Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1

[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

[TitoFan]

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.

[Master]

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.


Hi Alpha, Yes I was talking about Brook and only Brook.

Fenster has dug a hole for himself and he continues digging. To start showing me the scores of the fight between GGG v Brook is desperate. I said GGG hurt him early and as a result knew it was a matter of time before he would stop him. Brook had an injury in the fight caused by GGG and he was quite rightly making distress signals throughout the fight after his eye socket was dented.

Unless you are now ross, I do not have to take the punches and be in the ring to know that they were not having an affect on GGG. I can see that they were not and GGG said himself that Brook should stay at welterweight.

Easy fight and if GGG could keep fighting these welterweights and making big money he would.

[Fenster]

In the entire discussion I've never once judged Brook as a middleweight, only his performance against Golovkin in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray. He didn't fight Golovkin weighing 147, he weighed 160. His weight is IRRELEVANT to my argument. However, as he weighed 160 he was a verified middleweight for that particular contest. The past, present and future are utterly irrelevant, only what happened on the night. I don't care about "what ifs" only "what happened."

Repeat - I have only judged Brook's performance in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray (The 5 fighters @Master chose).

The "official" scores are integral to the argument. To have success in a boxing match you need to land blows, to win rounds you need to be more impressive than your opponent in any particular three minutes.

So even if you claim "the punches didn't hurt," or "GGG let Brook punch him" they still REGISTERED far more successfully than Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray's did - hence Brook WON ROUNDS.

No holes. No digging. It's called SOUND REASONING. Whether you think it or not (thankfully most forum members are not having problems understanding the point) it has more substance than "Brook did better because Golovkin let him." "Brook didn't deserve the fight," "Brook only fought cos Eubank didn't," "Geale wasn't at his best," etc. All of which are moot points regarding this discussion.

[Master]

In the entire discussion I've never once judged Brook as a middleweight, only his performance against Golovkin in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray. He didn't fight Golovkin weighing 147, he weighed 160. His weight is IRRELEVANT to my argument. However, as he weighed 160 he was a verified middleweight for that particular contest. The past, present and future are utterly irrelevant, only what happened on the night. I don't care about "what ifs" only "what happened."

Repeat - I have only judged Brook's performance in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray (The 5 fighters @Master chose).

The "official" scores are integral to the argument. To have success in a boxing match you need to land blows, to win rounds you need to be more impressive than your opponent in any particular three minutes.

So even if you claim "the punches didn't hurt," or "GGG let Brook punch him" they still REGISTERED far more successfully than Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray's did - hence Brook WON ROUNDS.

No holes. No digging. It's called SOUND REASONING. Whether you think it or not (thankfully most forum members are not having problems understanding the point) it has more substance than "Brook did better because Golovkin let him." "Brook didn't deserve the fight," "Brook only fought cos Eubank didn't," "Geale wasn't at his best," etc. All of which are moot points regarding this discussion.

Official scores are one thing but so are your eyes, experience watching the boxing game, context and background of the fight.

You admit the rounds he did well you did not think he won which tells you that the overall picture he was losing and always going to lose the fight. GGG knew that it was only a matter of time so if he had to take two shots to deliver his one he would do so.

[Fenster]

In the entire discussion I've never once judged Brook as a middleweight, only his performance against Golovkin in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray. He didn't fight Golovkin weighing 147, he weighed 160. His weight is IRRELEVANT to my argument. However, as he weighed 160 he was a verified middleweight for that particular contest. The past, present and future are utterly irrelevant, only what happened on the night. I don't care about "what ifs" only "what happened."

Repeat - I have only judged Brook's performance in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray (The 5 fighters @Master chose).

The "official" scores are integral to the argument. To have success in a boxing match you need to land blows, to win rounds you need to be more impressive than your opponent in any particular three minutes.

So even if you claim "the punches didn't hurt," or "GGG let Brook punch him" they still REGISTERED far more successfully than Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray's did - hence Brook WON ROUNDS.

No holes. No digging. It's called SOUND REASONING. Whether you think it or not (thankfully most forum members are not having problems understanding the point) it has more substance than "Brook did better because Golovkin let him." "Brook didn't deserve the fight," "Brook only fought cos Eubank didn't," "Geale wasn't at his best," etc. All of which are moot points regarding this discussion.

Official scores are one thing but so are your eyes, experience watching the boxing game, context and background of the fight.

You admit the rounds he did well you did not think he won which tells you that the overall picture he was losing and always going to lose the fight. GGG knew that it was only a matter of time so if he had to take two shots to deliver his one he would do so.

For THE MILLIONTH TIME I am judging Brook against the fighters YOU listed - Rubio, Murray, Wade, Monroe and Geale. Do you even remember that YOU claimed they were better opponents than Brook?

THEY DID NO BETTER THAN BROOK!!! To my eye, the judges eye, the dogs eye and everything on the planet's eye.

MY opinion on the actual fight is IRRELEVANT. I only scored Brook one round. I didn't see as competitive a fight as most. However, that has NOTHING to do with how YOUR middleweights did? They were even WORSE than Brook. Fact.

[Master]

In the entire discussion I've never once judged Brook as a middleweight, only his performance against Golovkin in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray. He didn't fight Golovkin weighing 147, he weighed 160. His weight is IRRELEVANT to my argument. However, as he weighed 160 he was a verified middleweight for that particular contest. The past, present and future are utterly irrelevant, only what happened on the night. I don't care about "what ifs" only "what happened."

