What makes Lomachenko an all time great?

[Nay_Sayer]

To a lot of the leading experts in the field.

Name them please.

But for argument sake, ESPN sir.

ROTFLMMFAO

The same ESPN who has the exclusive deal with Top Stank? And you don't see a problem here? If your argument hinges on the ESPN "ranking" then you have no argument.

[Nay_Sayer]

LMFAAAAOOOOOO...

Maybe because he's wacking top guys in the sport??? Maybe that's why??

God, you're a racist ****.... lmfao... Can't imagine you trying to throw a punch.

"Top" guys?

LMAO

Please name Lomafako's three best wins. And when you're done, please explain why those wins make a good argument for Lomafako's "ATG" status.

We're waiting...

[Lomadeaux]

"Top" guys?

LMAO

Please name Lomafako's three best wins. And when you're done, please explain why those wins make a good argument for Lomafako's "ATG" status.

We're waiting...

LMAO this dude is STILL at it....

LMAO....

[Lomadeaux]

Lopez just wacked Commey ..... How much credit will he get when he beats him? Please answer....

[Rusty Tromboni]

Hmmmm..... I wonder. I really wonder. What could it POSSIBLY be? I just, i can't place it...


What could possibly set Lomachenko apart from everyone else who has ever fought?

Maybe if I watch one of his fights, I'll see?

[Rusty Tromboni]

He’s white. That’s why he’s been overhyped and prematurely crowned with such superlatives. Same thing with fury. All you have to do is search the threads. You’ve got threads saying fury is an atg who would beat ali and all the other atgs. There are fantasy threads matching loma up against all of the past atgs around his weight as he’s proven to be on their level. It’s really not hard to figure out.




Guess you don’t see threads like these


https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...nko+time+great

That's funny.

I always see names like Ali , Robinson, Langford, Armstrong and Mayweather on top of lists when there have CLEARLY been much better fighters, often fighting at the same time.

Guys like Gans and Johnson are still ranked on top 10 lists from their division, for God knows what reason... of yeah, because they were Black.

Leave it to a Black guy to explain it away based on skin tone. The lady doeth protest too much, methinks.

Seriously, you can't even name a guy, regardless of color, who has ever looked as good as Lomachenko. No fighter ever beats Fury... he ran through Wilder in 7 rounds. You really think Ali, Foreman, Lewis, Holmes last that long!?!?!?

These guys are the best we've seen. Plain and simple. It's not THEIR FAULT you don't understand Boxing.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Who says he's an ATG and what is an 'all time great' anyway? How would you, personally, define such a thing?

Pretty much everyone who has watched him fight?

I mean, we can say the same thing about Robinson and Ali.

If you know Boxing, you're not asking such ****** questions.

If you're lonely, though, I am sure you'll do anything for attention.

This. The answer I always give. Leave all the ATG discussions to the historians of the future.

Except that's never been how it's done is it? Obviously, while any subject is given to mature, and can be reviewed from a distance a broader perspective can be given. But that doesn't mean the gravity of an event can't be appreciated while it's happening.

Lomachenko is only 15 fights into his career, but has broken records and put on fistic displays that exceed pretty much anything we've seen before.

What is NOT historical about that?

You might as well be trying to argue that the sky is red, or that water isn't wet, or that the lLaws of Physics aren't a real thing. Honestly, it might be hard to really place Lomachenko right now, but there's no denying that he's a once in a lifetime talent. It's the fact that Boxing has spanned several life times that makes understanding his place a little more difficult.

He's not an all time great if he retires today but everyone can see his incredible skillset. Anything can happen in boxing, he could get clipped, knocked out cold and never be the same again but it does look like he's on his way to all time great status.

How not!?

Do you even know Boxing?

He's set records and put on unmatched performances.

He's an ATG, maybe the greatest since Greb.

[Citizen Koba]

Pretty much everyone who has watched him fight?

I mean, we can say the same thing about Robinson and Ali.

If you know Boxing, you're not asking such ****** questions.

If you're lonely, though, I am sure you'll do anything for attention.



