Terence Crawford does not have a better resume than LOMA!

[Mr.Fantastic]

Been saying it, Gamboa is the best dude on Crawford's resume and Crawford was huge compared to Gamboa when they fought. It's a good win but people act as if Crawford has done the hardest thing ever. The unification was due to weak comp and a weak division @ 140. Him moving up to WW and if he cleans it, no doubt he'll be #1 but he's overrated/overhyped at the moment.

Canelo should be higher than Crawford too. Same with Rigo if he were more active.

[g27region]

I don't necessarily believe Lomachenko should be in the Top 10, definitely not Top 5. Rigondeaux with his long layoffs and recent caliber of opposition shouldn't really be in the discussion either

I'd struggle to name 10 fighters who's better than Rigo and Loma and I'm not only talking about the potential. Because Donaire, GRJ, and Walters are damn good wins

but he should be higher than
Lomachenko because of the Donaire win.

Rigo win over Donaire is the best and most valuable scalp if we talk about resumes of all current p4p fighters right now. It's better than any win in any current p4p resume. That's how good it is. If that's the main criteria , then Rigo definitely deserves the spot

If Rigo layoffs is the problem, then Lomachenko should be higher in the list because he's been more relevant, faced way better opposition than Rigo recently - Walters,Sosa and Martinez are better than last Rigo scalps, plus Loma is way more busy than Rigondeaux who had 3 fights in last 3 years

The winner of Rigondeaux-Lomachenko should be second to Crawford but that's just my opinion.

Crawford is in my top 3 of favorite boxers right now, but he doesn't have the resume to be 1# p4p. There's no challenge for him at 140, same goes to Golovkin. Damn, even Usyk has a better win in Glowacki than anything in Crawford or Golovkin's resumes and that's a fact. There's no clear p4p king right now

Which is the other part of the P4P discussion. It is really subjective. I think having Lomachenko there based on his potential is making mockery of the process. And that's coming from someone that thinks Lomachenko is the real deal.

Lomachenko already has some good wins like Russell and Walters, the problem is his resume isn't deep enough and not in terms of quality (he faced 6 titleholders in 10 fights and there's no current fighter who can fuck with win/loss ratio of his defeated opposition), but in terms of longevity - 10 fights isn't simply not enough to make you the p4p leader

[otrocubiche]

Loma has Russel,Walters, and Rigo once Loma beats his midget ass. Crawford went life and death with midget Gamboa.

So, if Loma beats Rigo, it will be midget Rigo, right?

[jmrf4435]

Loma has Russel,Walters, and Rigo once Loma beats his midget ass. Crawford went life and death with midget Gamboa.

If loma beats rigo loma has a much better resume.

I think right now it's pretty similar. I'd give the edge to loma slightly.

Americans like american fighters, so do promoters and judges.

[HanzGruber]

Don't tell me you don't give credit to GGG and Canelo for Brook and Amir then

Of course I don't lol

[HarvardBlue]

I'd struggle to name 10 fighters who's better than Rigo and Loma and I'm not only talking about the potential. Because Donaire, GRJ, and Walters are damn good wins

It's not about who is better, it's about resumes.

Rigo win over Donaire is the best and most valuable scalp if we talk about resumes of all current p4p fighters right now. It's better than any win in any current p4p resume. That's how good it is. If that's the main criteria , then Rigo definitely deserves the spot

I'll give you Rigondeaux deserves a spot but the inactivity and recent opponents is a problem.

If Rigo layoffs is the problem, then Lomachenko should be higher in the list because he's been more relevant, faced way better opposition than Rigo recently - Walters,Sosa and Martinez are better than last Rigo scalps, plus Loma is way more busy than Rigondeaux who had 3 fights in last 3 years

There lies the flaw in your argument, better recent opponents, weaker overall resume. Now you wanna give him a top spot?

Crawford is in my top 3 of favorite boxers right now, but he doesn't have the resume to be 1# p4p. There's no challenge for him at 140, same goes to Golovkin. Damn, even Usyk has a better win in Glowacki than anything in Crawford or Golovkin's resumes and that's a fact. There's no clear p4p king right now

I disagree with you on Usyk. Golovkin and Crawford have better resumes.

Lomachenko already has some good wins like Russell and Walters, the problem is his resume isn't deep enough and not in terms of quality (he faced 6 titleholders in 10 fights and there's no current fighter who can fuck with win/loss ratio of his defeated opposition), but in terms of longevity - 10 fights isn't simply not enough to make you the p4p leader

Russell is a good win but he's also unproven. Walters quit on his own when he was neither hurt or shut out of the fight. I can't give Lomachenko credit for that.

