Fury still in the denial phase regarding his rematch with Usyk

Loma bitched about the decision in the Lopez loss too.

 

That's true, and he had no legitimate argument in that particular fight. The number of fighters who object to a decision is legion, however. Sometimes, their objections have genuine merit, as Loma's did gainst Haney.

 

The common thing is for fighters to call close decision losses robberries. To complain about a clear loss, like Fury and Loma against Lopez, is less common. I lost my respect for Loma after that one. As for Fury it was already long gone. Completely classless man.

 

I was not particularly thrilled with Loma's behavior following the Lopez loss.

But is it therefore your position that his behavior post-Lopez necessarily disqualifies him from criticizing any future fight, irrespective of whether that criticism is legitimate?

If so, then that's where you and I part company.

 

No, that was not a point I was making.

 

Outstanding.

Then why cite his conduct post-Lopez in the first place if you believe (as I do) that it should have no bearing on whether his criticism of other fights is legitimate and justified??

I'm not trying to jam you up here, my man. I'm just trying to figure out what your point actually is.

 

Are you confusing me with someone else? Don't really know what you're on about.

I have only commented on his whining after running from Lopez almost half the fight and losing.

Not thrilled with moaning about losing a close decision against Haney either (not as bad, though), but that in itself does not get more or less legitimate because of what he said after losing to Lopez, and I have not the faintest clue how you could interpretate me saying anything to that effect.

 

Yikes .....I was practically running on instinct by the time I reached the end of that word salad.

Let's hoist a glass and pretend this never happened.

Cheers.

 

Yeah, apparently you have such a hard time understanding what I write that you make it up instead. So sure, let's forget about that waste of time.

 

What exactly did I "make up?" Go ahead. I'll wait.

I asked an obvious question--why bring up the Lopez fight if you don't believe it offers any insight or should color Loma's criticism of the Haney situation?

Pretty straightforward stuff.

I suspect that you cited the Lopez fight to suggest Loma has a pattern of complaining about decisions that don't go his way, thereby casting his very legitimate criticism of the Haney fight in a particularly poor light.

But when I inferred as much, you backpedaled and insisted you weren't making any such point (which again begs the question: why bring up the Lopez fight at all?????).

Yeah, you have wasted my time, but not because you're so erudite that I simply can't follow along.

 

This is some deranged stuff. I brought up the Lopez fight, and only the Lopez fight, because I suppose that's what the comment "English Lomachenko" referred to. That's at least what makes the most sense to me. All the rest was made up by you.

That should be short enough for you to understand, no?

 

The issue is Fury never had power, never will.. Wilders glass chin and zero defence made Fury think he was a power puncher which he never was.. simply went in to heavy and couldn’t keep up to the pace.

2nd fight was wide, first fight was close.

 

Can't get any shorter or simpler than this:

Why did you respond TO ME (not the thread starter) and bring up Loma bitching after the LOPEZ FIGHT too, when I was specifically talking about the legitimacy of Loma's beef with THE HANEY DECISION???

That was what....a public service announcement???

Spare me, my guy. We both know the reason why you injected Lopez into the discussion (and so does everyone else with half a brain).

 

Yes, of course anyone with half a brain knows that the bitching after Lopez would likely be the reason why the name "English Lomachenko" would be used for Fury.

And that's the last I'm going to waste on you.

 

Cool story, bro.

Remind me to consult you the next time I need to spin some bullsh*t.