BoxRec

Is this the new Mayweather v Pacquiao fight?

WelshJack wrote:Is this the new Mayweather v Pacquiao fight?

No.

WelshJack wrote:Is this the new Mayweather v Pacquiao fight?

No

WelshJack wrote:Is this the new Mayweather v Pacquiao fight?

No

Why not?

WelshJack wrote:Why not?

Weight

WelshJack wrote:Is this the new Mayweather v Pacquiao fight?

Technically there both better thinkers than pacquiao, potentially it could be great to watch, but it needs years of building and rigondeaux needs to start learning what the Americans want to watch ! Personally I can't wait for it !

brian13 wrote:

WelshJack wrote:Why not?

Weight

The weight class isn't that attractive to the casual I suppose, but I have less idea who wins Rigondeaux v Lomachenko than Floyd v Pacquiao

Yes

It would be an extremely boring technical fighter between two great boxers

Going on what I saw last night my money would be on Rigondeaux.

Broner could do with getting his butt back down to lightweight!

columbo wrote:Going on what I saw last night my money would be on Rigondeaux.

Really ? Lomochenko's pro debut. He never really got out of 2nd gear and it was over in 4 rounds (nearly 1) against an experienced pro. Don't forget rigondeaux is smaller and 33 now !

jessi wrote:

columbo wrote:Going on what I saw last night my money would be on Rigondeaux.

Really ? Lomochenko's pro debut. He never really got out of 2nd gear and it was over in 4 rounds (nearly 1) against an experienced pro. Don't forget rigondeaux is smaller and 33 now !

It's true it was only his pro debut but he's being fast tracked that quickly that you have to judge him from the off IMO. I just think going on last nights performance Rigondeaux would be too slick. On top of that, im not entirely convinced he'll beat Salido in his next fight.

We shall see, bob arum is talking about next spring for rigondeaux ( which I think is 12 months to early ) but it's one of those fights for the boxing purist ! I could tell my mate about the pair of them in 2 years time and no one will know either of them

I blame George Groves.

Rigondeaux clowns this guy. Lomachenko, for all his effectiveness in the amateurs, gets pushed back too easily, doesn't have a consistent jab, seems to lack some power. Wasn't that impressed. Maybe I'm missing something, like with Golovkin.

Riddick Blowe wrote:Rigondeaux clowns this guy. Lomachenko, for all his effectiveness in the amateurs, gets pushed back too easily, doesn't have a consistent jab, seems to lack some power. Wasn't that impressed. Maybe I'm missing something, like with Golovkin.

Not sure about lacking power, those body shots took everything out of Ramirez. Rigondeaux isn't the type to push fighters back, he prefers to counter on the back foot and Lomachenko has fast hands and throws in 3s and 4s making him difficult to counter. I don't see what there is to miss with Golovkin either, Macklin arguably beat Sturm, gave Martinez trouble for 10 rounds and Golovkin walked all over him and swatted him like a fly inside 3 rounds. No fighter would get up from that body shot.

expe wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:Rigondeaux clowns this guy. Lomachenko, for all his effectiveness in the amateurs, gets pushed back too easily, doesn't have a consistent jab, seems to lack some power. Wasn't that impressed. Maybe I'm missing something, like with Golovkin.

Not sure about lacking power, those body shots took everything out of Ramirez. Rigondeaux isn't the type to push fighters back, he prefers to counter on the back foot and Lomachenko has fast hands and throws in 3s and 4s making him difficult to counter. I don't see what there is to miss with Golovkin either, Macklin arguably beat Sturm, gave Martinez trouble for 10 rounds and Golovkin walked all over him and swatted him like a fly inside 3 rounds. No fighter would get up from that body shot.

Have to agree

For me regardless of you amateur pedigree you need to pay your dues as a pro.

I accept that finding testing opposition will be tough.

But a few gate keepers at least before fighting for belts.

If they put him in with Rigondeaux in January based on what we saw the other night he will be in too deep too

early IMO.

I did enjoy watching him and for a debut it was impressive though has to adjust to the pro game.

You need rounds to do that

Did Lomachenko not beat Rigondeaux as a amateur. Few years back. Sure i seen that or maybe if was someone with a similar name? As for the fight it would be a genuine 50/50 fight but better left for a few years in my eyes best to let them both come up the weights. If Lomachenko keeps winning( which he probably will) I'd much prefer to see him fight Mayweather at Welter!! Believe that's about 6-10 fights away so depends how active Lomachenko is going to be as Mayweather will be retired in 2 years!! I think we have the next superstar here

Riddick Blowe wrote:Rigondeaux clowns this guy. Lomachenko, for all his effectiveness in the amateurs, gets pushed back too easily, doesn't have a consistent jab, seems to lack some power. Wasn't that impressed. Maybe I'm missing something, like with Golovkin.

Lomachenko looked inexperienced, but definitely has a lot of potential. Those body shots were awesome, his handspeed is superb. His mentality looks good, as well. He needs to be able to deal with someone trying to pressure him constantly.

IMO, he should have a few fights, to get used to the pro game, before going for a World title.

Lomachenko is an amazing talent, and what a way to kick off your pro career. Regardless of his incredible amatuer record, his pro debut opponent was still an ambitious choice.

It terms of talent and skill pairing him with Rigondeaux is a "super" fight.

If Lomachenko wins a version of a world title in his 2nd pro fight, the world has to take notice.

Would be so boring, like watching a 12 round amateur fight

I don't think there has ever been a bout between 2 double Olympic champions.