Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1

[TitoFan]

I never said it was an illogical concept.

Err... yeah you did.

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.

You can't deny it now as i've got your dullard mates accusing me of things i've never said precisely because I gave you multiple examples to prove it was far from illogical, or even out of the norm.

You don't call people names, yet you've called Master an imbecile and me a dullard.
Yet I've refrained from calling you a moron, no matter how earned it may have been.

[Fenster]

I never said it was an illogical concept.

Err... yeah you did.

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.

You can't deny it now as i've got your dullard mates accusing me of things i've never said precisely because I gave you multiple examples to prove it was far from illogical, or even out of the norm.

You don't call people names, yet you've called Master an imbecile and me a dullard.
Yet I've refrained from calling you a moron, no matter how earned it may have been.

Call me what you want I couldn't care less. I've already told you - in my opinion - imbecile and dullard are apt, I never said I don't call people names I said i'm consistent.

[TitoFan]

I never said it was an illogical concept.

Err... yeah you did.

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.

You can't deny it now as i've got your dullard mates accusing me of things i've never said precisely because I gave you multiple examples to prove it was far from illogical, or even out of the norm.

You don't call people names, yet you've called Master an imbecile and me a dullard.
Yet I've refrained from calling you a moron, no matter how earned it may have been.

Call me what you want I couldn't care less. I've already told you - in my opinion - imbecile and dullard are apt, I never said I don't call people names I said i'm consistent.

Mods should be held to a higher standard. Just sayin'

Otherwise, how are you to be expected to moderate a forum when the personal insults fly.

But I'm glad you're impervious to the name calling.

That relieves any guilt about calling you a moron...... if I were to do such a thing.

[TitoFan]

But this thread is about the opinion that Loma is p4p #1, and to those of us who consider a pro career something more than 9 fights, we respectfully disagree. That's not to say Loma won't be p4p #1 worthy soon... but anointing him now is a slap in the face to those fighters who have proven themselves over the course of a more significant number of fights. And........... since p4p is mythical and strictly about opinion... even us "dullards" are entitled to ours.

[mikeeod]

But this thread is about the opinion that Loma is p4p #1, and to those of us who consider a pro career something more than 9 fights, we respectfully disagree. That's not to say Loma won't be p4p #1 worthy soon... but anointing him now is a slap in the face to those fighters who have proven themselves over the course of a more significant number of fights. And........... since p4p is mythical and strictly about opinion... even us "dullards" are entitled to ours.

Is it about quantity or quality of fights If a fighter walked out of the amateurs and clearly beat Loma, Mikey Garcia, and Terrance Crawford in his first three fights, would you REALLY not consider him due to insufficient quantity

[TitoFan]

But this thread is about the opinion that Loma is p4p #1, and to those of us who consider a pro career something more than 9 fights, we respectfully disagree. That's not to say Loma won't be p4p #1 worthy soon... but anointing him now is a slap in the face to those fighters who have proven themselves over the course of a more significant number of fights. And........... since p4p is mythical and strictly about opinion... even us "dullards" are entitled to ours.

Is it about quantity or quality of fights If a fighter walked out of the amateurs and clearly beat Loma, Mikey Garcia, and Terrance Crawford in his first three fights, would you REALLY not consider him due to insufficient quantity

Ok that's probably not gonna happen.


But let's say it did. With a resume like that, if we're talking Loma, Garcia, and Crawford at their very best, it's almost impossible not to put the guy up there near the top. But p4p # 1 with only 3 professional fights? C'mon. Lots of things happen over the course of a pro career. It's only with a little mileage that you can prove how good you are at: overcoming serious adversity, overcoming bad days, getting tagged and coming back to win, etc, etc.

[Alpha]

Hi Alpha welcome back to the thread.


Ok, you mentioned Mickey Walker challenging Harry Greb at middleweight. But note that Walker had several fights near the MW weight immediately preceding this fight. He went back down after Greb as you say, then eventually continued moving up all the way to LHW. Probably a sign of someone needing to grow into his frame. Carmen Basilio campaigned most of his career at WW, moved up to MW, albeit a small one... and stayed there. Same with Griffith. Let's wait and see what happens with Brook. Maybe it's that he picked on the wrong MW to try and make the move up. The thing with Brook is he skipped 154 and went straight to 160... a very tall order.

No shame in losing to a top guy. I don't think it means he couldn't be just as tough a challenge as other contenders at that weight. We'll have to weight and see what happens with his career.

But this thread is about the opinion that Loma is p4p #1, and to those of us who consider a pro career something more than 9 fights, we respectfully disagree. That's not to say Loma won't be p4p #1 worthy soon... but anointing him now is a slap in the face to those fighters who have proven themselves over the course of a more significant number of fights. And........... since p4p is mythical and strictly about opinion... even us "dullards" are entitled to ours.

Is it about quantity or quality of fights If a fighter walked out of the amateurs and clearly beat Loma, Mikey Garcia, and Terrance Crawford in his first three fights, would you REALLY not consider him due to insufficient quantity

If a guy beat those guys it would be hard to dispute. At the moment it's a matter of other fighters doing better things so far in my opinion.

[Fenster]

Mods should be held to a higher standard. Just sayin'

Otherwise, how are you to be expected to moderate a forum when the personal insults fly.

But I'm glad you're impervious to the name calling.

That relieves any guilt about calling you a moron...... if I were to do such a thing.

How convenient, so you can say and do whatever you like but mods can't because you view them as parent figures? Grow up. If someone gets offended by being called an idiot, after making an idiotic post, then the observation is justified.

