Badhusker wrote:jas80s wrote:crusader wrote:Some people are going too far, but I don't see why Loma has to meet a certain mark for total number of fights.
26-1 with 20 extra wins over weak opposition isn't much better than Loma's current 6-1, and I don't think his relative lack of record padding should be held against him. If he beats top opposition in his next few fights he should be ranked as such.
Good point, does anyone really think he wouldn't have reeled off 20 or so wins against the typical overmatched opponents of varying styles and talents that most great fighters start with? I think we can assume he would have with relative ease. In my opinion, it's only what one does against the 10-15 toughest opponents of their career that end up defining that career.
Why does he need to fight any more? Should we just put him in the hall of fame now? If it was still the amateurs, from the rounds he boxed he would have the 20 or so wins. We all know boxing is a tough sport, and one punch can change everything. Most great fighters have losses, but the ones that make the hall of fame earn it. Lomo has not, no matter how good you think he is. He has an all time great amateur career. So far he is doing very well as a pro. A past his prime Salido beat him. Even if you think Lomo won, a past his prime Salido gave him a close fight.
Who is putting him in the Hall of Fame? Was it me? I don't recall writing that, or even thinking it.
I was just making the point that I assess a career in the ring based largely on how the fighter performed against the toughest opposition available to him over that career span. I don't put a whole lot of stock in a long list of overmatched opponents that a fighter vanquished. Personally, I will be judging him on he does against top fighters, that is what defines careers to me. So far, I'd wager I am where you are for the most part: He looks very good, he is obviously a very talented fighter who seems to have all the tools to be great, and he seems to be awfully well schooled. His record thus far is quite good having defeated a few very good fighters already, but he struggled with Salido, so there is no need to attach some kind of invincibility to him off of a showcase KO of a guy he really should have beaten.
BUT, knocking out 20 overmatched opponents isn't going to put him any closer to the Hall for me either, would it for you? Is Keith Thurman on your HOF short list? He has looked pretty damn good knocking out a long string of guys who had no real shot. His record doesn't do a thing for me, but we often view these things differently.