Is Vasyl Lomachenko p4p the GOAT?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Beouche, Dec 15, 2021.

  1. Zhuge Liang

    Zhuge Liang Active Member Full Member

    931
    893
    Jun 30, 2018

    I don't think Marquez would 'batter' him. Loma's style is all wrong for him.

    Boxers in the same type like Loma (e.g. Chris John, Mayweather) would prefer to outbox him and avoid direct slugfest.
     
    Serge likes this.
  2. BitPlayerVesti

    BitPlayerVesti Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,256
    10,396
    Oct 28, 2017
  3. Serge

    Serge Ginger Dracula Staff Member

    56,810
    74,682
    Jul 21, 2009
    Thanks

    I always fill my clip with fact bullets and I always shoot to kill
     
  4. Luis Fernando

    Luis Fernando Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,120
    1,256
    Aug 23, 2017
    Because there's far more to judging the quality of a boxer than off raw numbers (particularly when they are out of context).

    Regardless of what the records state, we can take one-look at a Lomachenko fight and then a look at a Ioka fight and immediately see the gulf of difference in the amount of techniques they have mastered and the level of skill they exhibit in those techniques. Lomachenko is multiple levels above Ioka.

    Nobody is going to look at Ioka and say hey, we should learn how to box from this guy or how to fight in general from this guy in a world where someone like Lomachenko exists. People who want to learn how to box, especially the highest level of techniques, whether those people be newcomers or martial arts experts like Bruce Lee, will look at the likes of Lomachenko, Muhammad Ali, Wladimir Klitschko, Oleksandr Usyk, Floyd Mayweather Jr, Manny Pacquiao and etc because there's a lot to learn from those guys, not just for the sport of boxing, but martial arts in general for application to self-defense and generic hand to hand 1vs1 combats. In comparison, there's barely anything to learn (relatively speaking) from watching Ioka.

    So the answer is simple, Lomachenko is superior because he has the far superior technical skills compared to Ioka.

    And I never also claimed Lomachenko is the GOAT due to his pro record either. That's you committing a strawman!
     
  5. Luis Fernando

    Luis Fernando Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,120
    1,256
    Aug 23, 2017
    So does Lomachenko's amateur career matter or not (for his preparation against Salido)? If it does, then he is the greatest boxer of all time due to him having the greatest amateur + pro record (400+ wins with only 3 losses), despite losing to Orlando Salido

    If it doesn't matter, then he was much of a newbie to pro boxing as anybody else was, including the likes of Henry Armstrong.

    If you say what Lomachenko learnt in the amateurs applies to the pros, then you must also say his entire amateur record also has to apply to the pros. If you don't, then you get exposed as a pure hypocrite with double standards. You don't get to decide when Lomachenko's amateur career matters and when it doesn't, if you are to maintain any amount of credibility and integrity.
     
  6. Luis Fernando

    Luis Fernando Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,120
    1,256
    Aug 23, 2017
    Oh so you pick and choose when to imagine hypothetical scenarios based on when it suits you? GOTCHA!

    Again, that's just your personal opinion. Even if the whole world believed the likes of Armstrong would have annihilated Salido in their second fight or title fight, it'd still just be an opinion. Thus, meaningless!

    Who have given a toss about amateur careers when talking about the greatest fighters of all time? Clearly you are, considering you're the one bringing up Lomachenko's amateur experience as a justification for why he should have been able to beat Salido in his second fight but not Armstrong (when he lost to an even worse level of opponent LMFAO). So Lomachenko's amateur career matters when you want it to and it doesn't matter when you don't want it to? LMFAO! Yet another example of incoherency and inconsistenty exposed!

    Also, barely anybody even talks about pure-boxers when talking about the 'GREATEST FIGHTERS' of all time. The greatest fighters are those who can step outside of the boxing ring and succeed in a freestyle 1vs1 hand to combat where everything goes, not just punches but everything else, including grappling, kicks and etc. Being the best in an enviroment where you're only allowed to punch and grapple a little bit is never going to prove you're the 'GREATEST FIGHTER' ever.

    The greatest fighters from boxing will be those who can succeed in hand to hand combat outside of boxing, and Lomachenko is one of those boxers.

    Again, you're parrotting the same nonsense. You want Lomachenko's amateur experience to matter but not his achievements. If his achievements don't matter in the pros, nor does his experience. Having 400 amateur fights or even a million fights should be 100% irrelevant, because after all, it's not the pros so it shouldn't count, right, for the exact reason why his achievements don't count.

    If having 400 amateur fights meant anything, then unless it counts to his pro greatness, the experience he gained from the amateurs means nothing.

    You can't have it both ways, even though you desperately want to.

    Also, I never claimed Lomachenko is the greatest or argued his greatness was based on his pro career.

    I argued that Lomachenko is AMONG the greatest, and it wasn't due to his career or record, but due to the level of technical he has objectively displayed, which is a totally different thing altogether. Check post 74 for proof of what I've already said.
     
  7. George Crowcroft

    George Crowcroft 'Snarky Little Gobshite' - IntentionalButt Full Member

    25,211
    39,095
    Mar 3, 2019
    This guy might be the most obtuse I've ever met on this forum :lol:
     
    Loudon and Ioakeim Tzortzakis like this.
  8. Ioakeim Tzortzakis

    Ioakeim Tzortzakis New Member Full Member

    77
    151
    Aug 27, 2020
    That is not how things work. Amateur fights do not and should not be accounted for when talking about the greatest boxers of all time. But there is clearly a difference in experience when someone has 400 amateur fights and the other guy has 7, not matter what they did in the pros. Yes, the amateur fights don't count, that doesn't mean they never happened. Imagine if Armstrong actually did have as much sucess as Loma in the amateurs, yet still had the same record in the pros, wouldn't it have been FAR worse for him that he lost all those early fights despite all the experience he gained in the amateurs ? By your logic, GGG is greater than Willie Pep, and if anyone unironically believes that, then they should follow a different sport.
     
