The Lomachenko hype is going way too far

the way you hold in such high regard beating past it fighters but i guess that only pertains to when floyd does it lol. so you are saying if norris had beaten more past it greats without losing he would be on floyds level? i agree! Norris was a solid champion. I'm not denying that Floyd beat some guys who were past their best but he also managed to win every time he stepped through those ropes. Something Norris could not do.

Wait, what? Where did I ever say Norris is greater than Floyd? How many times did Norris get his ass kicked? I wouldn't even put Norris above Canelo or Golovkin. the way you hold in such high regard beating past it fighters but i guess that only pertains to when floyd does it lol. so you are saying if norris had beaten more past it greats without losing he would be on floyds level? i agree!

Nonsense. What happened? Did men suddenly start developing more slowly as generations passed? We're back where we started. You trying to downplay the accomplishments of the guy you don't like like and uplift the guys you do like. You have no realistic explanation of why you consider a 42-0 Canelo Alvarez at 23 years old with a world title not prime but 22 year old Hearns at 32-0 was in his prime. That right there just sounds stupid when you say it out loud. ok canelo was prime...and canelo and hearns/benitez are on the same level how? those guys are much better. yes maybe canelo will be manufactured into a great fighter and that will be floyds one and only great win but lets wait for the canelo scorecards to come in first to determine that. also the fight was at 152 so that takes a lot of luster away from it. 2 champs in the same division fighting at a catch weight thats something new. floyd reinventing the game! wasn't just for an advantage no sir he only fights guys that are healthy he said it himself

floyd beat a past it hoya. according to you norris is better than floyd cause norris beat leonard. yes the reason is hes the most popular. his resume isn't that good. no prime greats on it. Wait, what? Where did I ever say Norris is greater than Floyd? How many times did Norris get his ass kicked? I wouldn't even put Norris above Canelo or Golovkin.

Yes, I knew Hearns beat Hill and Cuevas but I didn't include those guys for the same reason I didn't include beating Gatti as accomplishment for Oscar. The guys I listed I feel were greater wins for both Oscar and Hearns respectively. But even when you add up all the hall of famers each men fought Oscar still edges out Hearns. Now, Oscar certainly did not win against all of the elite level fighters he faced but neither did Hearns. The only reason you're downplaying Oscar is because Floyd has a win over him. Which is what most Floyd haters do, they bash the guys Floyd beat just so they don't have to give him any credit. There is a reason why ESPN ranked Floyd as the best boxer pound for pound over the last 25 years. There is a reason why even the fans voted him as the best boxer 6 times for the ESPY awards. There is a reason why he is a multiple time winner for fighter of the year. I get it, you dislike the guy but don't let your biases cloud your judgement. floyd beat a past it hoya. according to you norris is better than floyd cause norris beat leonard. yes the reason is hes the most popular. his resume isn't that good. no prime greats on it.

Really? Who? Look it up...or is De Jesus another God from Mount Olympus?

I started watching boxing as a kid in the 90s. I'll admit back then that I only knew who the big names were like Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Jones and De La Hoya. As I got older I got into the sport more and learned more about it. You must be crazy if you think Virgil Hill is a better win than Julio Cesar Chavez and Pernell Whitaker :lol1: Most people considered Duran already washed up when Hearns beat him in their fight. Many considered Leonard also washed up by the time he and Hearns had their rematch. Don't act like every single champion Hearns fought was in his absolute prime either because that is not true. Whitaker was old, clearly past his best (needed a come from behind hail mary KO of Hurtado and was lucky to scrape by Rivera in the first fight) and even still most believe Oscar won that fight. Whitaker's current (at that time) level was sort of shown by Trinidad in a utterly lopsided loss. Chavez was a spent bullet too. Clearly on the downside and ancient for that era. Lost handily to a fairly old Frankie Randall and got a WBC assisted gift win in a re-match. Meanwhile Hearns who's a natural 147 pounder handily defeated Virgil Hill in his prime at 175. It was Hill's only defeat over a 15 year stretch. Not always bigger name = better win. For example Canelo's win over Mosley wasn't as good as Rungvisai's wins over Chocolatito and Estrada. Duran went on to be the first man to take Hagler the distance as a challenger in a close fight and went on to win the middleweight championship and score historic victories. He also was coming off a great win just a few months prior. Was he prime? No. Was he still great? You better believe it.

