Lomachenko; is he a H2H beast all time?

The rules of weigh-ins are the same for both fighters. We know what Loma weighed on the scale and his opponent. He’s a lightweight.

I really wasn’t discussing Inoue so I’ll leave that.

I don’t think that Loma has taken huge risks apart from fighting at a higher level of opponent earlier in his career than most, which relates to how long he stayed amateur and how much experience he had before turning pro.

And even if you feel he is, losing is losing and winning is winning. We don’t in the case of any other fighter I can think of grade on a curve such that we dismiss losses (Loma’s fans contend and will continue to do so for the rest of his career that he wins no matter what, and if he doesn’t it’s a ‘robbery’) because the fighter fought top opponents.

Everyone praises Roberto Duran’s effort and performance vs. Hagler, but nobody acts like he won just because he fought a naturally bigger guy. They just say he boxed well in defeat and appreciate his skill and guile and cunning. Ray Robinson was fighting middleweight Jake LaMotta (and the difference is documented on the scale) when he was a welter and beating him all but one time — but no one says Ray won the fight he lost just because Jake was a full division (two by today’s standards) higher. But he gets credit for the wins because … he actually WON. Same with Holyfield and Spinks moving up to heavyweight.

 

Lomachenko was a highly decorated Amateur with over 300 fights, so he didn't work hard to get his reputation that way ?

So let me get this straight you'd be more impressed with Lomachenko with 300+ Amateur fights, if he had padded his record for 30 fights in professional ranks before fighting world class opposition ? No disrespect but I just don't understand your reasoning.

 

Yes but the difference is regarding Hagler/Duran no one believes Duran actually won that fight.

Where as theres an outcry atm amongst fans, experts, boxers, that Lomachenko got shafted vs Haney. I also had Lomachenko winning the fight 7-5.

The only fight Lomachenko lost fairly was the Lopez fight, in which he needed shoulder surgery after as he clearly wasn't 100 percent.

But regarding Salido fight he was cheated regarding biased referee allowing 100 low blows, and the fact he was fighting an opponent who was 3 or 4 weightclasses above him because he cheated regarding weight.

And as I said regarding Haney fight majority think Lomachenko won.

Yeah official results say he lost 3 times in 20 fights, but I guess we can look at anything like that without context but that's not the way I look at things.

 

Amateur fights? Sounds like your reaching. Munguia had 138 Amateur fights winning gold and bronze medals at the national championships by the age of 15. He skipped out on the Olympics to turn pro at the age of 16 and since has worked his way up the pro ranks to earn his spot. If Munguia had pursued the Olympics and committed himself to amateur fights up to the age of 24 like Loma did then who is not to say Munguia wouldn't have been equally as successful as an amateur. The truth is Munguia chose not to fight at an amateur level as a man like Loma did but instead went pro as a 16 year old kid.

 

Lomachenko turned professional late after an extensive Amateur career, so it makes no sense that he would need extra fights as a professional.

One turned professional as an adult the other as a teeanger so you can't compare the two.

But the fact is Lomachenko wasn't gifted anything, he proved his worth beating world class fighters so I don't understand your point about being gifted anything. Infact hes been very hard done by in 2 of his losses.

I could understand your point if Lomachenko was gifted fights without winning but that's not the case, he built his reputation on his amazing Amateur career. Turned professional late fought high quality opponents and had a great deal of success.

 

I think we must strictly separate who's a great amateur and who is a great professional - Lomachenko is far from being the latter but is definitely the first. Many fighters were so or the other way around.

 

This whole hullabaloo is because he lost a close fight. On social media, I see longtime boxing journalists and current and ex-fighters saying ‘it was a close fight’ … and somehow that turns into ‘he was robbed.’

How many fights over time would there have been a bunch of fanbois screaming ‘robbery’ about if there had been social media as a platform in those days. A bunch of online whining doesn’t change, or shouldn’t change, how we look at it — and the voices of reason I’ve seen mostly say it was a close fight, not a robbery.

On boxrec scoring, nearly 400 people have posted scores and the average is 114.something to 113.something … so one round swings (in a fight where there were close rounds) and the scoring goes the other way. That’s what happened here.

Loma fans cannot accept defeat. He cannot accept defeat. You yourself want to put an asterisk by every one of his losses with ‘*had a good excuse’ by it. Let’s go back to all of his wins and ask the guys who lost if they felt like they were 100% … and I’d bet some of them would say no. So are we going to award those fights to them? Of course not.

Guess what: someone has to win a close fight unless it’s a draw. He didn’t win this one. That doesn’t mean you get to count it as a win. Fighters since the beginning of scoring have lost close fights. That’s the way it goes.

 

Because it's always the house fighter that gets the benefit of the doubt and BS scorecards, one judge scored the 10th round for Haney tell me how that's possible without corruption or being biased ? there's no logical reasoning to scoring round 10 to Haney or having Haney winning 8-4 that's total BS.

Yes it was competitive fight but you can still have a competitive fight where you can see who clear winner was.

Because i call out BS in a fight when it's warranted, i'm sorry i'm not going to legitimize Salido's win over Lomachenko, when he threw 100 low blows you can watch video on Youtube. Or the fact Salido cheated coming into the fight weighing in as a Welterweight in a fight scheduled at Featherweight.

Corrupt referee and cheating on the scales is not a "legit" win in my book.

Haney was gifted the decision because he's house fighter, yes it was competitive but Lomachenko never really had much of chance unless he dominated him. Which wasn't going to happen at age 35 against a literal Welterweight in the ring, but Lomachenko still more than did enough to win a fair decision.

As for the Lopez fight it was a clean win regarding no controversy, but still Lomachenko did have a legit shoulder injury which he needed surgery on days after the fight. But no excuses because Lomachenko could've pulled out of the fight that's on him.

Yes true but isn't unfair the house fighter always gets the benefit of the doubt ? like Canelo ? i think a fight should be scored fairly with no biased scoring no matter the popularity of a fighter. I know it's been going on for years but lately it's been really frustrating to see.

I don't think Lomachenko fairly lost to Salido or Haney in my personal opinion.

 

You’re still grading on a curve.

You cite what (you think) Haney weighed in the ring as if it’s a factor in the scoring … they both scaled at lightweight. We don’t give Loma rounds because ‘he’s the smaller guy’ lol.

I don’t see how Loma isn’t a ‘house fighter’ in Las Vegas considered how many times he’s fought there and that he’s the A side as far as name recognition and such.

Someone had to win. Someone had to lose. It was close. On your own scorecard, swing one close round you gave to Loma the other way and it’s Haney 7-5. That’s how close it was. That’s not a robbery.

 

I really wouldn't want to see Duran-Lomachenko.

But.. Haney-Lomachenko was a goddamn good fight. MUCH BETTER than Lopez-Lomachecnko. Much good countering going on, back and forth. Hell of a fight.

 

If you cant compare the 2 then why do you keep trying too? Loma did not work his way through the rankings to earn his spot and that's a fact. Loma was coveted, protected and gifted his spot from the first day he went pro. I don't think for a second if Loma had to earn his spot and go through the grinder like most boxers he would have been as successful especially after 44 fights.
I dont like bringing up Amateur records because Amateur and Pro are two entirely different levels. Your the one who brought up Lomas amateur record to try to justify Loma going straight to the top 10 from an amateur level. I brought up Munguia's amateur record to prove a point and you know my point is correct if not you wouldn't have back peddled by saying - "One turned professional as an adult the other as a teeanger so you can't compare the two."
So when I see a kid like Munguia who is only 26 years old and barely getting his career started with a record of 41w 0L 33KOs then yes I have more respect for Munguia.

 

Do You really think most fighters today "go through the grinder to earn their spot" - just because They have more fights?
I think a lot of times those are completely meaningless tune-ups. Look at the record of Munguia, before He fought for a title He didn't beat anyone that was better than that Mexican fella that Lomachenko fought in his pro debut.
Look at Gary Russell or Gervonta Davis on their way to the title. There's absolutely nothing there. Perhaps in ideal world You can say that everyone should go through top contenders before earning a title shot, but as it is - I don't think that Loma "stands out" as guy who was gifted it moreso than others.

 

Your the one who brought up Muniga in the first place in this thread bringing up his 41-0 record, suggesting he has better resume than Lomachenko because of the stats. But i don't see that a padded 41-0 record is better than Lomachenko's 20 fights against world class fighters with stand out wins over the likes of Linares, Walters, Martinez, Rigondeaux, Russell.

Again i don't understand why it makes difference whether or not Lomachenko would've turned professional at a younger age, and then fought stiffs for a couple of years to pad his record like Muniga did how does that deserve more respect ? i'm actually baffled.

I mean Jeff Fenech got a title shot after only a handful of fights, he had beat no one noteworthy to get his shot does that mean he was gifted his shot aswell ? no because he won the title and clearly was ready for the big time like Lomachenko was.

The fact is Muniga has had 41 fights and still hasn't gone to the next level, he got a gift decision awhile ago vs Dennis Hogan that he didn't deserve. If he was that good or talented i'm pretty sure he would've moved on to the next level by now but he hasn't. He also didn't beat anyone of note to earn his "shot" at the title which goes against your argument.

And i still don't understand how a padded record impresses you more, than fighting world class opposition right off the bat in your professional career but you do you.

Get back to me when Muniga actually beats an elite fighter.

 

I agree there are several boxers like Loma that have accepted a free pass straight to the top without earning their spot. I'm not going to start blurting out names like you though for the sake of my point. And what your saying is that its Ok that Loma did not go through 41 "meaningless tune-ups" as you say because no-one else is doing that either?
Now a days it seems like their are no more Hungry Dog Fighters and everyone wants the payday but without fighting the best.

 

Loma 17w with 3L and he is in the conversation as an ATG? What a joke!