Tweet
Lol, go check stats. Ward has one ko in his history of pro figths
-
-
You called me an idiot. If anything, it is you who is the idiot and you are exposing yourself as one.
If Lomachenko's achievements in his first 10 fights are something that no other boxer has achieved, then it obviously is special / unique accomplishment. Any unique accomplishments deserves credit / praise. So you are obviously an idiot to criticize those that are praising Lomachenko for having his unique accomplishments.
Him, along with Rigondeaux winning 2 Olympic gold medals is also another unique / special accomplishment that warrants praise / credit.
Answer a simple question: why does someone who has a unique accomplishment never matched before, deserve criticism (by you) and not credit / praise (by others)?
I've got nothing against Rigondeaux and I personally like him as much as I like Lomachenko. However, he's had more fights, yet has defeated inferior quality opposition. Lomachenko has had less fights and has already beaten 2 unbeaten champions. Beating Gary Russel Jr and Nicholas Walters under 10 fights > beating only Nonito Donaire after having more than 10 fights.
You are also an idiot to use one fight as a basis to judge the quality of a fighter (Lomachenko's loss to Salido). So what if he lost? How does him losing a rare, single bout in merely his 2nd professional fight make him 'hyped' or any of the other criticisms you are applying on him?
If a boxer beats 10 elite opponents but loses to only one bum, then that single loss to a bum becomes irrelevant to me. What matters is what the boxer does on a consistent basis.Comment
-
Because it's not unique enough and just Arum selling you a ticket to an attraction at the greatest show on Earth, and maybe a little snake oil in your beer when you're not lookin. Its idiots like you that would bring up Walters (lmao). Walters is just coming in there big on fight night and cleaning up the scraps.
Russell was untested and Lomachenko has a big size advantage over him. Look at their face-off. Lomachenko towers over him. He beat a untested prospect. Great, Calzaghe made a career of doing that. Not impressed.
Losing to Salido is a death sentence. He's bottom barrel gate keeper. You're just not that good if you lose to him. It's a good barometer.
You're obviously defining elite to all of Lomachenko's record which is like a total cheerleader move.Comment
-
What does it even mean to be 'unique enough'? The fact that nobody else has ever accomplished such a feat other than himself makes it unique enough from my perspective.
It's pretty simple logic. When someone does something nobody else has ever done, it deserves praise / credit because it's unique / special. If someone does something which has been repeated multiple times, it deserves less praise / credit because it's not as special / unique.
How would me bringing up Walters make me an idiot?
Nicholas Walters was:
1) undefeated
2) Un-KO'ed
3) Beat multiple top ranked / level opposition.
Yet, Lomachenko won every round against Walters and forced him to quit = an impressive feat = because such a feat has never been accomplished by any boxer for the last 3 decades in under 10 bouts. If anything, it is those who are criticizing or not crediting this feat that are 'idiots'.
Gary Russel Jr was untested? Compared to who? Certainly not compared to Lomachenko when he had well over 10 more bouts than him and was also undefeated. Fact is, Gary Russel Jr was ranked in the top 10 of that division at the time Lomachenko beat him and he was also undefeated. Ergo, it is a more impressive win than any win of any other boxer in their third fight for the last 3 or more decades. Find me one boxer, who in their third bout, beat someone at the caliber of Gary Russel jr. I'll await!
Losing to Salido once means very little! If he loses consecutively to such a level of opponent, then it'd mean he is at a lower level than Salido. If he loses once then goes on to accomplishing greater feats by defeating much higher level of opposition multiple times, then that loss to Salido becomes irrelevant. The level of a boxer is based on their success against a specific level of opponent on a consistent basis. Rare loss means very little. A rare win means very little as well. Consistent wins and losses are what matter.Comment
-
Fighters don't get brought up like that because the propensity to lose is bigger. Thats what happened to Lomachenko, he lost. He's not unique. So what, he got thrown to the rows in his 2nd fight, he lost. If he was doing this on a regular basis and winning, that would be something to remark about. Arum is cherry-picking 'names' but it hasn't worked. Thus, Lomachenko isn't unique enough.
Do you even know what logic means? The form of reasoning your using is that of a simpleton. Lomachenko was thrown to the wolves and lost, thats not unique --- that's not special.
Get Lomachecnko's **** out of your mouth son lol. Walters ain't beat nobody that wasn't already cracked. Donaire was RUINED from Rigondeaux and Donaire himself will tell you that Walters outweighed him HEAVILY on fight night. No credit for Walters. Who else did he beat? A ****** up Darchinyan? Donaire just knocked Vic out 6 months before.