I’m not going through this again. Different eras and not all two fighters age and peak the same. That’s what exposes you as a boxrec jockey. Nonsense. What happened? Did men suddenly start developing more slowly as generations passed? We're back where we started. You trying to downplay the accomplishments of the guy you don't like like and uplift the guys you do like. You have no realistic explanation of why you consider a 42-0 Canelo Alvarez at 23 years old with a world title not prime but 22 year old Hearns at 32-0 was in his prime. That right there just sounds stupid when you say it out loud.

LOL you are the one letting the biases cloud your judgement. Oscar was washed up too in 2007. Coming off a year out (1 fight in 3 years and had been defeated by Mosley, gift against Sturm and KO loss to Hopkins) to act like that Oscar was better than anything Leonard beat is HILARIOUS to me. Funny thing is a lot of people including Floyd’s Dad felt Oscar won that one too. LOL at dismissing the Hill win too. That’s clearly a stronger win than anything Oscar did. You didn’t answer my question when did you start watching boxing and when did you start following Floyd? It sounds like your a 2007 fan who saw the p4p rankings and was like “that’s my guy”. I started watching boxing as a kid in the 90s. I'll admit back then that I only knew who the big names were like Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Jones and De La Hoya. As I got older I got into the sport more and learned more about it. You must be crazy if you think Virgil Hill is a better win than Julio Cesar Chavez and Pernell Whitaker :lol1: Most people considered Duran already washed up when Hearns beat him in their fight. Many considered Leonard also washed up by the time he and Hearns had their rematch. Don't act like every single champion Hearns fought was in his absolute prime either because that is not true.

I think its bizaare how you consider 21 year old Benitez in his prime or 22 year old Hearns in his prime but somehow 23 year old Canelo was not in his prime despite having more fights and being a pro longer than either of those guys. And I never said Hatton was better than Hearns or Hagler, that you made up. I’m not going through this again. Different eras and not all two fighters age and peak the same. That’s what exposes you as a boxrec jockey.

No, because this Floyd fan (and most the others) think every fighter entered their primes the night they fought Floyd. This dude was claiming a few weeks back that Canelo at age 23 was a vastly superior fighter than Wilfred Benitez and clearly had a superior resume. I think he (I could be wrong here but it was a fanboy of this ilk) was the one claiming 147 Hatton was better than Hearns and Hagler. It’s nuts when you think about it. Just an utterly bizarre way of bringing up your idol and bringing down past greats that they don’t really know much about. I think its bizaare how you consider 21 year old Benitez in his prime or 22 year old Hearns in his prime but somehow 23 year old Canelo was not in his prime despite having more fights and being a pro longer than either of those guys. And I never said Hatton was better than Hearns or Hagler, that you made up.

Yes, I knew Hearns beat Hill and Cuevas but I didn't include those guys for the same reason I didn't include beating Gatti as accomplishment for Oscar. The guys I listed I feel were greater wins for both Oscar and Hearns respectively. But even when you add up all the hall of famers each men fought Oscar still edges out Hearns. Now, Oscar certainly did not win against all of the elite level fighters he faced but neither did Hearns. The only reason you're downplaying Oscar is because Floyd has a win over him. Which is what most Floyd haters do, they bash the guys Floyd beat just so they don't have to give him any credit. There is a reason why ESPN ranked Floyd as the best boxer pound for pound over the last 25 years. There is a reason why even the fans voted him as the best boxer 6 times for the ESPY awards. There is a reason why he is a multiple time winner for fighter of the year. I get it, you dislike the guy but don't let your biases cloud your judgement. LOL you are the one letting the biases cloud your judgement. Oscar was washed up too in 2007. Coming off a year out (1 fight in 3 years and had been defeated by Mosley, gift against Sturm and KO loss to Hopkins) to act like that Oscar was better than anything Leonard beat is HILARIOUS to me. Funny thing is a lot of people including Floyd’s Dad felt Oscar won that one too. LOL at dismissing the Hill win too. That’s clearly a stronger win than anything Oscar did. You didn’t answer my question when did you start watching boxing and when did you start following Floyd? It sounds like your a 2007 fan who saw the p4p rankings and was like “that’s my guy”.

