As of now: Crawford or Lomachenko higher pound for pound?

And IB I have nothing against Loma. Nothing at all. He's good for boxing. Ive penalized many fighters and not for losing. Fighters lose.

A loss does not mean that every fighter is penalized during their career. But...I've seen too many great rematches where the other guy gained revenge, fought trilogies and sometimes 4 and 5 fights in history etc etc. Loma just has to keep on wining in order for me to forget about the Salido debacle.

Loma was not penalized by me for losing.

It's not doing the rematch under any amount of circumstances. That's why I have a problem with Loma being ranked pfp and pfp best. I had to rank him at 10 because he did fight another pfp entrant.

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha lmao.

 

Time and promoters can make things difficult for him now. But he can defenitivly still defeat most guys out there.

 

In the immortal words of Martin Payne- Sitchurdumbassdown..!!!

 

Not having a loss means there is a hole in your resume. The reason you haven't lost is because you haven't fought somebody good enough to beat you at that time the fight took place.

No man is unbeatable. Sure they're more vulnerable when they are green or over the hill. But great fighters in their prime get beat by talented fighters too.

Why hasn't a fighter lost? It's simple they haven't fought tough enough competition.

 

Lmmfao. IB is going to have a field day with this one lmao.

 

There is no psychological ploy to convince people that losing is great, but it's not the end of the world especially early in career. Both Hopkins and JMM lost their debut.

But as I said boxing is the world's oldest sport going on thousands years old. And a loss is only the end of the world in the last 10 years. Either everybody from the past were idiots or modern fans have a hard on for undefeated records. It's either or.

 

I don't know how old IB is, but I suspect he's got to be under 40. My dad's an old school fight fan. He's almost 60 years old. If somebody told him that people were hesitant to rate a fighter based on losing his 2nd pro fight and that this was his only professional loss he'd laugh in your face. It just wouldn't register in his brain. Not that his approval means a damn at all.

But it seems the mentality of the fan today and media deviates from the older fellows.

 

I get what you're saying but this post is essentially strawman. Not a single man who ever walked the Earth was unbeatable. So why is anybody undefeated then if nobody is capable of never losing? Well logically the answer must be his competition hasn't been strong enough.

 

Would you favor Gary Russel Jr. p4p equivalent (prime version) over Crawford in Crawford's 2nd pro fight? I understand that Loma was no normal pro novice and was a polished fighter, but still having to learn and navigate the professional style takes a handful of fights even for an accomplished amateur.

Other than that though I agree with the rest of your post except I don't consider their resume's dead even. Loma's beaten 3 fighters (Russel Jr. Walters, old Rigo) that are better than Postol which is Crawford's best win.

 

Interesting even considering how tiny Gamboa was?