BoxRec

Bob Arum has confirmed that a deal has been reached for Lomachenko to challenge Orlando Salido for his WBO belt on March 1st.

http://ringtv.craveonline.com/blog/1824 ... or-march-1

Lomachenko's amatuer record is awe inspiring. Two Olympic golds in two different weight classes, two world amatuer championships titles. He ended his amatuer career with a 396-1 record, his only defeat coming in the 2007 world amatuer championship final to Salimov. He went on to avenge that defeat twice.

There can be no doubting Lomachenko is a top quality operator. He did look good in his pro debut against Ramirez, Salido however is a big step up in class, he's a tough, tough world class operator who has mixed it with the very best around his weight class. He may have 14 losses on his record, but a bit like Johnny Nelson it took him a while to find his way in the pro game, once he got going he proved himself a quality fighter and has only lost to the very best over the past 10 years (Marquez, Gamboa, Garcia). During that time he beat the likes of Guerrero and knocked out Juan Manuel Lopez twice. He's a good world class fighter and very big ask for Lomachenko in only his 2nd pro fight. A bad loss here could seriously set him back or potentially even ruin his pro career if he gets drawn into the trenches and hurt badly. Its not out of the question IMO, i dont think it is worth the risk to throw him in at this level so early in his pro career. He should be given time to adjust to the pro game.

Win or loose i think its a bad move by his handlers to take such a risky fight at this early stage. Its totally unnecesary, poor management IMO.

It begs the question, is this fight coming to early for Lomachenko, is he being rushed unnecesarily?

What do you think?

I agree with your points. I would say it's too early. However...if he isn't proving to someone that he is capable of doing this, by sparring hard against world class fighters for instance, or having closed door bouts over 12 rounds, why are his management and Bob throwing him to the wolves. Salido is not a fighter to trifle with, he's not in the same class as Lomo technically or talent wise but the pro experience he has is priceless. This has to be a calculated move to raise Lomo to stardom almost overnight. They must have immense confidence in him.

If Lomo wins it will be some achievement. The man (or his team?) obviously relishes a challenge. Can't see him ducking anyone if he gets through his next few fights.

If he beats Salido, what next??

To answer the question, Lomachenko wanted this fight straight away. He wanted to fight for a world in his first fight but because he wasnt ranked it was impossible! Top rank didnt want to do it but he would only sign for them if they met his demands.

columbo wrote:To answer the question, Lomachenko wanted this fight straight away. He wanted to fight for a world in his first fight but because he wasnt ranked it was impossible! Top rank didnt want to do it but he would only sign for them if they met his demands.

Some confidence he has. Do you think it's the right move?

Tomasino wrote:

columbo wrote:To answer the question, Lomachenko wanted this fight straight away. He wanted to fight for a world in his first fight but because he wasnt ranked it was impossible! Top rank didnt want to do it but he would only sign for them if they met his demands.

Some confidence he has. Do you think it's the right move?

Probably not in all honesty as Salido is a tough bastard who will make it gruelling! However as a boxing fan used to prospects being mollycoddled for too long *for once that's not meant as a dig at brook either, just mean generally* I kind of admire it! Saying that though, i think there needs to be a balance. You dont need the amount of prospects normally have before stepping up but to fight for a world title in your second fight against a guy like Salido is a step too far in the other direction. He should of fought some other fringe world class operators and then if he came through alright then go for this fight.

I wish they would put the likes of Campbell and Joshua in at a higher level, obviously not world level but surely fringe British level rather than the guys they are currently fighting.

WelshJack wrote:I wish they would put the likes of Campbell and Joshua in at a higher level, obviously not world level but surely fringe British level rather than the guys they are currently fighting.

same here. Joshua would be ready for likes of Tom Dallas etc, now IMO.

columbo wrote:To answer the question, Lomachenko wanted this fight straight away. He wanted to fight for a world in his first fight but because he wasnt ranked it was impossible! Top rank didnt want to do it but he would only sign for them if they met his demands.

Obviously he believes in himself. I hope he has a good team around him and not just a bunch of idiots bigging him up.

Under those demands its hard to point the finger at Arum. Had he not accepted the terms somebody else would have. If he loses its tough luck nd a gamble lost, if he wins he's got a potential superstar in the making.

