Loma is the truth, no way anyone can't give him props

[travestyny]

Again, where is 1 fighter that has the same resume after 12 fights, if you can find one, admit it and give credit where it is due

How about Saensak Muangsurin.

Fastest to win a title after becoming a pro.
Tied with Loma for the amount of fights it took.
First 12 opponents combined record something like 440 - 79.
He went 11-1, the loss being a DQ.

Only loss in first 12 fights was a DQ for knocking out the guy after the bell.

He avenged the loss by knocking down the guy 4 times to win a TKO in the 2nd.


Finished his career 14 - 6.


http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/35832

[Coach.billy]

Yes sir!!

This is the era of Loma. Enjoy it as much as I am. Amazing!!

[Shape up]

How about Saensak Muangsurin.

Fastest to win a title after becoming a pro.
Tied with Loma for the amount of fights it took.
First 12 opponents combined record something like 440 - 79.
He went 11-1, the loss being a DQ.

Only loss in first 12 fights was a DQ for knocking out the guy after the bell.

He avenged the loss by knocking down the guy 4 times to win a TKO in the 2nd.


Finished his career 14 - 6.


http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/35832

Good work, he deserves credit doesnt he, thats what im trying to get through to that braindead troll, but he just doesnt get it, crawford is a brilliant fighter, but his rise has been much slower, his first 15 or so fights were the average joe,, this clown talk about a loss to a 4 time world champ in lomas 2nd fight, they forget he had the balls to take on opponents like that

[travestyny]

Good work, he deserves credit doesnt he, thats what im trying to get through to that braindead troll, but he just doesnt get it, crawford is a brilliant fighter, but his rise has been much slower, his first 15 or so fights were the average joe,, this clown talk about a loss to a 4 time world champ in lomas 2nd fight, they forget he had the balls to take on opponents like that

I'm not disagreeing with either of you. Loma does deserves tons of credit. But the flip side is that he was ready because of his amateur pedigree.

You can also look at it this way. Crawford turned pro when he was 20. From 20 - 24 years old while he was beating up professionals, Loma was beating up amateurs at the same age.

Again, it doesn't mean one is so much better than the other, but it's just that their careers were planned out differently. Know what I'm saying?

[Raggamuffin]

Again, where is 1 fighter that has the same resume after 12 fights

Curt already embarrassed your red K ass. Just stfu. Red K bandit.

[SlySlickSmooth]

I'd lose my ****ing **** if he beat Mikey Garcia (granted he beats Robert Easter which I think he will).

I regarded Linares as a very solid fighter that people would rather avoid. Lomachenko is amazing! #1

[Real King Kong]

I'm not disagreeing with either of you. Loma does deserves tons of credit. But the flip side is that he was ready because of his amateur pedigree.

You can also look at it this way. Crawford turned pro when he was 20. From 20 - 24 years old while he was beating up professionals, Loma was beating up amateurs at the same age.

Again, it doesn't mean one is so much better than the other, but it's just that their careers were planned out differently. Know what I'm saying?

The difference would be that loma was continuously facing other top amateurs from around the word during that time, while Crawford was beating a whole bunch of tomato cans. It's not a knock on Crawford cuz that's the standard model of how to build a fighter...but it's also why guys like loma deserve respect for deciding they don't really need those fights. One isn't really better than the other tho, as long as they get to where they need to. In the end, it's fighters facing each other at their peaks that make the best possible fights.

[R-Hand Southpaw]

To the guy who has Loma #5 Or whatever and is calling other people stat people I really don't get it.

You know why someone like me has lomachenko #1? He's the guy who got me into boxing. Why will be most likely be an ATG? Because he fights for legacy and he always fights the BEST AVAILABLE fighter.

I mean, come on. Those of you who hate lomachenko or dislike him and keep on bringing up Salido really do need to find a new argument. Salido was a multiple world champ. But. The guy came in overweight. Threw a gazillion low blows. And still barely won. I mean, did you even watch the fight? For people to call people stat people and not even watch the fight I don't get how you could have come to that conclusion. Salido was NOT dominating Lomachenko. The fight may have started in his favor but by the end of the fight to say Salido won, or was winning, or looked like the better fighter, you would be the biggest liar ever. And you still can't admit that which is a shame.

Seriously. There is no shame in another fighter being better than your fighter and it doesn't take away their greatness. They are still great.

It's like the Floyd people who are legit the worst. Floyd is toxic. The worst thing ever to happen to boxing yet people praise the guy. Was Floyd a great boxer? He sure was. But to say the greatest or best he isn't even in the conversation.

ATG, or the greatest goes to those who transcend what they do in the ring. That's why Ali is the greatest. Best? Come on. We all know styles makes fights not records. Could prime Floyd have beaten a prime tyson? A prime ali? A prime sugar ray? A prime rjj? Probably doubtful. And I'm not saying straight up, but styles. Most of these guys fought for legacy too. Didn't care about the 0. Fought better competition. Gave everything they had to prove their worth.

This is what Lomachenko is doing. He's no ambassador for peace and doesn't transcend the ring, but he's old school.

Modern times have really warped people's thinking for the worse. What makes a champion isn't his record but his ability to reach deep into himself and find a way to win after being knocked down. Losing. Etc. It's how they face adversity.

Also. Triangle theory doesn't work. Just because fighter A can beat fighter B doesn't mean he can automatically beat fighter C.

Also. Lomachenko has a good argument to be number 1 because they, moved up in weight, fought the arguable well established champion, made him quit, got up to win the fight. Has consistently proved people wrong, ahem, rigo.

This is a far cry from let's say, Crawford beating a chump to unify and Mikey cherry picking fights with middling talent, Broner, and paper champs, lipnets

[Shape up]

I'm not disagreeing with either of you. Loma does deserves tons of credit. But the flip side is that he was ready because of his amateur pedigree.

You can also look at it this way. Crawford turned pro when he was 20. From 20 - 24 years old while he was beating up professionals, Loma was beating up amateurs at the same age.

Again, it doesn't mean one is so much better than the other, but it's just that their careers were planned out differently. Know what I'm saying?

Thats irrelavent, plenty of boxers have come out of the amateurs with great pedigrees and then fought low level fighters for 2 to 3 years, crawford had 70 amateur fights , ward had 115,, floyd had 80 or so,, go and look at their first 15 pro fights and you wont recognise 1 name, plenty of posters on here want to complain about cherrypicking and when a fighter actually lifts the bar then he gets crucified by the same clueless posters, congrats to larry for giving due credit, the only way you get great fights is by fighters challenging themselves

[travestyny]

The difference would be that loma was continuously facing other top amateurs from around the word during that time, while Crawford was beating a whole bunch of tomato cans. It's not a knock on Crawford cuz that's the standard model of how to build a fighter...but it's also why guys like loma deserve respect for deciding they don't really need those fights. One isn't really better than the other tho, as long as they get to where they need to. In the end, it's fighters facing each other at their peaks that make the best possible fights.

I agree with this absolutely.