How is even even a debate that Lomachenko is P4P#1?

Lomachenko is top 5 without a doubt, and probably top 3 for sure. #1 is very arguable. Anyone saying otherwise has personal bias against him. There really is no doubt about it. The loss to Salido can't kept being looked back at. It happened almost 4 years ago, and in that time, he's already beaten much better opponents, including one Salido went to war with (and he did so incredibly easily). Walters, Rigo, Russell are definitely fantastic wins since that time. Pacquiao, Hagler, and even Hopkins all had defeats early enough in their career to non-ATG's. Certainly doesn't hurt their reputation to the point they couldn't be classified as Hall of Famer's/top P4P fighters, years after the setbacks. If Lomachenko moves up to his 3rd weight class, and continues to do well, then I expect the same people discrediting him to continue claiming he needs to move up to 140 and fight xxxx. I'm imagining he fights Beltran (who's certainly a live body) in May, and then hopefully gets a tough opponent like Linares (I doubt Mikey comes back down to 135?).

As a big Loma fan I do not see him as the p4p #1 at the moment, but I really have to question why, since who has Crawford beat? Postol? Postol is a bush fighter whose claim to fame was a single fight, he's a very limited fighter. People argue same way against Loma saying he is beating up on smaller guys etc. But Loma has some legit names in Walters, Martinez, Russell and Rigo. But now back to you. You DKSAB if you don't have Loma in your TOP5. Did you watch his loss? You must be trippin' off that bush weed you're smoking if you say that Terence has a better skill set. No one has a better skill set than Loma in the game today. Doesn't make him the "best" but his skill set in unquestionably #1 Or is skill set the new athleticism? You know some vague word that no one can clearly define yet pulls out of their ass every time people compare fighters. Why isn’t Loma pfp best to you again lol...!!!???

Lomas resume isn’t better, he’s already lost and he doesn’t possess the skill set that Bud has. Loma isn’t in my top 5 pfp. As a big Loma fan I do not see him as the p4p #1 at the moment, but I really have to question why, since who has Crawford beat? Postol? Postol is a bush fighter whose claim to fame was a single fight, he's a very limited fighter. People argue same way against Loma saying he is beating up on smaller guys etc. But Loma has some legit names in Walters, Martinez, Russell and Rigo. But now back to you. You DKSAB if you don't have Loma in your TOP5. Did you watch his loss? You must be trippin' off that bush weed you're smoking if you say that Terence has a better skill set. No one has a better skill set than Loma in the game today. Doesn't make him the "best" but his skill set in unquestionably #1 Or is skill set the new athleticism? You know some vague word that no one can clearly define yet pulls out of their ass every time people compare fighters.

He is the clear cut p4p#1. There shouldnt even be a debate, yes there is crawford who is also deserving. But lomachenko has only had 11 fights. And this guy has beat Russell Jr,Walters, and one of the greatest skilled cubans of all time. He made 2 of them look absolutely clueless and like they didnt belong in the ring with him, and all the other guys he fought except salido he pretty much stomped. He is only 11 fights in and is seeking the biggest challenges he can like jumping up and fighting linares, and its obvious he is the most skilled fighter in the sport. Crawford is the only guy you can argue over him because he became undisputed at 140 and is also very skilled. But lomachenko still gets the nod because of resume and how he beats his opponents. deal with it salty haters, loma is king of boxing Lomas resume isn’t better, he’s already lost and he doesn’t possess the skill set that Bud has. Loma isn’t in my top 5 pfp.

I like Loma and I agree he's a bad azz, but I need to see him fight more top quality guys. As Lillie damage as he's received, his team should get three fights a year for him if they can.

Loma is ahead of Crawford on sites like espn and the ring. Crawford is #1 onaites like TBRB and this one. We can see who the real boxing people see is the best and who casuals see is the best.

For example, I think it's fair to say that the top cruiser weights are clearly better than the top super middleweights. The problem with your method is that you could have a weight class where, for whatever reason, #15 is pretty competitive with #4, while in another class, #4 is light years ahead of #15. Is it because the top of the division is so special or is it because the division is thin? We'll never know. So with the criteria you're using, hitting and not getting hit, etc, there's no way to know if it's a top heavy division and they're beating up on lower competition or if another division is stacked 1-15 with incredible talent and that's why nobody looks great. Taking that into consideration, the most logical way to compile P4P rankings is to still judge who is being most dominant at their weight. Who has the most control over their weight class. Etc. It's the only sensible way to compare AJ, GGG, Thurman, Loma, etc. To sit their and try to analyze their techniques and guess what a bigger or smaller version of that fighter would be, or try to judge which weight classes are strong or weak to try to discredit those having success, is a futile exercise.

