Loma is the truth, no way anyone can't give him props

Cool. I can agree with that. All good, it pisses me off when posters complain about cherry pickers and here we have a fighter daring to be great so they lift the bar to ridiculous heights for him "to be considered" in the words of raggatroll

Ok, I see there you did give him props, so I'll stand corrected on that. But dude, you posted Crawford's first 15 fights as if that takes away from anything. My only point is his rise being slower shouldn't take away anything, and Loma's rise during 12 fights shouldn't be seen as automatically making him the best thing since sliced bread. Both are doing great right now, they are basically neck and neck, and both have a lot more to do to be considered all-time greats. It shouldn't take anything away but at the same time you need to give props to Loma for starting at the very hard end of the sport, every other fighter uses the same line that they need a couple of years and a number of fights to adjust from the amateurs to the pros, Loma completely bypassed that stage

Good work, he deserves credit doesnt he, thats what im trying to get through to that braindead troll, but he just doesnt get it, crawford is a brilliant fighter, but his rise has been much slower, his first 15 or so fights were the average joe,, this clown talk about a loss to a 4 time world champ in lomas 2nd fight, they forget he had the balls to take on opponents like that Nothing! There is nothing to criticize. I'm not criticizing him. But you seem to be shltting on Crawford who is pretty much right there neck and neck with him and who could very well be seen as being above him if not now, but by the end of their careers. The only thing I've tried to explain is that I think you're blowing him up way too much for the approach that was taken. Both he and Crawford are pretty much neck and neck at the top of boxing right now and deserve the same amount of respect, in my opinion. How am i ****ting on him, ive said his rise was slower, thats all

Dude, all I'm saying is that they took two different routes. After 12 fights, Loma is already 30 years old. After 12 fights, Crawford was 22 years old! It makes sense for Loma to be on the fast track. So what about the age, always excuses, 1st it was because of his pedigree, now it's because of his age, how about he wants to make a legacy, how about he challenges himself, how about he believes in himself, the man has had 12 fights, won 3 different weight division world titles and is in every conversation surrounding P4P, what is there to criticise

I'm not disagreeing with either of you. Loma does deserves tons of credit. But the flip side is that he was ready because of his amateur pedigree. You can also look at it this way. Crawford turned pro when he was 20. From 20 - 24 years old while he was beating up professionals, Loma was beating up amateurs at the same age. Again, it doesn't mean one is so much better than the other, but it's just that their careers were planned out differently. Know what I'm saying? Thats irrelavent, plenty of boxers have come out of the amateurs with great pedigrees and then fought low level fighters for 2 to 3 years, crawford had 70 amateur fights , ward had 115,, floyd had 80 or so,, go and look at their first 15 pro fights and you wont recognise 1 name, plenty of posters on here want to complain about cherrypicking and when a fighter actually lifts the bar then he gets crucified by the same clueless posters, congrats to larry for giving due credit, the only way you get great fights is by fighters challenging themselves

To the guy who has Loma #5 Or whatever and is calling other people stat people I really don't get it. You know why someone like me has lomachenko #1? He's the guy who got me into boxing. Why will be most likely be an ATG? Because he fights for legacy and he always fights the BEST AVAILABLE fighter. I mean, come on. Those of you who hate lomachenko or dislike him and keep on bringing up Salido really do need to find a new argument. Salido was a multiple world champ. But. The guy came in overweight. Threw a gazillion low blows. And still barely won. I mean, did you even watch the fight? For people to call people stat people and not even watch the fight I don't get how you could have come to that conclusion. Salido was NOT dominating Lomachenko. The fight may have started in his favor but by the end of the fight to say Salido won, or was winning, or looked like the better fighter, you would be the biggest liar ever. And you still can't admit that which is a shame. Seriously. There is no shame in another fighter being better than your fighter and it doesn't take away their greatness. They are still great. It's like the Floyd people who are legit the worst. Floyd is toxic. The worst thing ever to happen to boxing yet people praise the guy. Was Floyd a great boxer? He sure was. But to say the greatest or best he isn't even in the conversation. ATG, or the greatest goes to those who transcend what they do in the ring. That's why Ali is the greatest. Best? Come on. We all know styles makes fights not records. Could prime Floyd have beaten a prime tyson? A prime ali? A prime sugar ray? A prime rjj? Probably doubtful. And I'm not saying straight up, but styles. Most of these guys fought for legacy too. Didn't care about the 0. Fought better competition. Gave everything they had to prove their worth. This is what Lomachenko is doing. He's no ambassador for peace and doesn't transcend the ring, but he's old school. Modern times have really warped people's thinking for the worse. What makes a champion isn't his record but his ability to reach deep into himself and find a way to win after being knocked down. Losing. Etc. It's how they face adversity. Also. Triangle theory doesn't work. Just because fighter A can beat fighter B doesn't mean he can automatically beat fighter C. Also. Lomachenko has a good argument to be number 1 because they, moved up in weight, fought the arguable well established champion, made him quit, got up to win the fight. Has consistently proved people wrong, ahem, rigo. This is a far cry from let's say, Crawford beating a chump to unify and Mikey cherry picking fights with middling talent, Broner, and paper champs, lipnets