Walters won a VACANT title, didn't even grab it from a champ.
Against Marriaga, Walters OVERWEIGHT AGAIN. Walters has a weight problem. Who knows what happened with Lomachenko, the fight before Walters fought to a draw with a no-name. Walters is like a Brandon Rios type weight abuser.
Yes, Russell was untested, look at his record. They were bringing him up slow for some reason (and we all know Arum @ Top Rank is bringing up Lomachenko FAST, GET IT???). He hadn't fought anybody. Also, Lomachenko had a natural size advantage over Gary as see here:
Russell was 24-0 and they didn't even dare get him a trinket belt. His camp brought him up slow for a reason. Something in camp or sparring, something they wanted to iron out as best as possible before throwing him to the rows. Thats how a SMART camp brings up a fighter. They season him and hone his skills to get him ready for the best. They took a chance on Lomachenko and it back-fired.
Again there is nobody, becuse nobody risks their fighters career that early. History has shown that if you put your fighter in against the best too early there is a high probability for their career to get cut short. Lomachenko has nothing to lose because he started so late so they are taking major risks which have already back-fired. Now he has the loss, his purses are that much more less. The buzz is also less. Once Lomachenko gets in against a real fighter that isn't at a disadvantage, his penís probably won't look so appetizing to you and the rest of the nutgarglers.
Losing to Salido means EVERYTHING. It showed he lost to a spoiler who only really exposes hyped talent. Salido did the same thing to JuanMa and ruined his career. Salido is a bum spoiler.
The level of a boxer is based on skill, who you beat, and when you beat them. Lomachenko lost to a past it Salido who was a bum in his prime. This is not a rare loss, it was expected by experts.
Point is this, you think you're being Mr. Smartguy by throwing around a few 5 dollar words, a few paragraphs, and some reasoning (which in your case is a basic simpletons reasoning).
You're really just a cheerleader that wants to be part of something thats percieved to be bigger. You think you know boxing, but you really DKSAB. You're a casual fan that doesn't get in over ankle-deep water. You lack knowledge of fighters and the particulars of the fight game.
To sum up, you can suck however much díck you like but you ain't going to tell me or anyone here its nothing other than you sucking díck.
Step your game up kid, because you're on the outside looking in.
Last edited by McNulty; 10-30-2017, 12:54 PM.Comment
-
So what if he lost? He then went on to win consistently against elite level opposition. What exactly is your point? If someone fails a high school exam but then goes on to earn a PHD, what meaning does that high school exam failure have? Absolutely nothing! Why? Because something greater has been accomplished which makes that high school exam failure meaningless. Similarly, Lomachenko's loss to Salido means very little. Why? Because he already beat two more accomplished boxers extremely convincingly in Nicholas Walters and Gary Russel Jr and has the potential to do another over Rigondeaux.Fighters don't get brought up like that because the propensity to lose is bigger. Thats what happened to Lomachenko, he lost. He's not unique. So what, he got thrown to the rows in his 2nd fight, he lost. If he was doing this on a regular basis and winning, that would be something to remark about. Arum is cherry-picking 'names' but it hasn't worked. Thus, Lomachenko isn't unique enough.
Do you even know what logic means? The form of reasoning your using is that of a simpleton. Lomachenko was thrown to the wolves and lost, thats not unique --- that's not special.
Get Lomachecnko's **** out of your mouth son lol. Walters ain't beat nobody that wasn't already cracked. Donaire was RUINED from Rigondeaux and Donaire himself will tell you that Walters outweighed him HEAVILY on fight night. No credit for Walters. Who else did he beat? A ****** up Darchinyan? Donaire just knocked Vic out 6 months before.
Walters won a VACANT title, didn't even grab it from a champ.
Against Marriaga, Walters OVERWEIGHT AGAIN. Walters has a weight problem. Who knows what happened with Lomachenko, the fight before Walters fought to a draw with a no-name. Walters is like a Brandon Rios type weight abuser.
Yes, Russell was untested, look at his record. They were bringing him up slow for some reason (and we all know Arum @ Top Rank is bringing up Lomachenko FAST, GET IT???). He hadn't fought anybody. Also, Lomachenko had a natural size advantage over Gary as see here:
Russell was 24-0 and they didn't even dare get him a trinket belt. His camp brought him up slow for a reason. Something in camp or sparring, something they wanted to iron out as best as possible before throwing him to the rows. Thats how a SMART camp brings up a fighter. They season him and hone his skills to get him ready for the best. They took a chance on Lomachenko and it back-fired.