That's a fair point and a question. I agree, P4P rankings are extremely difficult to ascertain objectively with a high degree of accuracy. And I have my own rankings. Which, most of the time contradicts the official pound for pound rankings. And the official pound for pound rankings doesn't seem like it's based on the accomplishments / feats of a boxer, but rather on their hype and popularity. For me, the way I determine which division is relatively better than another is through the following means: 1) The division with boxers from more parts of the world competing is better than a division which has boxers from fewer countries competing. 2) I do a film study on the top boxers of different weight divisions that are being compared and see how good they are offensively (at landing punches on their opponents) and defensively (at not getting hit by opponent's punches). And see how versatile their boxing abilities are in comparison. For example, I think it's fair to say that the top cruiser weights are clearly better than the top super middleweights. The knockout percentage of the top cruiser weights for the most part, is higher than that of the top super middleweights (proving better offensive skills). The top cruiser weights in general, also have more versatile abilities and skills. They generally have better stamina. They have a better control game. They have better movement and etc. They have better accuracy and etc. These are the things I look at. How the top 5 boxers in a weight division compare to the top 5 boxers in another weight division in terms of their skill and abilities offensively and defensively. That's cool, man, I like it. I still can't buy into P4P and your system obviously still relies to an extent on the good 'ol eye test but at least you have a coherent and consistent methodology. Cognitive biases are essentially unavoidable but we can do our best to minimise their effects or at least be aware of them... Mr Objectivity, huh? Not bad..:)

Mmmm. This is one of the many reasons I keep banging on about P4P being a bunch of dolphin droppings, though... just how do you go about about proving, with any degree of objectivity, which divisions are better and which worse? That's a fair point and a question. I agree, P4P rankings are extremely difficult to ascertain objectively with a high degree of accuracy. And I have my own rankings. Which, most of the time contradicts the official pound for pound rankings. And the official pound for pound rankings doesn't seem like it's based on the accomplishments / feats of a boxer, but rather on their hype and popularity. For me, the way I determine which division is relatively better than another is through the following means: 1) The division with boxers from more parts of the world competing is better than a division which has boxers from fewer countries competing. 2) I do a film study on the top boxers of different weight divisions that are being compared and see how good they are offensively (at landing punches on their opponents) and defensively (at not getting hit by opponent's punches). And see how versatile their boxing abilities are in comparison. For example, I think it's fair to say that the top cruiser weights are clearly better than the top super middleweights. The knockout percentage of the top cruiser weights for the most part, is higher than that of the top super middleweights (proving better offensive skills). The top cruiser weights in general, also have more versatile abilities and skills. They generally have better stamina. They have a better control game. They have better movement and etc. They have better accuracy and etc. These are the things I look at. How the top 5 boxers in a weight division compare to the top 5 boxers in another weight division in terms of their skill and abilities offensively and defensively.

But we're not talking about becoming the most proven boxer at your own weight, we're talking about becoming more proven at your weight than anybody else is at their weight. Hence, when we compare everybody's accomplishments at their own weight, earning the ranking of #1 "pound for pound." Lomachenko has the weakest belt at his weight. A belt Top Rank can give to anyone they want. He's mainly picked on fighters coming up from lower weight classes. He hasn't faced any of the other champions in his division. He's done nothing to prove that he deserves to be ranked #1 in a list of rankings of who is most dominant at their weight. He hasn't been dominant at his weight at all. He barely fights people from his own weight, he hasn't unified, etc. He's a great fighter, but I don't see any logic in ranking him #1 P4P. First off, I don't even have Vasyl Lomachenko ranked pound for pound number 1 in my ranking. I have Oleksandr Usyk ahead of him. Secondly, Vasyl Lomachenko has only fought two or at most, three opponents significantly lighter. The rest were all the same weight as him on fight night, with no more than 5 pounds of weight difference. https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=768409 https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=768409&page=5 Lomachenko being a 'weight bully' is a common myth, easily refutable. Thirdly, I was also initially comparing a boxer's accomplishments in their weight division to the accomplishments of another boxer in their weight division. To me, the quality of a weight division matters too. Being the undisputed champion at super middleweight isn't the same as being the undisputed champion at cruiser weight. Since the cruiser weight division is a better division with better boxers at the top level. Which means being undisputed at cruiser weight is lot more of an impressive accomplishment than being undisputed at super middleweight. Which is why I would have the undisputed cruiser weight ranked higher than the undisputed super middleweight. And for me, who you beat (how good your opponent's record is and how high your opponent's ranking is) > what alphabet titles you hold.

