I think that Lomachenko is the best boxer of the millennium

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

viewtopic.php?t=243118

[Counter-puncher]

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.

[Counter-puncher]

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

[Ezzard]

Just on the eye test and not records I agree he is the best I've seen since 2000.

[Heldenjaeger]

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.

Judging is subjective, obviously. That's why I don't care that much about boxers records. I prefer to look at and try to understand what's going on in the ring, not on paper. A lot of people praise boxers and put them on pound for pound lists just because of results and records. They don't even care about what happens in the ring. That's okay but not how I approach boxing.

Inoue, Crawford and Usyk are great fighters, too, I enjoy watching all of them. Why Lomassiah? Is it that difficult to accept others' opinions?

[ironbeard]

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.

Judging is subjective, obviously. That's why I don't care that much about boxers records. I prefer to look at and try to understand what's going on in the ring, not on paper. A lot of people praise boxers and put them on pound for pound lists just because of results and records. They don't even care about what happens in the ring. That's okay but not how I approach boxing.

Inoue, Crawford and Usyk are great fighters, too, I enjoy watching all of them. Why Lomassiah? Is it that difficult to accept others' opinions?

“Why Lomassiah?”

I came up with that nickname 10 years ago based on people claiming he was the greatest boxer ever before he had done anything at pro level. Fact is, the name still applies.

“Is it that difficult to accept others’ opinions?”

Not at all. I am just expressing mine.

Lomassiah has been overrated since before his first professional fight. It continues to this minute. His greatest flaw over his entire professional career is his failure to comprehensively understand professional boxing.

You can say that wins and losses mean nothing. You can claim that what’s on paper means nothing. That is your opinion, and to a degree I concur with it. But both DO mean something.

Pure eye tests are for dancing competitions. Lomassiah is a consummate dancer. Up to now, he is lacking in the pro boxer mindset: the mindset that understands that if you leave it to the judges there must be no doubt: the mindset that you leave the judges out of it or as little to do as possible.

Lomassiah has legitimately lost 3 fights because of that lacking. He might be the prettiest dancer in the competition, but he is not the best professional boxer in the world today, let alone since 2000.

I accept your opinion. I just disagree, and I do not give a if you accept mine.

[Heldenjaeger]

“Why Lomassiah?”

I came up with that nickname 10 years ago based on people claiming he was the greatest boxer ever before he had done anything at pro level. Fact is, the name still applies.

“Is it that difficult to accept others’ opinions?”

Not at all. I am just expressing mine.

Lomassiah has been overrated since before his first professional fight. It continues to this minute. His greatest flaw over his entire professional career is his failure to comprehensively understand professional boxing.

You can say that wins and losses mean nothing. You can claim that what’s on paper means nothing. That is your opinion, and to a degree I concur with it. But both DO mean something.

Pure eye tests are for dancing competitions. Lomassiah is a consummate dancer. Up to now, he is lacking in the pro boxer mindset: the mindset that understands that if you leave it to the judges there must be no doubt: the mindset that you leave the judges out of it or as little to do as possible.

Lomassiah has legitimately lost 3 fights because of that lacking. He might be the prettiest dancer in the competition, but he is not the best professional boxer in the world today, let alone since 2000.

I accept your opinion. I just disagree, and I do not give a if you accept mine.

No, I don't think the record is completely irrelevant and I agree that wins and losses mean something, it's just not the most important metric in my opinion. Just seeing a number of wins or losses on a record doesn't tell you much about a boxer.

And I agree with one more thing, Lomachenko is not the best professional boxer in the world today. He is old, his body is breaking down and you can clearly see that in the ring.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Loma threw 321 punches against lopez

In a dreadful win agaisnt baldozar mayweather threw 458

John ruiz threw more punches than this. Its absurd the lomachenko fans think he somehow won this fight. He lost. Easily.

[gilgamesh]

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

It's one of those things where Lomachenko lost more rounds, but did more damage. In rounds 8 thru 11 he was dominating the f*ck out of Lopez. Rounds 1 thru 7 were slow, and Lopez won every one of them, and yes Lopez did well in the 12th too.

As far as damage done I would bet Lomachenko had Lopez hurting more the next day than Lomachenko was hurting, but for whatever reason Lomachenko and his team seemed to think kicking it into gear in the 8th round was a winning strategy, and it definitely wasn't.

[gilgamesh]

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.

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.

I never saw the Haney fight so I can't comment, but the Lopez decision only could've went Loma's way if you're just giving him rounds he absolutely didn't win.

