Page 2 of 4
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 13 May 2024, 12:56
by gilgamesh
tiny_acres wrote: ↑13 May 2024, 12:54
gilgamesh wrote: ↑13 May 2024, 12:44
Boxingguru75 wrote: ↑11 May 2024, 23:34
Easily one of the greatest amateurs of all time. Wish he would have turned pro younger. Almost 400 fights plus the ProAm fights. All three his losses were oddly debatable. Fought one armed against Teo and was hardly touched. Teo won first six. Loma looked like he won next six to me. Handles Haney clearly to me. Could have stayed at featherweight and never loss. Mayweather got those decisions with Castillo, Maidana and Delahoya. Hall of Famer easy.
I've always wondered how any fans consider the Mayweather vs De La Hoya fight close.
Mayweather had fights he won with no argument from fans that were closer than that one.
Castillo and Maidana I totally get, I'd even say Castillo was outright robbed, but the De La Hoya fight wasn't close to me past the first 6 rounds.
I scored 9-3 Floyd. I don't see anyway Iscar won.
I scored Maidana fight 8-4 Floyd
I got that one 7-5 Maidana myself, but I've never considered it a robbery because it's at least close, and debatable.
Castillo beat Mayweather 8 rounds to 4 or 7 rounds to 5 all day. People gotta be bending over backward to give Mayweather 6 rounds or more there.
I personally thought he beat Miguel Cotto and Victoriano Sosa by just a 115-113 margin. So those fights to me were closer than the De La Hoya fight, and you never hear a word about 'em.
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 13 May 2024, 13:31
by tiny_acres
gilgamesh wrote: ↑13 May 2024, 12:56
tiny_acres wrote: ↑13 May 2024, 12:54
gilgamesh wrote: ↑13 May 2024, 12:44
I've always wondered how any fans consider the Mayweather vs De La Hoya fight close.
Mayweather had fights he won with no argument from fans that were closer than that one.
Castillo and Maidana I totally get, I'd even say Castillo was outright robbed, but the De La Hoya fight wasn't close to me past the first 6 rounds.
I scored 9-3 Floyd. I don't see anyway Iscar won.
I scored Maidana fight 8-4 Floyd
I got that one 7-5 Maidana myself, but I've never considered it a robbery because it's at least close, and debatable.
Castillo beat Mayweather 8 rounds to 4 or 7 rounds to 5 all day. People gotta be bending over backward to give Mayweather 6 rounds or more there.
I personally thought he beat Miguel Cotto and Victoriano Sosa by just a 115-113 margin. So those fights to me were closer than the De La Hoya fight, and you never hear a word about 'em.
The cotto fight I had 7-5 Floyd.
I will have to watch the Sosa fight because I do not remember it.
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 13 May 2024, 13:38
by gilgamesh
tiny_acres wrote: ↑13 May 2024, 13:31
gilgamesh wrote: ↑13 May 2024, 12:56
tiny_acres wrote: ↑13 May 2024, 12:54
I scored 9-3 Floyd. I don't see anyway Iscar won.
I scored Maidana fight 8-4 Floyd
I got that one 7-5 Maidana myself, but I've never considered it a robbery because it's at least close, and debatable.
Castillo beat Mayweather 8 rounds to 4 or 7 rounds to 5 all day. People gotta be bending over backward to give Mayweather 6 rounds or more there.
I personally thought he beat Miguel Cotto and Victoriano Sosa by just a 115-113 margin. So those fights to me were closer than the De La Hoya fight, and you never hear a word about 'em.
The cotto fight I had 7-5 Floyd.
I will have to watch the Sosa fight because I do not remember it.
I had the same score for Cotto-Floyd.
It's a shame really that Cotto never really gets the credit he deserves for being one of Floyd's tougher fights. He's certainly one of Floyd's 5 toughest fights without question. You don't see many bouts where he lost 5 rounds.
It was a clear win for Mayweather, but Mayweather had to work every step of the way to make sure he got his hand raised.
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 13 May 2024, 17:22
by Jeff_lacy_ko
Mayweather beat dlh i dont see anyway he lost 6 rounds or more there.
