Lopez beat him because knew how to fight him. Loma is a pressure fighter who likes to impose himself and lead his opponent more and more astray as the fight goes on. Salido proved that he does not fight as well when he is pushed back and roughed up. Obviously Lopez's size and strength played a big part, but it was his effecient strategy and tactics that sealed the deal and made his victory possible. Loma likes to dictate the tempo and pace of the fight, but Lopez seized the initiative,pushed him back and did not allow him to do so. He stopped Loma's lead hand, which is used to keep his opponent guessing and put them under pressure, and he hit the body with his right hand to sell the threat of an overhand, which kept Loma cautious. Even in the second half, when Loma started figuring him out, he still could not dictate the pace like he normally does, Lopez won the 12th for a reason. A lack of bravery wasn't why Loma lost, it was because Lopez figured out his weakness. Loma could find a way to win a rematch, but it sure as hell isn't a certainty. But he certainly is a stylistic nightmare for Loma As for why he acted so stupidly against Kambosos, go back to what I said in my previous post, he was probably inconsistent due to kambsosos not being that highly regared. I am not entirely sure why he fought like that, but there is no way Lopez doesn't have the tools to beat Kambosos in a rematch.
Chill the **** out, kid. You're embarrassing yourself. Canelo beat Trout, sure. Trout isn't half as good as Lomachenko. Canelo wasn't anywhere near as good then as he was now, and that makes sense given it was almost a decade ago. On the flip side, Teofimo looked absolutely amazing against Commey and Loma; and you'd be ****ing stupid to think it was the same fighter who fought Kambosos. Just as you'd be ****ing stupid to think Canelo is the same fighter as he was then. Lopez is immensely talented, and very skilled. Hernandez was past his best, clearly. He'd been at world level for years, and had slipped clearly since his early days. Floyd himself was even calling him old man before the fight. Corrales and Castillo could be favoured over Lopez, although I wouldn't as I said. Mosley was old as dirt, and who gives a **** if he beat Margarito? Lopez beat a far better in Loma. Lopez would be one of Mayweather's best wins. It's obvious, just admit it.
Lopez wouldn't be one of his better wins I already told you why. I already stated why Lopez beat Loma it was because Loma was weary of Lopez power and athleticism refusing to engage spotting him a 6-0 lead. Had he fought like he did in the middle rounds from round one he would have won going away. Still Loma is not as good as PBF despite being faded, Salido beat him FFS and he had a dozen loses so there's that as well. Lopez' level has been shown he was thoroughly thrashed by Kambosos and I would pick Loma to beat Lopez in a rematch as well. Canelo was a better fighter than Lopez was back then and had the resume to prove it. You're high if you think Lopez is more skillful than Canelo back then. Lopez has no plan B and can only fight one way, he's very limited. Canelo back then was way more complete. There's a reason why he was being touted as the future king of the sport. Lopez got no where near that type of praise because he simply wasn't as good. Hernandez was undefeated at 130 and the man there for years so to a 21 year old yeah he was old. PBF was 21 when he schooled Hernandez, younger than Lopez when he beat Loma and I bet people didn't call him green then.
You didn't tell me anything, you just talked bollocks. Lopez didn't just beat Loma with power and athleticism, he used an excellent jab and shut down Lomachenko down by being a very authoritve ring general and body puncher. He methodically walked Loma down and beat him with economy. Had Lomachenko fought how he did in the second half from the jump, he'd have gotten knocked out. He almost got knocked out by Lopez in the twelfth as it is. I don't understand how anybody with two working eyes can watch the Lopez from the Commey or Lomachenko fights and then watch the Kambosos fight and think that it was the same fighter. He was drained, inactive and fought like an idiot. I'm not arguing Lomachenko is better, or as good, or even on the same level as Floyd, so I don't know why your so desperately trying to deflect and make your hero seem as great as possible. I'm not high, I've just got a better eye than you do. The reason Canelo has improved so much is by improving his hand control and ring generalship. Lopez was already brilliant at both. Canelo was better at feinting and setting up single shots. He also had really smooth combos back in the day; but had poor stamina; couldn't cut the ring off effectively and had trouble breaking through good defensive shells. Lopez had none of these issues against Lomachenko, and was quicker and hit harder. Not only that, but even the areas where Canelo is clearly better, Lopez was still very good at. The only area that a young Canelo had a MASSIVE advantage in is his chin. He wasn't just old "to a 21 year old", he was just old. Well past his best. He won the title in 1991 and lost to Mayweather in 1998. He'd already been smashed by DLH in that time, too. The version who lost to Mayweather would not beat Lopez from the Loma fight. And yeah, people did call Mayweather green then.
Your post wasn't worth responding to you have your opinion of why Lopez beat loma and I have mine. I already stated my opinion I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.
You keep bringing up commey as if that's some great win or feat? Who the hell did he ever beat worth a damn? What happened in the fight before that against nakatani? Funny how no one brings that fight up to claim how skilled and great Lopez was. He was exposed in that fight and arguably lost. People get excited about big punchers, kos and overlook flaws it's very common with big punchers like Teo but I don't. I picked Loma to school Lopez and he could have had he not been so timid to engage. I re-watched that fight over the holidays and I don't buy for one second that Loma would've been koed had he fought from the opening bell he had the ability to stop and hurt Lopez as well who doesn't have an iron chin. If they ever fight again my money will be in loma as yours would be. You clearly don't have a better eye than me if you're telling me a one trick pony like Lopez is better than the canelo who pbf fought. Lopez lost to kambosos because he's arrogant as hell has a dumb father as a trainer who told him he would steamroll kambosos which is why he came out like a fool guns blazing in the first round like he was in a tough man contest against kambosos. Kambosos to his credit saw his flaws and saw that Lopez could be outboxed as Loma and naktani already showed. He implemented things he saw remained calm and went to work outboxing and beating up the bully. You're taking away from kambosos great performance with excuses. Being drained not focused inactive I'm not buying it. If he was this fighter who was better than canelo back then he should have made easy work of kambosos but he didn't he got embarrassed. Lopez is nothing more than a limited athletic slugger with pop that's it. If Haney can stand up to his attack he would box circles around him. I'll pick kambosos in the rematch to beat him as well.
Nah I was comparing Salido to Castillo and Maidana, and Lopez to DLH and Cotto. Styles and troubles, close scorecards. I doubt Floyd wanted anyone at their weight class in their prime tbh. Yes I know Floyd had a hand injury. How do you think Lomachenko would have gone in rematches against Salido and Lopez? Strange that the ‘winners’ seemed to do everything possible to make a rematch happen. Castillo is a warrior, and Maidana wanted that payday (that doesn’t exist with a Lomachenko rematch). Loma-Lopez I’ve scored a draw and a win for Loma in different viewings. The exact same as Floyd in Floyd-Castillo 1. I’m not sure why I’m meant to avoid my scorecard and accept a judge that has all sorts of investment and bias (due to being in a crowd with pressure). I consider Salido beating Loma the same as Griffen beating Roy by DQ. Nobody can watch that fight and see all those low blows after Salido said f making weight and seriously consider that a loss for Lomachenko. Those were also about the only punches Salido landed, so that’s why I use ‘loss’ in commas. There’s a serious agenda with Lomachenko, you have people acting as if he’s been legitimately beaten. You could make a case for the Lopez fight but then you’ve still got to view it as a case of Lomachenko not doing enough rather anything Lopez did. Along with Canelo he’s the guy in the sport you can’t really pick against regardless of opponent. Yet there’s fans that act as if he’s been seriously beaten and shown to be flawed? It doesn’t make any sense. If Tank-Cruz were two fighters that nobody knew then Cruz would have got the decision. That’s how boxing works. Names get close decisions, the marketable fighter gets close decisions. That’s why it’s ridiculous to rely on a judge scorecard over your own in a close fight that has a money making fighter and/or a network behind them.
I don’t understand the comparison to Usyk. Anybody who refuses to rank Canelo because they don’t like him is just stupid and not worth listening to. Same with anyone who had Davis and Lopez in pound for pound lists. I strongly disagree that his resume isn’t ATG level. Walters, Rigo and Russell alone put his resume over someone like Floyd and I’m going to guess that you have Floyd as an ATG? Walters is the equivalent of Corrales, Rigo was smaller but still p4p and undefeated (so if you want to credit Floyd for Hatton or JMM, that’s our comparison), and GRJ was a prime undefeated guy (something Floyd never fought, we’ll say Canelo as a comparison but he was green and drained - obviously better than GRJ though so those are even victories). Who is another fighter or two you consider an ATG? Let’s compare their resume to Lomachenko (a 90s onwards fighter, no disrespect to Lamotta but boxers were crude back then and it was often a matter of simply outlasting your opponent, you may as well be talking about a different sport). You also don’t get to claim that winning titles quickly isn’t a big mark in the favour of Lomachenko for ATG status, yet at the same time consider amateur accomplishments completely separate. You don’t get to have that both ways obviously.
Come on my dude, we both know that Floyd never dominated anyone in his career. There’s no need to get emotional and start lying, I’ve seen the fights. Maidana, Castillo etc.? Have you ever seen Floyd’s run at 130/35 where we pretend he’s some great? Watch those fights. Floyd was never dominant.
You reveal yourself when you say there’s nothing he can do to rank above Floyd, when if you have a sober look at accomplishments you can even make that case now. Obviously not you, here you’re pulling out every excuse to pretend that the earth isn’t round through your Floyd glasses. I’m a fan of Floyd the boxer, don’t get me wrong. Us boxing fans know there was a lot of smoke and mirrors with that career. I prefer Floyd to Manny but you’re smoking that good stuff if you pretend that Floyd is anywhere Manny on the ATG rankings. Floyd said it himself, he makes money and fights to avoid getting hurt. That’s why his resume is really quite empty in context. The names look nice, the performances and the timing of them not so much. I give Floyd the businessman all the credit in the world, a guy who is a bit below Whitaker and Toney in terms of skill and ability yet he milked that zero and chose his fights like a master chess player to minimize risk.
There's no way his resume is on Floyd's level, even with the amount of asterisks Floyd's resume has. And yes I do have Floyd as an ATG (Probably just outside the top 30). Walter's only signature win is Donaire, who he fought way above his natural weight at 130, and Donaire is a fully developed man and has been a bantamweight for the last 3 years. Russell has had a very nice win over Joseph Diaz, but that's the only thing he has so far. And I already talked about Rigo, who may have been undefeated but he was still 37, his win over donaire was very good but it was 4 years prior to that, when he was still close to his prime, after that he did not beat anyone worth of note. Can't see how that is better than beating the other best P4P fighter of his era in Pacquiao and the current best/second best in Canelo. Yes Pacquiao was past it, but so was Floyd. And while Canelo was definitely not as good as he is today, he was still a very promising fighter and Floyd was 36 and moving up a weight division, yet he made it one sided. If you want other fighters since the 90s with better resumes, that would include Whitaker, Pacquiao, Roy Jones, Hopkins etc. Also, boxers in Lamotta's era weren't crude, Boxing had fully developed by that point, Lamotta has a bunch of subtle skills, he is just not overall on Loma's level, but Robinson is better than Loma without a doubt for me.
I keep mentioning Commey because he has two prime performances at world level. It's not that hard to understand. I'm sure Lopez really was exposed in that fight he won decisively Nakatani never came close to beat Lopez, and won about three rounds with his length, chin and workrate. Lopez wasn't exposed If you watched the Loma fight again, you'll have seen Lopez dictate the first six rounds with far more than just physicality. And you'll have also noticed that in the twelfth, when Loma really picked it up, Lopez almost knocked him out. The only reason I'd be hesitant to pick Lopez in a rematch is if he never recovers from the loss to Kambosos; and/or can't make LW. Other than that, Lopez is a firm favourite again. If you think Lopez is just a one trick pony then you're an idiot. YES, finally you get it. Lopez lost to Kambosos because he fought like an idiot against a tough mutha****er who was there to win. That's not the same Lopez who won the title, or beat Lomachenko. It's convenient your not buying these 'excuses' as soon as it suits you, it's pretty ****ing obvious that Lopez wasn't the same fighter. If you can't see that you need to put the spliff down and get your eyes checked. You're such a ****ing ******. Lopez is far more than just an athletic slugger and that's obvious. It's like saying "Canelo was just a counter puncher who could be easily out-boxed". Lopez WOULD'VE made easy work of Kambosos; the third/forth round would've looked the tenth, and he would have put him away in that time. But he didn't, because he wasn't the same fighter. By the way, why are you writing Kambosos off like he's a bum? The guy's clearly got what it takes, and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he winds up as a better fighter than Trout, who Canelo arguably lost to prior to Mayweather. Lopez would smash the living **** out of Haney, Garcia and Davis.
Don't even bother at this point. I gave him a detailed post about how Lopez beat Loma using tactics and a good gameplan, yet he dismissed it and called it worthless because "it's my opinion" and still insists that a smart fighter like Loma was scared for 6 rounds and that Lopez is a mindless brute, completely ignoring whatever I said. I think it's clear at this point that you can't reason with a guy like him.
PBF pretty much beat everyone with ease at 130-135 with the exception of JLC in the 1st fight and Carlos Hernandez because he hurt his hand. Did you see him fight at 130-135? He was very dominant at those weights and dished out some of the best beat downs and clinics in boxing back then. That was the reason why guys like Oscar and Shane ignored him back then when he talked about fighting them because he was seen as too high risk.