook compares to those fighters. I helped Master understand the history of boxing.

Those fighters are an example of why it's NOT illogical for a fighter two weights below to be tougher than contenders/ex champions at the weight the champion fights at.

How can a fighter two weights below be tougher fight that contenders/ex champions at the weight the champion fights at?

Illogical, but if it keeps you happy to think it does, then so be it.

I'm here to help.

"I'm here to help." =

You know I am right, just tell Fenster he is talking crap.