Tweet
What's weird is that there was a pretty clear consensus that Loma won the fight. Haney, Teo and others who attended all said Loma clearly won the fight, but they also viewed Loma as "older" and "fading." Throwing shade 11 days after the fact is colossally ******, rookie mistake for 24-year-old Michel Rivera, who seems to want to get a piece of Loma and a nice payday. Hey, 26-YEAR-OLD Ortiz caught a break. Rivera might be thinking, "Why not me, too!" Throw some shade... might get lucky. Nice idea, poorly executed (the same problem most fighter encounter when they put themselves in front of Loma, inside the ring, outside the ring and, in this case, in the headlines. The Loma-Ortiz fight is old news. Rivera might want to go get a few more fights under his belt because if there was even a remote possibility that he could get in the ring with Loma, he will not have the luxury that Ortiz had of having sparred with Loma and knowing his opponent a little before the fight. But, we love young guns full of piss and vinegar. But writer RYAN BURTON? Well, entertaining this kind of dribble and actually publishing it??? Must have been desperate for news to report because, really, this dribble he posted is just some weak-assed ****. Among the first comments to the article is, "Who's Michel Rivera?" That kind of says it all. Lead story: "Michel Rivera Says Loma Did Not Win." Here is an ironic alternative headline: "NOBODY Says Loma Did Not Win." It kind of captures the value of what Rivera's opinion. Ryan, hope you come up with more compelling news to report because this was pretty lame.
-
-
I can't resist doubling down on this.... Really? Headline: Michel Rivera Says Loma Did Not Beat Ortiz." Really? Rivera? Who is Michel Rivera? The standout prospect who edged out the famous Jerry Perez in an 8-round undercard fight? That guy. I apologize for any disrespect that can be inferred from this, but this is more about writer Ryan Burton. Rivera is an up and coming fighter. Nothing but respect to him. But Burton writing articles that essentially say the judges got the Loma-Ortiz decision wrong and base it on the opinion of a fighter who just won an 8-round decision against Jerry Perez. Is that the best you got? Really? What story ideas did you set aside so that you could write this one? Compelling stuff. Next, I think you should call Rivera and ask him about his opinion on Bivol v Canelo. Breaking news: "Canelo Will School Bivol in Rematch, Rivera Says." Mr. Burton, I believe when people read this article we are gobsmacked with disbelief of the incompetence. They question if this article is newsworthy. And we are in disbelief that you could be this incompetent. We CAN'T believe it. And we DON'T believe it Consequently, there has to be a different explanation. And when we consider that the article is about how a young boxing prospect feels that the judges got it wrong in the Loma-Ortiz fight. We ask ourselves, "What is Ryan's motivation? He's better than this. He doesn't have to resort to this on a weak news day." We are led to believe you are bashing. If I am wrong, I can accept that. But, please, do let me know: Was it bashing or was it incompetence? Either way, people reading deserve better than thisComment
-
Anyone who thinks Loma lost needs to assess his boxing acumen and come to terms that they don't know **** about boxing. It was so clearly a Loma win that I honestly can't understand this talk. I have a couple theories as to why this is the case, and the first part is that (1) people don't understand the rules of boxing and (2) the other one is that they have the memory of a gnat.
If you have the memory of a gnat, then you probably thought that Ortiz won the round because of the flurries he'd throw at the 10 second clapper, despite Loma controlling the whole round, landing more punches and pushing Ortiz back for the other two minutes and 50 seconds.
The other issue is that you don't know what a scoring blow is. Just because a guy is throwing punches doesn't mean those are scoring blows. If I grab onto you with my arm and punch with the other, that's called holding and hitting. Those are not scoring blows, but apparently, people are counting those punches. A foul can never be a scoring blow. This is boxing, not street fighting. You can't put your opponent in a headlock and start punching his ribs. Apparently, some people don't understand this.
When you take this into consideration, then you can understand the scorecards of 117-111 and 116-112 because many of Ortiz's punches were while he was holding and hitting. And even despite all of that, it was obviously a Lomachenko win.
Loma might be a victim of his previously dominant performances. Apparently, if Loma isn't clearly winning all 12 rounds, then he must be losing.Comment
-
Wait so bob is saying that he don't wanna make Haney vs loma anymore? Haven't heard any news of that .Comment
-
The article says "Shortly, after Lomachenko’s victory, Top Rank chairman Bob Arum reiterated his desire to match Loamchenko against undisputed lightweight Devin Haney who was ringside for the fight. Both boxers fight under the Top Rank banner. The first quarter of next year is being targeted for the showdown."Comment
-
Yeah, but there's more to it then just looking at things on the surface. Adorno's first knockdown of Ortiz was wrongly called because it was based on a cuffing shot on the back of Ortiz's head, and he actually tripped over Adorno's leg. It was a trip, not a knockdown. It was as clear as day, so that was an unfortunate call. The second one was legit because he clearly leaned into the ropes. But one judge had Ortiz winning that fight despite two knockdowns, and if the trip was regarded as a trip, then Ortiz would have UD'd Adorno. And Adorno is a very good boxer.
Michel Rivera beat Adorno pretty handily, but it was a boring fight. Rivera just kept Adorno at the end of his jab. He took no risks whatsoever, just was good at controlling the distance. And the reason why is due to knowing that had he engaged in midrange, he would have probably been hurt by Adorno's power.
The point I'm making, however, is that "styles make fights" because some boxers don't have enough tools to deal with every boxing style.Comment
Comment