I've seen most of what's out there. With 150 odd fights over 15 years we have a rock solid foundation for what he could and couldn't do. Loma's pro career is well documented for sure, all 13 fights of it. He's obviously a great talent but i want to see what makes him tick on a deeper level. It's all coming easily to him and that's a credit to his great talent but it's not always going to come easy. It never does no matter how good they are. I have little interest in his amateur career when talking pro matches. Great amateur careers are nothing new.
Simple - more fights. I don't expect him to have a resume within a stratosphere of Tony's. I do however want more than 13 fights. We can see what he can do superficially but let's see what he can do under intense pressure if and when it comes down the track. If he keeps on winning against good opposition without many troubles he will certainly end up where some seem to have him already. Time will tell. I'm not saying he couldn't win but Tony is a solidly proven ATG from an era i would see as extremely competitive at any point in history. Now resumes don't win fights but Tony brings his own not inconsiderable talents to the show as well.
And he also lost to a number of opponents who were far lesser fighters than Leonard or Ross. So it’s pretty clear that he was beatable and that a fighter didn’t need some kind of extraordinary ATG resume to pull it off. So for the reasons I’ve explained, I still think Davis would be a dangerous adversary for him.
I don't think, there's a whole lot more, we can expect to see from Loma. He's 31 (today, actually) and after 400+ amateur and pro fights, he's not going to get any better. Maybe he'll be able to dazzle us for a couple of more years - but after that his long amateur career is likely to catch up with him, and we'll see the inevitable decline set in. Just as has been the case with long-time amateurs like Rigo and Golovkin, when they hit their mid-30s. And is likely to happen with Usyk as well, in a few years time! Now Loma was of course never destined to build a pro resume that can match Canconeri's 175 fights - not to mention 200+ boxers like Leonard, Pep, Greb, etc. So he can never be as "great" as them. But can we think of him being at their level, ability-wise? There are obviously those who feel, that with only 13 pro fights he's a greenhorn, who could never share the ring with past greats. Some even think, that the mere suggestion of this, is an insult to past ATGs. But I fail to see, why it would be! Canzoneri turned pro at the age of 16, and in the first 12 months had 25 "learning-matches". Lomachenko was 25 when he had his first pro bout. After an amateur career like his, he obviously had no need for a long "soft" start - but just imagine, if he also had started out with a couple of dozen fights against no-hopers, before getting down to serious business after a year or so? Then he would today have at least 35 pro bouts under his belt. And instead of just a couple of world title bouts per year, he could easily have fitted in 5 or 6 "keep busy" fights each year since becoming champion - like the champs used to do "back then". He could then have 50+ wins today, which probably would make him more acceptable to some people - but would it make him any better? "I have little interest in his amateur career when talking pro matches". But how can that be irrelevant to understanding where he is now - after only 13 pro fights?
What i expect to see is more pro fights against various opposition. I don't expect improvement. Donald Curry had 400+ amateur fights too albeit over a shorter period and at a younger age. There are things i am not certain i know about Loma yet excepting his obvious talent. I want to see more than 13 fights. I'm not sure why this is such a big ask or unreasonable request. I'm not yet at the stage to be of picking him over virtually anyone. As i said i don't expect him to build that sort of record which nowadays is obsolete. I don't even expect 50 fights from him. i rate SRL immensely high because he crammed a great resume into his 40 fight career. He was aided however by fighting in a strong era with any number of ATG's about and was tested to the maximum. What we also have to remember is that tho Loma is fighting the top dogs of now via your prediction he may not be around long enough to fight across a couple of mini era's where top new talents emerge. Now we can put this down strictly to greatness and resume but it's also a good H2H indicator as well. Throw resume ratings aside and you still have to prove what you can do against a decent variety of opponent. I don't think that. I just want to see some more before i make him an automatic pick over such proven warriors. Yes he's fighting at a ridiculously skillful level but i want to see some more of it. I realize he's on that different trajectory. There's certainly not much filler. It will all be taken into account as he progresses. What i mean is i am not going to make compensations or include it in any rating of him as a pro. For sure that career has him progressing incredibly fast, alongside his ridiculous talent as well of course. For me sitting back watching it all unfold is both enjoyable and sensible. If he suddenly got pumped in a year or two i could well see the Classic Forum imploding with the doubters saying he was never anything special and had never been tested and the guys that publicly got behind him would be making all sorts of excuses. I'd be sitting somewhere around the middle enjoying the show.
How can anybody doubt Tony skills and athletic abilities? Without a discussion about his fight against Loma, how can anybody doubt his abilities in the ring? This guy was one of the best, most aestically beautiful boxers I've ever seen. Yet he's doubted here because he had a low guard.
You've got to take your hat off to anyone saying that Tank Davis would take out Canzi in a round, the level of childish contrarian spite and belligerence is comedic genius. You've got to be blind or in flat out trolling denial mode to not see how brilliant Canzoneri looks on film, fecking nora.
Just re-watched the Canzi-Chocolate bout. Probably the closest bout I've ever seen, and both looked brilliant. Every round is close. Wouldn't wanna score it lol.
Well the same fella after seeing the little bit of training footage of Greb which exists, concluded that he had a couple of kids training in his gym who could beat Greb.
I disagree! @Pat M is a quality poster IMO, and while I don’t agree with all of his takes (or anyone else’s for that matter), and think he has a modern leaning? So what? So do a handful of others. And just as many or more in reverse. to me he has shown a good knowledge of boxing in a lot of his posts. He is not a troll or even argumentative in most cases. I actually enjoy many of his takes because some challenge me and make me rethink my position. oh well just my $0.02
