Yes, You Can Bury Broner But...

[chrisJS]

Maybe the answer is to put Loma and Broner in the ring together and let them fight. Mikey fought him so it would make for a good contrast. Imagine if Broner beat him?

I'd be down for that at 140. I think Lomachenko would shut him out. Broner wouldn't quit but he wouldn't throw.

I think Lomachenko is a better fighter and is more accomplished. Broner should have 6-7 losses and has one semi good win.

[daggum]

He won 4 belts.. two were vacant and the other two were against paulie and gavin rees

not rees, demarco. demarco was somehow ranked #1 at the time but if you delve deeper...its cause the top 3 guys all moved up at virtually the same time and it was a dubious ranking that was based on beating linares who was unranked at the time. meanwhile a guy like ricky burns had 3 top 10 wins and demarco jumpe him. doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me.

[Star Platinum]

Yammy25,

What the ****ing hell are you talking about

130 Vacant
135 Demarco
140 Vacant
147 Paulie.

Gavin was a title defense at 135 after Ricky Burns shamelessly ducked the unification.

You got dementia brother?

[g27region]

See, every time people try to defend Broner and bring up his accomplishments, they mention these belts in 4 weight classes. Kigali started that tradition. But they never mention who he had to beat to get these 4 belts. Never. Because that's nothing remarkable and careful matchmaking. Nobody gives a **** about Paulie Malignanni or what his name is. Even Gamboa would devour Broner's soul

[yammy25]

Yammy25,

What the ****ing hell are you talking about

130 Vacant
135 Demarco
140 Vacant
147 Paulie.

Gavin was a title defense at 135 after Ricky Burns shamelessly ducked the unification.

You got dementia brother?

Yeah my mistake it was demarco...
Doesn't sway away from the abysmal comparison of his resume and opposition calibre to Loma though

[The Big Dunn]

I'd be down for that at 140. I think Lomachenko would shut him out. Broner wouldn't quit but he wouldn't throw.

I think Lomachenko is a better fighter and is more accomplished. Broner should have 6-7 losses and has one semi good win.

no, at 147. Loma is the better fighter but Broner is the a side.

On the one hand, you and others post regularly about losses shouldn't define a guy and guys should take tough fights rather than easy ones. I agree with you for the most part.

When Broner is being discussed, he never gets credit for taking tough fights. Instead its just he sucks because he lost and then all his opponents are lowered because they have losses as well.

[TheBigLug]

Broner is basically Ricky Burns but with more hype.

Both picked up plenty of easy belts in different divisions but could never really cut it at the top level.

[Star Platinum]

Broner is basically Ricky Burns but with more hype.

Both picked up plenty of easy belts in different divisions but could never really cut it at the top level.

They should have fought, **** pissed me off at the time

[chrisJS]

no, at 147. Loma is the better fighter but Broner is the a side.

On the one hand, you and others post regularly about losses shouldn't define a guy and guys should take tough fights rather than easy ones. I agree with you for the most part.

When Broner is being discussed, he never gets credit for taking tough fights. Instead its just he sucks because he lost and then all his opponents are lowered because they have losses as well.

The Mikey-Broner fight was at 140. Why would Loma (who is smaller than Mikey) fighting at 147 vs. Broner be fair in comparison?

He gets credit for taking tough fights but he was completely dominated in all three of them and has multiple gift decisions. He didn’t adapt that well in most those fights and his best wins are a debatable either way win vs. Malignaggi and a win over DeMarco. Paulie was never that good to begin with and was way past his best at that time too.

[The Big Dunn]

The Mikey-Broner fight was at 140. Why would Loma (who is smaller than Mikey) fighting at 147 vs. Broner be fair in comparison?

He gets credit for taking tough fights but he was completely dominated in all three of them and has multiple gift decisions. He didn’t adapt that well in most those fights and his best wins are a debatable either way win vs. Malignaggi and a win over DeMarco. Paulie was never that good to begin with and was way past his best at that time too.

Because Broner is the bigger draw and the fight should be on the terms of the a side. Same way Floyd fought ODH at 154 and Bhop fought ODH at 157, not suggesting Broner is equal to ODH but I think you get my point.

Yes, he lost 2x and has a draw (disputed) at 147 and lost once coming back down at 140. 135 and below dude is undefeated. So I think his issue is more weight related.

He lost to Porter and Maidana, 2 extremely awkward fighters who had been in high profile fights and were bigger than him. Usually, fighters that lose in those situations don't get knocked as much as Broner has.