Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comments Thread For: Lomachenko Demolishes Crolla in Four Round Mismatch

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Boxing Logic View Post
    The P4P debate doesn't need to be changed though because it's basically set in stone for the foreseeable future. P4P is not won overnight. Loma earned that very gradually over years of hard work and risky fights. 12-0 dominating undefeated GRJ, who had 20 fights, in his 3rd pro fight. 7-0 dominating undefeated Walters, only man to stop Donaire, in Loma's 7th pro fight, making Walters quit. Boxing 21 minutes in the ring vs Rigo without getting hit once. Crawford got hit 5 or 10 times more in the first round vs Gamboa as Loma did the entire fight vs Rigo, before making Rigo quit.

    Then in his first fight at 135, Loma was the first to outbox, and stop to the body, lightweight champ Linares, who given that Mikey has been sneakily struggling to make 135 this entire time, which is why even at 135 he had a detour at 140 before coming back down, was the real #1 lightweight when Loma fought him. Yes Mikey appears better because he's really a 140 pounder draining down and that's why he looks so much more powerful and stronger, but out of the real normal sized lightweights, Linares was the best and Loma was the first to outbox him and stop him to the body as well.

    So Loma doesn't have to do anything spectacular, he just has to maintain a high level. It's Crawford that is what, 3 top wins behind Loma still? 4? If you don't count Rigo, it's 3. If you count Rigo and Gamboa both, it's 3. If you count Rigo but not Gamboa, since Gamboa was never as good as Rigo, and was best at 126 meanwhile Crawford's natural weight is 147, then it's 4.

    So 3 or 4. Loma needs to fight Crolla 3 more times, while Crawford fights three top guys on the level of Linares, Walters, and GRJ in a row, and then Crawford might be tied for Loma outside of the fact that he still isn't fighting as high above his natural weight as Loma is. But until then, the only reason the commentators keep mentioning Crawford's name and saying there is a debate is to drive ratings, clicks, and to promote Crawford because he is ESPN's only big American star. Otherwise all they have is foreign guys like Loma and Fury and I guess they want one of their stars to be American.

    That's it. It's no surprise the only media to have Crawford #1 P4P, hilariously, is the "American Boxing Writers Association." Whether they're homers, or they're helping their corporate buddies, who knows, but there's zero argument based on any of the data available to rank Crawford above Loma in the P4P, and the compubox stats back that up too if you go look at their leaderboards, not just everything else I said. Loma has performed better, statistically, than Crawford, despite facing tougher opposition than Crawford. He is the P4P King for a reason.

    And for the record, in the same weight class as Loma is currently fighting, Terence Crawford went 12 rounds with Ricky Burns, and lost 3 or 4 rounds. Crolla beat Burns at 135, and Loma just annihilated Crolla. But when Crawford struggled with Burns, no one said ****. This is why people say there is major bias against Lomachenko, or for Crawford, because you constantly see these insane double standards over and over. People don't even bring up that since 18 years of age, Lomachenko has moved up almost twice as many pounds in weight as Crawford has, yet he's still fighting better guys than Crawford and performing as dominantly or more than Crawford fighting at a much higher weight, with a much greater degree of difficulty in terms of height, reach, and weight, than Crawford.

    I mean, isn't that sort of the definition of pound for pound? I'm telling you, if Lomachenko was American, and Crawford was Ukrainian, the commentators wouldn't even be talking about Crawford in the same sentence as Lomachenko. Don't get me wrong, Crawford is great, but Lomachenko is one of those boxers like Floyd and Manny who only come around every few decades. As great as Crawford is, there is a gap there, in both resume and technical ability, between him and Loma that the commentators are downplaying, in my opinion out of homer bias, because, again in my opinion, Crawford is an American welterweight they want to market on big PPVs, while Lomachenko is a foreigner who doesn't speak good english and fights in a less popular weight class for casual fans. Remember, it's like they always say, "boxing is a business," and for BUSINESS reasons, it pays to promote Crawford as Lomachenko's equal in the ring. But in terms of the actual sport of boxing, Lomachenko is a ways ahead of the pack right now. Crawford may be leading the pack, but he's still back with the pack a ways behind Loma.
    This post is golden. If it wasn't for your posts and a couple of others objective posters I would have stopped reading NSB a long time ago. 100% logic!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by anonymous2.0 View Post
      I honestly think the Salido method is the only conceivable way of beating Loma. I honestly do not understand any trainer or boxer who is going up against Loma and looking at the Salido fight and how much success Orlando had versus all the other Loma fights where he blew his opponents out and say "Nah the Salido way isn't good, lets do it the other way like everyone else".
      The Salido method worked because for 11.5 rounds Lomachenko's punches had zero effect on him. I don't mean they didn't hurt, I mean they didn't move Salido at all. It's like you're Loki punching the Hulk, and you hit him with a perfect shot in the face, but it does nothing and then he just slaps you and boom, you go flying.

