The Lomachenko hype is going way too far

[chrisJS]

I think who you fought matters too and what they accomplished. De La Hoya has proably faced more hall of famers than Hearns has. Hearns faced Leonard, Hagler, Benitez, and Duran while De La Hoya faced Chavez, Whitaker, Mayweather, Pacquiao, Hopkins and Trinidad. De La Hoya was also a 6 division champ as opposed to
Hearns 5 divisions.

The only guy Loma has beaten who has a chance of being in the hall of fame is Rigondeaux, and Rigo was 37 years old and jumping two weight classes. And that's literally the best name on Loma's resume.

You didn't know Tommy Hearns fought and beat Pipinio Cuevas and Virgil Hill? Both are in the hall of fame. De La Hoya certainly has no win as good as Hearns' wins over Benitez, Duran and Hill that's for damn sure. De La Hoya is like 4-6 vs. HOF fighters (one of those guys is Gatti, one is a gift over an old Whitaker the other a pointless re-match over a washed up Chavez) and Hearns is 4-2-1 (a draw that Leonard admitted he felt he lost). Obviously the Benitez, Hill, Duran wins are clearly better than any Oscar win and I'd say even the Cuevas win is too since Oscar got a gift vs. Whitaker and the Chavez win really wasn't that good.

Anyway senseless talking to you about it. Th real reason you are saying De La Hoya is better than Hearns is because of Floyd which is most likely the only reason you watch boxing and is certainly the only reason you post on here.

Not trying to be rude but when did you start watching Boxing/following Floyd? It sounds like you aren't that versed with past era's and use a lot of boxrec.

[daggum]

You didn't know Tommy Hearns fought and beat Pipinio Cuevas and Virgil Hill? Both are in the hall of fame. De La Hoya certainly has no win as good as Hearns' wins over Benitez, Duran and Hill that's for damn sure. De La Hoya is like 4-6 vs. HOF fighters (one of those guys is Gatti, one is a gift over an old Whitaker the other a pointless re-match over a washed up Chavez) and Hearns is 4-2-1 (a draw that Leonard admitted he felt he lost). Obviously the Benitez, Hill, Duran wins are clearly better than any Oscar win and I'd say even the Cuevas win is too since Oscar got a gift vs. Whitaker and the Chavez win really wasn't that good.

Anyway senseless talking to you about it. Th real reason you are saying De La Hoya is better than Hearns is because of Floyd which is most likely the only reason you watch boxing and is certainly the only reason you post on here.

Not trying to be rude but when did you start watching Boxing/following Floyd? It sounds like you aren't that versed with past era's and use a lot of boxrec.

of course it is. then they will ignore that leonard faced an absolute prime hearns while floyd fought a washed hoya. same thing derp!

[chrisJS]

of course it is. then they will ignore that leonard faced an absolute prime hearns while floyd fought a washed hoya. same thing derp!

No, because this Floyd fan (and most the others) think every fighter entered their primes the night they fought Floyd.

This dude was claiming a few weeks back that Canelo at age 23 was a vastly superior fighter than Wilfred Benitez and clearly had a superior resume. I think he (I could be wrong here but it was a fanboy of this ilk) was the one claiming 147 Hatton was better than Hearns and Hagler.

It’s nuts when you think about it. Just an utterly bizarre way of bringing up your idol and bringing down past greats that they don’t really know much about.

[Johnwoo8686]

You didn't know Tommy Hearns fought and beat Pipinio Cuevas and Virgil Hill? Both are in the hall of fame. De La Hoya certainly has no win as good as Hearns' wins over Benitez, Duran and Hill that's for damn sure. De La Hoya is like 4-6 vs. HOF fighters (one of those guys is Gatti, one is a gift over an old Whitaker the other a pointless re-match over a washed up Chavez) and Hearns is 4-2-1 (a draw that Leonard admitted he felt he lost). Obviously the Benitez, Hill, Duran wins are clearly better than any Oscar win and I'd say even the Cuevas win is too since Oscar got a gift vs. Whitaker and the Chavez win really wasn't that good.

Anyway senseless talking to you about it. Th real reason you are saying De La Hoya is better than Hearns is because of Floyd which is most likely the only reason you watch boxing and is certainly the only reason you post on here.

Not trying to be rude but when did you start watching Boxing/following Floyd? It sounds like you aren't that versed with past era's and use a lot of boxrec.

Yes, I knew Hearns beat Hill and Cuevas but I didn't include those guys for the same reason I didn't include beating Gatti as accomplishment for Oscar. The guys I listed I feel were greater wins for both Oscar and Hearns respectively.

But even when you add up all the hall of famers each men fought Oscar still edges out Hearns. Now, Oscar certainly did not win against all of the elite level fighters he faced but neither did Hearns.

