...He will always be the guy that won belts at 4 different weights.
Yes, it's looking pretty bad for him now.
Some bimbette works him on social media and THEN he misses a dope test.
But really, the skeezer may have helped in that she might have documented that Adrian was in no condition to meet any drug testers anywhere at the time- she has pics of him passed out in what has to be the wee hours of the morning in question.
I bet even money that Broner gets past the missed dope test.
The question is, can Broner get past Broner.
Let's do a perspective timeout for a second.
Everyone here acknowledges that Lomachenko is one of the best guys doing it out here today, right?
We may disagree at how great Loma is, but no one doubts he is a phenomenal talent, true?
Loma has 3 belts in 3 weightclasses and he did it in a timespan of a little less than 4 years.
Well, Broner did the same thing in a little over a year and a half, 3 titles in 3 different weights.
And Broner took a 4th belt in a different weight in the same timespan Loma took 3.
Time back in.
This is not to say Broner is as talented as Loma, but it is to point out that if we are judging solely by what has been accomplished IN THE RING, Broner is not only in the conversation but can be seen as having an edge in a few respects (another being quality of competition).
We need to remember this as much as we bring up his idiotic and self-destructive antics outside the ring.
Indeed, if you have wondered how he has remained relevant so long in spite of several seemingly career ending actions and experiences, now you can figure out why.
Broner can fight.
He may be lazy.
He may not use some or most of the talent God gave him.
He may even be a not very nice person in real life (or it may be part act and part illness and he may actually be a great guy under the sickness).
But, he can fight.
And, as long as that is still true, Broner will have a place in boxing.
He was the draw vs. Mikey too. Loma is a bigger draw than what Mikey was as well.
Perhaps. Broner has shown he can't win dropping back down in weight and Loma has shown he has trouble with much bigger men so it evens things out and should make for an even fight.
Because Broner is the bigger draw and the fight should be on the terms of the a side. Same way Floyd fought ODH at 154 and Bhop fought ODH at 157, not suggesting Broner is equal to ODH but I think you get my point.
Yes, he lost 2x and has a draw (disputed) at 147 and lost once coming back down at 140. 135 and below dude is undefeated. So I think his issue is more weight related.
He lost to Porter and Maidana, 2 extremely awkward fighters who had been in high profile fights and were bigger than him. Usually, fighters that lose in those situations don't get knocked as much as Broner has.
He was the draw vs. Mikey too. Loma is a bigger draw than what Mikey was as well.
The Mikey-Broner fight was at 140. Why would Loma (who is smaller than Mikey) fighting at 147 vs. Broner be fair in comparison?
He gets credit for taking tough fights but he was completely dominated in all three of them and has multiple gift decisions. He didn’t adapt that well in most those fights and his best wins are a debatable either way win vs. Malignaggi and a win over DeMarco. Paulie was never that good to begin with and was way past his best at that time too.
Because Broner is the bigger draw and the fight should be on the terms of the a side. Same way Floyd fought ODH at 154 and Bhop fought ODH at 157, not suggesting Broner is equal to ODH but I think you get my point.
Yes, he lost 2x and has a draw (disputed) at 147 and lost once coming back down at 140. 135 and below dude is undefeated. So I think his issue is more weight related.
He lost to Porter and Maidana, 2 extremely awkward fighters who had been in high profile fights and were bigger than him. Usually, fighters that lose in those situations don't get knocked as much as Broner has.
no, at 147. Loma is the better fighter but Broner is the a side.
On the one hand, you and others post regularly about losses shouldn't define a guy and guys should take tough fights rather than easy ones. I agree with you for the most part.
When Broner is being discussed, he never gets credit for taking tough fights. Instead its just he sucks because he lost and then all his opponents are lowered because they have losses as well.
The Mikey-Broner fight was at 140. Why would Loma (who is smaller than Mikey) fighting at 147 vs. Broner be fair in comparison?
He gets credit for taking tough fights but he was completely dominated in all three of them and has multiple gift decisions. He didn’t adapt that well in most those fights and his best wins are a debatable either way win vs. Malignaggi and a win over DeMarco. Paulie was never that good to begin with and was way past his best at that time too.
Broner is basically Ricky Burns but with more hype.
Both picked up plenty of easy belts in different divisions but could never really cut it at the top level.
They should have fought, **** pissed me off at the time
Broner is basically Ricky Burns but with more hype.
Both picked up plenty of easy belts in different divisions but could never really cut it at the top level.
I'd be down for that at 140. I think Lomachenko would shut him out. Broner wouldn't quit but he wouldn't throw.
I think Lomachenko is a better fighter and is more accomplished. Broner should have 6-7 losses and has one semi good win.
no, at 147. Loma is the better fighter but Broner is the a side.
On the one hand, you and others post regularly about losses shouldn't define a guy and guys should take tough fights rather than easy ones. I agree with you for the most part.