Finally, who are the most accomplished fighters on this list?
Kell Brook, Roman Martinez, Chris Algieri, Nicholas Walters, Leonard Bundu, Gary Russell Jr.

I hope you're seeing where I'm going with this.

[garfios]

Why some ppl compare Crawford to lomachenko? They not even on the same division and Gamboa's win $h1t on any fighter lomachenho fought. I know that was the last hurrah for the Cuban and he almost Ko Crawford in the last round, still it was a heck of win.

[g27region]

Of course I don't lol

Don't expect other people to give credit to Crawford for Gamboa win then. It's logical

It's not about who is better, it's about resumes.

That's the point, Rigo and Lomachenko resumes are good enough for current top 10 p4p.

Rigo has the best scalp among all p4p'ers in Donaire, Loma has uncomparable combined win/loss ratio of defeated opposition

If you don't like the fact they don't get a lot of high quality fights , blame the current state of boxing because it's not as competitive as it once was

I'll give you Rigondeaux deserves a spot but the inactivity and recent opponents is a problem.

It's a problem. Try to look at the situation using this angle - Rigo had 3 fights in 3 years and Thurman had 2 fights in 2 years, it's not like Thurman was that active either. It doesn't stop boxing fans from including Keith in their p4p lists though.

You can make a counter argument like "Right, but Thurman has better recent wins than Rigondeaux" and Rigo still got the better scalp in Donaire

No disrespect to Thurman, he's a warrior, but it is what it is

There lies the flaw in your argument, better recent opponents, weaker overall resume. Now you wanna give him a top spot?

There's no flaws in my logic. Loma has better overall resume, Rigo has the better win.

Nothing in Lomachenko's resume tops that Donaire win, but his competition was better on average.It's not that complicated to get

I disagree with you on Usyk. Golovkin and Crawford have better resumes.

I've never said Usyk has the better resume than Golovkin or Crawford, I've said he has the better win, there's a difference between these statements

The only reason why Usyk isn't higher than Golovkin and Crawford in my p4p list is because he lacks the longevity, just like Lomachenko.
13 fights isn't enough to put him higher than the undisputed champ or the guy who was running the division for more than 5 years.

Anyway he has the better win in Glowacki who was the man at the division stacked with hard punching killers. Plus he can add Gassiev or Briedis to his resume as well after WBSS.

Crawford and Golovkin wins full of Mchunu/Hunter/washed up version of Huck caliber of fighters, maybe even worse than that, because at least Huck was the kingpin of the division at some point.

Canelo fight is the only exception but a draw is a draw, you might agree with judges decision or not, but you still can't count it as a win

Russell is a good win but he's also unproven.

Lomachenko had only 2 pro fights going into this bout so he was the more unproven fighter at the time. Gary Russell and Lomachenko were great prospects who made a lot of boxing fans excited about their potential.

I've seen a lot of NSB threads with posters saying GRJ "is a future star", Dan Rafael compared Gary to Floyd back then, that's ridiculous statement, but the point is the kid was having his fair share of hype back then, he barely gets mentioned after that L and his inactivity doesn't help him too

And I've seen a lot of threads with people saying Walters is basically borderline p4p after beating Donaire and Darchinyan, I'm not making shit up, and I can back up everything I say with links. I don't remember when guys like Bundu or Algieri were getting the same praises

Walters quit on his own when he was neither hurt or shut out of the fight. I can't give Lomachenko credit for that.

That's not Loma's fault, the fact he made his opponent frustrated and forced him to wave a white flag makes his performance even better for me.

Finally, who are the most accomplished fighters on this list?
Kell Brook, Roman Martinez, Chris Algieri, Nicholas Walters, Leonard Bundu, Gary Russell Jr.

Walters without a doubt, because of Donaire, Darchinyan, Marriaga and Sosa wins (we all know it wasn't a draw). That's actually a solid resume

Walters > Brook
GRJ > Algieri
Martinez > Bundu.

Martinez and Bundu might be equal, but at least Martinez has a win over Salido and KD of Mikey Garcia, Bundu never defeated anybody worth mentioning as far as I'm concerned. I'm not even sure he was a legit titleholder unlike Martinez

I hope you're seeing where I'm going with this.

I see where you're going with this.

