In Their First 10 Pro Fights, Who's Been More Impressive? Vasyl or Floyd?

Through ten? Naoya "Monster" Inoue.

 

This isn't even my quarrel, but I'll chime in here.

There's this thing called nuance.

When you possess an exceptional degree of physical talent, have 397 amateur fights, have been able to focus primarily on boxing and train twice a day for years, have boxed in the WSB, are already poised to hit your physical prime with your engine pretty much built, naturally you're in the best possible position to go in at the deep end as a pro if your handlers see fit.

Does that mean that amateur competition is tantamount to pro competition or that the extensive am background has given you every wrinkle a fighter might need to draw on across the course of a championship career? No, it just means you can go in and hang at a higher level than guys start out hanging at - some vestiges of amateurism will remain, at least for a while, and some guys at that level might not suit you still (Salido), but other guys at that level might play much more into your hands (GRJ). And that scenario, we should remind ourselves, is still only for a rare few amateurs. It's not every amateur, even among decorated ones, that is able to derive that degree of mileage and physical preparation from the ams. The 99% are still better served by a traditional climb up the pro ranks, although such apprenticeships are becoming more dilute with each era that passes.

 

Well, if that's something someone actually said, "ams don't mean ****" is an extreme take on things. They mean something. They can mean more to some fighters than to others.

But I don't doubt that posters exist whose criticisms of fighters are fiercely agenda-driven and, as such, struggle with cognitive dissonance.

In a straight up comparison, ignoring context, there's only one answer. Actually, even in a relative comparison, I'd go with Loma. Floyd's pro apprenticeship wasn't very deep.

But forget Floyd for a second. Let's picture some Mexican kid who starts at age 16, he's learning on the gig, no real pedigree to speak of, takes two or three L's in his first eight or nine fights, maybe avenges one or two of them, ends up with a record of 7-2-1 or 7-3-0 - he's gotten off the canvas a few times, has ran the style gamut from an aggressive little squat guy who bulls him all night to a busy lefty to a rangy pure boxer, all while still finding his feet and developing a style. That kid faced no guys of note, guys with records that looked like 6-2-0 or 3-3-1, but he's taken on a lot and handled it really well. Has that kid been more or less impressive than Loma? If we're going to compare this apple and this orange, we have to look at it in relative terms, factor in the significance of the challenge to the individual at the time they took it on.

 

People say armature records means nothing in the pro ranks.. He knows that but play dumb.. He turned that into developing skills in the armature ranks for hundreds of fights means nothing when you turn pro, as if everyone start with no skills when they turn pro...

 

Lomachenko

 

How about a guy who just started their career like at 26-27. Lomachenko is an exceptional talent no doubt but if he were what most of you said he was, not only would Arum put him in with Crawford or Mickey in a heartbeat but also Satan lmao

I mean come on. As stated before this is kinda a meaningless stat at best and I doubt Lomachenko ever truly catches up to Floyd without taking L’s as he already has in terms of selling power and resume. He can keep his amateur pedigree.

 

Everyone should say Loma, but they're arguing that it isn't a fair comparison.. It also don't mean much when comparing their respective careers...

 

This whole post is meaningless.. Floyd at 19 was not prime or anywhere near it yet.. Loma came in prime with more fights than Floyd had before turning pro.. They call Canelo at 23 with 40+ pro fights green..lol This post is just something to say Loma was better than Floyd at...

 

Yeah I’m pretty sure no resume compares to Loma in their first 10 professional fights. It’s arguably the best ever.

 

It was a simple question in the decontextualized way you asked it. It can only ever have one answer. Same story if you switch out Floyd for most other modern era pros.

But you also called for an "intelligent discussion", and you can't have much of any kind of discussion over a question that only has one possible answer (the best you can have is a bunch of people talking about how much they agree with each other, ie. a circle jerk). So I hope you can now see why some might consider it a loaded question. It wouldn't occur to most people on this forum to make this thread. Ergo, I guess the real question is - why did you feel the urge to make it?

 

Yeah, you kind of confirmed my suspicions here. Didn't take much to make you lose the civil, smiley tone, either.

You got me, o' evil genius, I'm a triggered demo and I just stepped right into your cunning trap. Or I'm a boxing fan who's bored of tedious demographic warfare undermining the quality of boxing forums. Ps. The best poster boys for demographic superiority are the ones with high intellect, so you'd better work on that. Take care, enjoy your thread.