I'm not disagreeing with either of you. Loma does deserves tons of credit. But the flip side is that he was ready because of his amateur pedigree. You can also look at it this way. Crawford turned pro when he was 20. From 20 - 24 years old while he was beating up professionals, Loma was beating up amateurs at the same age. Again, it doesn't mean one is so much better than the other, but it's just that their careers were planned out differently. Know what I'm saying? The difference would be that loma was continuously facing other top amateurs from around the word during that time, while Crawford was beating a whole bunch of tomato cans. It's not a knock on Crawford cuz that's the standard model of how to build a fighter...but it's also why guys like loma deserve respect for deciding they don't really need those fights. One isn't really better than the other tho, as long as they get to where they need to. In the end, it's fighters facing each other at their peaks that make the best possible fights.

I'd lose my ****ing **** if he beat Mikey Garcia (granted he beats Robert Easter which I think he will). I regarded Linares as a very solid fighter that people would rather avoid. Lomachenko is amazing! #1

Again, where is 1 fighter that has the same resume after 12 fightsCurt already embarrassed your red K ass. Just stfu. Red K bandit.

How about Saensak Muangsurin. Fastest to win a title after becoming a pro. Tied with Loma for the amount of fights it took. First 12 opponents combined record something like 440 - 79. He went 11-1, the loss being a DQ. Only loss in first 12 fights was a DQ for knocking out the guy after the bell. He avenged the loss by knocking down the guy 4 times to win a TKO in the 2nd. Finished his career 14 - 6. http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/35832 Good work, he deserves credit doesnt he, thats what im trying to get through to that braindead troll, but he just doesnt get it, crawford is a brilliant fighter, but his rise has been much slower, his first 15 or so fights were the average joe,, this clown talk about a loss to a 4 time world champ in lomas 2nd fight, they forget he had the balls to take on opponents like that

Yes sir!! This is the era of Loma. Enjoy it as much as I am. Amazing!!

Im not the one crawling around under alts giving red K to those who I disgree with you ****en wimp. I don't have any alt accounts. I'm happy for the mods to run any kind of check they want to prove that. This explains your position on the whole Loma thing. You aggressively believe in things which are false. I haven't given you any red K. Not yet, anyway. I'm thinking that simply being yourself and having zero credibility is probably bad enough.

Go crawl under your Red K alt mother****er. Loma is 5th pfp on my list. We didn’t forget the Salido debacle. Keep crying you ****en loser. Again, where is 1 fighter that has the same resume after 12 fights, if you can find one, admit it and give credit where it is due

Yeah, they probably are. Kovalev based on a consensus is rated around 7 or 8 which I disagree with but see as fair to a degree. Like I said lists can tend to get more inaccurate down the bottom half but usually the top 2-3 is generally in most touch with reality hence the consistent high rating on every list of Loma, Golovkin and Crawford. The three best boxers in the world currently. My personal list would be 1. Loma 2. Crawford and then some distance 3. Golovkin and then it gets messy and I can accept almost any order of 4. Inoue 5. Usyk (I'd say he's a firm 3 or 4 IF he beats Gassiev) 6. Garcia 7. Rungvisai 8. Estrada 9. Gassiev 10. Spence Like I said the second part gets messy and really could be any order but I'm firm on the top 3-4. depending on the view...you could call either side bias though...the guys that have kovalev at 4 and 5...or the guys that dont even have him on the list...depending on your view...and its all subjective...just like who puts more weight on certain criteria when scoring a fight