      How can you fight someone if you cant even move them when you punch them, so they can just take it and keep punching you while your hand is still out, and if they hit you just once, it smacks you around the ring?

      Due to that unique challenge, Loma had to basically score points quick and move, or score quick and hold.

      Why could his punches not move his opponent? Because Lomachenko trained for a featherweight fight, and was a very small featherweight at the time, but Salido did not even attempt to make the weight, came in 2 pounds overnight, and then used that cushion to then rehydrate TEN pounds heavier in the ring.

      Ten pounds. At featherweight. Against an amateur fighter who already felt like he had to conserve energy because IT WAS HIS FIRST EVER 12 ROUND FIGHT lol.

      So you're saying fighters have to copy the Salido fight, but it was really the CIRCUMSTANCES of that fight that played the biggest role in Salido having success, and those circumstances are not repeatable. That was only Lomachenko's second pro fight. Since then you might have noticed he's packed on a lot of muscle. No one who makes weight, and therefore is unable to rehydrate to a 10 pound advantage in the ring, is going to be able to walk through Lomachenko like Salido did. But Teofimo has a good chance to beat Lomachenko because he can combine that aggression and strength with the speed and skills to catch Loma with big clean punches. That's the combo that is needed at this stage. That Salido against Loma now, even a 135 version of that Salido vs 135 version of Loma now, would get knocked out in 6 rounds. That's why it's better to just call Lomachenko undefeated "vs opponents who make weight" because weight classes are the bedrock of the sport anyway, so there's a real argument that a fight like that shouldn't count in the record books. I don't think it should be a hard rule because if you only miss weight by 1 pound, but you win every single round vs your opponent, I think it's still fair to say you were better and you deserve to be considered the winner, but in situations like Loma-Salido where he didn't try to make weight, where he rehydrated 10 lbs over Loma, where it played a huge role in the fight and yet he still didn't clearly win on the cards and he almost got knocked out... that really shouldn't count because had he made the weight, he would have lost. He didn't prove that on a fair playing field, featherweight vs featherweight, he would have won, or even give anyone that impression at all, so it shouldn't count. In reality, Lomachenko is undefeated vs fighters who make weight.
      Last edited by Boxing Logic; 04-13-2019, 04:42 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Boxing Logic View Post
        The P4P debate doesn't need to be changed though because it's basically set in stone for the foreseeable future. P4P is not won overnight. Loma earned that very gradually over years of hard work and risky fights. 12-0 dominating undefeated GRJ, who had 20 fights, in his 3rd pro fight. 7-0 dominating undefeated Walters, only man to stop Donaire, in Loma's 7th pro fight, making Walters quit. Boxing 21 minutes in the ring vs Rigo without getting hit once. Crawford got hit 5 or 10 times more in the first round vs Gamboa as Loma did the entire fight vs Rigo, before making Rigo quit.

        Then in his first fight at 135, Loma was the first to outbox, and stop to the body, lightweight champ Linares, who given that Mikey has been sneakily struggling to make 135 this entire time, which is why even at 135 he had a detour at 140 before coming back down, was the real #1 lightweight when Loma fought him. Yes Mikey appears better because he's really a 140 pounder draining down and that's why he looks so much more powerful and stronger, but out of the real normal sized lightweights, Linares was the best and Loma was the first to outbox him and stop him to the body as well.

        So Loma doesn't have to do anything spectacular, he just has to maintain a high level. It's Crawford that is what, 3 top wins behind Loma still? 4? If you don't count Rigo, it's 3. If you count Rigo and Gamboa both, it's 3. If you count Rigo but not Gamboa, since Gamboa was never as good as Rigo, and was best at 126 meanwhile Crawford's natural weight is 147, then it's 4.

        So 3 or 4. Loma needs to fight Crolla 3 more times, while Crawford fights three top guys on the level of Linares, Walters, and GRJ in a row, and then Crawford might be tied for Loma outside of the fact that he still isn't fighting as high above his natural weight as Loma is. But until then, the only reason the commentators keep mentioning Crawford's name and saying there is a debate is to drive ratings, clicks, and to promote Crawford because he is ESPN's only big American star. Otherwise all they have is foreign guys like Loma and Fury and I guess they want one of their stars to be American.

        That's it. It's no surprise the only media to have Crawford #1 P4P, hilariously, is the "American Boxing Writers Association." Whether they're homers, or they're helping their corporate buddies, who knows, but there's zero argument based on any of the data available to rank Crawford above Loma in the P4P, and the compubox stats back that up too if you go look at their leaderboards, not just everything else I said. Loma has performed better, statistically, than Crawford, despite facing tougher opposition than Crawford. He is the P4P King for a reason.