Maidana youd have to stretch for floyd to lose. He won that close too
Castillo beat him clean
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 13 May 2024, 17:31
by gregregegg
If’s and buts, but had Loma got the decision in his 3 losses (I don’t particularly think he did but he could have in some eyes) would he be p4p 1…. Same performances, just got the decision. Mabey. He would be top 3 or 4 at least…
Loma is defiantly one of the best of a generation. But he may have been too brave for his own good.
Fighting an overweight champ second fight…
Putting no hydration clauses on the much much bigger tank and teo (just the fact he went to 135 is impressive)…
I love him for that, but at the end of the day those factors will be forgotten… I hate when guys that use contracts to get advantages (tank and canelo) but that will also be forgotten.
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 13 May 2024, 18:43
by Cas
If Loma had got the nod in some of his losses I believe he would be there with the greats and top 10 ATG.
I cant argue in terms of his boxing ability. Loma is so smooth and a true student of boxing, a master technician. He is simply superb and a master boxer. I believe he will be studied for years as one of best boxers to lace the gloves in terms of the 'sweet science'.
Whatever happens he's had a great career. I do wonder had he went pro earlier how things would of worked out.
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 13 May 2024, 19:34
by igor king
Definitely best one in weight classes he has fought.
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 13 May 2024, 19:46
by margaret thatcher
loma despite his boxing skills lacks some elements of ring iq. he has had a poor sense of where he stood in fights and when he needed to push on rather than ease up. he won the 11th big vs haney and then coasted in the 12th, later saying he did so because he thought he'd already won
what type of naive bs is that? does it come from basically never losing a decision in the ams? you should know to never cut any corners when you leave it to the judges. had he won the 12th he woulda at least got a draw. compare this to usyk raising the gears to win the last 3 in both joshua fights to separate himself , or bivol doing it vs canelo. think of a guy like froch going crazy to get to taylor and groves while down on the cards.
vs salido and lopez he barely fought the first entire half. salido was only his 2nd fight so i cut him some slack on pacing, but no excuse vs teo. he legitimately seems to think he outboxed teo's arse and was well ahead on points. confidence can be good, but delusion which leads you to coast when you shouldnt isnt
all loma's losses were legit, and theyre all fights that were winnable for him
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 13 May 2024, 22:51
by dogheart
JackSprocket wrote: ↑12 May 2024, 10:15
OK Ok maybe Mayweather is better. Ward no way. Pacquiao is a drug cheat so I dont rate him. Hopkins yes. Chocolatito is one of the better ones but nowhere near Lomachenko
I rank Chocolatito far above Loma. Look at his record.
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 14 May 2024, 05:48
by Les Norton
I’m a Loma fan, love him.
But playing devils advocate here, how many other boxers with an 18-3 record are in the argument for best fighter of a millennium?
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 14 May 2024, 12:43
by Heldenjaeger
He's the best boxer ever in my opinion. Amateur and professional boxing combined, achievements, resume, HOW he fights and performs in the ring (most important metric for me), it's never been done before.
There might be some guys with better pro records on paper but that doesn't tell you anything about their boxing skill in the ring.
And even is pro record is incredible: 17 world title fights in 21 total pro fights, six of them against undefeated opponents and his three losses were all dodgy decisions to say the least.
Most importantly: The combination of footwork, distance, angles, punch selection, upper body movement and defence, feints, work rate, ring generalship, speed, mental and physical pressure and power at times, I just don't know who else comes close.
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 14 May 2024, 12:48
by gilgamesh
Les Norton wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 05:48
I’m a Loma fan, love him.
But playing devils advocate here, how many other boxers with an 18-3 record are in the argument for best fighter of a millennium?
None of 'em, and Loma's not in that conversation either. There are several guys who's achievements rank well ahead of his frankly, and we're only 24 years into this Millennium.
He may well wind up being in the Top 10 of the Millenium, and you could make the argument he's that already, but he will not go down as THE best of the Millennium.
