Re: Lomachenko
Posted: 03 Jan 2021, 06:08
So Lomachenko is the best because certain people "say" that he is .. and not because he's accomplished things that "prove" as much?
I notice that when someone questions the media's assessment of Lomachenko, all the replies become ad hominem. They constantly attack the poster instead of addressing the argument.
Lomachenko has been a professional fighter for 8 years and has 14 wins with two losses.
That record, by ANY standard, is dismal. That's a club fighter/journeyman's record.
No Hall of Famer or Boxing legend has anywhere near as terrible a record as that.
There's no defending it.
And when one factors in that both Lomachenko's losses came against men who were NOT elite fighters, the case to try to make Lomachenko appear as an "elite::: begins to crumble.
Without a doubt, :Lomachenko has a flashy and seemingly impressive skillset .. very reminiscent of Naseem Hamed.
However like Hamed, Lomachenko's rise in the sport fizzled. Hamed at least padded his record in Europe fighting bums for years. Lomachenko didn't even put in that work but still got beaten in his second pro match and then again in his 16th match.
No self-respecting historian is going to put his seal of approval on nominating a man with a 14-2-0 record over 8 years for the Hall of Fame.
In recent years, certain outlets have DESEPRATELY worked to change the criteria for greatness with silly notions like the P4P list(where every fighter who wins their last fight gets a spot) and the Gatti-list(which celebrates mediocre talent that shows heart and determination).
Winning is winning .. but when one has 16 fights after almost a decade as a pro, then it becomes clear that they are being protected and treated with kid gloves. If Wilder, Spence, Crawford, Davis, Haney, either Charlo or Canelo only had 16 fights after 8 years, they'd be harshly criticized and eviscerated in the media.
The world should have learned its lesson with Naseem Hamed, but clearly it didn't. Ignorance has an expiration date in some circles and boxing is back to being stupid as it pertains to weighing and measuring hyped-up fighters who have little substance.
Hate it or love it .. Lomachenko is only an elite fighter when weighed with EYE TESTS .. not actual accomplishments or milestones.
The man has no longevity at the top. The man has no impressive amount of title defenses. The man rarely fights the #1 fighter to be seen as the #1 fighter. And Lomachenko has lost to men that according to the way he's been ranked and measured, should never have beaten him outside of a puncher's chance.
Yet they did.
I like Lomachenko, but he's just not good enough to be called a Hall of Fame fighter. He hasn't done anything worthy of being anything outside of a gatekeeper.
Even the titlists he's faced thus far haven't been elite fighters.
And one does not become the best without fighting the best.
One does not win a foot race by passing the man in 4th or 5th position.
And when you tell this to Lomachenko zealots, they attack the commenter and not the message because they have NOTHING to refute the truth except pure emotion .. which they then use to insult the messenger.
I notice that when someone questions the media's assessment of Lomachenko, all the replies become ad hominem. They constantly attack the poster instead of addressing the argument.
Lomachenko has been a professional fighter for 8 years and has 14 wins with two losses.
That record, by ANY standard, is dismal. That's a club fighter/journeyman's record.
No Hall of Famer or Boxing legend has anywhere near as terrible a record as that.
There's no defending it.
And when one factors in that both Lomachenko's losses came against men who were NOT elite fighters, the case to try to make Lomachenko appear as an "elite::: begins to crumble.
Without a doubt, :Lomachenko has a flashy and seemingly impressive skillset .. very reminiscent of Naseem Hamed.
However like Hamed, Lomachenko's rise in the sport fizzled. Hamed at least padded his record in Europe fighting bums for years. Lomachenko didn't even put in that work but still got beaten in his second pro match and then again in his 16th match.
No self-respecting historian is going to put his seal of approval on nominating a man with a 14-2-0 record over 8 years for the Hall of Fame.
In recent years, certain outlets have DESEPRATELY worked to change the criteria for greatness with silly notions like the P4P list(where every fighter who wins their last fight gets a spot) and the Gatti-list(which celebrates mediocre talent that shows heart and determination).
Winning is winning .. but when one has 16 fights after almost a decade as a pro, then it becomes clear that they are being protected and treated with kid gloves. If Wilder, Spence, Crawford, Davis, Haney, either Charlo or Canelo only had 16 fights after 8 years, they'd be harshly criticized and eviscerated in the media.
The world should have learned its lesson with Naseem Hamed, but clearly it didn't. Ignorance has an expiration date in some circles and boxing is back to being stupid as it pertains to weighing and measuring hyped-up fighters who have little substance.
Hate it or love it .. Lomachenko is only an elite fighter when weighed with EYE TESTS .. not actual accomplishments or milestones.
The man has no longevity at the top. The man has no impressive amount of title defenses. The man rarely fights the #1 fighter to be seen as the #1 fighter. And Lomachenko has lost to men that according to the way he's been ranked and measured, should never have beaten him outside of a puncher's chance.
Yet they did.
I like Lomachenko, but he's just not good enough to be called a Hall of Fame fighter. He hasn't done anything worthy of being anything outside of a gatekeeper.
Even the titlists he's faced thus far haven't been elite fighters.
And one does not become the best without fighting the best.
One does not win a foot race by passing the man in 4th or 5th position.
And when you tell this to Lomachenko zealots, they attack the commenter and not the message because they have NOTHING to refute the truth except pure emotion .. which they then use to insult the messenger.
