Most people thought Lomachenko deserved to lose by a 116-112 margin (losing the first seven and the final rounds).
Even though I wholeheartedly believe that CompuBox punch stats shouldn’t be used to score fights, they accurately illustrate Lomachenko’s poor work-rate during the rounds most observers believe he deserved to lose.
And any fighter that believes a draw is warranted shouldn’t make accusations about corruption and dishonesty if the result doesn’t go their way.
• “If it’s a draw we use the unspoken rule of boxing, we look for rounds 10-12. I won two of them. It’s two to one.”
That “unspoken” rule doesn’t exist. It’s a bizarrely preposterous claim to make.
• “They knew that the possibility of a knockout from my side was around 20%.”
What’s that got to do with things? And why 20%? Why not 17% or 23%? Another bizarre unfounded claim!
• “What does it say? It’s about being bribed. There was nothing about honest judging.”
Only Julie Lederman’s scorecard seemed strange. She shouldn’t have awarded rounds 8, 9 and 10 to Lopez.
The other official scorecards were perfectly fine and accurately reflected the thoughts of the vast majority of those who watched the fight.
And like I said before, Lomachenko shouldn’t make libellous accusations of bribery and corruption due to the outcome of a fight he only thought he drew.
Apart from Julie Lederman’s scorecard, there was nothing “crooked” about the other two.
It seems the media and most people that frequent this forum only gave Lomachenko four rounds (8, 9, 10 and 11). There’s only one round discrepancy.
If Lomachenko was awarded the victory by a well-deserved 116-112 margin, would you venomously criticise him for not granting Lopez an immediate rematch, especially if Teofimo had accused the judges of corruption and bribery?Thomastearns wrote: ↑22 Dec 2020, 13:21Lopez's words mean absolutely nothing unless he's prepared to go again.
It should be quite clear to everyone that he isn't. Hence, it's better for him if he keeps his mouth shut.
Or else everyone will then see what kind of man he really is.
It’s a genuine question, because I’m wondering whether you’re choosing to apply double-standards based on your fanaticism of Lomachenko.
The right man won.Stanny Onis wrote: ↑23 Dec 2020, 12:42The fix was definitely in as you can see from that particularly awful scorecard.
This is professional boxing. It isn’t the amateurs or the WSB, whereby the duration of bouts only lasts for three to five rounds.Stanny Onis wrote: ↑23 Dec 2020, 12:42Loma started far too late. But when he did let his hands go in rounds 7-11 he was the clear superior better fighter.
Lomachenko will be 33 years of age for his next outing, which means he’s already past his physical prime.
It’s very likely that he’s unable to maintain a high punch rate for twelve consecutive rounds.
Put it this way, Lomachenko tried his best to raise his game and stage a late rally during the twelfth round against Lopez, but instead, he was outworked by an athletically superior opponent ten years his junior.
It wasn’t as if the Ukrainian coasted during the final round and willingly gave it to the American!
Fighting in spurts and only showing brief glimpses of brilliance is meaningless if he doesn’t have the engine to win more than six rounds in contests that last the distance.
