What fighters would have beat Salido in their 2nd pro fight?

[The Big Dunn]

What fighters in history would have beaten a 55 fight veteran, former world champion in their 2nd pro fight?

Why does age matter? All I have ever seen on this board and others is “amateurs are not the pros”. Why doesnt Loma get the “he young doe” benefit?

This question is misleading for 2 reason.

1. Loma's age-he was 25 when he fought Salido. Most guys with only 2 fights are not amateurs from country's that pay fighters allowing them to stay an amateur for a long time and gain much experience.

To compare him to other amatuers that have far less than 400 amatauer fights and turn pro at a much younger age is misleading.

2. The 6 "quasi" pro fights that he had as part of the AIBA/WBSS thing. Those fights were without headgear but the fights didn't count toward the fighters record.

I think the fairer question is could a 25 years old with 6 "quasi pro" fights have defeated Salido in the 2nd fight?

I think there are some that could've-Floyd, Roy, Holyfield, Salvador Sanchez immediately come to mind.

Loma losing to Salido IMO is more about the size difference and the nasty, dirty way Salido fought. Loma almost won which isn't something that he should be criticized for. Bob made a mistake putting him there because Salido wasn't as old as Bob thought.

That said, he did lose and its fair to use this loss when assessing where he is p4p.

[UNBIASED BOXING]

The elite ones, elite fighters ain't losing to no one with 14 losses, 4 draws, and a no contest...that's about 20 fights of ls

I recall fmj telling gatti, he'll never lose to a fighter with five losses...well I view the near 20L fighter with such disdain like a young Floyd...

If Loma believed his skillset he woulda ran it back, real champions don't concede on a l, they want to run it back like a man would... smoke n mirrors...real champs like manny and Floyd ain't want nobody having moral victories over them

Salido was 15 years old when he went professional. He had 8 losses and 2 draws by the time he was around 20 years old. Of course, like you said, "smoke n mirrors"--- just like when you say how many losses he has but don't factor in how young and inexperienced he was when he startedboxing.

But you know what? From that point on, he started doing a lot better. He became a better fighter, he matured and grew into a stronger man, he started picking up wins, and became a champion. Even beat up on a young Robert Guerrero back at the 126 division.

Most of his losses after that were from elite fighters (Mikey Garcia, Juan Manuel Marquez, Gamboa), etc.

[Vasyl’s dad]

This question is misleading for 2 reason.

1. Loma's age-he was 25 when he fought Salido. Most guys with only 2 fights are not amateurs from country's that pay fighters allowing them to stay an amateur for a long time and gain much experience.

To compare him to other amatuers that have far less than 400 amatauer fights and turn pro at a much younger age is misleading.

2. The 6 "quasi" pro fights that he had as part of the AIBA/WBSS thing. Those fights were without headgear but the fights didn't count toward the fighters record.

I think the fairer question is could a 25 years old with 6 "quasi pro" fights have defeated Salido in the 2nd fight?

I think there are some that could've-Floyd, Roy, Holyfield, Salvador Sanchez immediately come to mind.

Loma losing to Salido IMO is more about the size difference and the nasty, dirty way Salido fought. Loma almost won which isn't something that he should be criticized for. Bob made a mistake putting him there because Salido wasn't as old as Bob thought.

That said, he did lose and its fair to use this loss when assessing where he is p4p.

Not misleading at all. The question is fair enough as every fighter has a different path to success. As I said earlier, amateur career has never mattered here before and neither did age. Now for one guy its the determining factor when he faces a 55 fight veteran and former world champion in his second pro fight? And that loss, over four years ago has bearing on todays pound for pound landscape? I dont think so.

[Larry the boss]

Why does age matter? All I have ever seen on this board and others is “amateurs are not the pros”. Why doesnt Loma get the “he young doe” benefit?

Do you think he was as good at 19 as he was at 25?

[Vasyl’s dad]

Do you think he was as good at 19 as he was at 25?

Didnt see him at 19, cant say.

[The Big Dunn]

Not misleading at all. The question is fair enough as every fighter has a different path to success. As I said earlier, amateur career has never mattered here before and neither did age. Now for one guy its the determining factor when he faces a 55 fight veteran and former world champion in his second pro fight? And that loss, over four years ago has bearing on todays pound for pound landscape? I dont think so.