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 14 May 2024, 12:50
by gilgamesh
margaret thatcher wrote: ↑13 May 2024, 19:46
loma despite his boxing skills lacks some elements of ring iq. he has had a poor sense of where he stood in fights and when he needed to push on rather than ease up. he won the 11th big vs haney and then coasted in the 12th, later saying he did so because he thought he'd already won
what type of naive bs is that? does it come from basically never losing a decision in the ams? you should know to never cut any corners when you leave it to the judges. had he won the 12th he woulda at least got a draw. compare this to usyk raising the gears to win the last 3 in both joshua fights to separate himself , or bivol doing it vs canelo. think of a guy like froch going crazy to get to taylor and groves while down on the cards.
vs salido and lopez he barely fought the first entire half. salido was only his 2nd fight so i cut him some slack on pacing, but no excuse vs teo. he legitimately seems to think he outboxed teo's arse and was well ahead on points. confidence can be good, but delusion which leads you to coast when you shouldnt isnt
all loma's losses were legit, and theyre all fights that were winnable for him
Against Teofimo Lopez he dominated the final stretch, looking like he could've controlled the bout anytime he wanted to almost, but he didn't decide he'd wanted to until he was already so far down on the scorecards that nothing short of a KO was gonna pull it out of the fire.
That fight reminds me a whole lot of Hopkins vs Taylor 1. Where the Champion seemed to think if I come on strong at the end they'll just give it to me.
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 14 May 2024, 15:35
by ironbeard
Heldenjaeger wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 12:43
He's the best boxer ever in my opinion. Amateur and professional boxing combined, achievements, resume, HOW he fights and performs in the ring (most important metric for me), it's never been done before.
There might be some guys with better pro records on paper but that doesn't tell you anything about their boxing skill in the ring.
And even is pro record is incredible: 17 world title fights in 21 total pro fights, six of them against undefeated opponents and his three losses were all dodgy decisions to say the least.
Most importantly: The combination of footwork, distance, angles, punch selection, upper body movement and defence, feints, work rate, ring generalship, speed, mental and physical pressure and power at times, I just don't know who else comes close.
Lomassiah’s three losses are directly attributable to his lack of professional ring generalship. Hopefully he has overcome that lacking and will not revert to giving more fights away for the rest of his career.
Failure to recognize when you are not doing enough to win the majority of individual rounds led to his demise in three matches, not “dodgy decisions.”
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 14 May 2024, 15:41
by Heldenjaeger
ironbeard wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 15:35Lomassiah’s three losses are directly attributable to his lack of professional ring generalship. Hopefully he has overcome that lacking and will not revert to giving more fights away for the rest of his career.
Failure to recognize when you are not doing enough to win the majority of individual rounds led to his demise in three matches, not “dodgy decisions.”
Both of us know that all three of them would be wins for Lomachenko if they took place in Ukraine. Even the BoxRec fan scorecards, mostly filled out by Americans, favor Lomachenko in two of these three fights. The third one is 115-113 for Lopez.
Doesn't matter, it's subjective.
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 14 May 2024, 15:48
by ironbeard
Heldenjaeger wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 15:41
ironbeard wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 15:35Lomassiah’s three losses are directly attributable to his lack of professional ring generalship. Hopefully he has overcome that lacking and will not revert to giving more fights away for the rest of his career.
Failure to recognize when you are not doing enough to win the majority of individual rounds led to his demise in three matches, not “dodgy decisions.”
Both of us know that all three of them would be wins for Lomachenko if they took place in Ukraine. Even the BoxRec fan scorecards, mostly filled out by Americans, favor Lomachenko in two of these three fights. The third one is 115-113 for Lopez.
Doesn't matter, it's subjective.
He has only himself to blame. None of the decisions came close to being robberies. He simply failed to do enough in enough rounds. That is a failure on his part, not the judges.
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 14 May 2024, 15:54
by Heldenjaeger
ironbeard wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 15:48He has only himself to blame. None of the decisions came close to being robberies. He simply failed to do enough in enough rounds. That is a failure on his part, not the judges.
If that's your opinion, so be it. All of them could have gone the other way with someone sitting next to the ring writing different numbers on their pieces of paper and you could turn your argument around and say he did just enough. I don't care if those are wins or losses on his record. I said it before, the best boxer is not defined by his record for me.
