How is even even a debate that Lomachenko is P4P#1?

[Scipio2009]

I don't think you're being fair. Give credit where credit is due. He was great in those fights.

Floyd was great when he fought Diego Corrales, Andre Ward was great when he fought Chad Dawson, Carl Froch was great in the Lucian Bute fight, Carl Frampton was great in the first Leo Santa Cruz fight, etc.

You can't call anything great when you only land 10% of your punches, regardless of who your fighting.

Guillermo Rigondeax is likely one of the best 118lb fighters to ever put on a pair of boxing gloves, while fighting over his head at 122 and still being a great fighter; Lomachenko is just hitting his physical peak and he's a 126/130lb fighter who can likely fight and star at 135lbs before going over his head at 140lbs.

Good big man always beats good little man, as the idiom goes.

[Mr Objecitivity]

You can't say that you toyed with a guy when you only landed 10% of your punches.

Floyd could fight "Cashflow" Diaz, but if he was only able to land 10% of his punches, no one in their right mind would hail him as being p4p.

Terence Crawford has fought softer opposition, but against whomever he is put in with, he leaves no doubt in his ability; Jeff Horn is the first guy who Crawford if going to fight that he's not bigger than, so let's see how he reacts.

Feints and probes don't count as 'missed punches'. And out landing one's opponent by over 50 punches (irrespective of connect percentage) is 'toying' with them.

And winning every round, whilst almost never getting hit is a 'great' performance. Connect percentage is irrelevant when one boxer significantly out-lands their opponent.

Quantity of punches landed > connect percentage.

[N/A]

I have him number 1

Out of the 17 weight classes, which fighter do you think has most definitively proven they are the best in their weight class?

Whatever your answer is, that's who you should have as #1 pound for pound.

I don't see how anyone can say that Loma has proven himself more definitively at 130 than GGG has at 160.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Out of the 17 weight classes, which fighter do you think has most definitively proven they are the best in their weight class?

Whatever your answer is, that's who you should have as #1 pound for pound.

I don't see how anyone can say that Loma has proven himself more definitively at 130 than GGG has at 160.

Relative quality / Strength of a division also matters to some people. Even if George Groves becomes the most proven boxer in his own weight division at 168 pounds, I still won't have him ranked number 1 over other boxers who have shown better level of skills in their own weight division against more skilled boxers.

[inferiorTodd]

lolochenko does not get enough credit for the gary russell jr win. he dominated every second of that fight and russell jr is an awesome fighter.

[N/A]

Relative quality / Strength of a division also matters to some people. Even if George Groves becomes the most proven boxer in his own weight division at 168 pounds, I still won't have him ranked number 1 over other boxers who have shown better level of skills in their own weight division against more skilled boxers.

But we're not talking about becoming the most proven boxer at your own weight, we're talking about becoming more proven at your weight than anybody else is at their weight. Hence, when we compare everybody's accomplishments at their own weight, earning the ranking of #1 "pound for pound."

Lomachenko has the weakest belt at his weight. A belt Top Rank can give to anyone they want. He's mainly picked on fighters coming up from lower weight classes. He hasn't faced any of the other champions in his division. He's done nothing to prove that he deserves to be ranked #1 in a list of rankings of who is most dominant at their weight. He hasn't been dominant at his weight at all. He barely fights people from his own weight, he hasn't unified, etc. He's a great fighter, but I don't see any logic in ranking him #1 P4P.

[RussB23]

.. and in my opinion he's clearly p4p number 1 by a distance. He has 3 wins better than Crawford, and although ggg is obviously my favourite fighter, lomachenkos got more of that invincibility factor at present and has been looking sensational. It's hilarious how the rigo win has been revised, if it was such a mismatch then why did people call for it so much in the first place?

Its really surprising to me how fast people have discredited him for beating Rigo. All you would here from these loma haters is how bad hes running from rigo. That the weight wouldnt matter and that rigo would beat his ass blah blah blah.

Now its like they dont even count the win its hillarious.

[Hype job]

It's the pigment.

[oscar9992]

Skill wise it's him & it's not even close!

[Floyd is TBE]

He lost to Salido. That loss counts no matter how many bull**** excuses his fanboys think up. Anytime a fighter tries to step up and fight at the highest level a loss counts. If he wasn't ready his promoter shouldn't have put him in the ring. End of. Don't even talk to me about that old midget Rigo. That was a mismatch. He won a fight he was supposed to win.

There are fighters with equal or better resumes to Loma and y'all do is sit around trying to discredit them. Now if Loma moves up and beats someone like Mikey Garcia, then I will give him full props. Until then, he's just a guy with potential, he's beaten some solid fighters and looked good doing it, but he hasn't really tested himself against another all-time great or elite fighter.

Ever since Floyd retired there hasn't been a P4P#1 fighter. No one has done enough to separate themselves from the rest of the pack. I guess Crawford is closest but I still wouldn't give him that title.