Lomachenko or Crawford- Who's better P4P?

[Prince Madison]

lomachenko

[Nay_Sayer]

Crawford. He's beaten better opposition and doesn't have the L...

[bojangles1987]

I think salido was just a bad style matchup for him. Ppl over exxagerate lomas inexperience in that fight he was still the more skilled fighter. He just couldnt deal with salido's aggressiveness.

He couldn't deal with it because he still fought like an amateur. He had no idea what to do about Salido's dirty fighting. He was used to opponents not being able to fight that way.

Maybe that remains a flaw throughout his career but I doubt it. I think you've already seen developments in his style where he's grown used to the pro style.

[bojangles1987]

Don't think you can compare them IMO. Floyd was 19 in his 2nd pro fight. Loma was 26. 19 yr old Floyd wouldn't beat Salido. 26 yr old Floyd would annihilate him.

It's not about age, it's about experience in the pros.

Take Mayweather with 8 or 9 fights or whatever, he wouldn't beat Salido either. Orlando Salido is a very good, seasoned pro and holding it against someone for losing to him very early in their career is ridiculous.

[Sadiqkingofko]

I think they're pretty much the same level. If I had to pick, I'd say Crawford should be ranked higher. He has those couple more solid wins than Lomachenko.

I agree 100% with this

[NaijaD]

Crawford is more accomplished and should be regarded slightly higher but Lomachenko is slightly more skilled and looks better in full flow.

[The Big Dunn]

It's not about age, it's about experience in the pros.

Take Mayweather with 8 or 9 fights or whatever, he wouldn't beat Salido either. Orlando Salido is a very good, seasoned pro and holding it against someone for losing to him very early in their career is ridiculous.

I think its about both. I agree that Floyd with 8 pro fights under his belt wouldn't have defeated Salido. But he would've been 19. 19 yr old Loma had one of his only amatuer losses so IMO its impossible to compare the 2.

Loma did have some pro experience in that World Series thing. Like 6 fights. Added to that he turned pro so late and had vastly more amateur experience and success than other men that turn pro.

That is why Arum put him in with Salido to begin with. I also agree there is no shame in him losing to Salido. despite being favored to win.

In retrospect, he should never have been put in with Salido at that point.

[John Locke]

Lomachenko is more skilled and has a better resume

[_original_]

Lomachenko is vastly better, but Crawford has done more as a pro as of now.

[Owlzfan84]

To me, Lomachenko has the 2 best wins if you look at their resume head to head. The wins over Walters and Russell, to me are better than a featherweight Gamboa and Viktor Postol.

Now if were talking skill level, I'd pick Lomachenko any day of the week. His footwork is the best in boxing, his range is fantastic, he's an excellent defender and he can be excellent at defense while moving forward.

Sure Lomachenko lost to Salido in his second pro fight. But I don't know many featherweights in history that could beat Salido when he purposely misses weight and gets away with throwing about 100 low blows all night.