Loma is a p4p champ and #Biased/#NewMedia doesn't like it

[Mr Objecitivity]

sou you havent defended any of them applying objectivity? no trace anywhere huh?

just what i suspected lol

ill tell you what...ill give you some more time to run a search and u can show me a thread of you defending cotto, floyd ward or canelo using objectivity.....ill wait a littl bit....go ahead

I could care less about showing you anything (that you can find yourself with some effort). My comments are available in public for everyone with access to this site to see / read. If you want to see such things, then you must make the effort. My objective here isn't to cater to what you command me to do arbitrarily. My objective here is to write comments based on fact based, objective and logical reasoning. This is so others can learn about new insight and information.

[Curt Henning]

I could care less about showing you anything (that you can find yourself with some effort). My comments are available in public for everyone with access to this site to see / read. If you want to see such things, then you must make the effort. My objective here isn't to cater to what you command me to do arbitrarily. My objective here is to write comments based on fact based, objective and logical reasoning. This is so others can learn about new insight and information.

i wont go on a chase for something we both know doesnt exist....i will admit you are a funny chap though....it must be tough going thru life the way you do though....pretending and hating yourself

[Tom Cruise]

This is why I specifically wrote: 'against the best possible opposition'.

So we compare like for like. Undefeated opponents of Joshua vs undefeated opponents of Terence Crawford and check their offensive + defensive stats against those similar level of opposition.

I edited my post mate. Compubox is very fallible. Not something I would use. More of a tv tool for casual fans. Use your own eyes and make judgement based on that. +/- stats arent going to tell you the whole story.

Henry Armstron would have had terrible +/- stats, he once owned 3/8 of the World titles in all of boxing at the same time, and got a draw going for a 4th

[Mr Objecitivity]

i wont go on a chase for something we both know doesnt exist....i will admit you are a funny chap though....it must be tough going thru life the way you do though....pretending and hating yourself

Well, then you just exposed yourself as a ****** since if you already knew such a thing doesn't exist, then you wouldn't be asking me about it.

[Curt Henning]

Well, then you just exposed yourself as a ****** since if you already knew such a thing doesn't exist, then you wouldn't be asking me about it.

right right! lol...hey man youve had my attention way longer than you should have or deserve...run along and talk to yourself objectively ...or show me a post where you use objectivity to defend cotto, floyd, ward or canelo....

i lol and cringe at this guy getting his rocks off talking to a faceless stranger on the net trying to play childish mind games

[Mr Objecitivity]

I edited my post mate. Compubox is very fallible. Not something I would use. More of a tv tool for casual fans. Use your own eyes and make judgement based on that. +/- stats arent going to tell you the whole story.

Henry Armstron would have had terrible +/- stats, he once owned 3/8 of the World titles in all of boxing at the same time, and got a draw going for a 4th

I don't mean just using compubox stats but also stats produced by one's self through counting whilst watching the bouts.

Boxing is about hit and not get hit. So boxing skills would indicate that the boxer who does both things better than others would obviously be more skilled.

Of course, a boxer can still win with limited skills (such as in your Henry Armstrong example). However, there are ways of winning. If two boxers box against the same opponent and both win, but one of them gets hit less and knocks the opponent out whilst the other gets hit more and goes the full distance, then obviously the boxer who got hit less and knocked his opponent out should be considered more skilled due to displaying greater offense (by scoring a knockout) and defense (by getting hit less).

[Mr Objecitivity]

right right! lol...hey man youve had my attention way longer than you should have or deserve...run along and talk to yourself objectively ...or show me a post where you use objectivity to defend cotto, floyd, ward or canelo....

i lol and cringe at this guy getting his rocks off talking to a faceless stranger on the net trying to play childish mind games

It's you who is talking with yourself. Keep talking!

You totally diverted the discussion from the topic of this thread, to a topic that is personal. Thus, it is you who is playing 'childish mind games'.

[EL_GRINGO]

There are absolutely zero arguments for Golovkin. His best win is Danny Jacobs by one point.

I agree Golovkin's resume iw weaker then Lomachenko's or Crawford.
and either he has more difficulty with better or opposition or he's declining which i think what's the case

[Tha_Greatest]

He has 8 stoppage wins in 11 pro fights against strong opposition so apparently his punches are sharp enough to get the job done. How many of Mayweather's last 11 pro boxing {not mma} opponents failed to make it to the final bell? You are a big Mayweather fan aren't you?

he is a africanist which is kinda like a black rascist against whites, lol, so yes he is a floyd fan who roots by skin color

[EL_GRINGO]

If you scored the Canelo fight for him, like I and many others did, then its perfectly reasonable. I have him and Canelo 1 and 2 respectively. That was a great fight fought at the highest level.

Loma and Crawford dont have particularly strong resume's either. Best wins are Postol and Walters...

yeah but they have a couple better wins then let's say a monroe jar or a gabe rosado or matthew macklin