ALI wrote:

columbo wrote:To answer the question, Lomachenko wanted this fight straight away. He wanted to fight for a world in his first fight but because he wasnt ranked it was impossible! Top rank didnt want to do it but he would only sign for them if they met his demands.

Obviously he believes in himself. I hope he has a good team around him and not just a bunch of idiots bigging him up.

Under those demands its hard to point the finger at Arum. Had he not accepted the terms somebody else would have. If he loses its tough luck nd a gamble lost, if he wins he's got a potential superstar in the making.

I think his dad trains him. Saying that... a lot of these top prospects with top amateur credentials are being matched tough ... http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer .... http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

ALI wrote:

columbo wrote:To answer the question, Lomachenko wanted this fight straight away. He wanted to fight for a world in his first fight but because he wasnt ranked it was impossible! Top rank didnt want to do it but he would only sign for them if they met his demands.

Obviously he believes in himself. I hope he has a good team around him and not just a bunch of idiots bigging him up.

Under those demands its hard to point the finger at Arum. Had he not accepted the terms somebody else would have. If he loses its tough luck nd a gamble lost, if he wins he's got a potential superstar in the making.

He's fairly astute himself by all accounts. It's not like he's a bragging eighteen year old with bigger balls than he'll ever have again, he's mid-twenties, rational and knows the trade inside out. His dad is a wise owl too. If they think they're ready, I'm not against them trying to prove it.

Aden wrote:

ALI wrote:

columbo wrote:To answer the question, Lomachenko wanted this fight straight away. He wanted to fight for a world in his first fight but because he wasnt ranked it was impossible! Top rank didnt want to do it but he would only sign for them if they met his demands.

Obviously he believes in himself. I hope he has a good team around him and not just a bunch of idiots bigging him up.

Under those demands its hard to point the finger at Arum. Had he not accepted the terms somebody else would have. If he loses its tough luck nd a gamble lost, if he wins he's got a potential superstar in the making.

He's fairly astute himself by all accounts. It's not like he's a bragging eighteen year old with bigger balls than he'll ever have again, he's mid-twenties, rational and knows the trade inside out. His dad is a wise owl too. If they think they're ready, I'm not against them trying to prove it.

Im sure he started at some crazy age like 3 or something! I remember seeing footage of him having a scrap and he was absolutely tiny!

Hes more than ready to fight in a world title fight. No point in containing him, hes class and a special fighter, cant see any area of the fight he looses. Hes lightning fast, has a boxing brain and wont get involved and hell pick his shots! Hell have Salido chasing shadows for me

It's great to see fighters getting tests early. Someone has already linked to Murata and Usyk, worth also looking at Naoya Inoue who is apparently looking for a world title fight in his 6th contest.

British and American fighters pussy foot around way too much early in their career unfortunately.

Sure Lomachenko is a once in a lifetime fighter but it'd be nice to see our guys moving a bit quicker than they do, no point in wasting time if you have the talent to be fast tracked.

To answer the actual question, no, no it's not. It's obvious that he knows he's talented, it's obvious that he has confidence and whilst it might be a gamble that fails he is at least showing that boxers can tell the promoters whats what rather than it being the other way around.

Gotta admire him, he wants to make history. My worry is how tight he is at the weight, especially if it goes later what I will say is basal looks like he can box sensibly, and destructively all night long.

He's one of those guys that comes along once in a generation, just hope he doesn't get ruined! It's not going to get any easier for him, as good as Salido is as he moves up, which he will, he's moving into deeper waters.

Still, what a talent. 396-1 2 Olympic golds, 2 world am golds (and one silver) and a euro gold all by 25! On that basis why not!

iamasadlittleboy wrote:
British and American fighters pussy foot around way too much early in their career unfortunately.

Sure Lomachenko is a once in a lifetime fighter but it'd be nice to see our guys moving a bit quicker than they do, no point in wasting time if you have the talent to be fast tracked.

.

We're partly to blame by putting so much emphasis on the '0' .... Need only look at guys / promoters that build up shitty records to get a title shot / pay day. Fans still look at records and say "anyone that loses to..." Without taking into account circumstance, age, human element, surely learn more from defeat than from a WKO1. If only we could start boxing over again with a clean sheet of paper, essentially like UFC did.

Wales wrote:

iamasadlittleboy wrote:
British and American fighters pussy foot around way too much early in their career unfortunately.