When Broner is being discussed, he never gets credit for taking tough fights. Instead its just he sucks because he lost and then all his opponents are lowered because they have losses as well.
Yammy25,
What the ****ing hell are you talking about
130 Vacant
135 Demarco
140 Vacant
147 Paulie.
Gavin was a title defense at 135 after Ricky Burns shamelessly ducked the unification.
You got dementia brother?
Yeah my mistake it was demarco...
Doesn't sway away from the abysmal comparison of his resume and opposition calibre to Loma though
See, every time people try to defend Broner and bring up his accomplishments, they mention these belts in 4 weight classes. Kigali started that tradition. But they never mention who he had to beat to get these 4 belts. Never. Because that's nothing remarkable and careful matchmaking. Nobody gives a **** about Paulie Malignanni or what his name is. Even Gamboa would devour Broner's soul
Yammy25,
What the ****ing hell are you talking about
130 Vacant
135 Demarco
140 Vacant
147 Paulie.
Gavin was a title defense at 135 after Ricky Burns shamelessly ducked the unification.
You got dementia brother?
He won 4 belts.. two were vacant and the other two were against paulie and gavin rees
not rees, demarco. demarco was somehow ranked #1 at the time but if you delve deeper...its cause the top 3 guys all moved up at virtually the same time and it was a dubious ranking that was based on beating linares who was unranked at the time. meanwhile a guy like ricky burns had 3 top 10 wins and demarco jumpe him. doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me.
Maybe the answer is to put Loma and Broner in the ring together and let them fight. Mikey fought him so it would make for a good contrast. Imagine if Broner beat him?
I'd be down for that at 140. I think Lomachenko would shut him out. Broner wouldn't quit but he wouldn't throw.
I think Lomachenko is a better fighter and is more accomplished. Broner should have 6-7 losses and has one semi good win.
The belt wasn't vacant with Paulie. Paulie won it against Senchenko, and defended it against Cano before facing Broner.
He won 4 belts.. two were vacant and the other two were against paulie and gavin rees
With all due respect, you are not looking deep enough.
When you look at who they fought and when they fought them, it's clear that not only is the level of competition comparable but, if there is an edge, it goes to Broner.
You take a look at some of Loma's wins and you find the guys he beat either not fighting anymore or fighting guys with double digit losses...just like they were before they fought Loma. Broner fights more guys with more left in the tank.
:friday::friday::friday:
yes when you look at who and when they fought loma fought more guys that were higher ranked. when you look at what guys did after losing to loma and broner only russell jr became #1 at 126. which broner opponent that he beat(not lost to) became #1??? how about #2? how about #3? was it malignaggi? gavin rees? granados? khabib? walters, rigo, and linares haven't been active since loma beat them so that means they sucked when he fought them? no. the guys that broner beat sucked when he fought them and sucked afterwards.
Loma would never take that fight.
Adrien is way too big and Loma doesn't have Mikey's defense.
He knows Broner would spark him out.do you want broner to kill himself? because that's what would happen after he loses to lomachenko. broner doesn't let his hands go at all and he doesn't have the bully mentality in the ring in fact he's the one who gets bullied. broner is too stupid loma figures him out and schools him easily. broner kills himself in the locker room afterwards.
Maybe the answer is to put Loma and Broner in the ring together and let them fight. Mikey fought him so it would make for a good contrast. Imagine if Broner beat him?lol broner would get schooled and he would only be the 5th or 6th best name on loma's resume.
is this supposed to be defending broner or bashing him? i honestly can't tell cause that list is garbage. loma beat 2 guys who were #1 or went on to be #1 and a #5 guy. broner beat a guy who was #1 and a guy who was #8 but coming off a robbery win. the rest weren't even ranked i don't get it and this is just the people they fought for belts. if you look at the entire resume it gets much worse for broner oh wait there is gavin rees nm
With all due respect, you are not looking deep enough.
When you look at who they fought and when they fought them, it's clear that not only is the level of competition comparable but, if there is an edge, it goes to Broner.
You take a look at some of Loma's wins and you find the guys he beat either not fighting anymore or fighting guys with double digit losses...just like they were before they fought Loma.
By contrast, a lot of Broner's opposition (win or lose) goes on to have meaningful fights afterwards.
To me, that says Broner fights more guys with more left in the tank.
Maybe the answer is to put Loma and Broner in the ring together and let them fight. Mikey fought him so it would make for a good contrast. Imagine if Broner beat him?
Loma would never take that fight.
Adrien is way too big and Loma doesn't have Mikey's defense.
He knows Broner would spark him out.
An untested and green Russell
A washed Martinez fresh off two wars with Salido.
A decent, yet past prime Linares.
Not to mention a Rigo old and two weightclasses too much, a Walters who was on the shelf a year, and assorted neverwas fighters.
No, I am not saying Broner has a HOF resume.
I am saying neither does Loma.
Far from it.
And out of the two, Broner's trash may be a better accomplishment.
Not hard to figure out if you are objective.