"Would Boxing Benefit if More Fighters Fought Like Lomachenko?"

[DA1]

https://www.BS.com/boxing-bene ... ko--128081

Vasiliy Lomachenko could make history if he claims his third world title in just 12 fights when he faces Jorge Linares in New York on Saturday night. Lomachenko’s highly decorated amateur career (396-1), two Olympic gold medals and easy transition from amateurs to the pro ranks has put him on course to establish himself as one of the greatest boxers of the modern era in an incredibly short time.

Lomachenko’s pro career started in 2013 and in less than five years time he will have fought 12 times and squared off with some of the best opponents possible across featherweight, junior lightweight and lightweight. The sky is the limit for the 30-year-old, who many anticipate will bump up another weight class in search of competition. In an interview with ESPN, Lomachenko made it clear that he’s not here to pad his record and wants the toughest fights possible.

"The skills of boxing are not forever. The history is forever," he told ESPN’s Dan Rafael. "That's what it means to me to make history. Money, titles, belts -- you're not going to take with you when you die. But the history will stay forever. That's why I decided to go the history route, not the money. You can have the money today but you might not have money tomorrow. But history says forever.

"It's hard to tell what the history will turn into, but what I want is big challenges. I want big names. I want to win, win, win. The life of an athlete, of a boxer, is very short so I don't have time to waste doing tune-up fights. I want the best fights. I want to get the most I can out of my short boxing life.”

Not every fighter can be like Lomachenko but is it possible that it could be more beneficial for the sport if fighters didn’t spend years padding their record and squared off with the best opponents available?

Obviously, some fighters need more professional seasoning than others before jumping into the deep water with more talented opponents. So, not every fighter can chase three world titles in just 12 fights. However, do we really need fighters to take on 20-25 opponents before they get a crack at a world title? It’s the one thing that the UFC does well, almost to a fault, and boxing could benefit from if they adopted this approach to the sport.

[Continued in the link]

[jamamb]

it would make it more interesting to me. one of my favourite type of match ups is when really talented looking but fairly less experienced guys (as pros) fight good opponents with much more experience. those type of fast moving step ups really intrigue me

and of course keeping with high level ambitious matches once the guy is established is great too

some clown on here suggested that loma hasnt earned his dues because he didnt spend 20 fights knocking over cans before fighting for titles. that type of thinking is toxic imo. it just encourages trash fights

[Thomastearns]

Obviously Lomachenko's a boxer with a vision.
Who else talks like that?

Even GGG has bowed to pragmatism and is now going for the money first.

Lomachenko's going for greatness first.

[DA1]

I thought the article's entire premise was flawed and short-sighted:

1. Not every fighter can just jump into a title fight in their 2nd or 6th or even 12th fight. Your typical Mexican, American and British pro fighter with only 10-30 amateur bouts does not deserve a world title shot. He would get destroyed by the actual elites. These boxers jump straight into the professionals and have to work their way up, gaining experience as they go up.

2. Not every fighter is even trying to pad their record. Even your typical Thai champion will fight 3 to 6 times a year because fighting is a full time job there. Whether that's boxing, kickboxing or Muay Thai. A fight will pay the bills for 2 months but then he has the next 2 months to worry about. So THAT is the reason they will have so many stay-busy fights against cans. Its to collect that paycheck, the main point of him getting into professional boxing.

3. Someone like a Loma has an extensive amateur record, a winning amateur record, that is the reason why he and others like him can make the fast transition to the top. They've already proven themselves. You need to have well-over 200 fights for us to safely say this guy is world-level. Its not being fast-tracked when you spent decades in hundreds of bouts, and have the accolades that prove your talent level.

4. It assumes anyone can just GET a tough fight. There's tons of fighters around the world, particularly outside of the US/Mexico/UK, who struggle to get good (i.e., famous) opponents. You need those opponents to climb the rankings, and it's climbing rankings that you get titleshots. But fighters in foreign countries struggle to get that. Not everybody's trying to pad their record if all they can get is mediocre opposition. It is worst for fighters in Africa, South America, Russia and Asia.

Even your average European fighter struggles to get good opponents; France and Spain have large boxing scenes, but for many of them the EBU is their highest achievement. Because the EBU enforces mandatories, forcing the fighter from Britain or Germany or elsewhere to fight their mandatory; but once they move beyond the EBU and enter the world stage, then money and politics becomes a stumbling block. If they lose a title shot once, you might never see them again. Whereas your average Mexican, US/Rican or Brit will get 2 or 3 cracks at the title. Just 2 weeks ago Mohamed Mimoune (WBC #6) called out Jose Ramirez, and yet, yesterday it comes out Ramirez is going to fight #21 ranked Danny O'Connor instead. SMH.