He lost to Salido. That loss counts no matter how many bull**** excuses his fanboys think up. Anytime a fighter tries to step up and fight at the highest level a loss counts. If he wasn't ready his promoter shouldn't have put him in the ring. End of. Don't even talk to me about that old midget Rigo. That was a mismatch. He won a fight he was supposed to win. There are fighters with equal or better resumes to Loma and y'all do is sit around trying to discredit them. Now if Loma moves up and beats someone like Mikey Garcia, then I will give him full props. Until then, he's just a guy with potential, he's beaten some solid fighters and looked good doing it, but he hasn't really tested himself against another all-time great or elite fighter. Ever since Floyd retired there hasn't been a P4P#1 fighter. No one has done enough to separate themselves from the rest of the pack. I guess Crawford is closest but I still wouldn't give him that title. Who gives a **** if he lost. Hes gotten even better since and is doing big things now. Just because he has one loss to a tough fighter in his second pro fight, really means nothing. He can still be p4p#1. He arguably won that fight anyway. Lots of fans think he did.

Relative quality / Strength of a division also matters to some people. Even if George Groves becomes the most proven boxer in his own weight division at 168 pounds, I still won't have him ranked number 1 over other boxers who have shown better level of skills in their own weight division against more skilled boxers. Mmmm. This is one of the many reasons I keep banging on about P4P being a bunch of dolphin droppings, though... just how do you go about about proving, with any degree of objectivity, which divisions are better and which worse?

He lost to Salido. That loss counts no matter how many bull**** excuses his fanboys think up. Anytime a fighter tries to step up and fight at the highest level a loss counts. If he wasn't ready his promoter shouldn't have put him in the ring. End of. Don't even talk to me about that old midget Rigo. That was a mismatch. He won a fight he was supposed to win. There are fighters with equal or better resumes to Loma and y'all do is sit around trying to discredit them. Now if Loma moves up and beats someone like Mikey Garcia, then I will give him full props. Until then, he's just a guy with potential, he's beaten some solid fighters and looked good doing it, but he hasn't really tested himself against another all-time great or elite fighter. Ever since Floyd retired there hasn't been a P4P#1 fighter. No one has done enough to separate themselves from the rest of the pack. I guess Crawford is closest but I still wouldn't give him that title.

Skill wise it's him & it's not even close!

It's the pigment.

.. and in my opinion he's clearly p4p number 1 by a distance. He has 3 wins better than Crawford, and although ggg is obviously my favourite fighter, lomachenkos got more of that invincibility factor at present and has been looking sensational. It's hilarious how the rigo win has been revised, if it was such a mismatch then why did people call for it so much in the first place? Its really surprising to me how fast people have discredited him for beating Rigo. All you would here from these loma haters is how bad hes running from rigo. That the weight wouldnt matter and that rigo would beat his ass blah blah blah. Now its like they dont even count the win its hillarious.

Relative quality / Strength of a division also matters to some people. Even if George Groves becomes the most proven boxer in his own weight division at 168 pounds, I still won't have him ranked number 1 over other boxers who have shown better level of skills in their own weight division against more skilled boxers. But we're not talking about becoming the most proven boxer at your own weight, we're talking about becoming more proven at your weight than anybody else is at their weight. Hence, when we compare everybody's accomplishments at their own weight, earning the ranking of #1 "pound for pound." Lomachenko has the weakest belt at his weight. A belt Top Rank can give to anyone they want. He's mainly picked on fighters coming up from lower weight classes. He hasn't faced any of the other champions in his division. He's done nothing to prove that he deserves to be ranked #1 in a list of rankings of who is most dominant at their weight. He hasn't been dominant at his weight at all. He barely fights people from his own weight, he hasn't unified, etc. He's a great fighter, but I don't see any logic in ranking him #1 P4P.

Out of the 17 weight classes, which fighter do you think has most definitively proven they are the best in their weight class? Whatever your answer is, that's who you should have as #1 pound for pound. I don't see how anyone can say that Loma has proven himself more definitively at 130 than GGG has at 160. Relative quality / Strength of a division also matters to some people. Even if George Groves becomes the most proven boxer in his own weight division at 168 pounds, I still won't have him ranked number 1 over other boxers who have shown better level of skills in their own weight division against more skilled boxers.

I have him number 1 Out of the 17 weight classes, which fighter do you think has most definitively proven they are the best in their weight class? Whatever your answer is, that's who you should have as #1 pound for pound. I don't see how anyone can say that Loma has proven himself more definitively at 130 than GGG has at 160.

You can't say that you toyed with a guy when you only landed 10% of your punches. Floyd could fight "Cashflow" Diaz, but if he was only able to land 10% of his punches, no one in their right mind would hail him as being p4p. Terence Crawford has fought softer opposition, but against whomever he is put in with, he leaves no doubt in his ability; Jeff Horn is the first guy who Crawford if going to fight that he's not bigger than, so let's see how he reacts. Feints and probes don't count as 'missed punches'. And out landing one's opponent by over 50 punches (irrespective of connect percentage) is 'toying' with them. And winning every round, whilst almost never getting hit is a 'great' performance. Connect percentage is irrelevant when one boxer significantly out-lands their opponent. Quantity of punches landed > connect percentage.