Sure Lomachenko is a once in a lifetime fighter but it'd be nice to see our guys moving a bit quicker than they do, no point in wasting time if you have the talent to be fast tracked.

.

We're partly to blame by putting so much emphasis on the '0' .... Need only look at guys / promoters that build up shitty records to get a title shot / pay day. Fans still look at records and say "anyone that loses to..." Without taking into account circumstance, age, human element, surely learn more from defeat than from a WKO1. If only we could start boxing over again with a clean sheet of paper, essentially like UFC did.

I wouldnt say a loss is the issue anyway. It's who you lose to. For instance, if you're a heavyweight and you lose to Wladimir klitschko but nobody else, that doesnt make you a rubbish fighter. It should be the context of the loss. Also the context of wins aswell!

I like the fact that he and his team have the confidence to go after Salido in their 2nd fight, but salido is one tough hombre and if lomachenko is even an inch under where people are rating him, he may get a real tough lesson about life in the pro ranks at top level. Can't wait for it.

Personally I'd like to see him have another couple of fights against very good opposition before going for a world title but there's no need for him to be wasting time fighting knockovers like so many prospects do.

This should be tasty. IMO should have fought a couple more guys of similar or slightly better than Ramirez. He clearly came to win but was just outclassed. Salido is as tough as they come if Lomachenko wins this in style a serious star is born.

I think fair play to the lad.

Regarding the poll, might want to change the wording it's a little confusing - the title asks "is it too early", I went in and clicked "no" but only realised afterwards that the poll question is "is it the right move".

columbo wrote:

Wales wrote:

iamasadlittleboy wrote:
British and American fighters pussy foot around way too much early in their career unfortunately.

Sure Lomachenko is a once in a lifetime fighter but it'd be nice to see our guys moving a bit quicker than they do, no point in wasting time if you have the talent to be fast tracked.

.

We're partly to blame by putting so much emphasis on the '0' .... Need only look at guys / promoters that build up shitty records to get a title shot / pay day. Fans still look at records and say "anyone that loses to..." Without taking into account circumstance, age, human element, surely learn more from defeat than from a WKO1. If only we could start boxing over again with a clean sheet of paper, essentially like UFC did.

I wouldnt say a loss is the issue anyway. It's who you lose to. For instance, if you're a heavyweight and you lose to Wladimir klitschko but nobody else, that doesnt make you a rubbish fighter. It should be the context of the loss. Also the context of wins aswell!

Personally i agree, but so many fighters at domestic "up and coming" level are kept apart seemingly as promoters are scared of them losing too early, or loosing in general. How refreshing was groves degale? Fury price shouldve happened, khan murray, quigg frampton galahad etc... We've been robbed of so many domestic dust ups prior to one guy falling off radar. Take Khan Murray as an example. On the way up it looked on paper a genuine 60-40 fight - a natural fight to be made. Of course now 95% would in hindsight pick khan, but why cant we find out by putting them in the ring rather than letting it pass and all pontificating in hindsight.
Who was it warren said "it will happen but further down the line when theyre both world champions" - why? Ideal world, best v best, if one loses take it as an opportunity to learn rather than a criticism. If theyre both destined to win world titles then it'll happen down line anyway. It'll never be that way though.

columbo wrote:

Wales wrote:

iamasadlittleboy wrote:
British and American fighters pussy foot around way too much early in their career unfortunately.

Sure Lomachenko is a once in a lifetime fighter but it'd be nice to see our guys moving a bit quicker than they do, no point in wasting time if you have the talent to be fast tracked.

.

We're partly to blame by putting so much emphasis on the '0' .... Need only look at guys / promoters that build up shitty records to get a title shot / pay day. Fans still look at records and say "anyone that loses to..." Without taking into account circumstance, age, human element, surely learn more from defeat than from a WKO1. If only we could start boxing over again with a clean sheet of paper, essentially like UFC did.

I wouldnt say a loss is the issue anyway. It's who you lose to. For instance, if you're a heavyweight and you lose to Wladimir klitschko but nobody else, that doesnt make you a rubbish fighter. It should be the context of the loss. Also the context of wins aswell!

