When loma fights crolla its a disgrace but crawford fighting benavidez is good.....

[Madison Boxing]

Former world champ anthony crollas ranked 4th in the world and the fights supposedly a joke and a disgrace and lomachenko fights bums, but people were praising the crawford benavidez fight who was ranked outside the top 30 and half crippled? Why the difference?

[northernmonkey]

Crolla deserves his shot, it's far from a disgrace dont give him any chance of winning but he's earned the right to be there

[_Rexy_]

Neither is a joke, but they aren’t the same either. Crolla is a mandatory, and Benavidez was a softer touch which 90% of fighters do on their first defense. Crawford also had a long standing rivalry with Benevidez.

[The Big Dunn]

This isn't true. You over exaggerated what a couple of people posted to create a fake controversy which you you pretended justified the garbage you spewed then and are trying to incite with this thread.

You take every criticism of Loma very personally and then you react to it with ridiculous garbage.

Why do you constantly do this dramashow?

[chrisJS]

It goes both ways. Folks that tore down the Benavidez fight will say the Crolla fight is good. Both aren't ideal but both are happening for a reason. Crolla is a mandatory to a guy that wants all four belts and Benavidez was the best available and realistic opponent at that time. Both are/were keep busy fights in fights that came immediately after winning a title and immediately prior to better fights.

Too many boxing fans get outraged too often unless it's a super fight but history is full of politics preventing fights and mandatory fights being fulfilled.

[boliodogs]

Maybe because some posters don't know where the challengers are actually rated by boxrec, Ring, the WBC, IBF, WBA and the WBA. As soon as I hear a title fight announced I check to see where the challenger is rated by these places.

[chrisJS]

The short answer is simple. Boxing fans are idiots. The most cynical and bitter and outright ****** of all sports fans.

[KTFOKING]

It goes both ways. Folks that tore down the Benavidez fight will say the Crolla fight is good. Both aren't ideal but both are happening for a reason. Crolla is a mandatory to a guy that wants all four belts and Benavidez was the best available and realistic opponent at that time. Both are/were keep busy fights in fights that came immediately after winning a title and immediately prior to better fights.

Too many boxing fans get outraged too often unless it's a super fight but history is full of politics preventing fights and mandatory fights being fulfilled.

Bingo! And I'm still not sure why fans get so upset when a fighter fights his mandatory. If he wants to keep his belt, then he has every right to do so. Now, if a big fight comes up and it comes down to either vacating or getting that big fight, then of course go with the big fight. But what is the alternative here for Lomachenko. What big fight is on the horizon for him in April where if he doesn't take on April he will get someone else?

These kinds of fights are perfectly fine for fighters. They don't do much for their resume' but there should be little complains about Lomachenko taking on Crolla. Be mad at the organization for ranking Crolla so high but don't be upset at Lomachenko.

[mcdonalds]

You guys know I'm hard on eastern euros and their wannabe followers......

However, at least crolla is a mandatory and a former champ. Benavidez was neither, he was a blatant cherrypick.

[Mammoth]

Crolla us a mandatory, Crawford has few options where he's at. Nothing to cry about.....