Can Vasyl Lomachenko ever become greater than Floyd Mayweather Jr with a loss?

floyd started at 135, 154 is 3 weight classes above that. You can't change the criteria. He couldn't make 144, he had no problem making 147. Castillo and Corrales were bigger, as was Cotto and Maidana. Come on dude. I agree Loma has a good resume. But he is 30. You can't say for sure he will fight long enough to equal what Floyd did. Huh?? come on dude you should be ashamed of yourself for even typing that, it's cool if you don't really like Floyd, but to devalue his resume like that is shameful. This is what I meant by it depends on what type of poster you are. If you are going to artificially be overly critical of floyd's resume then the same will be done with Loma and no way he surpasses this. I mean Walters and Russell are good, they aren't in the class of old Mosley or old Cotto. Floyd is one of the 15-20 greatest that has ever fought IMO. It will be hard for Loma to reach that level starting out so late and the politics of the sport. He started at 130

At 30 Mayweather was a 5 division champion and lineal in 3..

He is nowhere close to Mayweather and is about to be 30....what is he going to do to get close to Mayweather??? lets get real here

Nope bob arum gets favors sure but the commission wasn’t having it, and I like how you didn’t even score the fight. The comission has no horse in the race. If it's politics you are worried about then Bob Arum is pulling the strings in this scenario and his horse is Lomachenko. I scored it a draw.

Anyone that believes that a fighter with a loss can't be "better" overall than someone who is undefeated is a retarded casual. As far as I see it, Loma is already better than Floyd. Loma's amateur record: 396-1. Floyd's amateur record: 84-8. :loser::loser::loser: Floyd also never won a world title as early into his career as Loma did; I never saw the kind of footwork from Mayweather that I've seen from Loma. He never beat a fighter mentally so badly that they quit on their stool, let alone four of them in a row.

Yes only 3, Manny was the 4th, my mistake. The retirement was a year. We are not debating who was better, but your definition of prime. Please don't deflect and pivot to something else. It's clear your definition of prime has been gerrymandered to fit your argument. All I ask is you hold all to the same standard. edit: so now that I show how you gerrymander things, you say prime doesn't matter, when your argument has been Floyd didn't defeat a prime top tier opponent. Come on CJS. No. My argument has always been he's never defeated a great fighter in or near their prime. I have said multiple times he beat multiple top tier opponents in or near their primes. You may have me confused there. I rate Castillo II as a top tier prime opponent and perhaps best win.

Barrera had 3 losses FYI. His "retirement" was all of, what 6 months? He was near enough to his prime. He was consistently dominating at that point and then proved himself worthy with his signature career win the following year. Oh, and Barrera was so much better than Hatton that goes without saying. Was that version of Hatton better than the Hearns that Hagler beat since Hatton had the "0"? Was Alexis Arguello never better than Hatton since he already had 4 losses by the time he got his first title? Hatton's "prime" is irrelevant because he was not in Barrera's class. Hatton moved up to 147 where he sucked (real record should be 0-3), Barrera established himself as a great fighter at the weight he was defeated by Pacquaio. Yes only 3, Manny was the 4th, my mistake. The retirement was a year. We are not debating who was better, but your definition of prime. Please don't deflect and pivot to something else. It's clear your definition of prime has been gerrymandered to fit your argument. All I ask is you hold all to the same standard. edit: so now that I show how you gerrymander things, you say prime doesn't matter, when your argument has been Floyd didn't defeat a prime top tier opponent. Come on CJS.

Pretty sure that Bob Arum put Lomachenko in their with Salido in an attempt to grab a belt of an aging past it name and it backfired. If anything the politics would have been with Lomachenko in that scenario. Nope bob arum gets favors sure but the commission wasn’t having it, and I like how you didn’t even score the fight.

Barrera had a retirement, 62 fights, 4 losses, was 29, and was prime IYO when Manny beat him. Hatton was undefeated, had 43, fights, no retirement, was also 29, but wasn't prime IYO when Floyd beat him. Yeah dude, you are gerrymandering. Just let your biases go and evaluate everyone with the same standard. Barrera had 3 losses FYI. His "retirement" was all of, what 6 months? He was near enough to his prime. He was consistently dominating at that point and then proved himself worthy with his signature career win the following year. Oh, and Barrera was so much better than Hatton that goes without saying. Was that version of Hatton better than the Hearns that Hagler beat since Hatton had the "0"? Was Alexis Arguello never better than Hatton since he already had 4 losses by the time he got his first title? Hatton's "prime" is irrelevant because he was not in Barrera's class. Hatton moved up to 147 where he sucked (real record should be 0-3), Barrera established himself as a great fighter at the weight he was defeated by Pacquaio.