P4P lists are extremely subjective. I don't believe moving up in weight is the be all and end all. Some weight class historically easier to move up from. There is a good article out there explaining how rare it is for reigning middleweight champions to move up. Historically it's much more common for members of lighter classes to move up. Monzon never moved up. Hagler never moved up. Holding the lineal title is a joke usually. It's just a way to sell tickets a promotors dream.. Good post...

You can’t pick GG number 1. He didn’t climb 3 weight classes, he didn’t beat a lineal champion, or beat guys who more or less had 1 or two good wins on their resume. And GG...even though he didn’t lose, lost to Canelo and Jacobs. Loma pfp #1. How did I come to picking Loma over GG. I combined 3 boxing sites rankings and came up with 1 consistent list. P4P lists are extremely subjective. I don't believe moving up in weight is the be all and end all. Some weight class historically easier to move up from. There is a good article out there explaining how rare it is for reigning middleweight champions to move up. Historically it's much more common for members of lighter classes to move up. Monzon never moved up. Hagler never moved up. Holding the lineal title is a joke usually. It's just a way to sell tickets a promotors dream..

I put Golovkin #1. Why? He's beaten everyone out in front of him provided you believe he beat Canelo. I do. Has a very high KO ratio. He's been at this level for a very long time. He's fought numerous top 10 and better contenders. Crushed almost all of the even though several were expected to give him competitive fights. You can’t pick GG number 1. He didn’t climb 3 weight classes, he didn’t beat a lineal champion, or beat guys who more or less had 1 or two good wins on their resume. And GG...even though he didn’t lose, lost to Canelo and Jacobs. Loma pfp #1. How did I come to picking Loma over GG. I combined 3 boxing sites rankings and came up with 1 consistent list.

Yeah, they probably are. Kovalev based on a consensus is rated around 7 or 8 which I disagree with but see as fair to a degree. Like I said lists can tend to get more inaccurate down the bottom half but usually the top 2-3 is generally in most touch with reality hence the consistent high rating on every list of Loma, Golovkin and Crawford. The three best boxers in the world currently. My personal list would be 1. Loma 2. Crawford and then some distance 3. Golovkin and then it gets messy and I can accept almost any order of 4. Inoue 5. Usyk (I'd say he's a firm 3 or 4 IF he beats Gassiev) 6. Garcia 7. Rungvisai 8. Estrada 9. Gassiev 10. Spence Like I said the second part gets messy and really could be any order but I'm firm on the top 3-4. I put Golovkin #1. Why? He's beaten everyone out in front of him provided you believe he beat Canelo. I do. Has a very high KO ratio. He's been at this level for a very long time. He's fought numerous top 10 and better contenders. Crushed almost all of the even though several were expected to give him competitive fights.

you have guys with kovalev as high as 4...a couple of them....and one guy with him at 5...then a few guys that don't list him at all......are those guys all biased? Yeah, they probably are. Kovalev based on a consensus is rated around 7 or 8 which I disagree with but see as fair to a degree. Like I said lists can tend to get more inaccurate down the bottom half but usually the top 2-3 is generally in most touch with reality hence the consistent high rating on every list of Loma, Golovkin and Crawford. The three best boxers in the world currently. My personal list would be 1. Loma 2. Crawford and then some distance 3. Golovkin and then it gets messy and I can accept almost any order of 4. Inoue 5. Usyk (I'd say he's a firm 3 or 4 IF he beats Gassiev) 6. Garcia 7. Rungvisai 8. Estrada 9. Gassiev 10. Spence Like I said the second part gets messy and really could be any order but I'm firm on the top 3-4.

You aren't everyone, and you aren't no one. There is absolutely nothing special about you at all.Im not the one crawling around under alts giving red K to those who I disgree with you ****en wimp.