I said that Lomachenko was the best fighter I’d ever seen at the time when he was still an amateur. I remember plenty of responses like yours when I said that. That’s one example of how I know that I understand boxing better than people like you.
You think the Lomachenko that fought in the 2012 olympics would be able to beat the fully fledged Lomachenko of today?
I have no idea. I’m going to say in a three round contest yes, in a twelve round contest no. I’ve never seen Lomachenko do anything as a pro that I haven’t seen him do as an amateur, and that’s the point.
It takes around 10 years for mastery in most domains, including sport. There’s something wrong if a guy has been training in a professional manner for over 15 years, won multiple Olympic medals and is then improving as a 25 year old. That doesn’t happen, look at any really successful amateur and you’ll see that their movement and game is exactly the same throughout their professional career as when they were an amateur. Your perception is that they improve because you have your ideas about the pro game that aren’t based in reality.
You also act like amateurs fight "the best" all the time. Large percentage of their fights are national level fights and fighting champions from massively inferior boxing nations. Beating the champion of Tanzania or Bolivia in an international event isn't exactly awe inspiring stuff.