    George Crowcroft likes this.
  9. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile Taste it all! Full Member

    26,281
    23,557
    Aug 28, 2012
    The GOAT at what? Boxing? No.

    He's probably not p4p #1 of his own era. Technique-wise he may be the best right now but accomplishments-wise he's perhaps top five active.

    This is really tough. He's more skilled than a lot of guys but not as accomplished as a lot of the guys in the lowest 90 bracket of the top 100. Who would you make way for him with Foreman, Lewis, Toney, Frazier? They've all done more than him. I don't know if he actually deserves to be top 100 with his record. He doesn't have any signature wins. Maybe, replace Chang or Locche? Take their spot?
     
  10. Luis Fernando

    Luis Fernando Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,120
    1,256
    Aug 23, 2017
    If amateur bouts should not be accounted for when talking about the greatest boxers, then amateur experience should also not be accounted for. Otherwise, you get exposed as a hypocrite. Doesn't matter if a boxer has 400 amateur bouts or 400 million amateur bouts. If amateur bouts hold no relevance when discussing the greatest boxers of all time, then amateur experience should also hold 0 relevance. So Lomachenko's amateur experience from 400 bouts should also be irrelevant.

    Otherwise, let me ask you, why shouldn't a boxer's amateur accomplishments be accounted for when discussing the greatest boxers of all time? I'm not saying it should, and I'm not arguing that GGG is greater than Willie Pep because of his amateur accomplishments, but rather, I'm simply asking you to provide a logically sound, coherent and an objective reason for why amateur accomplishments should not matter.
     
  11. Luis Fernando

    Luis Fernando Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,120
    1,256
    Aug 23, 2017
    Well you can't objectively compare heavyweights and sub-heavyweights in any P4P rankings, as heavyweights are allowed to outweigh their opponents by potentially an unlimted amount of weight. Thus, the comparison is moot and akin to comparing apples and oranges.

    However, you are right that we have to differentiate between skills and accomplishments. Lomachenko is among the greatest skill-wise in terms of the quantity of skills he has and the level he exhibits in those skills, but his accomplishments (not purely his own fault) in the pro-ranks will never allow him to be the greatest perhaps.
     
  12. Ioakeim Tzortzakis

    Ioakeim Tzortzakis New Member Full Member

    77
    151
    Aug 27, 2020
    That is not hypocritical in the slightest. Those fights actually happened, even if they don't count. You do not discount experience, that is not physically and mentally possible. If we assume what you are saying is correct, then Loma entered the Pros as a newbie despite the fact that he was boxing all his life, clearly that is not the case because it is literally impossible to take away experience, this is real life, not a video game simulator. Hell, if amateur fights should count in your mind, why not include sparring sessions as well ? Now Harry Greb is a top 10 ATG Heavyweight because he beat Dempsey in sparring.

    Amateur fights are just not a good indication of a Boxer's capabilities and what they are capable of doing in the pros. They only last 3 rounds, the gloves are bigger and more padded, and most of them involve headgear. Do you expect a fighter to be as patient and enonomical with their footwork when they only have 3 rounds to work with ? Do you expect a power puncher, who is behind on points, and managed to score a knock down, to win the fight by KO if the headgear and the padded gloves are just enough to protect his opponent and enable him to rise ? It's a completely different game. Amateur fights are supposed to make you improve in every fight to prepare you for the pros, that's how it has been since forever, just because some guys nowadays decide not to turn pro ( or do it late like basically every eastern european boxer) for personal reasons doesn't change the core of amateur fights existing in the first place.
     
  13. Luis Fernando

    Luis Fernando Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,120
    1,256
    Aug 23, 2017
    First of all, in amateur bouts, you win trophies, such as medals and cups among other things. Whereas in sparring, you win absolutely nothing. Thus, right off the bat, you're guilty of committing the logical fallacy named 'False Equivalence':

    This content is protected


    So yes, amateur bouts 'COUNT' WAY more than sparring.

    Secondly, let me get this straight:

    - You're claiming that a boxer's amateur record has no relevance to their value as a pro, but their amateur experience does for their preparation as a pro?

    - You're stating that amateur boxing shouldn't count, but should count?

    - You're claiming that amateur bouts isn't a good indicator for a boxer's capabilities, but somehow still prepares them for the pros?

    Seriously, do you realize how many times you would have failed if this was an IQ TEST? Or just how low you'd have scored if it was? It's almost borderline embarrassing and ridiculous the lack of any logical consistency and coherency in anything you just typed.

    Do yourself a favor and go take a logic course, rather than wasting time on boxing if you have your own best interests at heart.
     
  14. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven Obsessed with Boxing banned Full Member

    58,783
    21,135
    Nov 24, 2005
    He's great but I prefer the old-timers who fought hundreds of professional fights, rather than these new lot who fight in the amateurs for twenty years or whatever.
    They spend way too long in Olympic style boxing, so called 'amateurs' but probably get paid to stay in there. With headguards and vests. They ought to turn professional a bit sooner.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2022
  15. Rollin

    Rollin Member Full Member

    466
    609
    Nov 17, 2021