Vasyl Lomachenko is P4P #1

[Fenster]

My opinion is wrong? With no proof, evidence, without seeing the fights happen you can conclusively ascertain what will happen.

Okey dokey.

The end.

[TitoFan]

I did.
In my own, subtle, humorous way.



I debunked several of his myths in the span of 2-3 posts awhile back.

I can't see a single post you made that had anything to do with what I've said.

Feel free to show me.

Wow..... really?



Here you go Fenst..... just for you.

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 bolded the above in red, just 'cause I'm a nice guy. Maybe it's a cultural issue/ difference.... but I could've sworn my comments had everything to do with what you just said.

BTW, I love the name placement of "fighters that will blow your mind".


Pacquiao, Duran, Leonard, Hearns................. Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.

Fame by association.

Ok here I was just piling on....

..... and while we're destroying myths, no amount of snake-oil salesmanship is going to convince me or most boxing fans that Lomachenko, with an 8-1 professional record, should be boxing's p4p #1. He may have more natural ability than anyone in boxing right now. That much we can argue about. But leapfrogging him over the top of fighters who have actually built a career already, many with plenty of quality wins? I'll pass on that one for the time being.

Here I was just debunking your claims about Loma.
So I'm puzzled as to why you believe nothing I said had anything to do with anything you said.

[TitoFan]

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.

Only an imbecile (looks like name-calling to me, but I could be wrong) could possibly think i'm wrong about this particular subject. I am the first person to admit i'm wrong when provided with evidence.

The only place i'm wrong is in your sawdust filled cranium (oops... not technically name-calling, but could be interpreted as an insult, I guess).

In fact, I'll start a new thread, as this is about P4P.

You are the one getting upset and name calling. Not me.

I have no doubt the opponents that GGG beat would have beaten Brook at middleweight. There is a reason why Brook fights at welterweight because he is not a middleweight to begin with and he would not be half as successful. Brook got an opportunity and he tried but he could never live up to the middleweights if he campaigned there.

You are the one getting upset and name calling. Not me.

I have no doubt the opponents that GGG beat would have beaten Brook at middleweight. There is a reason why Brook fights at welterweight because he is not a middleweight to begin with and he would not be half as successful. Brook got an opportunity and he tried but he could never live up to the middleweights if he campaigned there.

Yeah you've already said that. Did I ever say your opinion is wrong? No. When you claimed Brook did better because "Golovkin let him" I said - "fair enough," I didn't even dispute it regardless of how pathetic an answer it is.

However, If you claim to have "relevant facts" then you have to produce them when challenged. Your opinion doesn't count as a relevant fact.

(I never resort to name calling, I am totally consistent in pointing out idiotic statements/opinions) Gee I could be wrong on this one again...
but "imbecile" is kind of a name... ain't it?

Meanwhile, my own statement about Brook not being like any of the other fighters he mentioned in that Brook leaped up to MW from Welter... got knocked out... and went right back down to Welter... those statements went totally ignored, and then labeled as "not having anything to do with what Fenster had written".

Must be tough getting owned in an argument.

[Fenster]

I did.
In my own, subtle, humorous way.



I debunked several of his myths in the span of 2-3 posts awhile back.

I can't see a single post you made that had anything to do with what I've said.

Feel free to show me.

Wow..... really?



Here you go Fenst..... just for you.

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 bolded the above in red, just 'cause I'm a nice guy. Maybe it's a cultural issue/ difference.... but I could've sworn my comments had everything to do with what you just said.

BTW, I love the name placement of "fighters that will blow your mind".


Pacquiao, Duran, Leonard, Hearns................. Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.

Fame by association.

Ok here I was just piling on....

..... and while we're destroying myths, no amount of snake-oil salesmanship is going to convince me or most boxing fans that Lomachenko, with an 8-1 professional record, should be boxing's p4p #1. He may have more natural ability than anyone in boxing right now. That much we can argue about. But leapfrogging him over the top of fighters who have actually built a career already, many with plenty of quality wins? I'll pass on that one for the time being.

