Is Vasyl Lomachenko p4p the GOAT?

You don't like believing in hypotheticals, yet here you are trying to argue a hypothetical. It's utterly hypothetical as to whether the boxers you mentioned (Salvador Sanchez, Henry Armstrong and etc.) would have beaten Orlando Salido or his like in their second title fight. I could just as easily say they wouldn't, and my position will have equal merit.

Also, if we are to include amateur boxing now, then Lomachenko statistically and objectively is the greatest boxer of all time, due to his amateur + pro boxing record being better than anybody's. His win/loss ratio stands at 400+ wins and only 3 losses. No other boxer has as good of an amateur+pro career. Not Mayweather, not Pacquiao, not anybody.

But if you say Lomachenko's amateur accomplishments have no relevance in his greatness as a pro, then you better be consistent and also not act like his amateur experience has any relevance in his pro debut / initial fights either. You can't have it both ways if you are to be objective and consistent! You can't on one hand claim Lomachenko's amateur experience matters for his preparation in his pro debut, but also claim on the other hand that his amateur accomplishments have 0 relevance to how great he is as a pro. Otherwise, you expose yourself as a dishonest, inconsistent and a non-credible individual.

Furthermore, that's your personal criteria for what makes or doesn't make a boxer the greatest of all time. I could disagree and posit a different criteria, in that the best boxer is not determined by his failures or his losses, but accomplishments. If a boxer's greatest accomplishment is greater than any other boxer's greatest accomplishment, then he qualifies as the greatest.

A car racer may have initially failed his driving test 10 times, compared to you who may have passed the very first time. But if that car racer goes on to set more racing records and wins more racing world titles than anybody else in history, he qualifies as the greatest.

And you'd find that my criteria is far more logical than yours, when analyzed.

Accomplishment > failure

Having the best accomplishment > having the least failures.

Lomachenko or anybody lse losing one or two random fights, has no bearing on whether they are the greatest or not.

If someone never losses, but never achieves anything great either, they aren't automatically greater than someone with one or two losses but has significantly greater achievements.

 

I never said I don't like believing in hypothetical match-ups, I said I don't like imagining what would have happened in a fight had the fight gone differently. This is completely different to imagining what would happen in a mythical match-up that never happened.

I'm not saying any more about it.

You could do, but I'm fairly certain nobody would agree with that. Sanchez or Armstrong from their second title fights would annihilate Salido.

Serious question: who has ever given a **** about amateur careers when talking about the greatest fighters of all-time?

This is ridiculous. So the experience Lomachenko gained as an amateur now doesn't exist? Stop embarrassing yourself.

Lomachenko is the greatest amateur of all-time, but this amateur career doesn't impact his greatness in the same way Robinson's doesn't effect his, or Leonard's doesn't effect his. But do you think I'm gonna act like having almost 400 fights has ZERO impact on the amount of experience he's had? Absolutely not. The only reason Lomachenko had his first title shot so early on in his career is because of his massive experience. He'd even had multiple semi-pro matches in the WBS.

You absolutely could disagree, but there is no criteria which includes a pro career where Lomachenko is the greatest fighter of all-time, or the best featherweight ever.

It's nice you think I don't also grade things like this. Let me explain to you my position, before you carry on assuming.

I originally only had any contribution to this thread when I replied to somebody saying Lomachenko would beat anybody his own size. I said anybody apart from Salido.

I'm not using the loss to Salido to say Lomachenko isn't the greatest of all-time, or even saying for a second Lomachenko isn't a great fighter because he lost to Salido. I'm saying Lomachenko shouldn't be favoured over the best featherweights of all-time, because in his first test at the weight, he lost. And he only fought one other ranked fighter at the weight.

I have always ranked fighters based on their accomplishments, and as a rule, tend to ignore losses. The idea behind this, is if a loss is truly indicative of a fighter then they wouldn't have been able to achieve a higher ranking anyway. For instance, if Manny Pacquiao's loss to Jeff Horn was truly indicative of him as a fighter, he'd have never been able to beat Erik Morales. It's much simpler to look at the positives and let the negatives sort themselves out.

The problem with this line of thinking, Lomachenko's record in the pro game compared to boxing's long history of great fighters, hasn't achieved very much. Certainly not enough to be number one, in any situation or under any criteria.

 

I'll make it simple for you. AM you fight 4 rounds, with headgear (although that's changed now) and different rules and scoring criteria. You still learn how to dodge people's punches, hit moving targets, avoid the center line, distancing, foot placement, all of which you can apply in the pro ranks.

Loma had to learn to pace himself, and fight against tactics he lacked experience against, also weight cutters amongst other things. However he was able to migrate many of the things he learnt during his amateur days to the pro ranks.

Do you think Loma with only 10 AM fights would be as successful in the pro ranks, as he was with 400 AM fights? Is the simple enough for you to understand?

 

I imagine he would of gone the same route as many pros, which is smash up cans for the first 10-20 fights for experience.

 

Why is the GOAT 13-2 in title fights as champion in three divisions with unification in one division and one controversial loss while Kazuto Ioka is 18-2 in title fights as champion in four divisions with unification in one division and two controversial losses? If Loma is pound for pound GOAT, Ioka must be pound for pound super GOAT, yet I don't hear similar claims. Maybe his fighting isn't fancy enough. He certainly has a better jab

 

Because he fights at weights most people don't care about but your point is a fair one.

 

One thing that makes Loma stands out (by really big margin, I must say) is the display of his boxing mastery. It is truly work of an artist. There are many difficult techniques and strategies he performed in his fights and it really gives new dimension to this sport. Furthermore, it is quite rare to see techniques become such a dominating factor that makes Loma rated so high by many people. And he fought his fights in a delicate fashion. He made the science of boxing can be interesting and good looking.

 

Lomachenko is the GOAT of this generation. No one shows the kind of skills he does. His talent was on full display against Commey. It was masterful. I can honestly say I don't think I have seen a better performance in the ring. Commey could not touch him and he is probably one, possibly 2 divisions bigger than Loma. Just an incredible performance.

 

Is he even the greatest Ukrainan fighter of his generation? I’m not so sure.

 

A*. Can always rely on you Serge to inject some intelligence into these threads

 

I don't think Marquez would 'batter' him. Loma's style is all wrong for him.

Boxers in the same type like Loma (e.g. Chris John, Mayweather) would prefer to outbox him and avoid direct slugfest.