Lol, is everyone being serious or is this some meme that I'm missing

[mathed]

Rigo looked lost as I thought he would. The speed, angles, and footwork of Loma were WAY too much for Rigo to contend with.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Lomachenko won the fight, congrats.

To take a performance where Lomachenko landed 15%, and try to spin that into all of this talk of being the best fighter to ever put on gloves is foolish.

Well, I never claimed Lomachenko was the best fighter ever. That title belongs to heavyweights and not sub-heavyweights (best heavyweight = best boxer).

Just that Lomachenko was the best between him and Rigondeaux. That punch percentage doesn't have necessary relevance to whether a boxer out-classed an opponent or not. Not every punch Lomachenko threw was intended to hit the target anyway. Many were probes / feints that were being counted as missed punches. Therefore, that alone proves that the official 15% landed punches by Lomachenko is flawed and inaccurate.

Furthermore, even if Lomachenko only landed 15% of his punches. The fact that Rigondeaux was missing even more and was landing far less still means that Lomachenko rightly out-classed and schooled Rigondeaux. Can you name me one boxer who landed on Rigondeaux as frequently as Lomachenko did since 2003? If you can't, then Lomachenko obviously did something special and unprecedented to Rigondeaux that it may as well deserve to be classified as 'out-classing'.

So even if Lomachenko's connect percentage was worse against Rigondeaux than against past opponents. It was still SIGNIFICANTLY better than Rigondeaux's connect percentage and quantity on Lomachenko during their bout.

[Scipio2009]

I gotta be honest OP, it seems like you are just splitting hairs on what was clearly a TKO loss.

Whether it was just being discouraged or actually an injury that made him not come out for the next round will be a mystery for now (until something surfaces as the truth on Rigo's hand), so you'll just have to live with it.

From what I saw, he was so outclassed in speed, footwork, body placement, and strategy, that it was inevitable that he would lose to Loma and/or get caught & hurt later in the fight. I got that feeling that it was just a matter of time before he caved in.

Kinda like Ward/Kov II, after that one head shot you knew Kov was going down, low blows or not. Just a matter of time.

The difference with Ward/Kovalev 2 is that Ward was actually landing a ton of shots; he saw what he needed to see in the first fight, Kovalev tried to come out fast, the tank emptied quick, Ward blasted him with that shot, and it was clear that there was nothing that a spent Kovalev could've done to keep Ward from firing on him.

Lomachenko had all of the speed, footwork, strategy, etc, yet still couldn't land much of anything.

Rigondeax was going to be Rigondeax; chin tucked, guard reactive, evasive on the feet, to heck with the fans' thirst.

And, for all the marvel that is Lomachenko, he's got a habit of wanting to please the fans when possible.

No idea how Rigo's corner had it, but I'm not all that certain that Rigondeax would step out of himself and open up to risk if he felt that he was drastically behind in a fight. Lomachenko has shown that he takes risks to try and close fights.

Would've been far more likely for Lomachenko to walk onto a big left than for Rigondeax to fight out of his nature, imo

[Scipio2009]

Well, I never claimed Lomachenko was the best fighter ever. That title belongs to heavyweights and not sub-heavyweights (best heavyweight = best boxer).

Just that Lomachenko was the best between him and Rigondeaux. That punch percentage doesn't have necessary relevance to whether a boxer out-classed an opponent or not. Not every punch Lomachenko threw was intended to hit the target anyway. Many were probes / feints that were being counted as missed punches. Therefore, that alone proves that the official 15% landed punches by Lomachenko is flawed and inaccurate.

Furthermore, even if Lomachenko only landed 15% of his punches. The fact that Rigondeaux was missing even more and was landing far less still means that Lomachenko rightly out-classed and schooled Rigondeaux. Can you name me one boxer who landed on Rigondeaux as frequently as Lomachenko did since 2003? If you can't, then Lomachenko obviously did something special and unprecedented to Rigondeaux that it may as well deserve to be classified as 'out-classing'.