I really like Errol Spence. Just so you know, Crawford and Loma are my favorite fighters to watch. Spence with Usyk and Mikey Garcia makes my top 5, Rigo is in top 10. But I can't put Errol in my p4p list yet with that resume even though I love his style and that bodywork. He's definitely gonna be there in the future

[TX_BOXNG]

[HarvardBlue]

That's the point, Rigo and Lomachenko resumes are good enough for current top 10 p4p.

Rigo has the best scalp among all p4p'ers in Donaire, Loma has uncomparable combined win/loss ratio of defeated opposition

If you don't like the fact they don't get a lot of high quality fights , blame the current state of boxing because it's not as competitive as it once was




It's a problem. Try to look at the situation using this angle - Rigo had 3 fights in 3 years and Thurman had 2 fights in 2 years, it's not like Thurman was that active either. It doesn't stop boxing fans from including Keith in their p4p lists though.

You can make a counter argument like "Right, but Thurman has better recent wins than Rigondeaux" and Rigo still got the better scalp in Donaire

No disrespect to Thurman, he's a warrior, but it is what it is



There's no flaws in my logic. Loma has better overall resume, Rigo has the better win.

Nothing in Lomachenko's resume tops that Donaire win, but his competition was better on average.It's not that complicated to get



I've never said Usyk has the better resume than Golovkin or Crawford, I've said he has the better win, there's a difference between these statements

The only reason why Usyk isn't higher than Golovkin and Crawford in my p4p list is because he lacks the longevity, just like Lomachenko.
13 fights isn't enough to put him higher than the undisputed champ or the guy who was running the division for more than 5 years.

Anyway he has the better win in Glowacki who was the man at the division stacked with hard punching killers. Plus he can add Gassiev or Briedis to his resume as well after WBSS.

Crawford and Golovkin wins full of Mchunu/Hunter/washed up version of Huck caliber of fighters, maybe even worse than that, because at least Huck was the kingpin of the division at some point.

Canelo fight is the only exception but a draw is a draw, you might agree with judges decision or not, but you still can't count it as a win



Lomachenko had only 2 pro fights going into this bout so he was the more unproven fighter at the time. Gary Russell and Lomachenko were great prospects who made a lot of boxing fans excited about their potential.

I've seen a lot of NSB threads with posters saying GRJ "is a future star", Dan Rafael compared Gary to Floyd back then, that's ridiculous statement, but the point is the kid was having his fair share of hype back then, he barely gets mentioned after that L and his inactivity doesn't help him too

And I've seen a lot of threads with people saying Walters is basically borderline p4p after beating Donaire and Darchinyan, I'm not making shit up, and I can back up everything I say with links. I don't remember when guys like Bundu or Algieri were getting the same praises



That's not Loma's fault, the fact he made his opponent frustrated and forced him to wave a white flag makes his performance even better for me.



Walters without a doubt, because of Donaire, Darchinyan, Marriaga and Sosa wins (we all know it wasn't a draw). That's actually a solid resume

Walters > Brook
GRJ > Algieri
Martinez > Bundu.

Martinez and Bundu might be equal, but at least Martinez has a win over Salido and KD of Mikey Garcia, Bundu never defeated anybody worth mentioning as far as I'm concerned. I'm not even sure he was a legit titleholder unlike Martinez



I see where you're going with this.

I really like Errol Spence. Just so you know, Crawford and Loma are my favorite fighters to watch. Spence with Usyk and Mikey Garcia makes my top 5, Rigo is in top 10. But I can't put Errol in my p4p list yet with that resume even though I love his style and that bodywork. He's definitely gonna be there in the future

Im not going through point by point but the bottom line is the P4P list is more subjective than objective. When you look at the past P4P greats you see elite skills, consistency, and a high level of opponents. I don't value Lomachenko's level of opponents enough to elevate him to the top spot yet. Same goes for Rigondeaux but he has a better case as far as I'm concerned. Crawford has elite skills, he's consistent, and his level of competition is better than most. Not to mention the incredible feat of moving up and unifying the division. I brought up those 6 fighters to show you that someone like Spence is easily comparable to Lomachenko. I know you had Lomachenko's opponents as greater than Spence's but I can make an opposing argument. The funny thing is no one is putting Spence in the P4P discussion. Why? Because it's too soon! Lomachenko is a fascinating boxer with elite skills. However, like I've been saying, give him time to be consistent, and a win over Rigondeaux will put him in the discussion.