Does Lomachenko Losing His 2nd Pro Fight PROVES NO MATTER AMATUER RECORD...

He’s still a great fighter and he came into the sport fighting top opposition. People tend to lose fights when you’re constantly fighting the best guys out there.

1/3 of the Olympics Gold medalists that have turned pro, have won a title and some of the best of them didn't even turned pro.

Amateur success is usually a good barometer on how well someone will be turn out as a pro. You can't ignore the fact that Lomachenko is a 3 Div champ and holds record for fastest to get a title. If he retires, his pro career would be seen as a success. Gvozdyk, Usyk, Golovkin, Beterbiev, Klitschkos all these fighters had extensive amateur careers and succeeded as pros. Even on the American side GRJ, Demetrius Andrade, Andre Ward and Errol Spence all had extensive amateur careers and had successful pro careers. The only exception is the odd Cuban or Brit who flames out.

Does lomachenko lost to Salido in his 2nd pro fight** proves that no matter your amateur accomplishments, it shouldn't hold any influence over how you are ranked or moved in the pros. Salido is a fighter someone like Lomachenko on paper should have won against easily. And this isnt the only case, Robizy great amateur record lost, verdejo lost, etc etc. Tons of amateur greats who pretty much couldn't really hack it in the pros. Should it be disallowed to allow a fighter to compete for a title so quick? Just because of his amateur record when everything states that every fighter no matter how great in the amateur needs to adjust to the pros? ** really his 8 pro fight, everyone over looks his 6 WSB pro style 5 rounder bouts he had.First Salido did not even try to make weight and came in overweight giving him an advantage. 2nd Salido got away with a huge amount of illegal low blows weakening Loma. 3rd it was very close fight and one judge and many viewers thought Loma won. Loma had a great run right after that loss beating many champions in 3 different weight classes. He offered a Salido a rematch soon after the loss several times and salido wanted no part of a high paying rematch. The pros are different than the amateurs and take some ajustment as you say. Loma was not ready for Salido's tricks and it caught him by surprise. Loma learned difference between amateur and pro quickly.

You guys take this whole undefeated or needing no more than a loss or two too damn serious in gauging how great a fighter is. A fighter ultimately is great for his overall accomplishments in what he's done. I still think Loma is a TERRIFIC fighter. Heck, I practically want to erase his Lopez loss. I just saw him outmuscled by a larger guy. Remember the saying, a great big fighter typically beats a great little fighter? That still holds up. Loma gave a great account of himself despite that in the second half. If it was a 15 rd fight, who knows? Either way, Loma is still great at the lower weights and beats 99% of the guys down there. Either you're riding the Lopez hype train too much or your hate for Loma is too strong. Not sure. It was a good win for Lopez but not entirely impressive. We didn't see a total domination at all. The only memories I have left from that fight are mostly Loma's 5 punch combinations he was landing and snapping Teo's head back towards the 2nd half. It was a good win for Teo but not a dominant win. Let's not forget he was the bigger/stronger guy in there also.

I've NEVER believed that a great Amateur or even a Olympic Gold Medalist guarantees greatness as a pro. Pros and Amateurs are not the same, 3 Rounds with Headgear is totally different from 10-12 Rounds and no Headgear Loma still have achieved Greatness in a short period of time as a Pro! Robeisy Ramirez one of the greatest Amateurs I've ever seen but have yet to impress as a pro

Imo what a fighter does as an amateur is relative only to how they will be marketed in the pros. A gold medal or a great amateur record is something promoters can sell to fans and TV. If you aren’t matched right your amateur record is meaningless imo.

Back then it didnt matter as much. The amateurs weren't made to prepare fighters for the pros but with the rule changes it should help more now.. Theres plenty if amateur fighters that are very good and dont have good pro careers. But I mean it was a promotional point to push that aspect of his career I feel he woulda had more success then hes had (which hes had a lot) if he had gone pro 3-5 years earlier

Does lomachenko lost to Salido in his 2nd pro fight** proves that no matter your amateur accomplishments, it shouldn't hold any influence over how you are ranked or moved in the pros. Salido is a fighter someone like Lomachenko on paper should have won against easily. And this isnt the only case, Robizy great amateur record lost, verdejo lost, etc etc. Tons of amateur greats who pretty much couldn't really hack it in the pros. Should it be disallowed to allow a fighter to compete for a title so quick? Just because of his amateur record when everything states that every fighter no matter how great in the amateur needs to adjust to the pros? ** really his 8 pro fight, everyone over looks his 6 WSB pro style 5 rounder bouts he had. - - What grade did they return U to this year? 2nd?

Does lomachenko lost to Salido in his 2nd pro fight** proves that no matter your amateur accomplishments, it shouldn't hold any influence over how you are ranked or moved in the pros. Salido is a fighter someone like Lomachenko on paper should have won against easily. And this isnt the only case, Robizy great amateur record lost, verdejo lost, etc etc. Tons of amateur greats who pretty much couldn't really hack it in the pros. Should it be disallowed to allow a fighter to compete for a title so quick? Just because of his amateur record when everything states that every fighter no matter how great in the amateur needs to adjust to the pros? ** really his 8 pro fight, everyone over looks his 6 WSB pro style 5 rounder bouts he had. You are fighting other Amateurs in WSB, with amateur styles...