Personally i agree, but so many fighters at domestic "up and coming" level are kept apart seemingly as promoters are scared of them losing too early, or loosing in general. How refreshing was groves degale? Fury price shouldve happened, khan murray, quigg frampton galahad etc... We've been robbed of so many domestic dust ups prior to one guy falling off radar. Take Khan Murray as an example. On the way up it looked on paper a genuine 60-40 fight - a natural fight to be made. Of course now 95% would in hindsight pick khan, but why cant we find out by putting them in the ring rather than letting it pass and all pontificating in hindsight.
Who was it warren said "it will happen but further down the line when theyre both world champions" - why? Ideal world, best v best, if one loses take it as an opportunity to learn rather than a criticism. If theyre both destined to win world titles then it'll happen down line anyway. It'll never be that way though.[/quote]

Groves vs Degale was a great fight for us hardcore fans. I applaud the promoters for making that happen! BJS vs Ryder too!

Yeah as someone already said ur poll is a mess

I went no.... But ment yes

Wales wrote:

columbo wrote:

Wales wrote:
We're partly to blame by putting so much emphasis on the '0' .... Need only look at guys / promoters that build up shitty records to get a title shot / pay day. Fans still look at records and say "anyone that loses to..." Without taking into account circumstance, age, human element, surely learn more from defeat than from a WKO1. If only we could start boxing over again with a clean sheet of paper, essentially like UFC did.

I wouldnt say a loss is the issue anyway. It's who you lose to. For instance, if you're a heavyweight and you lose to Wladimir klitschko but nobody else, that doesnt make you a rubbish fighter. It should be the context of the loss. Also the context of wins aswell!

Personally i agree, but so many fighters at domestic "up and coming" level are kept apart seemingly as promoters are scared of them losing too early, or loosing in general. How refreshing was groves degale? Fury price shouldve happened, khan murray, quigg frampton galahad etc... We've been robbed of so many domestic dust ups prior to one guy falling off radar. Take Khan Murray as an example. On the way up it looked on paper a genuine 60-40 fight - a natural fight to be made. Of course now 95% would in hindsight pick khan, but why cant we find out by putting them in the ring rather than letting it pass and all pontificating in hindsight.
Who was it warren said "it will happen but further down the line when theyre both world champions" - why? Ideal world, best v best, if one loses take it as an opportunity to learn rather than a criticism. If theyre both destined to win world titles then it'll happen down line anyway. It'll never be that way though.

The problem with fights like that are that too many can mean a fighter has nothing left in the tank before they reach world level. Jamie Moore's a good example, could have fought for and possibly won a world title, but he had numerous wars at domestic level and eventually they take their toll on the body.

Wales wrote:

columbo wrote:

Wales wrote:
We're partly to blame by putting so much emphasis on the '0' .... Need only look at guys / promoters that build up shitty records to get a title shot / pay day. Fans still look at records and say "anyone that loses to..." Without taking into account circumstance, age, human element, surely learn more from defeat than from a WKO1. If only we could start boxing over again with a clean sheet of paper, essentially like UFC did.

I wouldnt say a loss is the issue anyway. It's who you lose to. For instance, if you're a heavyweight and you lose to Wladimir klitschko but nobody else, that doesnt make you a rubbish fighter. It should be the context of the loss. Also the context of wins aswell!

Personally i agree, but so many fighters at domestic "up and coming" level are kept apart seemingly as promoters are scared of them losing too early, or loosing in general. How refreshing was groves degale? Fury price shouldve happened, khan murray, quigg frampton galahad etc... We've been robbed of so many domestic dust ups prior to one guy falling off radar. Take Khan Murray as an example. On the way up it looked on paper a genuine 60-40 fight - a natural fight to be made. Of course now 95% would in hindsight pick khan, but why cant we find out by putting them in the ring rather than letting it pass and all pontificating in hindsight.
Who was it warren said "it will happen but further down the line when theyre both world champions" - why? Ideal world, best v best, if one loses take it as an opportunity to learn rather than a criticism. If theyre both destined to win world titles then it'll happen down line anyway. It'll never be that way though.

The problem with fights like that are that too many can mean a fighter has nothing left in the tank before they reach world level. Jamie Moore's a good example, could have fought for and possibly won a world title, but he had numerous wars at domestic level and eventually they take their toll on the body.[/quote]

Moore should of fought for a world title instead of having to fight Ryan Rhodes though. He'd earnt his shot aswell and then it all went tits up with that loss.