Lomachenko Not Comparable to Past Greats

To claim:

"Lomachenko's amateur boxing experience helped him when he first became a professional boxer in his first few professional boxing bouts".

And to also claim:

"Lomachenko's amateur boxing achievements have no bearing on his greatness as a professional boxer"

are two totally contradictory statements! If you're going to claim the experience Lomachenko gained from amateur boxing helped him prepare for his first few professional boxing bouts when he became a pro boxer, then in order to remain objective, to not contradict yourself and to not expose yourself as a hypocrite, you must also claim Lomachenko's ATG amateur boxing achievements ALSO translates to his professional boxing greatness and that his ATG amateur boxing achievements, ALONE ALSO make him a great pro boxer too, without him having to do anything as a pro boxer.

You can't have it both ways I'm afraid!

 

Haha great post friend. Excellent.

 

Why doesn't Tank get in the ring with Loma instead of having all these hypothetical fights? Easy way to find out is to fight each other, not by seeing who did better against the same opponent.

 

Its not contradictory because the statements are not the same.

One statement is in regards to his ability and the other to his professional achievements. You can't use his amateur achievements to elevate his ranking as a professional , but you can reference it in relation to his ability because he developed those skills as an amateur.
Your twisting what he said to suit your agenda.

Rigo is one of greatest ams of all time , but those amateur statistics don't make him professional ATG. But he was able to unify and become a ring /Lineal Champ in 12 fights because of how good of an amateur he was.
Loma is an ATG because of what he's accomplishing as a pro , not because of what he done as an amateur.
His amateur career is separate to his professional career.

 

Wow, this is incredibly stupid. I almost don't wanna counter because I feel as if it's trolling. I'll just say this...since when do we use circular reasoning in boxing?

 

I will try and keep this as simple as possible for you.

Here is an example of a few things that translates from the AM to the PRO ranks:
A boxer in the AM hits like a truck, when he moves to the pros he will still hit like a truck. Punching power is an innate ability to throw powerful punches that will translate between the two sports.

A boxer that has attained phenomenal footwork in the AM through countless hours of training, will still be able to use his phenomenal footwork in the PROs. An acquired skill he honed through many hours of training, combined with some intangibles/innate ability such as boxing IQ/balance/speed/timing which will translate between both the sports.

A boxer learns to throw an uppercut and uses it over 2000 times throughout the course of his AM career. The same boxer instead learns to throw an uppercut and uses it only 1 time during the span of his career in the AM. A learned skill he has honed over many hours of training. When he moves into the pros, his uppercut in most cases will be superior after having thrown it 2000 times, then it would have been after having thrown it only once.

If a boxer practices something over and over with the right trainer to help him hone his/her technique, it will have beneficial effects on a range of things such as power, sharpness, accuracy and speed. The more time he gets to throw it against live opponents, the better he will know when to use it, when not to use it, how to time time it, and have a better understanding of it's threat range. Even though he learnt the punch in the AM, it will translate to the PROS.

Now this is the part that does not translate:
The #1 ranked AM fighter in the world, moves to the PRO ranks. It has a different set of rules, a whole different set of fighters, different champions and various styles he/she will have never seen in the AM.

The fights go for much longer, instead of 3 rounds with a 3 minute duration per round, it is now 12 rounds with a duration of 3 minutes each at the highest level. This does not translate because there are many more chances of things occurring within 12 rounds, than in 3. In most cases, the boxer will take more punches and use up far more stamina over the course of 12 rounds. This means their chin, their mettle and their stamina will have been tested like never before. They will need to pace themselves differently, be more disciplined, have more time for both the opponent and themselves to adjust to the strategies presented to them. The difference in rounds is due to the rules of each respective sport. No amount of training, or innate ability can change the rule itself.

If two boxers meet in the ring in the AM, and then 10 years later they meet again in the ring but this time they are both seasoned pros, the results won't necessarily be the same. Even though their intangibles might be the same as when they last fought each other, one dude may not have the stamina to last a whole 12 rounds, which would have never been exposed in the AM because it goes for a much shorter duration. This is how a different set of rules effects the innate capability, or intangibles of an individual.

Scoring for example is vastly different from the AM, and the PROS. If an AM fighter was scoring a professional bout using AM scoring criteria, and it is considered a win under AM rules. It will make no difference if it's considered a loss using PRO rules, AM scoring criteria's make no god damn difference to the outcome of PRO fights using professional scoring criteria's. Your innate abilities will have an effect on the outcome of the performance evaluation, however your knowledge of the AM scoring system, as well as your innate and attained abilities will not change how the performance evaluation itself is conducted in the professional ranks.

Special thanks for your last comment and everyone that liked said comment. I was skeptical, but now I know for certain, cheers.

 

There was no need to write such a long post because I am already aware of those things. My point was totally different and your post doesn't address my point.

I'll mention it again:

If an amateur boxer's amateur boxing accomplishments have no bearing on his greatness as a pro, then his amateur boxing experience ALSO have no bearings on his preparation or 'READINESS' for being a pro boxer. If an amateur boxer's amateur boxing experience does prepare him for pro boxing, then his amateur boxing accomplishments also have a direct relevance to his 'greatness' as a professional boxer. Meaning, his amateur boxing accomplishments also make him a 'great' professional boxer by default.

You simply can't have it both ways! Otherwise, it's a double standard!

If you claim Lomachenko's amateur boxing experience prepared him for pro boxing, but then also claim Lomachenko's amateur boxing accomplishments are irrelevant on his greatness as a great pro boxer, then you'd be guilty of being a hypocrite with double standards.

 

Why can't I use Lomachenko's amateur achievements to elevate his ranking as a professional? I'd like you to answer that question first, before we can move on!

 

Lomachenko is ATG in amateur boxing.

In Pros, I think I'll wait until he fights Garcia first. There're around 5-6 matches before he ends his career. Hope to see more.

 

Loma’s face looked like more than 10% of Pedraza punches landed and compubox is not reliable

 

Lomachenko is great, however he is too small for this division. Also he lacks a knock-out punch.

 

To be fair I like Loma but he did get beat by a super worn Salido. /shrug he hasn’t fought that style ever again. I would also like to point out anytime Floyd’s had a tough night he immediately rematched the person **** that money he had to prove he was level above.

 

Facial damage caused by anything other than punches is irrelevant when scoring a boxing bout. Facial damage can occur in various different ways, unrelated to ACTUAL scoring punches. Some examples include damage occurring from accidental / intentional head clashes or headbutts. Or facial contact being made with a non-scoring area of an opponent's body.

The fact that Lomachenko had some facial damage, doesn't ALONE prove Pedraza landed more than 10% punches.

 

What 'style'? Can you breakdown that 'Salido style' that you're thinking of?

 

Your probably right but he's only fought 13 times or whatever. Beaten 1/2 a dozen or more previously undefeated fighters. At lightweight is fighting guys waaaay longer than him. The two fights you've picked are one where he's fighting injured and another when he's not fully recovered from surgery and still won nearly every round. I don't know if there will ever be another Duran or Chavez but it's exciting to watch Lomachenko fight because he fights in such a unusual and highly skilled way AND he's prepared to fight whoever is available.