Here I was just debunking your claims about Loma.
So I'm puzzled as to why you believe nothing I said had anything to do with anything you said.

"Debunk" means to prove something wrong with evidence. Your opinion doesn't "debunk" anything it's just your opinion. P4P is a fantasy concept, it's not reality, there's no right or wrong, nothing can be proved. Nobody can ever prove a man that weighs 135 pounds would beat a man that weighs 200 if they were the same size. Fantasy. Fun. Meaningless.

You, like everyone else on earth, can rank fighters wherever you want. How do you think Ring Magazine and ESPN and whatnot work? They canvas OPINIONS from several sources to construct a list, not everyone is in agreement.

Your comments about Brook and the fighters I mentioned have nothing to do with my argument. I never compared Brook with those fighters, it was a totally separate issue, I was giving Master an example of fighters having success up in weight as he believed it was an "illogical" concept.

My argument about Brook was whether or not he was a better challenger than some middleweights that Master mentioned. Whether or not he moved up, down, round or whatever is irrelevant.

[Fenster]

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.

Only an imbecile (looks like name-calling to me, but I could be wrong) could possibly think i'm wrong about this particular subject. I am the first person to admit i'm wrong when provided with evidence.

The only place i'm wrong is in your sawdust filled cranium (oops... not technically name-calling, but could be interpreted as an insult, I guess).

In fact, I'll start a new thread, as this is about P4P.

You are the one getting upset and name calling. Not me.

I have no doubt the opponents that GGG beat would have beaten Brook at middleweight. There is a reason why Brook fights at welterweight because he is not a middleweight to begin with and he would not be half as successful. Brook got an opportunity and he tried but he could never live up to the middleweights if he campaigned there.

You are the one getting upset and name calling. Not me.

I have no doubt the opponents that GGG beat would have beaten Brook at middleweight. There is a reason why Brook fights at welterweight because he is not a middleweight to begin with and he would not be half as successful. Brook got an opportunity and he tried but he could never live up to the middleweights if he campaigned there.

Yeah you've already said that. Did I ever say your opinion is wrong? No. When you claimed Brook did better because "Golovkin let him" I said - "fair enough," I didn't even dispute it regardless of how pathetic an answer it is.

However, If you claim to have "relevant facts" then you have to produce them when challenged. Your opinion doesn't count as a relevant fact.

(I never resort to name calling, I am totally consistent in pointing out idiotic statements/opinions) Gee I could be wrong on this one again...
but "imbecile" is kind of a name... ain't it?

Meanwhile, my own statement about Brook not being like any of the other fighters he mentioned in that Brook leaped up to MW from Welter... got knocked out... and went right back down to Welter... those statements went totally ignored, and then labeled as "not having anything to do with what Fenster had written".

Must be tough getting owned in an argument.

Well you've just proved the imbecile remarks were apt, well put in fact, if I must say so myself.

[TitoFan]

Nothing much left to be said here. I believe I made my point, just like you made yours.

[Master]

I did.
In my own, subtle, humorous way.



I debunked several of his myths in the span of 2-3 posts awhile back.

I can't see a single post you made that had anything to do with what I've said.

Feel free to show me.

Wow..... really?



Here you go Fenst..... just for you.

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 bolded the above in red, just 'cause I'm a nice guy. Maybe it's a cultural issue/ difference.... but I could've sworn my comments had everything to do with what you just said.

BTW, I love the name placement of "fighters that will blow your mind".


Pacquiao, Duran, Leonard, Hearns................. Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.

Fame by association.

Ok here I was just piling on....

..... and while we're destroying myths, no amount of snake-oil salesmanship is going to convince me or most boxing fans that Lomachenko, with an 8-1 professional record, should be boxing's p4p #1. He may have more natural ability than anyone in boxing right now. That much we can argue about. But leapfrogging him over the top of fighters who have actually built a career already, many with plenty of quality wins? I'll pass on that one for the time being.

Here I was just debunking your claims about Loma.
So I'm puzzled as to why you believe nothing I said had anything to do with anything you said.