Except that's never been how it's done is it? Obviously, while any subject is given to mature, and can be reviewed from a distance a broader perspective can be given. But that doesn't mean the gravity of an event can't be appreciated while it's happening.

Lomachenko is only 15 fights into his career, but has broken records and put on fistic displays that exceed pretty much anything we've seen before.

What is NOT historical about that?

You might as well be trying to argue that the sky is red, or that water isn't wet, or that the lLaws of Physics aren't a real thing. Honestly, it might be hard to really place Lomachenko right now, but there's no denying that he's a once in a lifetime talent. It's the fact that Boxing has spanned several life times that makes understanding his place a little more difficult.



How not!?

Do you even know Boxing?

He's set records and put on unmatched performances.

He's an ATG, maybe the greatest since Greb.

For me personally Lomachenko is amongst the most supremely talented fighters I've ever had the privilege and pleasure of watching. However in order to answer the TS's question- and evident scepticism - properly, and to understand and address what misgivings he might have I thought it was wise to ask first what exactly he thinks or understands is meant by the term ATG. Different people have different ideas, some people might give weight to ammy achievements and others dismiss 'em entirely. Some might give more weight to accomplishments like titles, unifications and multiple weightclasses others more to elite opposition and so on and so forth. To answer someone's question correctly and without creating antagonism you need to know precisely what they are asking and what their pre-existing assumptions are.

As to my second quote... yes. People do jump the gun IMO and try to rank fighters in a historical context prematurely. I don't care what other people do or have always done, if they try to rank active fighters in an ATG context I think they're doing it wrong. Change is constant in all things and boxing is no exception. To judge something objectively (inasmuch as that's possible at all) in a historical context you need to know not just what comes before but also what comes after, you also need to be - again as much as possible - free of emotional attachment and also try to minimise other cognitive biases such as nostalgia and availability bias. All these are best accomplished with the simple passage of time (nostalgia may increase, but that also brings it into line with the other historical fighters the boxer in qurestion is being compared to so hopefully a more fair comparison is reached).

[Rusty Tromboni]

For me personally Lomachenkpo is amongst the most supremely talented fighters I've ever had the prividege of watching. However in order to answer the TS's question- and evident scepticism - properly, and to understand and address what misgivings he might have I thought it was wise to ask first what exactly he thinks or thought is meant by the term ATG. Different people have different ideas, some people might give weight to ammy achievements and others dismiss 'em. Some might give more weight to accomplishments like titles, unifications and multiple weightclasses others more to elite opposition and so on and so forth. To answer someone's question correctly and without creating antagonism you need to know precisely what they are asking and what their pre-existing assumptions are.

As to my second quote... yes. People do jump the gun IMO and try to rank fighters in a historical context prematurely. Change is constant in all things and boxing is no exeception. To judge something objectively (inasmuch as that's possible at all) in a historical context you need to know not just what comes before but also what comes after, you also need to be - again as much as possible - free of emotional attachment and also try to minimise other cognitive biases such as nostalgia and availability bias. All these are best accomplished with the simple passage of time (nostalgia may increase, but that also brings it into line with the other historical fighters the boxer in qurestion is being compared to so hopefully a more fair comparison is reached).

That's reasonable. But it doesn't change the fact that lesser fighters have achieved ATG status.

Really, I have no problem with what you are saying, in spirit. But the fact of the matter remains, change ALSO means that fighters don't have to fight hundreds of fights across decades to be great. It's kinda unrealistic, in fact, to expect anyone to be a Champion of a division, and have numerous title defenses.

My issue is that people wish to ignore the fact that Lomachenko, aside from having ridiculous skills, has also made history. It's like those people who regularly eat at McDonalds and then get pissed off when goingto a fine restaurant because they have to pay so much money for so little food. Believe me, that still happens.


I ask anyone to provide me a list of proven greats they would like to rank over Lomachenko and we can compare records. I fully concede his story is not fully written. Things could, theoretically, take a turn for the worse at any time. What then? But with what we have to work with, the dude can't be touched.

[Rusty Tromboni]

IMO you can't be an ATG until the fighter is retired and some thought goes into it.

Oh yeah, too bad you weren't around to tell that to journalists and pundits in decades past. It's always been a thing.