You didn't know Tommy Hearns fought and beat Pipinio Cuevas and Virgil Hill? Both are in the hall of fame. De La Hoya certainly has no win as good as Hearns' wins over Benitez, Duran and Hill that's for damn sure. De La Hoya is like 4-6 vs. HOF fighters (one of those guys is Gatti, one is a gift over an old Whitaker the other a pointless re-match over a washed up Chavez) and Hearns is 4-2-1 (a draw that Leonard admitted he felt he lost). Obviously the Benitez, Hill, Duran wins are clearly better than any Oscar win and I'd say even the Cuevas win is too since Oscar got a gift vs. Whitaker and the Chavez win really wasn't that good. Anyway senseless talking to you about it. Th real reason you are saying De La Hoya is better than Hearns is because of Floyd which is most likely the only reason you watch boxing and is certainly the only reason you post on here. Not trying to be rude but when did you start watching Boxing/following Floyd? It sounds like you aren't that versed with past era's and use a lot of boxrec. Yes, I knew Hearns beat Hill and Cuevas but I didn't include those guys for the same reason I didn't include beating Gatti as accomplishment for Oscar. The guys I listed I feel were greater wins for both Oscar and Hearns respectively. But even when you add up all the hall of famers each men fought Oscar still edges out Hearns. Now, Oscar certainly did not win against all of the elite level fighters he faced but neither did Hearns. The only reason you're downplaying Oscar is because Floyd has a win over him. Which is what most Floyd haters do, they bash the guys Floyd beat just so they don't have to give him any credit. There is a reason why ESPN ranked Floyd as the best boxer pound for pound over the last 25 years. There is a reason why even the fans voted him as the best boxer 6 times for the ESPY awards. There is a reason why he is a multiple time winner for fighter of the year. I get it, you dislike the guy but don't let your biases cloud your judgement.

of course it is. then they will ignore that leonard faced an absolute prime hearns while floyd fought a washed hoya. same thing derp! No, because this Floyd fan (and most the others) think every fighter entered their primes the night they fought Floyd. This dude was claiming a few weeks back that Canelo at age 23 was a vastly superior fighter than Wilfred Benitez and clearly had a superior resume. I think he (I could be wrong here but it was a fanboy of this ilk) was the one claiming 147 Hatton was better than Hearns and Hagler. It’s nuts when you think about it. Just an utterly bizarre way of bringing up your idol and bringing down past greats that they don’t really know much about.

You didn't know Tommy Hearns fought and beat Pipinio Cuevas and Virgil Hill? Both are in the hall of fame. De La Hoya certainly has no win as good as Hearns' wins over Benitez, Duran and Hill that's for damn sure. De La Hoya is like 4-6 vs. HOF fighters (one of those guys is Gatti, one is a gift over an old Whitaker the other a pointless re-match over a washed up Chavez) and Hearns is 4-2-1 (a draw that Leonard admitted he felt he lost). Obviously the Benitez, Hill, Duran wins are clearly better than any Oscar win and I'd say even the Cuevas win is too since Oscar got a gift vs. Whitaker and the Chavez win really wasn't that good. Anyway senseless talking to you about it. Th real reason you are saying De La Hoya is better than Hearns is because of Floyd which is most likely the only reason you watch boxing and is certainly the only reason you post on here. Not trying to be rude but when did you start watching Boxing/following Floyd? It sounds like you aren't that versed with past era's and use a lot of boxrec. of course it is. then they will ignore that leonard faced an absolute prime hearns while floyd fought a washed hoya. same thing derp!