Sure it's possible. The bigger obstacles are time and availability of quality opposition at this point.

That was my mistake. I hit 5 before and shouldn't have. He was #5 after he beat Tszyu but dropped to #8 be 2007. Still impressive though.

Hatton was P4P #8 according to The Ring. That was my mistake. I hit 5 before and shouldn't have.

Not great fighters though are they? Were they both p4p top 5? Corrales was only in The Ring but if that's the ranking you are using then you can't say Hatton was since he wasn't that publications (or anyone else's outside the U.K). Hatton also sucked as a welterweight (gift w over Collazo and lost to Senchenko by KO) so wasn't quite prime anyway. Barrera had a retirement, 62 fights, 4 losses, was 29, and was prime IYO when Manny beat him. Hatton was undefeated, had 43, fights, no retirement, was also 29, but wasn't prime IYO when Floyd beat him. Yeah dude, you are gerrymandering. Just let your biases go and evaluate everyone with the same standard.

Not great fighters though are they? Were they both p4p top 5? Corrales was only in The Ring but if that's the ranking you are using then you can't say Hatton was since he wasn't that publications (or anyone else's outside the U.K). Hatton also sucked as a welterweight (gift w over Collazo and lost to Senchenko by KO) so wasn't quite prime anyway. Hatton was P4P #8 according to The Ring.

I said Tito was still a great fighter and had a great win at middleweight coming into that bout. Hatton, we both know is far from great even at his best. Marquez did beat Pacquaio 3 times but let's not act like Marquez leapfrogging a division moving up a further 12 lbs after having barely just moved up two divisions is some great win. Marquez at age 33 was fighting as a featherweight whilst Mayweather was fighting as a welterweight in his late 20's. 130 for the first time in 2007 (3 fights) and then first time at 135 in late 2008 (2 fights only) and no fights at 140 or 147 prior. The great win I am referring to for Pacquaio was Barrera. Barrera had a retirement, 62 fights, 4 losses, was 29, and was prime IYO when Manny beat him. Hatton was undefeated, had 43, fights, no retirement, was also 29, but wasn't prime IYO when Floyd beat him. Yeah dude, you are gerrymandering. Just let your biases go and evaluate everyone with the same standard.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. You differentiated between tito and Hatton, not me. I made a point about MW tito not being the same guy at MW, you said no. OK, then don't do what you did here with Ricky and differentiate. See you are doing it again-gerrymandering. Many thought Manny lost to JMM the 1st 3 times. Floyd easily defeated JMM when he was considered great and near his prime. Floyd is just a special fighter, like him or not. It's hard for anyone to match his career. I said Tito was still a great fighter and had a great win at middleweight coming into that bout. Hatton, we both know is far from great even at his best. Marquez did beat Pacquaio 3 times but let's not act like Marquez leapfrogging a division moving up a further 12 lbs after having barely just moved up two divisions is some great win. Marquez at age 33 was fighting as a featherweight whilst Mayweather was fighting as a welterweight in his late 20's. 130 for the first time in 2007 (3 fights) and then first time at 135 in late 2008 (2 fights only) and no fights at 140 or 147 prior. The great win I am referring to for Pacquaio was Barrera.