No. Name any fighter that would fight for a title with an established fighter that was proven. Kind of deceiving because Loma had 5 fights in that World Boxing tournament after the amateurs. He paced himself too much in the beginning of the Salido fight and Salido came overweight with some fouling during the fight. It wasn't like Loma lost by a landslide, it was close fight and Salido was hurt at the end of the fight. Loma had so much experience from that amateurs that his technic did not suffer, it was more the inexperience of going rounds with an experienced tough fighter.

No because he wasn't cherry picking He could have fought 15 bums than fought for a title . He could have avoided Lopez and let his arm healed than fought it's all up to Cherry picking not your amateur record. Floyd really lost to Castillo and Madaina if he didn't carefully select his matches he would have more loses If he fought Paul Williams and Margarito he would have 2 more losses. If Haney Garcia Lopez fought for the title on their 2nd pro fight they all would have lost Agreed Loma has 2 losses because he took risks, not because he's not a P4P level fighter. Loma started at 126 faced the best 122 pounder in Rigo, the best 126 pounder in Russel, arguably the biggest threat at 130 in Walters, the best 135 pounder Lopez. Loma fighting Lopez is kinda like Spence fighting Canelo or Canelo fighting Benavidez or Beterbiev ie fighting the young blue chip talented beast in a division were you are too small. But Spence chasing the Porter of the world in his very first division, how do we know he's P4P top 3 when he's not even the best WW? Spence would get body bagged by Canelo (Spence is too slow and not strong enough for Clenelo), Beterbiev would smile at Canelo best punches and brutalize him. Canelo picked Kovalev, a guy who get koed twice in the very last years. And it's not like Loma was ridiculous in there. Loma didn't struggle more with Salido than Floyd did with Castillo, it is just that some styles, fighters are favored by the judge for whatever reason. Lopez beat Loma IMO, reasonable cards are 6-6 or 7-5 8-4 Lopez, Lopez did more. Crawford is the truth.

Does lomachenko lost to Salido in his 2nd pro fight** proves that no matter your amateur accomplishments, it shouldn't hold any influence over how you are ranked or moved in the pros. Salido is a fighter someone like Lomachenko on paper should have won against easily. And this isnt the only case, Robizy great amateur record lost, verdejo lost, etc etc. Tons of amateur greats who pretty much couldn't really hack it in the pros. Should it be disallowed to allow a fighter to compete for a title so quick? Just because of his amateur record when everything states that every fighter no matter how great in the amateur needs to adjust to the pros? ** really his 8 pro fight, everyone over looks his 6 WSB pro style 5 rounder bouts he had. NOPE, without that amateur experience, pedrigree, Loma would have been koed. Salidoe derailed JuanMa Lopez career for exemple with two TKO, and gave Gamboa or Juan Ma Marquez tough fights. Loma has serious balls to take a fight like that as a 2nd pro fight. And he lost a SD, not like he took a beating. Should receive props for taking such fight instead of receiving "been exposed doe" comments, but boxing fans...we got the champs we deserve, protected paper stars.

No because he wasn't cherry picking He could have fought 15 bums than fought for a title . He could have avoided Lopez and let his arm healed than fought it's all up to Cherry picking not your amateur record. Floyd really lost to Castillo and Madaina if he didn't carefully select his matches he would have more loses If he fought Paul Williams and Margarito he would have 2 more losses. If Haney Garcia Lopez fought for the title on their 2nd pro fight they all would have lost

Does lomachenko lost to Salido in his 2nd pro fight** proves that no matter your amateur accomplishments, it shouldn't hold any influence over how you are ranked or moved in the pros. Salido is a fighter someone like Lomachenko on paper should have won against easily. And this isnt the only case, Robizy great amateur record lost, verdejo lost, etc etc. Tons of amateur greats who pretty much couldn't really hack it in the pros. Should it be disallowed to allow a fighter to compete for a title so quick? Just because of his amateur record when everything states that every fighter no matter how great in the amateur needs to adjust to the pros? ** really his 8 pro fight, everyone over looks his 6 WSB pro style 5 rounder bouts he had. Salido won barely, split dec. but he should have been DQ about 20 times over. Lomachenko didn't complain, showing he was a very good sport. His case is special. His amateur record was 396-1 the lone loss being avenged twice. Who could ever imagine a guy fighting 397 times and losing only once. Even Papp, who fought about 330 amateur fights when they fought just like pros, with no headgear, and looser rules, and lost only 12 (some say 7) times, with 55 1st rd KOs...didn't fight a pro champ, until about his 20th fight, and then it was a European Champ. Still he won them all, except 2 draws against lt.heavys. But he was pnly a 5'5" middleweight with great disadvantages, very hard puncher but very brittle bones, and very short arms. But like a Bulldog, who could always turn it up a step or two as neccessary. And he was nearly 32 when be turned pro, because it was forbidden in a communist country. So he went to Austria, sometimes to Paris for sparing partners, but always retuned to Hungary, where he lived.. He was a great fighter also.

There should be more control on the weight rather than the amateur - pro thing. Ok, amateur record doesn't mean everything, but in the case of Loma I think he needed another fight or two of experience, and even negotiation wise experience. There were seasoned pros that tried olympic amateur boxing again and lost or got KOd, Amnat Ruenroeng is an example. Got KOd against an amateur. Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam is another example, and in the pros we won against Ryota Murata, Martin Murray and Curtis Stevens.

To answer your questions, 1. I wouldn’t say your amateur record means nothing, but it definitely shouldn’t mean everything. 2. No, I don’t think there should be any rules one way or another how soon someone can fight for a title. If the two parties agree to make a fight, so be it - and I don’t see why amateur records or how long someone has been a pro should make any difference one way or another.