Amateur experience doesn't matter when assessing how someone is as a pro. Relative to this question it helps provide a more honest context regarding the experience he had because Loma fought 6 fights like other pros, they just didn't count against his pro record.

Well again, you are being purposely obtuse to justify a loss. Arum put Loma in that fight because he figured Loma would win. The matchmakers thought Loma would win. They did this precisely because he was 396-1 as an amateur and was 6-0 in the quasi pro fights.

There is no way Top Rank wouldn't have put a Conlan or Stevenson in with Salido in their 2nd pro fight because they are too young and don't have the same long and successful amateur background

It should. Your resume is all your fights, not just the wins. I have Loma ahead of Mikey p4p but its very fair IMO to factor in Mikey beating Salido and Loma losing given Mikey was 25, same as Loma, when he fought and beat Salido.

Mikey had far more pro experience when he did.

I just don't think there is a need to make excuses for Loma losing to Salido. He just wasn't as ready as the TR people figured given Salido came in heavy and fought it dirty-which is the suggestion posters always make when a guy is fighting someone more skilled because that is his best chance to win.

[Vasyl’s dad]

Amateur experience doesn't matter when assessing how someone is as a pro. Relative to this question it helps provide a more honest context regarding the experience he had because Loma fought 6 fights like other pros, they just didn't count against his pro record.

Well again, you are being purposely obtuse to justify a loss. Arum put Loma in that fight because he figured Loma would win. The matchmakers thought Loma would win. They did this precisely because he was 396-1 as an amateur and was 6-0 in the quasi pro fights.

There is no way Top Rank wouldn't have put a Conlan or Stevenson in with Salido in their 2nd pro fight because they are too young and don't have the same long and successful amateur background

It should. Your resume is all your fights, not just the wins. I have Loma ahead of Mikey p4p but its very fair IMO to factor in Mikey beating Salido and Loma losing given Mikey was 25, same as Loma, when he fought and beat Salido.

Mikey had far more pro experience when he did.

I just don't think there is a need to make excuses for Loma losing to Salido. He just wasn't as ready as the TR people figured given Salido came in heavy and fought it dirty-which is the suggestion posters always make when a guy is fighting someone more skilled because that is his best chance to win.

Who made an excuse for losing to Salido? Nobody. The question is posed in plain english. What fighter can beat a 55 fight veteran who was a former champion in only their second pro fight?


Nobody can actually name anyone with a reasonable argument.
And if amateur experience doesnt factor into a pro career, tell that to the guys who are using it as some sort of argument. “He had 400 fights though”.


And no, fights from 4 years ago have no bearing on todays landscape. Unless, of course, you’re saying Manny is a top fighter for beating Algieri and Bradley 4 years ago.

[HanzGruber]

If they turned pro at 25? Probably quiet a few

[The Big Dunn]

Who made an excuse for losing to Salido? Nobody. The question is posed in plain english. What fighter can beat a 55 fight veteran who was a former champion in only their second pro fight?


Nobody can actually name anyone with a reasonable argument.
And if amateur experience doesnt factor into a pro career, tell that to the guys who are using it as some sort of argument. “He had 400 fights though”.


And no, fights from 4 years ago have no bearing on todays landscape. Unless, of course, you’re saying Manny is a top fighter for beating Algieri and Bradley 4 years ago.

Again the fact he had 6 quasi pro fights that didn’t count against his actual record is a factor in answering this question.

I can take any number of fighters and give them 6 quasi pro fights and then have them take on and beat salido in their “2nd” did fight at age 25. I gave you names.

Just ask the question with some integrity. It doesn’t make Loma any worse or better if you ask an intellectually honest question.

Yes it does. Your resume is your resume. He lost and we can’t just give him a pass for it. Bringing up manny is silly because he is a past it great and Loma is in his prime.

Also, when you only have 12 fights, each individual fight has more impact on your resume then if you have 66 fights. Come on dude.

[Wolfie*]

Why does age matter? All I have ever seen on this board and others is “amateurs are not the pros”. Why doesnt Loma get the “he young doe” benefit?

Age matters because guys hit their physical peak at 25. It's stupid to think that's not a factor when talking combat sports.