I'm entitled to an opinion just as everyone else is. If you don't like it - tough. What would be morally wrong (by my standards) is if I banned or censored you just because I think you're a dullard. Maybe one day i'll meet your standards of modderwaddering.

[Batman]

How convenient, so you can say and do whatever you like but mods can't because you view them as parent figures?

[IMG][/IMG]

[TitoFan]

Mods should be held to a higher standard. Just sayin'

Otherwise, how are you to be expected to moderate a forum when the personal insults fly.

But I'm glad you're impervious to the name calling.

That relieves any guilt about calling you a moron...... if I were to do such a thing.

How convenient, so you can say and do whatever you like but mods can't because you view them as parent figures? Grow up. If someone gets offended by being called an idiot, after making an idiotic post, then the observation is justified.

I'm entitled to an opinion just as everyone else is. If you don't like it - tough. What would be morally wrong (by my standards) is if I banned or censored you just because I think you're a dullard. Maybe one day i'll meet your standards of modderwaddering.

No danger of you ever meeting my standards. You'd have to become a mature adult first.

[TitoFan]

Let's recap some of your boxing nuggets of wisdom:

1. You have a lifelong obsession that JMM ducked Naz. You've devoted pages and pages of boyish-adulation-driven nonsense trying to back up that bogus claim.

2. You practically consider Brook a bonafide MW because he jumped up two divisions for one fight and got beat down by GGG. Then jumped right back down. We all love Brook, but do not wear the same rose-tinted glasses you wear, and are thus grounded in reality. You use bogus numbers and "back them up" with your infantile "Fact".

3. You declare that Lomachenko is the world's # p4p for no other good reason, but because you say so. Anyone who doesn't share your opinion is an imbecile and a dullard. Meanwhile, it is pointed out that you're a moron, and you take offense.



There's more, but you get the point.
Don't worry though. I'll always be around to set you straight.

[Alpha]

Brook has campaigned his career at welterweight and has good boxing skills, hand speed, heart and determination but I believe this is all predicated because of his size and strength over welterweights.

Brook could do well at light middle but at middleweight that advantage would be negated and I do not believe he would be a world class boxer. I could not see him work his way up the ranking as GGG''s opponents did to earn their fight with the champion.

You asked "How can a fighter two weights below be tougher fight that contenders/ex champions at the weight the champion fights at?" Mosley came from 135 for example to 147. Do you think he was a tougher fight than contenders/ex champions at the weight? Hopkins from 160 to 175 is another example.

Once Mosley moved up to welter, he stayed there. Same with Hopkins at his new weight. For whatever reason, they decided to campaign at those respective weights. Whether they could no longer make the prior weight... whatever. Brook jumped up from welter to have one fight at middle. His effort was commendable. Once again I reiterate than I'm a Brook fan. But he challenged one of the best middles ever... and now he has promptly jumped back down to welter, where he's obviously more comfortable. I really don't see why this is not being taken into consideration. On the subject, why is nobody defending Khan, who did exactly the same thing against Canelo. Lots of fighters throughout history have moved up in weight, many times moving up several divisions. Difference is most of them have worked their way up through the ranks, and once having moved up they stay there. None of this is a dis on Brook.

The guys I listed didn't work their way up. There are many others as well like Mares or Spinks, Armstrong went from 126 to 147. Napoles is probably more in line with Brook as he went back to 147. The thing is most guys who move up and try to come back down again seem to suffer. Think Jones Jr for example. The question was how can a fighter be a tougher challenge than contenders/ex champions at the weight the champion fights at. @Master may have been talking about Brook but I think @Fenster and myself have given examples that this could in fact be the case. With Brook we may never know as he might not ever get back to 160 but I think he would be at least 50/ 50 with some of the guys that have challenged GGG. As history has shown many of the best welterweights have been competitive at 160.

But this thread is about the opinion that Loma is p4p #1, and to those of us who consider a pro career something more than 9 fights, we respectfully disagree. That's not to say Loma won't be p4p #1 worthy soon... but anointing him now is a slap in the face to those fighters who have proven themselves over the course of a more significant number of fights. And........... since p4p is mythical and strictly about opinion... even us "dullards" are entitled to ours.

Is that a white flag? JK

[Fenster]

Let's recap some of your boxing nuggets of wisdom:

1. You have a lifelong obsession that JMM ducked Naz. You've devoted pages and pages of boyish-adulation-driven nonsense trying to back up that bogus claim.

2. You practically consider Brook a bonafide MW because he jumped up two divisions for one fight and got beat down by GGG. Then jumped right back down. We all love Brook, but do not wear the same rose-tinted glasses you wear, and are thus grounded in reality. You use bogus numbers and "back them up" with your infantile "Fact".

3. You declare that Lomachenko is the world's # p4p for no other good reason, but because you say so. Anyone who doesn't share your opinion is an imbecile and a dullard. Meanwhile, it is pointed out that you're a moron, and you take offense.



There's more, but you get the point.
Don't worry though. I'll always be around to set you straight.

Feel free to have a pop at me but don't accuse me of saying things i've never said.

1. Provide evidence of me calling anyone an idiot for giving an opinion about P4P? I called Master an idiot for saying "Golovkin let Brook do better against him." I fully stand by it. I'm the one being told they're "wrong" for expressing an OPINION about a fantasy scenario. I called you a dullard for accusing me of arguing a point I never even made. Even when you were SHOWN that I never made the point you still brought it up. So you're either utterly thick or an arsehole. Or both.

2. Provide the "bogus numbers" and "facts" i've posted?

If you don't provide evidence or apologise there's gonna be consequences. Fact.