Vasyl lomachenko named 2017 ring magazine fighter of the year!

[Mr Objecitivity]

37\38 like it makes a difference absolutely ancient for a sbw though its funny you should tell me not to lie by getting his age wrong by a yr, a simple honest mistake unlike you trying to sell some bs about Jason Sosa being undefeated, wth? And no he isn't one of the best at the weight he's a gatekeeper that's lost just about everytime he's stepped up.

Again as I keep saying I'm a Loma fan but all you lot want to do is crown him and gift him all these accolades by pretending his competition is something it isn't just like the same people did with GGGs opponents which were proven to be **** like any sane fan said all along.

Loma is simply brilliant but lets not all try sell his resume like dodgy used car salesman.

Sor Rungvisai deserved it more twice beating the P4P #1 including a shocking, stunning one punch knockout.

I meant to refer to Nicholas Walters being undefeated. Jason Sosa was a typo.

Fair enough, there isn't a big difference between a 37 / 38 year old boxer and I do agree that Rigondeaux was past his best against Lomachenko. However, let's not pretend that he was totally shot / washed up. A sign of a totally shot boxer who has deteriorated significantly is when he loses to boxers at a far lower level than the level he has shown to be at in consistent basis. Such as Mike Tyson losing to Danny Williams and Kevin McBride. If Rigondeaux were to lose to the likes of Flores, Casey and some of his previous opponents multiple times. Then an argument can be made that Rigondeaux was totally finished as one of the best boxers. However, such wasn't the case. Rigondeaux, even slightly past his best is still likely capable enough of defeating nearly everybody from 122 - 130 pounds. Just not capable enough of defeating Lomachenko.

The lopsidedness of the bout tells me that even a younger, peak version of Rigondeaux wouldn't have been able to beat the current version of Lomachenko. Rigondeaux may have been 37 years old and at a 7/8 year disadvantage. However, Wladimir Klitschko was 41 years old, coming off 2 years of layoff and was over 10 years older than Anthony Joshua when he faced Anthony Joshua. Yet, Wladimir Klitschko performed much better against Anthony Joshua than Rigondeaux performed against Lomachenko, despite being at a much greater disadvantage. Thus, one could justifiably argue that Wladimir Klitschko lost to Joshua due to those disadvantages and that a younger Wladimir could've been able to beat the current Joshua and have been the favorite to do so, based on how close he was in defeating Joshua at age 41. Thus, age played a much bigger role in Wladimir Klitschko's defeat to Joshua than Rigondeaux's defeat to Lomachenko.

I don't think anybody could make a case that Rigondeaux would've been the favorite to defeat current Lomachenko, even if Rigondeaux was at his best at a younger age since an older Rigondeaux wasn't even competitive against current Lomachenko. If 37 year old Rigondeaux lost in a very competitive bout to Lomachenko, then you'd be better justified in claiming that Rigondeaux could've been the favorite at a younger age. Age played a factor in Rigondeaux's defeat, but it didn't play a significant factor as did Mike Tyson's age when he lost to the likes of Danny Williams and Kevin McBride.

but all you lot want to do is crown him and gift him all these accolades by pretending his competition is something it isn't

Loma is simply brilliant but lets not all try sell his resume like dodgy used car salesman.

Actually, Lomachenko's accolades, competition and resume in his first 11 bouts is better than any boxer's accolades, resume and competition in their 11 bouts. So nobody is pretending or selling anything dodgy that is untrue. If you can't see the uniqueness of Lomachenko's feats and as to why fans are praising him as much as they are, then you're either ignorant, deluded / close minded or a combination of those things.

Sor Rungvisai deserved it more twice beating the P4P #1 including a shocking, stunning one punch knockout.

I don't base my conclusion on one feat. I base it on multiple feats. As such, when analyzing dominance of a boxer in terms of how good their offense is against their opponents relative to other boxers against their opponents, how good their defense is against their opponents relative to other boxers against their opponents, how many rounds they win / lose against their opponents relative to other boxers against their opponents, how many 'best possible opponents' they beat relative to other boxers. There isn't a boxer that competes with Lomachenko in all those categories.

No other boxer has a better defense in terms of getting hit fewer. No other boxer has a better offense in terms of accuracy and the ability to land effective punches most frequently. The only area where Sor Rungvisai outperforms Lomachenko is just in that knockout victory over Gonzalez. Unfortunately for me, outperforming in one department isn't enough to be ranked the best.