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 14 May 2024, 16:06
by ironbeard
Heldenjaeger wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 15:54
ironbeard wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 15:48He has only himself to blame. None of the decisions came close to being robberies. He simply failed to do enough in enough rounds. That is a failure on his part, not the judges.
If that's your opinion, so be it. All of them could have gone the other way with someone sitting next to the ring writing different numbers on their pieces of paper and you could turn your argument around and say he did just enough. I don't care if those are wins or losses on his record. I said it before, the best boxer is not defined by his record for me.
Fair enough. The same can be said for every relatively close decision in the history of boxing. Inoue, Usyk, and Crawford, to name a few, have not made Lomassiah’s mistakes in the ring. They have ALL demonstrated superior ring generalship. I admit, Lomassiah does look prettier in the ring though.
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 14 May 2024, 16:15
by Counter-puncher
ironbeard wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 16:06
Heldenjaeger wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 15:54
ironbeard wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 15:48He has only himself to blame. None of the decisions came close to being robberies. He simply failed to do enough in enough rounds. That is a failure on his part, not the judges.
If that's your opinion, so be it. All of them could have gone the other way with someone sitting next to the ring writing different numbers on their pieces of paper and you could turn your argument around and say he did just enough. I don't care if those are wins or losses on his record. I said it before, the best boxer is not defined by his record for me.
Fair enough. The same can be said for every relatively close decision in the history of boxing. Inoue, Usyk, and Crawford, to name a few, have not made Lomassiah’s mistakes in the ring. They have ALL demonstrated superior ring generalship. I admit, Lomassiah does look prettier in the ring though.
It's the prettiness that gets these guys all warm in the groin NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE *faps furiously*
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 14 May 2024, 16:17
by Counter-puncher
The fact that Inoue and (mostly) Crawford dont leave it to the judges often is exactly why they are that bit better than Loma. They have a extra gear, pure KO power, that he lacks, whilst having at *least* equal ring craft.
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 14 May 2024, 16:18
by Les Norton
gilgamesh wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 12:48
Les Norton wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 05:48
I’m a Loma fan, love him.
But playing devils advocate here, how many other boxers with an 18-3 record are in the argument for best fighter of a millennium?
None of 'em, and Loma's not in that conversation either. There are several guys who's achievements rank well ahead of his frankly, and we're only 24 years into this Millennium.
He may well wind up being in the Top 10 of the Millenium, and you could make the argument he's that already, but he will not go down as THE best of the Millennium.
Agree 100%
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 14 May 2024, 18:46
by Jeff_lacy_ko
Salido beat him. I dont see how its controversial
Sure salido fought dirty. Its a fight. Welcome to the pros.
He lost to lopez - he didnt fight half the fight
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 14 May 2024, 19:21
by ironbeard
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 16:15
ironbeard wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 16:06
Heldenjaeger wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 15:54
If that's your opinion, so be it. All of them could have gone the other way with someone sitting next to the ring writing different numbers on their pieces of paper and you could turn your argument around and say he did just enough. I don't care if those are wins or losses on his record. I said it before, the best boxer is not defined by his record for me.
Fair enough. The same can be said for every relatively close decision in the history of boxing. Inoue, Usyk, and Crawford, to name a few, have not made Lomassiah’s mistakes in the ring. They have ALL demonstrated superior ring generalship. I admit, Lomassiah does look prettier in the ring though.
It's the prettiness that gets these guys all warm in the groin NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE *faps furiously*
Lomassiah has been clearly dominant in the rounds he chooses to do more than pose in. Unfortunately for him and his disciples, he has failed to participate in enough of the rounds in the fights he has lost. Striking a pose does not win rounds, no matter how perty you look doing it.
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 14 May 2024, 19:35
by Jeff_lacy_ko
He was outlanded against lopez in 8 rounds. There is no way loma won that fight i think everyone is remembering wrong
Lopez dominated the 12th too
Re: I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium
Posted: 14 May 2024, 19:44
by ironbeard
Jeff_lacy_ko wrote: ↑14 May 2024, 19:35
He was outlanded against lopez in 8 rounds. There is no way loma won that fight i think everyone is remembering wrong
Lopez dominated the 12th too