5. Someone like a Loma, who has 2 Olympic gold medals, is obviously going to get himself great promotion and management clamoring for them. Thereby pushing him center-stage and to the level he belongs, especially so in today's age. Not every amateur athlete would even get that opportunity. They're forced to work their way up. And as cited in (4), getting in the game doesn't mean the tough opponents would even want to fight you. Nobody wants to lose their standing by losing to a guy with no fame/name himself.

[Best Coast]

Obviously Lomachenko's a boxer with a vision.
Who else talks like that?

Even GGG has bowed to pragmatism and is now going for the money first.

Lomachenko's going for greatness first.

Sorry amigo but GGG has NEVER been ambitious. The excuse has always been made for Golovkin that he wasnt getting tough matchups because all the "best guys were avoiding him". But truth is that GGG's resume has been embarrassing shallow no matter what the reason is.

A quick review of GGG's resume shows that he was fighting 7-loss tomato cans like Javier Mamani in his 15th bout, untested scrubs like Nilson Tapia in his 20th bout, slightly above average guys like Gabriel Rosado in his 25th bout and untested laughers like Osumanu Adama in his 30th bout.

TOUGHEST OPPONENTS ON GGG's RESUME:
Canelo Alvarez
Daniel Jacobs
...
...
...
David Lemieux
Kell Brook (up from welter)
Martin Murray
Daniel Geale
Vanes Martirosyan
...
...
...
Matthew Macklin
Kassim Ouma (faded version, 6 years after losing title)
Willie Monroe Jr

[world ranked]

Obviously Lomachenko's a boxer with a vision.
Who else talks like that?

Even GGG has bowed to pragmatism and is now going for the money first.

Lomachenko's going for greatness first.

Sorry amigo but GGG has NEVER been ambitious. The excuse has always been made for Golovkin that he wasnt getting tough matchups because all the "best guys were avoiding him". But truth is that GGG's resume has been embarrassing shallow no matter what the reason is.

A quick review of GGG's resume shows that he was fighting 7-loss tomato cans like Javier Mamani in his 15th bout, untested scrubs like Nilson Tapia in his 20th bout, slightly above average guys like Gabriel Rosado in his 25th bout and untested laughers like Osumanu Adama in his 30th bout.

TOUGHEST OPPONENTS ON GGG's RESUME:
Canelo Alvarez
Daniel Jacobs
...
...
...
David Lemieux
Kell Brook (up from welter)
Martin Murray
Daniel Geale
Vanes Martirosyan
...
...
...
Matthew Macklin
Kassim Ouma (faded version, 6 years after losing title)
Willie Monroe Jr

What fight was there that he didnt take at middleweight?

[boxing_rocks]

Obviously Lomachenko's a boxer with a vision.
Who else talks like that?

Even GGG has bowed to pragmatism and is now going for the money first.

Lomachenko's going for greatness first.

Sorry amigo but GGG has NEVER been ambitious. The excuse has always been made for Golovkin that he wasnt getting tough matchups because all the "best guys were avoiding him". But truth is that GGG's resume has been embarrassing shallow no matter what the reason is.

A quick review of GGG's resume shows that he was fighting 7-loss tomato cans like Javier Mamani in his 15th bout, untested scrubs like Nilson Tapia in his 20th bout, slightly above average guys like Gabriel Rosado in his 25th bout and untested laughers like Osumanu Adama in his 30th bout.

TOUGHEST OPPONENTS ON GGG's RESUME:
Canelo Alvarez
Daniel Jacobs
...
...
...
David Lemieux
Kell Brook (up from welter)
Martin Murray
Daniel Geale
Vanes Martirosyan
...
...
...
Matthew Macklin
Kassim Ouma (faded version, 6 years after losing title)
Willie Monroe Jr

What fight was there that he didnt take at middleweight?

There is no point to argue with an idiot who doesn't know or pretends to not know Golovkin's Universum story where they kept Sturm away from him and weren't giving him any decent fights in general.

[Boxing Prospect]

Inoue, Tanaka, Lu Bin all seem to be going this type of route, Ioka did... Muangsurin...