Repeat - I have only judged Brook's performance in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray (The 5 fighters @Master chose).

The "official" scores are integral to the argument. To have success in a boxing match you need to land blows, to win rounds you need to be more impressive than your opponent in any particular three minutes.

So even if you claim "the punches didn't hurt," or "GGG let Brook punch him" they still REGISTERED far more successfully than Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray's did - hence Brook WON ROUNDS.

No holes. No digging. It's called SOUND REASONING. Whether you think it or not (thankfully most forum members are not having problems understanding the point) it has more substance than "Brook did better because Golovkin let him." "Brook didn't deserve the fight," "Brook only fought cos Eubank didn't," "Geale wasn't at his best," etc. All of which are moot points regarding this discussion.

Official scores are one thing but so are your eyes, experience watching the boxing game, context and background of the fight.

You admit the rounds he did well you did not think he won which tells you that the overall picture he was losing and always going to lose the fight. GGG knew that it was only a matter of time so if he had to take two shots to deliver his one he would do so.

For THE MILLIONTH TIME I am judging Brook against the fighters YOU listed - Rubio, Murray, Wade, Monroe and Geale. Do you even remember that YOU claimed they were better opponents than Brook?

THEY DID NO BETTER THAN BROOK!!! To my eye, the judges eye, the dogs eye and everything on the planet's eye.

MY opinion on the actual fight is IRRELEVANT. I only scored Brook one round. I didn't see as competitive a fight as most. However, that has NOTHING to do with how YOUR middleweights did? They were even WORSE than Brook. Fact.

And for the millionth time I say to you that Brook was fortunate to get the fight and having lost gone back down to his proper weight which are important facts. So to say Brook would beat them easily is ridiculous to the extreme. These are career middleweights who have worked their way up to the title shot and you think Brook can just turn up at the weight and beat them is nonsense.

[Ron Swanson]

In the entire discussion I've never once judged Brook as a middleweight, only his performance against Golovkin in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray. He didn't fight Golovkin weighing 147, he weighed 160. His weight is IRRELEVANT to my argument. However, as he weighed 160 he was a verified middleweight for that particular contest. The past, present and future are utterly irrelevant, only what happened on the night. I don't care about "what ifs" only "what happened."

Repeat - I have only judged Brook's performance in relation to Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray (The 5 fighters @Master chose).

The "official" scores are integral to the argument. To have success in a boxing match you need to land blows, to win rounds you need to be more impressive than your opponent in any particular three minutes.

So even if you claim "the punches didn't hurt," or "GGG let Brook punch him" they still REGISTERED far more successfully than Geale, Rubio, Wade, Monroe and Murray's did - hence Brook WON ROUNDS.

No holes. No digging. It's called SOUND REASONING. Whether you think it or not (thankfully most forum members are not having problems understanding the point) it has more substance than "Brook did better because Golovkin let him." "Brook didn't deserve the fight," "Brook only fought cos Eubank didn't," "Geale wasn't at his best," etc. All of which are moot points regarding this discussion.

It's sound logic except that you are giving weight to terrible score cards. Brook was being battered. Homer judges giving Brook rounds on the grounds he hadn't quit yet doesn't mean he was doing well.

[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.

[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.

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.

I knew it would only be a matter of time before you used your mod privileges in a manner in which they're not meant to be used.

If you're allowed to do that freely then maybe this isn't the place I thought it was.

[Spicoli]

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.

I knew it would only be a matter of time before you used your mod privileges in a manner in which they're not meant to be used.

If you're allowed to do that freely then maybe this isn't the place I thought it was.

we get privileges . I can't even get ten percent off one of those snazzy Saddo coffee mugs. Alright who's holding out . He may be just referring to changing your name to Twinkie and asking for pointed details rather than bashing you with that mythical blue machine of oppression?

As normal p4p talk turns into a shat show, it's like trying to hold water firmly in your hand. Impossible to reach conclusion but all the talk I wonder..now say a non p4p guy beats a p4p, does that automatically mean he's p4p in sport or more reasonably proving himself top in that division? Also doesn't how a guy tops a p4p fighter mean more than the actual win. Out fighting and out skilling a guy has to mean more than the random hard KO shot?

[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.

I knew it would only be a matter of time before you used your mod privileges in a manner in which they're not meant to be used.

If you're allowed to do that freely then maybe this isn't the place I thought it was.

NOTHING!!! NADA!!! ZILCH!!! ZERO EVIDENCE to back up anything you've claimed.

STOP LYING ABOUT ME!!!

Say what you want but DO NOT LIE!!!

Mod privileges? You fucking coward. Change your pants.

There'll be no more discussion in this thread about anything other than the topic. If you continue to post anything that's not related to the topic it will get deleted. Thanks.

Mod Fenster.

[palmerq]

p4p number 1? lomachenko wouldn't even get into my top 5 !

my p4p list would be

1 canelo alvarez
2 andre ward
3 wladimir klitschko
4 tony bellew
5 adonis stevenson

then lomachenko at number 6 :S.....................................

[TitoFan]

p4p number 1? lomachenko wouldn't even get into my top 5 !

my p4p list would be

1 canelo alvarez
2 andre ward
3 wladimir klitschko
4 tony bellew
5 adonis stevenson

then lomachenko at number 6 :S.....................................

Canelo??
Adonis??!??

Oh wait..... I just saw the flag.

Still, c'mon man. You left off Kov and Chocolatito. Ward I would have to grudgingly agree with off his win over Kov.