So even if Lomachenko's connect percentage was worse against Rigondeaux than against past opponents. It was still SIGNIFICANTLY better than Rigondeaux's connect percentage and quantity on Lomachenko during their bout.

Maybe you haven't said it, but there are folks on this site, and even in this thread, who are taking this performance and using it to argue that Lomachenko is the best fighter south of Terence Crawford (with some taking it even further), and that's baffling to me. What am I missing here?

I opened the thread with my honest take; Lomachenko is a great talent, and arguably the best active fighter in the sport, but folks are bugging.

Folks are taking the performance, and extrapolating well beyond what would make sense; if that's not you, I wasn't describing you

[Sp0rty Cr@ig]

Rigo realized he had no chance & gave up after 6 rounds. That is even worse than being knocked out IMO.

... And i rooted for Rigo

[SUBZER0ED]

There was nothing that happened in the first 4 rounds where anyone could earnestly say "Man, that one fighter sure was putting it on the other fighter".

If you want to marvel at 5 touch jabs, so be it

Rigo should have lost those rounds just for all of the grabbing and holding he did.

[club fighter]

Would've been far more likely for Lomachenko to walk onto a big left than for Rigondeax to fight out of his nature, imo

You are clearly delusional, and beating a dead horse.
No matter how you slice it up, Rigo was in way over his head. He should have stayed in his own weight class, instead he went for the $$ of a big fight and paid the price.

[BennyBlanco]

Lomachenko is a really good fighter, arguably p4p the best, but this is ridiculous.

Guillermo Rigondeax hurt his left hand, full stop; their tactics basically negated each other, but Rigondeax didn't take a beating, his face wasn't marked with swelling/cuts/bruises, and didn't end up looking hapless at all.

Lomachenko's big TV highlight was missing a 10-punch combination for heck's sake.

Yet now, in the spin after the fight, fans and the media are trying to act as if it was some wide washout, lol. Even if you did have the fight scored 6-0 for Lomachenko, that still does nothing to change the fact that the first 4 rounds could've basically been scored 10-10, due to neither guy landing all that much effectively.

No one is going to go back and watch the fight again (which is likely why the spin is going to work on most folks); that should set reality for folks, but it won't.

Oh well

Not to mention the fact that it's no big accomplishment to defeat a guy who is two weight classes smaller than you.

Rigo had no business being in the ring with Lomachenko.

[Scipio2009]

Rigo should have lost those rounds just for all of the grabbing and holding he did.

Maybe so. Still, Rigo made sure that Loma was just as effective as he was.

The whole going into the mud with a pig bit

[Mr Objecitivity]

Maybe you haven't said it, but there are folks on this site, and even in this thread, who are taking this performance and using it to argue that Lomachenko is the best fighter south of Terence Crawford (with some taking it even further), and that's baffling to me. What am I missing here?

I opened the thread with my honest take; Lomachenko is a great talent, and arguably the best active fighter in the sport, but folks are bugging.

Folks are taking the performance, and extrapolating well beyond what would make sense; if that's not you, I wasn't describing you

Well, he is ARGUABLY the best boxer south of Terence Crawford by virtue of how he has dominated each and every opponent he has faced, since his loss to Orlando Salido. His dominance is arguably greater than those of any other boxer below 140 pounds. That doesn't mean he is the best boxer to ever put on gloves (which was what you were insinuating that Lomachenko wasn't in your previous response to me).

So arguing Lomachenko is the best boxer south of Terence Crawford is reasonable. Not just because of his performance against Rigondeaux but his record as a whole. However, of course it isn't reasonable to claim he is the greatest pro boxer ever, based on just 10 bouts.

I was merely responding to your erroneous claim that any other round, except the first could've gone to Rigondeaux or have been a draw. From round 2 and onward until the stoppage, it was a shutout for Lomachenko. Lomachenko out-landed Rigondeaux with his punches in every other round. Therefore, Lomachenko out-boxed, out-classed and schooled Rigondeaux overall.