Loma Offense Vs. Lopez - GIFs

[edgarg]

It's pointless. Even with video evidence that Lopez looked flashy but ultimately won 6 or 7 rounds AT MOST (I gave him 1-6), people will just look at the guy throwing more and give him the round. It was a very close fight, closer than NSB would have people believe.

Yet when Compubox says that Keef outlanded Manny, they say it's wrong and didn't gift Keef rounds like they gifted Lopez rounds.

Ultimately, people just wanted Loma to get beat. Just like they want Floyd to get beat.

I said before: Lopez didn't win...Loma lost, by letting Lopez take 6 rounds off of him when he could and should have washed Lopez.

You know Rev, many people, myself included as well as boxing writers,and other boxers, had Lomachenko winning rd 2.. He scored the only meaningful punches in that round, few though they were. I had Lopez winning rds 1,3,4,5,6,with little action, and Lomachenko winning rds 7,8,9,10,11, with Lopez taking the last round...that is until I saw your slo mo. Which means that he sc****d by with a 7-5 win.

As you know Lomachenko is always willing to give his opponents full credit, and even when he beat the overmatched Rigondeauz, he said it should not be counted because of the size and etc. He said that he won this fight, and people have been calling him names ever since. I don't see him the way they do, but as unassuming, truthful and generally modest. Especially for someone of his major accomplishments. Like his amateur career losing only a single fight, out of 397, twice avenged, a never before achievement in boxing history. .. Never mentions his 2 Gold Medals, or even his triple titles.

Ali talked about himself ALL the time, and Lewis couldn't keep his mind on the boxers in the ring when he was a (hopeless) part of the HBO commentary team, always bringing himself into it, any way he could. I notice these things.

Anyway, I am disappointed that you won't show that slo mo again, and don't really understand why, even though you tell me. Maybe you'll show rd 2..??

[Apollo7]

I really wanted Loma to school Lopez, so I was probably inclined to give Loma the close rounds. As everyone knows, he didn't do enough. He could beat Lopez in a rematch, but he'll never get that shot. Legacy ruined.

I don't necessarily think losing a competitive fight against a good, bigger fighter ruins your legacy. Really depends on what both guys go on to do in the future.

[PredatorStyle]

Thanks, I hoped someone would do this; I was too lazy. People need reminding that Lomachenko still exists and is still the most talented boxer in 135 punds

[Lomadeaux]

I said before: Lopez didn't win...Loma lost

This is what I've said before as well.

[alexnation]

I said before: Lopez didn't win...Loma lost, by letting Lopez take 6 rounds off of him when he could and should have washed Lopez.

Exactly this. Just by looking at Lopez' face in rds 9-11 you can tell he had no idea what to do as he was getting clipped from every angle. Lopez is not a better boxer. Loma chose the wrong strategy and gave away the W himself

[The Big Dunn]

Who cares if Loma had moments where he looked good?

He didn’t fight rounds 1-7 and lost round 12. Clear loss.

No need to try and minimize the loss or make it look better than it was as a way to argue for a rematch.

Let’s see Teo fight the best guys at 135, not a guy he already beat.

[Combat Talk Radio]

You know Rev, many people, myself included as well as boxing writers,and other boxers, had Lomachenko winning rd 2.. He scored the only meaningful punches in that round, few though they were. I had Lopez winning rds 1,3,4,5,6,with little action, and Lomachenko winning rds 7,8,9,10,11, with Lopez taking the last round...that is until I saw your slo mo. Which means that he sc****d by with a 7-5 win.

Round 2 was what I call a "Manny" round.

Manny Pacquiao tends to coast until the final seconds of the round, then cranks up the volume with punches to try and steal it by making the judges only focus on his work and ignore the other 2 minutes when he didn't do anything.

That's what happened against Horn. He did it for at least 9 rounds. That's why people say Manny was robbed; they fall for the okie-doke.

Here's the thing. I refuse to give you a round when you had 1 or 2 good punches yet got smoked for 2 and a half minutes otherwise.

That's what Round 2 was. Loma tried to steal it late. It was too late.

One of the criteria is Ring Generalship. If you're effectively nullifying your opponent, or making them fight your way instead of theirs, or dictating the pace, that's ring generalship, and Lopez put it on clear display rounds 1-6.

[Boxing Goat]

I really wanted Loma to school Lopez, so I was probably inclined to give Loma the close rounds. As everyone knows, he didn't do enough. He could beat Lopez in a rematch, but he'll never get that shot. Legacy ruined.

That's the problem with casuals who try and be a boxing analysts

[The Big Dunn]

Round 2 was what I call a "Manny" round.

Manny Pacquiao tends to coast until the final seconds of the round, then cranks up the volume with punches to try and steal it by making the judges only focus on his work and ignore the other 2 minutes when he didn't do anything.

That's what happened against Horn. He did it for at least 9 rounds. That's why people say Manny was robbed; they fall for the okie-doke.

Here's the thing. I refuse to give you a round when you had 1 or 2 good punches yet got smoked for 2 and a half minutes otherwise.

That's what Round 2 was. Loma tried to steal it late. It was too late.

One of the criteria is Ring Generalship. If you're effectively nullifying your opponent, or making them fight your way instead of theirs, or dictating the pace, that's ring generalship, and Lopez put it on clear display rounds 1-6.

Interesting post. I would call that a Ray Leonard round rather than a Manny round because he started that.

[NachoMan]

That's the problem with casuals who try and be a boxing analysts

Let's discuss and see which of us is the casual. Lomachenko was on the very short list of fighters of this current generation who could have been universally regarded as an all-time great fighter one day. All but his most ardent haters gave him a pass on the Salido fight, but now he's shown himself to be something less than great twice in 15 pro fights. He still has a great resume and he remains a generational talent in terms of his boxing skill and acumen, but nobody whose not a Ukranian sports junkie regards him on the level of a Duran, Pacquiao or SRR. Before the Lopez fight he was actually on track to be in that discussion one day, but he royally blew it by fighting so timidly for much of his fight against Lopez.

I assert that he has ruined his legacy because the only way to redeem himself and erase the stain of that frustrating defeat to Lopez is by avenging his loss to Lopez. But Lopez will never give him the opportunity - probably out of sheer spite - so Lomachenko will always be judged by his critics largely on that performance, no matter what else he achieves (he'll probably only fight 1-2 times more anyway). He will be remembered as a amazing boxer, but not as a great fighter.