The only reason you're downplaying Oscar is because Floyd has a win over him. Which is what most Floyd haters do, they bash the guys Floyd beat just so they don't have to give him any credit.

There is a reason why ESPN ranked Floyd as the best boxer pound for pound over the last 25 years. There is a reason why even the fans voted him as the best boxer 6 times for the ESPY awards. There is a reason why he is a multiple time winner for fighter of the year. I get it, you dislike the guy but don't let your biases cloud your judgement.

[chrisJS]

Yes, I knew Hearns beat Hill and Cuevas but I didn't include those guys for the same reason I didn't include beating Gatti as accomplishment for Oscar. The guys I listed I feel were greater wins for both Oscar and Hearns respectively.

But even when you add up all the hall of famers each men fought Oscar still edges out Hearns. Now, Oscar certainly did not win against all of the elite level fighters he faced but neither did Hearns.

The only reason you're downplaying Oscar is because Floyd has a win over him. Which is what most Floyd haters do, they bash the guys Floyd beat just so they don't have to give him any credit.

There is a reason why ESPN ranked Floyd as the best boxer pound for pound over the last 25 years. There is a reason why even the fans voted him as the best boxer 6 times for the ESPY awards. There is a reason why he is a multiple time winner for fighter of the year. I get it, you dislike the guy but don't let your biases cloud your judgement.

LOL you are the one letting the biases cloud your judgement. Oscar was washed up too in 2007. Coming off a year out (1 fight in 3 years and had been defeated by Mosley, gift against Sturm and KO loss to Hopkins) to act like that Oscar was better than anything Leonard beat is HILARIOUS to me. Funny thing is a lot of people including Floyd’s Dad felt Oscar won that one too.

LOL at dismissing the Hill win too. That’s clearly a stronger win than anything Oscar did. You didn’t answer my question when did you start watching boxing and when did you start following Floyd? It sounds like your a 2007 fan who saw the p4p rankings and was like “that’s my guy”.

[Johnwoo8686]

No, because this Floyd fan (and most the others) think every fighter entered their primes the night they fought Floyd.

This dude was claiming a few weeks back that Canelo at age 23 was a vastly superior fighter than Wilfred Benitez and clearly had a superior resume. I think he (I could be wrong here but it was a fanboy of this ilk) was the one claiming 147 Hatton was better than Hearns and Hagler.

It’s nuts when you think about it. Just an utterly bizarre way of bringing up your idol and bringing down past greats that they don’t really know much about.

I think its bizaare how you consider 21 year old Benitez in his prime or 22 year old Hearns in his prime but somehow 23 year old Canelo was not in his prime despite having more fights and being a pro longer than either of those guys.

And I never said Hatton was better than Hearns or Hagler, that you made up.

[chrisJS]

I think its bizaare how you consider 21 year old Benitez in his prime or 22 year old Hearns in his prime but somehow 23 year old Canelo was not in his prime despite having more fights and being a pro longer than either of those guys.

And I never said Hatton was better than Hearns or Hagler, that you made up.

I’m not going through this again. Different eras and not all two fighters age and peak the same. That’s what exposes you as a boxrec jockey.

[Nay_Sayer]

Duran (who I think would take Loma) had a loss at 135 to no one special..

Really?

Who?

[Johnwoo8686]

LOL you are the one letting the biases cloud your judgement. Oscar was washed up too in 2007. Coming off a year out (1 fight in 3 years and had been defeated by Mosley, gift against Sturm and KO loss to Hopkins) to act like that Oscar was better than anything Leonard beat is HILARIOUS to me. Funny thing is a lot of people including Floyd’s Dad felt Oscar won that one too.

LOL at dismissing the Hill win too. That’s clearly a stronger win than anything Oscar did. You didn’t answer my question when did you start watching boxing and when did you start following Floyd? It sounds like your a 2007 fan who saw the p4p rankings and was like “that’s my guy”.

I started watching boxing as a kid in the 90s. I'll admit back then that I only knew who the big names were like Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Jones and De La Hoya. As I got older I got into the sport more and learned more about it.

You must be crazy if you think Virgil Hill is a better win than Julio Cesar Chavez and Pernell Whitaker

Most people considered Duran already washed up when Hearns beat him in their fight. Many considered Leonard also washed up by the time he and Hearns had their rematch. Don't act like every single champion Hearns fought was in his absolute prime either because that is not true.

[Johnwoo8686]

I’m not going through this again. Different eras and not all two fighters age and peak the same. That’s what exposes you as a boxrec jockey.

Nonsense. What happened? Did men suddenly start developing more slowly as generations passed?

We're back where we started. You trying to downplay the accomplishments of the guy you don't like like and uplift the guys you do like.

You have no realistic explanation of why you consider a 42-0 Canelo Alvarez at 23 years old with a world title not prime but 22 year old Hearns at 32-0 was in his prime. That right there just sounds ****** when you say it out loud.