        And for the record, in the same weight class as Loma is currently fighting, Terence Crawford went 12 rounds with Ricky Burns, and lost 3 or 4 rounds. Crolla beat Burns at 135, and Loma just annihilated Crolla. But when Crawford struggled with Burns, no one said ****. This is why people say there is major bias against Lomachenko, or for Crawford, because you constantly see these insane double standards over and over. People don't even bring up that since 18 years of age, Lomachenko has moved up almost twice as many pounds in weight as Crawford has, yet he's still fighting better guys than Crawford and performing as dominantly or more than Crawford fighting at a much higher weight, with a much greater degree of difficulty in terms of height, reach, and weight, than Crawford.

        I mean, isn't that sort of the definition of pound for pound? I'm telling you, if Lomachenko was American, and Crawford was Ukrainian, the commentators wouldn't even be talking about Crawford in the same sentence as Lomachenko. Don't get me wrong, Crawford is great, but Lomachenko is one of those boxers like Floyd and Manny who only come around every few decades. As great as Crawford is, there is a gap there, in both resume and technical ability, between him and Loma that the commentators are downplaying, in my opinion out of homer bias, because, again in my opinion, Crawford is an American welterweight they want to market on big PPVs, while Lomachenko is a foreigner who doesn't speak good english and fights in a less popular weight class for casual fans. Remember, it's like they always say, "boxing is a business," and for BUSINESS reasons, it pays to promote Crawford as Lomachenko's equal in the ring. But in terms of the actual sport of boxing, Lomachenko is a ways ahead of the pack right now. Crawford may be leading the pack, but he's still back with the pack a ways behind Loma.
        Man I had a really good response to your post but lost everything I typed up when hit one too many buttons.

        I think I said something to the effect of well thought out, respectable post but I disagree.

        The result last night was exactly what you expected when fighting an opponent that was a 100-1 odds. One fight shouldn't change this debate but I want to hear the same thing next week if Crawford doesn't dispatch Khan in the same manner as Lomachenko did Crolla. The ESPN commentators tried to make that argument. I'm not a fan of Khan but he's in a completely different league than Crolla.

        I also disagree with using Linares as measuring stick. Linares is a good fighter but inconsistent at best. He was stopped before by much lesser fighters than Lomachenko. I like how you quantified it with "outboxed and stopped to the body" but that's irrelevant in this debate.

        Gary Russell and Rigondeaux were good wins but then you have a victory by one of them quitting. Crolla had every reason to quit last night but he went out on his shield. It's hard for me to take a decision like Walters, Rigondeaux, and all the others seriously when there were no obvious reason to quit other than they were being outboxed. You can't expect me to believe at this level you have world class fighters that would rather quit than continue to get outboxed by a better fighter, humiliating or not.

        I can't really argue with you in you choice of Lomachenko being your #1 but you haven't convinced me. That's the intriguing part about this. You can make an argument for both plus there are others that's not too far behind. Incidentally, every single one of the ESPN commentators had Crawford as their #1 even though the network have Lomachenko.

        Last question, would you be making the same passionate argument if Lomachenko was American and Crawford was Ukrainian?
        Last edited by HarvardBlue; 04-13-2019, 05:53 AM.

        Comment


        • What a surprise.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BigZ44 View Post
            Jack Reiss did a good job in this fight imo
            he was counting at a guy who was faceplanted on the canvas!!

            Comment


            • Wheres the dumbass that said lomachenko earned the p4p status by beating 12 great opponents lol

              Comment


              • I thought it would be closer than that

                Comment


                • Vasyl Lomachenko: I'll fight Teofino Lopez when he has a belt.

                  Teofino Lopez: (scratches head) Well I need to fight someone with a belt to get a belt. That be you.

                  Vasyl Lomachenko: exactly....


                  Nice evasive manuever (a.k.a ducking). Since when does a contender need a belt to challenge the champion for his belt? Wasn't Lomachenko given an opportunity on his second fight to fight for a belt?

                  I think every boxing fan and fanatic agrees that Teofino and Lomachenko would be fireworks, and I am not sure that there isn't a boxing fan that wouldn't love to see that. It has written entertainment from the get-go. I'd rather see Teofino fight Lomachenko than Mikey. I'd pay 65 bucks to watch it in a heartbeat.

                  (Lomachenko asks dismissively and visibly annoyed) Who is Teofino lopez?
                  Well, he is the contender who looks like he can give you a hell of a fight and the public thinks he could.give you a hell of a fight. And he is the boxer who the general public and pundits believe has real skills.

                  Now the public (us, the fans, consumers, and treasury), want what we've invested on, we want a battle.

                  Comment


                  • Loma’s Boxing is beautiful.

                    Comment


                    • Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP