Rigo was too small... period.

[Robbie Barrett]

If person A has an AK-47 in their back back during a battle against person B who only wields a knife but suppose person A refuses to use their AK-47 at all and relies on only using their knife too. Can you honestly claim that the reason why person A won the battle (assuming they do) was because of their AK-47, despite them not even using it? Are you going to claim that the 'confidence' and 'weaponry presence' that comes from having an AK-47 doesn't disappear? Like that's relevant at all?

If Lomachenko was confident in his physical advantage but didn't use it at all, then you can't attribute his win to his physical advantage.

Also, have you got any evidence Donaire was that weight during fight night against Rigo? Last time I checked, Donaire didn't have any rehydration clauses (allowing him to rehydrate to whatever he liked) whilst Lomachenko had a rehydration clause up to 138 pounds.

What's this ****?

It more like person A having a protection vest. Of course that's going to give him confidence to attack.

[Shape up]

What makes you believe that was a backhanded compliment? Please explain.

Says he's a great fighter but really no challenge, so while talking him up he is also playing him down

[Robbie Barrett]

Size doesn't matter though.

[Mr Objecitivity]

What's this ****?

It more like person A having a protection vest. Of course that's going to give him confidence to attack.

What protection vest? I mentioned nothing about any protection vests. Simply Person A having an extra weapon that they don't even use. If they don't use it, then how can you attribute their potential victory to that weapon?

[Robbie Barrett]

Says he's a great fighter but really no challenge, so while talking him up he is also playing him down

No he says he's a great fighter but was too small. That's not insulting him. That's praising him.

[Robbie Barrett]

What protection vest? I mentioned nothing about any protection vests. Simply Person A having an extra weapon that they don't even use. If they don't use it, then how can you attribute their potential victory to that weapon?

Size isn't just a weapon it offers protection also. The ability to take a punch better if you're caught, that gives you confidence to attack.

[Shape up]

You don't think Loma had those things? Did he magically make the things that come with a weight advantage disappear? He no longer had the ability to take punches better, which also gives you confidence to attack, no longer had the advantage that his punches would hurt his opponent more than they would opponents his own size? Did it just disappear?

Is this what you consider your explaination of exactly how Loma used his size and weight to his advantage, you do realise Rigos extensive amateur career, he's won 2 gold medals, 468 amateur fights yet you think lomas light punches shook him into his shell, your more stupid than I'm giving you credit for, Loma didn't load his punches for a reason, because rigo would have tagged him if he did load them

[oscar9992]

Size doesn't matter though.

Rigo is almost sitting down though...

All he did was duck & hug. Pathefic.

[Shape up]

Size isn't just a weapon it offers protection also. The ability to take a punch better if you're caught, that gives you confidence to attack.

How does that count in this situation when rigo didn't throw any punches, do you consider reach an advantage?

[Mr Objecitivity]

Size isn't just a weapon it offers protection also. The ability to take a punch better if you're caught, that gives you confidence to attack.

That would be a valid argument if Lomachenko was walking right through Rigo's punches (like how GGG did against kell Brook in some of the rounds during their bout) without using any active responsible defense. That wasn't the case however! Lomachenko didn't rely on his greater punch resistance that comes from being heavier to beat Rigo. He boxed Rigondeaux exactly how he would've boxed against a similar sized opponent by hitting and not getting hit.

He also didn't make use of his greater potential punching power that comes from being the heavier man by landing constant heavy punches. He was mainly tapping Rigo (appeared like a conscious decision by Loma for not wanting to hurt Rigo much). A heavier man is most likely to have greater punching power than a lighter man if both throw their most powerful punches. However, a heavier boxer can also make an active decision to throw punches with the same power as someone who might even be a little child.

In summary, Loma didn't rely on punching power, punch resistance or physical strength to beat Rigo (all of which are related to someone using size advantage). Therefore, how can you claim Lomachenko won due to size?