You'd have to be blatantly wishing for a Lomachenko decision win to score that fight for him.

Salido I remember similarly, where Lomachenko was coming on strong toward the end of the fight, and looking like he may well stop Salido if he had another round or two, but he didn't so he lost.

None of them were embarrassing losses, but they were losses.

[gilgamesh]

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

Tell me. Which fight did Pacquiao fail a drug test for?

Or do you just not rank any fighter that is rumored to have taken something?

[Heldenjaeger]

You'd have to be blatantly wishing for a Lomachenko decision win to score that fight for him.

I think Andre Ward scored it a draw (114-114) and that's certainly closer to the reality of the fight than 119-109, 117-111 and 116-112.

Steve Weisfeld ironically also scored Lopez vs Ortiz 117-111 and both Julie Lederman and Steve Weisfeld scored the first round of Lopez v Commey 10-9. Not that it matters, just tells us paper lies because it's made by humans.

[gilgamesh]

You'd have to be blatantly wishing for a Lomachenko decision win to score that fight for him.

I think Andre Ward scored it a draw (114-114) and that's certainly closer to the reality of the fight than 119-109, 117-111 and 116-112.

Steve Weisfeld ironically also scored Lopez vs Ortiz 117-111 and both Julie Lederman and Steve Weisfeld scored the first round of Lopez v Commey 10-9. Not that it matters, just tells us paper lies because it's made by humans.

I had it 115-113 for Lopez, I could see 116-112 for Lopez.

I can't see it any closer than I had it. There are 7 rounds in that fight where Loma just absolutely didn't do sh*t to win, and that's why he didn't.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

Most of the press and rbr had it 116 to 112 lopez which is correct. Lomachenko lost. There was no controversy sans Lederman bs scorecard

[giacomino]

Most of the press and rbr had it 116 to 112 lopez which is correct. Lomachenko lost. There was no controversy sans Lederman bs scorecard

And with fanboys. That's the way it often is when the favorite loses. He lost to Salido too despite the hype. Haney I could go either way, but again, Loma could have done more to win and didn't.
This whole thread is silly, coming off Loma beating an opponent who barely touched Haney over 24 rounds

[margaret thatcher]

the lopez fight was super easy to score, nearly every round was clear

give loma the swing round and he loses 115-113, give it to lopez and it's 116-112

ya cardds were too wide, but only 1 winner, and it was the guy who threw 30 punches more a round than loma

and being able to figure out an opponent and adjust your approach in time to edge a closse fight is a hallmark of the greats. had someone like andre ward been in loma's body, with his exact same abilities but a different boxing mind, he wouldnt have lost all the 3 fights he did

all 3 fights loma lost, he had the skills and physical abilities to win. he did not have a good approach and/or lacked some confidence to be as aggressive as he shouldve. in two of them he says he intentionally coasted cuz he thought he had it wrapped up. what nonsense is that?

the greats among the greats dont mismanage themselves or take their foot off as much as loma has. he is an excellent fighter, beats 'average' world champs and contenders easily. been in the p4p convo for years. had a historic speed run. prob will be a hall of famer. but he's not near #1 when compared to the absolute best over the last 25 years

[margaret thatcher]

and i do agree that loma is smallish for 135. pretty much everyone he's fought there has been taller, longer reached, and wider framed. i have never thought it was his best weight, and i believe his top showings were walters at 130 and russell at 126. roman martinez at 130 his best ko too.

but when he's spent a large deal of his career there, by his own choice, you have to take him as he is at the weight and consider it heavily when rating his career.

[Heldenjaeger]

had someone like andre ward been in loma's body, with his exact same abilities but a different boxing mind, he wouldnt have lost all the 3 fights he did

I think having Ward's name would have helped a lot more than having him in Lomachenko's body

And you're, right, Andre Ward wouldn't have lost all three decisions. Not because what happens in the ring but outside the ring. I say it over and over again, paper lies and you bring up just another perfect example of a fighter with a "perfect" record that really only exists because of bad judging.

There is no perfect record in boxing without careful matchmaking and corruption.

[ironbeard]

had someone like andre ward been in loma's body, with his exact same abilities but a different boxing mind, he wouldnt have lost all the 3 fights he did

I think having Ward's name would have helped a lot more than having him in Lomachenko's body

And you're, right, Andre Ward wouldn't have lost all three decisions. Not because what happens in the ring but outside the ring. I say it over and over again, paper lies and you bring up just another perfect example of a fighter with a "perfect" record that really only exists because of bad judging.

