Can somone explain a little Lomachenko

[LasPalmas]

I do not follow much outside the heavys, and just want to know about this guy, why he is already considered a p4p top ten when he has had so few fights? I understand he is already a champion which I know can happen if somone is good enough, but he also has a loss on his record? Was it in some what controversial circumstances? If any one can some it all up for me I would appreciate!

[Enlightened-One]

Most of your answers are contained in this thread:

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... lomachenko

The same topic keeps getting discussed by this forum... to the point that it's become a little like "Groundhog Day."

[crusader]

He outclassed Russell, Walters, Martinez, and Sosa, which is pretty impressive. His loss was in only his second pro bout, he got low blowed continually, and it was still a very close fight against a far more experienced, multiple time champion. Going by the eye test, he's clearly very good, and his footwork is superb. He was also an ATG amateur with 2 Olympic golds and numerous world titles between the junior and senior level.

I dont see why being 25-1 with a bunch of typical up and comer filler would make his resume stronger.

[Blodhemn]

The era in which a *loss* on your record erases everything.

Everyone in the history of the sport would have a loss on their record if they fought a Salido caliber opponent in their second pro fight.

[KiwiRider]

Best to search him out on you tube.
Check out his speed, reasonable power and especially his footwork. One of the best movers on the scene today. His combinations show real variety.
So good he struggles to get opponents.
Age will eventually catch up with him, but he has enough skill to make up for dwindling speed for a while.

[Evander]

Way I saw him on tele and the way I saw him live have comparisons.
Overall he's about a minimum 6.5 to a 7 borderline 7.5 that's the best short version based off opponents, depends on the who he's competing against and their capabilities and willingness.

[Tarkus]

I do not follow much outside the heavys, and just want to know about this guy, why he is already considered a p4p top ten when he has had so few fights? I understand he is already a champion which I know can happen if somone is good enough, but he also has a loss on his record? Was it in some what controversial circumstances? If any one can some it all up for me I would appreciate!

Loss was in the 2nd pro fights on judges scorecards and was debatable. Since then he won two titles in two weight classes. He had seven world championship wins. Four wins against reining, former or future world champions. Two high profile wins, against Russel and Walters. He is dominant and considered unbeatable in his weight class or one above. And of course he looks absolutely amazing on the eye.

[victor-romeo]

He outclassed Russell, Walters, Martinez, and Sosa, which is pretty impressive. His loss was in only his second pro bout, he got low blowed continually, and it was still a very close fight against a far more experienced, multiple time champion. Going by the eye test, he's clearly very good, and his footwork is superb. He was also an ATG amateur with 2 Olympic golds and numerous world titles between the junior and senior level.

I dont see why being 25-1 with a bunch of typical up and comer filler would make his resume stronger.

Also Salido didn't make weight for the fight which gave him a huge competitive advantage. None the less the Salido fight gave Lomachenko a Phd in pro boxing.

Loma is on the verge of being one of the best fighters in the last 40 years, right there with Leonard, Hagler, Mayweather , Roy Jones, etc, his skills are already jaw dropping and his resume ain't bad, he needs a couple more prime time notches on his belt and he will be there with the all time greats.

[In the know 85]

He's on another level.. that's why..

[boxing_rocks]

Can somone explain a little Lomachenko

Yes, he is little.

[greg]

..Lomachenko made me interested in lower weight divisions..