You can't have it both ways either. At least Tito scored a clear and dominant win over a champion (Joppy) than Hatton's "win" over Collazo. Hatton's loss was to a vastly inferior opponent than any Tito fight at the weight (including Cherifi). Canelo's stature really wasn't all that in 2013 either. Many folks felt he lost to Trout and was a hype job. He hasn't proven himself as great yet. Hatton, great? Come on..no way! Tito was a truly great fighter, Hatton no. It's like saying Gomez never proved himself as a great featherweight but he was a great fighter in his prime when he fought Sanchez. Hard to detract from Sanchez' win. Same for Hagler defeating Hearns who never proved himself as a truly great middleweight. It's hard to beat a fighter who is already recognized as a truly great fighter in or near his prime. Jones, Hopkins, Marquez, Pacquaio, Morales, Barrera have done it to name a limited number of modern guys but it's not that frequent. It's a hell of an achievement to get it done and if Lomachenko can do that he's in a unique group. I'm not trying to have it both ways. You differentiated between tito and Hatton, not me. I made a point about MW tito not being the same guy at MW, you said no. OK, then don't do what you did here with Ricky and differentiate. See you are doing it again-gerrymandering. Many thought Manny lost to JMM the 1st 3 times. Floyd easily defeated JMM when he was considered great and near his prime. Floyd is just a special fighter, like him or not. It's hard for anyone to match his career.

Hatton and Canelo, yes. Corrales and Castillo, not necessarily. Its about where they were when the fight happened, not if they end up being great. You aren't going to elevate Torrecampo because of his KO win over Manny before he became "Manny"same as you are not going to devalue Duran's win over Moore because of what happened to Moore after. Wait a sec-this is the point I made about Tito relative to MW. You can't have it both ways. Let's just be real boxing fans. Loma is a great fighter. However, given his age of start, how the sport operates, and who he will ultimately fight, it is almost impossible for him to match the career of a guy who (outside of biased internet casuals) is recognized as one of the top 20 guys in the history of the sport. You can't have it both ways either. At least Tito scored a clear and dominant win over a champion (Joppy) than Hatton's "win" over Collazo. Hatton's loss was to a vastly inferior opponent than any Tito fight at the weight (including Cherifi). Canelo's stature really wasn't all that in 2013 either. Many folks felt he lost to Trout and was a hype job. He hasn't proven himself as great yet. Hatton, great? Come on..no way! Tito was a truly great fighter, Hatton no. It's like saying Gomez never proved himself as a great featherweight but he was a great fighter in his prime when he fought Sanchez. Hard to detract from Sanchez' win. Same for Hagler defeating Hearns who never proved himself as a truly great middleweight. It's hard to beat a fighter who is already recognized as a truly great fighter in or near his prime. Jones, Hopkins, Marquez, Pacquaio, Morales, Barrera have done it to name a limited number of modern guys but it's not that frequent. It's a hell of an achievement to get it done and if Lomachenko can do that he's in a unique group.

Not great fighters though are they? Were they both p4p top 5? Corrales was only in The Ring but if that's the ranking you are using then you can't say Hatton was since he wasn't that publications (or anyone else's outside the U.K). Hatton also sucked as a welterweight (gift w over Collazo and lost to Senchenko by KO) so wasn't quite prime anyway. Hatton and Canelo, yes. Corrales and Castillo, not necessarily. Its about where they were when the fight happened, not if they end up being great. You aren't going to elevate Torrecampo because of his KO win over Manny before he became "Manny"same as you are not going to devalue Duran's win over Moore because of what happened to Moore after. Wait a sec-this is the point I made about Tito relative to MW. You can't have it both ways. Let's just be real boxing fans. Loma is a great fighter. However, given his age of start, how the sport operates, and who he will ultimately fight, it is almost impossible for him to match the career of a guy who (outside of biased internet casuals) is recognized as one of the top 20 guys in the history of the sport.

a controversial win over 36 year old pac who went on to lose to jeff horn afterwards? i guess it sounds better your way but yeah that was lame. when jeff horn does the same as you...probably not something worth bragging over much. hatton, canelo, and corrales all times greats hmmmm Not bragging. Simply correcting the poster by reminding him Floyd did in fact hold majority of belts and was lineal, not that the WBO is a real belt. I didn't claim they were ATG's. Unfortunately, you, CJS, and others continually try to "quantify" Floyd's resume by gerrymandering criteria rather than just holding everyone to the same standard. Floyd has wins over 5 people ranked in the top 8 p4p-Manny, Mosley, JMM, , Corrales and hatton. Loma, has 1. Floyd is 27-0 in title fights, Loma may not even fight 27 professional fights given his age when he started and the fact he will likely fight 2-3 times per year. If Loma were doing this at the same age as say Salvador Sanchez, then he might have a realistic chance to catch Floyd. Of course, Floyd was the lineal champ in 2 divisions by the time he was 25. No way Loma can eclipse that given he got such a late start.