Again there is nobody, becuse nobody risks their fighters career that early. History has shown that if you put your fighter in agains tthe best too early there is a propensity for their career to get cut short. Lomachenko has nothing to lose bcuse he started so late so they are taking major risks which have already back-fired. Now he has the loss, his purses are that much more less and always will be. Once Lomachenko gets in against a real fighter that isn't at a disadvantage, his penís probably won't look so appetizing to you and the rest of the nuthuggers.
Losing to Salido means EVERYTHING. It showed he lost to a spoiler who only really exposes hyped talent. Salido did the same thing to JuanMa and ruined his career. Salido is a bum spoiler.
The level of a boxer is based on skill, who you beat, and when you beat them. Lomachenko lost to a past it Salido who was a bum in his prime. This is not a rare loss, it was expected by experts.
Point is this, you think you're being Mr. Smartguy by throwing around a few 5 dollar words, a few paragraphs, and some reasoning (which in your case is a basic simpletons reasoning).
You're really just a cheerleader that wants to be part of something thats percieved to be bigger. You think you know boxing, but you really DKSAB. You're a casual fan that doesn't get in over ankle-deep water. You lack knowledge of fighters and the particulars of the fight game.
To sum up, you can suck however much díck you like but you ain't going to tell me or anyone here its nothing other than you sucking díck.
Step your game up kid, because you're on the outside looking in.
As far as uniqueness. Again, name me one boxer in the past that has beaten any opponent at Nicholas Walter's or Gary Russel Jr's caliber under 10 fights. I'll await! You still haven't answered that challenge. Until then, it is unique and that alone is what makes Lomachenko great. For doing something nobody else has.
Yes, I do know what logic means. Do you know what logic means. You haven't criticized the reasoning in my logic, other than claiming it is simpleton. Yet, you haven't still explained the flaw in my argument. Until then, my logic in the reasoning stands. Merely claiming simpleton doe doesn't disprove my argument / logic.
Perhaps learn what the word 'unique' and 'special' mean. It means doing something nobody else has. Here are some more logical syllogisms for you to work with.
1) Special / uniqueness means doing something nobody else has accomplished.
2) Lomachenko under 10 fights has beaten Nicholas Walters and Gary Russel Jr, which are two boxers of a level no other past boxer has beaten under 10 bouts.
3) Therefore, Lomachenko has done something unique / special.
4) Therefore, Lomachenko is a special / unique boxer.
I challenge you to logically prove how my argument is illogical or void of logic rather than simply claiming the logic isn't good or valuable / worthy.
Nicholas Walters knocked Nonito Donaire out, when he was still Un-KO'ed. Ergo, that alone is a good enough victory. Rigondeaux beat Donaire by decision and not by knockout. Knocking someone out who was previously never knocked out before is impressive.
Fact of the matter is, Nicholas Walter's record, prior to fighting Lomachenko was better than any opponent any other boxer fought during their first 10 bouts. That is a fact!
Gary Rusel Jr was untested? Relative to whom? To Lomachenko? No, he wasn't. Ergo, it's irrelevant whether he was untested compared to anybody else.
Again, Gary Rusel Jr still has a better record than any opponent any other boxer has fought in their 3rd bout. I challenge you to prove me wrong!
Everything else you wrote is totally irrelevant.
Take some logic courses!Comment
-
TL;DR mostly.
Listen to me you ****ing chimp --- you don't get to keep wasting my time. If you persist, you'll end up on ignore. My time is valuable. You're a ****** that can't see the writing on the wall. You keep repeating yourself like a parakeet when I give you several valid explanations. And shut the fùck up about Logic you fùcktard. I actually took Logic classes in College and got A's, you really sound like a mongoloid when you bring up Logic.
Now go get in your garterbelt and panties and watch some Lomachenko videos on YouTube.Comment
-
I'm merely calling a spade a spade. One doesn't need to have any more than average intelligence and understanding of logic to do such a thing.
What's out of context? That you choose to use one fight as a criteria to judge a boxer's entire career (a very small sample size)? In other words, exposing your own self on using the logical fallacy: 'Hasty Generalization'
Your ad-hominem attacks exposes you for exactly what you are: Someone who is incapable of having a rational discussion about the topic at hand. Ergo, you are dismissed!
As Christopher Hitchens correctly stated: I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem.Comment
Comment