Better fighter by next year: Usyk or Lomachenko?

Lubin would have been a top amatuer, broner might have been and the charlos are really overrated

Going back the years most Americans still turned pro young and they still had success in the amateurs these days they have barely none, it's a sign of decline in the sport in the country

 

I say Lomachenko. He fights in a division with more talent than Usyk, and has already won a belt.

He made Russell look bad on Saturday, and he's only going to get better the more fights he gets.

 

Why so many good young pros so?

Theres still a heap of Americans under 27 or so, that are eitehr up and coming or who have arrived at world class level.

 

loma looks more talented.

usyk is good though, very good basics and good power.

 

Like who?

Fact is America aren't doing as well as yet used to do in the pros and are doing a lot worse than they used to do in the amateurs year are the facts

 

The Charlos
Porter
Thurman
Figueroa
Andrade
Crawford
Julian Williams
Broner
J'Leon love
Thomas Williams Junior
Russell is still a decent fighter
Mikey Garcia
Danny Garcia
Errol Spence
Jose Benavidez
Eddie Gomez
Erickson Lubin

All either up and coming or top ranked fighters 27 or under.

 

If them fighters are so good and would have been good amatuer then how come not even a single on of them won a junior or youth world championship

And a lot of them failed to make the Olympic teams that did terrible it's not like they would have gone to the Olympics if they didn't go pro

 

Loma's obviously better at the moment, but I'd say Usyk has the higher ceiling. I can see certain world class featherweights hanging with Hi Tech, but by this time next year it's tough for me to see too many cruiser being able to stay with Usyk. There might be a flaw in Usyk's game that I might be missing...but it seems pretty well concealed at this moment.

 

Who gives a **** about amateur?, they're making it in the pros.

Its like asking "well if this professional soccer player is so good, why wasnt great underage?"

Who cares?

The pro ranks are whats important.

 

I know your terribly bias but half the guys you named are prospects at best they haven't made it

And the argument was America is doing badly in the amateurs which you then said was because they all turned pro young , which has always happened in America , and then you named a lot of fighters that never even won an underage tournament or couldn't even make a poor olympic team as proof that they would done good in the amateurs

Don't get mad and worked up your just wrong and making a fool of yourself now

 

european style is suited to amatuer scoring probably. up right, jabs, rights, straight lefts. dont get hit, dont take risks. stay tall take it on the gloves. remember body punching is often overlooked in amateur boxing, the white needs to hit bit the head. that slick american style isnt much good when you throw about 20punches a round, or your too agressive and walking into jab after jab. you can win the fight in 1 good round if you rack up enough points.

 

Are you saying that a 23/24 years old Broner or Mikey Garcia wouldnt have been a top amateur.

Most of these "great amateurs" are great because they stay amateur all through their prime.

You think the Charlos wouldnt be doing well in the amateur ranks if they were amateur right now?

They're younger tahn many guys whoa re competing at amateur level, because Cubans for example often NEVER go pro.

How am I wrong? It doesnt matter about who wins what in the olympics or the world championships or whatever. The fact is that many of the best boxers in the world are American, surely not even you can deny that?

Danny Garcia was never more than a national level amateur yet is now uniified LWW champ. Who cares if he never won some medal. Hes making it where it counts. the big leagues.

 

Andre ward had no issue

 

They have changed the scoring to a ten point must system in the amateurs and America are doing even worse, although they have 1 or 2 good underage fighters

 

That was meet the point you can only speculate that they would have made good amateurs

For example you named porter , porter couldn't even make the Olympic team and he was 21, not that young.

Ye majority of the Cubans who win medels are 24 or younger , there no in there 30's example Ramirez won the bantamweight at 18 rashee ****** went to three Olympics and as 28 and he couldn't medel.

Yes they have top pros but they have always had top pros and also had good amateurs now they have probebly less too pros and and are doing terrible in ye amatuers