Crawford wants Fighter of the Year for Lundy, Postol, and Molina...

He did very well this year but I think Frampton and Loma have stronger claims

Frampton has two top-class wins (LSC and Quigg, yes I know LSC was close) and Loma likewise (Martinez and Walters).

Crawford has one top-class wins and two mediocre opponents. In my books Lundy+Molina << Martinez or Quigg

 

Who deserves it more than Lomachenko?
most important point - still transitioning to the pros, he managed to:
a. Become 2-time world champion in 7 fights
b. Boxing's first ever 2 weight world champion in 7 fights
c. Knocked out a legit titleholder in Martinez, putting in a TBE level performance
d. Dominated and psychologically KO'd fringe P4P'er and elite in Nicholas Walters - a guy who many gave a great shot to beat Loma.
e. Top 5 arguably P4P in just 8 pro fights.

Frampton should sit down and take notes, too. A razor close fight with LSC doesn't earn him FOTY, nor does beating Quigg. It was a year where Frampton shamelessly ducked Rigondeaux.

 

Nah. Frampton or Loma, those are the only 2 realistic options for Fighter of the year.

 

All three have a good case. I don't care who wins out of them because I like all 3.

 

Disagree.

Wards robbery win over Kovalev, earns him the nod, GUARANTEED.

 

This right here is a tough one bruh , I have no idea who should get FOTY this time around .

 

Doing what Loma has done in 7 fights doesn't mean anything in regards to what a fighter has done throughout an entire year. You judge the fighter on what he's done in 2016. Frampton beat Quigg and LSC. Crawford beat Lundy, postol and Molina. Loma beat Martinez ( who got beaten by Burns and mikey) and beat Walters. Frampton took two "0"s from some very credible opponents and based off that he should get the FOTY imo.

 

Quite importantly, doing what you did in 2016 whilst you're still transitioning DOES mean something regards to what you did that year. When I measure things like greatness, it's more advanced than a simple 'who beat who', but rather considers the conditions. That said, on a 'who beat who' basis, Loma's wins in the boxing community are seen as the better wins - especially because of HOW Loma beat them.

Martinez won a bunch of titles. Taking '0's mean very little and I don't for a second think you're really entertaining that argument seriously.

At the end of the day, Frampton will probably get it because people expect the stuff of legends from Lomachenko anyway, and Frampton did capture Irish hearts - it'll be more like a popularity thing a la Ricky Hatton's unworthy inevitable induction into HOF. Frampton takes an L for ducking Rigondeaux.

 

Loma has a lot of experience in the fight game which is why he was highly touted coming into the pro ranks. He's the best amatuer of all time and has a pro style, it's not a surprise for me to see a guy that good beat guys like Martinez in 7 pro fights.

 

I like to use a middle ground here. He was the master of a completely different construct, a construct where you point score differently, you have a different pacing strategy over a different number of rounds, different rules, you use attack very differently because it's faster. It's a construct that many who turn out to be awful pros, are masters at. It's a different branch. Lomachenko had notable major amateur aspects of his game laced into his style and it seems apparent to me that he still has, albeit to a smaller extent.

 

Disagree.

Whilst Crawford totally dominated all 3 only Postol was top tier material.

 

He looks adapted to the pro level to me. Could he improve? Sure, every fighter can, but I wasn't surprised in the least that he beat Martinez in 7 pro fights. Not at all.

 

He is adapted, but not fully on a fundamental and more basic level the way professionals are.
Everyone was impressed with his fight against GRJ for example, I certainly wasn't. Same with the Walters fight, incidentally. I was very impressed but not as impressed as others.