I think who you fought matters too and what they accomplished. De La Hoya has proably faced more hall of famers than Hearns has. Hearns faced Leonard, Hagler, Benitez, and Duran while De La Hoya faced Chavez, Whitaker, Mayweather, Pacquiao, Hopkins and Trinidad. De La Hoya was also a 6 division champ as opposed to Hearns 5 divisions. The only guy Loma has beaten who has a chance of being in the hall of fame is Rigondeaux, and Rigo was 37 years old and jumping two weight classes. And that's literally the best name on Loma's resume. You didn't know Tommy Hearns fought and beat Pipinio Cuevas and Virgil Hill? Both are in the hall of fame. De La Hoya certainly has no win as good as Hearns' wins over Benitez, Duran and Hill that's for damn sure. De La Hoya is like 4-6 vs. HOF fighters (one of those guys is Gatti, one is a gift over an old Whitaker the other a pointless re-match over a washed up Chavez) and Hearns is 4-2-1 (a draw that Leonard admitted he felt he lost). Obviously the Benitez, Hill, Duran wins are clearly better than any Oscar win and I'd say even the Cuevas win is too since Oscar got a gift vs. Whitaker and the Chavez win really wasn't that good. Anyway senseless talking to you about it. Th real reason you are saying De La Hoya is better than Hearns is because of Floyd which is most likely the only reason you watch boxing and is certainly the only reason you post on here. Not trying to be rude but when did you start watching Boxing/following Floyd? It sounds like you aren't that versed with past era's and use a lot of boxrec.

By using your logic surely he'd have to be, no? Isn't that how you came to the conclusion that De La Hoya officially ranked higher all-time than Hagler and Hearns? I think who you fought matters too and what they accomplished. De La Hoya has proably faced more hall of famers than Hearns has. Hearns faced Leonard, Hagler, Benitez, and Duran while De La Hoya faced Chavez, Whitaker, Mayweather, Pacquiao, Hopkins and Trinidad. De La Hoya was also a 6 division champ as opposed to Hearns 5 divisions. The only guy Loma has beaten who has a chance of being in the hall of fame is Rigondeaux, and Rigo was 37 years old and jumping two weight classes. And that's literally the best name on Loma's resume.

I never said Loma was better than any of those guys. In fact I wouldn't even put Loma ahead of Mikey Garcia. I don't know he's rated above Mikey in pound for pound lists, at all. By using your logic surely he'd have to be, no? Isn't that how you came to the conclusion that De La Hoya officially ranked higher all-time than Hagler and Hearns?

I didn’t say it’s the standard on not standard. Loma has gotten to #1 in 3 divisions that still doesn’t mean he’s better than SRR, Monzon, Jofre, Greb or Hagler like you think he is. I never said Loma was better than any of those guys. In fact I wouldn't even put Loma ahead of Mikey Garcia. I don't know he's rated above Mikey in pound for pound lists, at all.

Mosley had already declined by 2003 but typical Floyd trying to cherry pick him in 2003 after two losses to Forrest. Even in 2006 he'd beaten a severely washed up Vargas and got a re-match gift over Oscar. Mosley's lightweight prime was 97-99 and his best welterweight days were 00-02. Are you one of those Floyd fanboys that must defend everything he does and doesn't do whilst also not paying to actually go and see him live? Mosley was fighting at 147lbs in 2003. Floyd was at 135lbs. Floyd was no one from a money standpoint. His first PPV fight, which he didn't carry, was against Gatti in 2005. That fight took place at 140lbs. I'm not getting into the Floyd wouldn't have fought him argument, I don't know. But I'm also not going to listen to foolishness that Shane Mosley was ducking Floyd. That's another Floyd Boys fantasy.