There is no perfect record in boxing without careful matchmaking and corruption.

Lomassiah lost all three fights. Get over it.

[gilgamesh]

had someone like andre ward been in loma's body, with his exact same abilities but a different boxing mind, he wouldnt have lost all the 3 fights he did

I think having Ward's name would have helped a lot more than having him in Lomachenko's body

And you're, right, Andre Ward wouldn't have lost all three decisions. Not because what happens in the ring but outside the ring. I say it over and over again, paper lies and you bring up just another perfect example of a fighter with a "perfect" record that really only exists because of bad judging.

There is no perfect record in boxing without careful matchmaking and corruption.

Andre Ward never really got a questionable decision other than the 1st Kovalev bout. The rest of his wins were crystal clear.

The referee giving him a TKO in the 2nd Kovalev bout instead of a point deduction for repeated low blows was also highly questionable.

That being said, even if you take the Kovalev fights completely off of Ward's record, or if the result was flipped and he had lost those fights instead of won them. He's still got a better record and career than Lomachenko IMO.

Because frankly I don't think the Kovalev fights boost Ward's standing historically one bit, but even if you discount those. He still won the WBSS Tournament at Super Middleweight beating pretty much every noteworthy contender in the division at the time in the process, and has to be considered one of the very best ever in the history of that division.

I don't think there's a weight class you can point to where Lomachenko would be considered one of the 10 best ever in it.

Andre Ward in my opinion is #1 at Super Middleweight, and couldn't be argued as being any lower than 3 even by the biggest hater, lest he look like a fool who doesn't know Boxing.

[gregregegg]

The papa loma team dare to be great… for Loma it hasn’t really worked, he is great but has lost some fights that make his record and achievements look significantly less than what they are…

Usyk is the other side of the coin, it’s all worked out for him. Few scares, an MD and two SDs (he clearly won all 3 I think), but got there.

I am a massive fan of both, and really admire being willing to be the away or b side or give away weight or whatever just make big fights…

[ironbeard]

Usyk just demonstrated what it takes to be considered the best boxer of the millennium. He has what Lomassiah lacks.

Usyk is the undisputed world’s champion of all of boxing. There is nothing subjective about it. He has done it before our eyes v a giant of a man in the best shape of his career, fighting at the top of his game.

Usyk is The Man.

[Mexi-Box]

Lomachenko just doesn't seem to have the will of Usyk. Look at the RBR. I thought Usyk was done after the 4th. Fury was in a rhythm, but he turned it around.

Lomachenko sat in the middle of the ring for 6 rounds and was outboxed by Lopez. He didn't even win the 12th when he got into a rhythm because he was so afraid to get stopped. Imagine Usyk sitting back after Fury hurt him.

Lomachenko will be a highlight reel legend like Valero, not an actual legend like Usyk.

[gilgamesh]

Lomachenko just doesn't seem to have the will of Usyk. Look at the RBR. I thought Usyk was done after the 4th. Fury was in a rhythm, but he turned it around.

Lomachenko sat in the middle of the ring for 6 rounds and was outboxed by Lopez. He didn't even win the 12th when he got into a rhythm because he was so afraid to get stopped. Imagine Usyk sitting back after Fury hurt him.

Lomachenko will be a highlight reel legend like Valero, not an actual legend like Usyk.

Lomachenko's legacy blows away Valero's.

[gilgamesh]

And now I'll say it, I think Bud is waaay overrated.

Canelo is close but not better than Loma, I think from the ones mentioned are Floyd and Inoue. Maybe Hopkins.

Maggie give us your 2000 top five!

I actually made a thread about this recently in the Boxing History section, but very few people responded. I guess that section of the forum doesn't get a lot of looks.

But yeah. Since 2000, I'd have the Top 10 like this.

1. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
2. Manny Pacquiao
3. Bernard Hopkins
4. Saul "Canelo" Alvarez
5. Oleksandr Usyk
6. Terence Crawford
7. Andre Ward
8. Juan Manuel Marquez
9. Gennady Golovkin
10. Roman "Chocolatito" Gonzalez

Lomachenko in fairness to him is certainly not far behind this list. If he were to defeat Tank or Shakur Stevenson, he'd definitely have to enter into the list then. Probably ahead of Golovkin.

With the results of today's bout in mind. Usyk if he were to retire off of this fight would surely now go down as no lower than 3, and possibly as high as #2. If he defeats Fury again, and racks up another title defense or 2, I could see an argument for making him #1.

But Usyk's achievements have been incredible for sure.