"Debunk" means to prove something wrong with evidence. Your opinion doesn't "debunk" anything it's just your opinion. P4P is a fantasy concept, it's not reality, there's no right or wrong, nothing can be proved. Nobody can ever prove a man that weighs 135 pounds would beat a man that weighs 200 if they were the same size. Fantasy. Fun. Meaningless.

You, like everyone else on earth, can rank fighters wherever you want. How do you think Ring Magazine and ESPN and whatnot work? They canvas OPINIONS from several sources to construct a list, not everyone is in agreement.

Your comments about Brook and the fighters I mentioned have nothing to do with my argument. I never compared Brook with those fighters, it was a totally separate issue, I was giving Master an example of fighters having success up in weight as he believed it was an "illogical" concept.

My argument about Brook was whether or not he was a better challenger than some middleweights that Master mentioned. Whether or not he moved up, down, round or whatever is irrelevant.

I never said it was an illogical concept, Brook was very lucky to get this undeserved opportunity and getting royally beat does not prove he was a better challenger than those that campaigned their career at the weight.

To say Brook would beat them at their weight was equally as silly.

The end (I wish)

[Gandalf]

You got owned Master. Now let's get back to discussing why Calzaghe is the GOAT.

[Alpha]

I did.
In my own, subtle, humorous way.



I debunked several of his myths in the span of 2-3 posts awhile back.

I can't see a single post you made that had anything to do with what I've said.

Feel free to show me.

Wow..... really?



Here you go Fenst..... just for you.

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 bolded the above in red, just 'cause I'm a nice guy. Maybe it's a cultural issue/ difference.... but I could've sworn my comments had everything to do with what you just said.

BTW, I love the name placement of "fighters that will blow your mind".


Pacquiao, Duran, Leonard, Hearns................. Ricky Burns, Duke McKenzie.

Fame by association.

Ok here I was just piling on....

..... and while we're destroying myths, no amount of snake-oil salesmanship is going to convince me or most boxing fans that Lomachenko, with an 8-1 professional record, should be boxing's p4p #1. He may have more natural ability than anyone in boxing right now. That much we can argue about. But leapfrogging him over the top of fighters who have actually built a career already, many with plenty of quality wins? I'll pass on that one for the time being.

Here I was just debunking your claims about Loma.
So I'm puzzled as to why you believe nothing I said had anything to do with anything you said.

"Debunk" means to prove something wrong with evidence. Your opinion doesn't "debunk" anything it's just your opinion. P4P is a fantasy concept, it's not reality, there's no right or wrong, nothing can be proved. Nobody can ever prove a man that weighs 135 pounds would beat a man that weighs 200 if they were the same size. Fantasy. Fun. Meaningless.

You, like everyone else on earth, can rank fighters wherever you want. How do you think Ring Magazine and ESPN and whatnot work? They canvas OPINIONS from several sources to construct a list, not everyone is in agreement.

Your comments about Brook and the fighters I mentioned have nothing to do with my argument. I never compared Brook with those fighters, it was a totally separate issue, I was giving Master an example of fighters having success up in weight as he believed it was an "illogical" concept.

My argument about Brook was whether or not he was a better challenger than some middleweights that Master mentioned. Whether or not he moved up, down, round or whatever is irrelevant.

I never said it was an illogical concept, Brook was very lucky to get this undeserved opportunity and getting royally beat does not prove he was a better challenger than those that campaigned their career at the weight.

To say Brook would beat them at their weight was equally as silly.

The end (I wish)

Can I ask why that is silly? Walker challenged Greb for the middleweight title; lost basically went back to 147 then went on to win the middleweight title from Flowers. Robinson had success at 160 and above also. Basillo? Griffith? Rodriguez? And many more. I'm not saying Brook as is good as those guys but many of the best welters have competed competitively at 160 throughout history. Why would you think it's silly for Brook to be able to do the same?

[Master]

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.

[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.

[TitoFan]

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.

[Master]

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.

When I said "how can a fighter..." I was on about Brook specifically. I know fighters have done it in the past but Brook is not that type of fighter from his track record.

[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.

[Master]

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.

The fighter I was referring to was obviously Brook!