Is Vasyl Lomachenko p4p the GOAT?

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

  1. Ioakeim Tzortzakis

    Ioakeim Tzortzakis New Member Full Member

    77
    151
    Aug 27, 2020
    Oh my God, you just don't understand what is written in front of you. Did you even read what I posted ? Or are you just nitpicking whatever I said to the point where you understood a completely different thing ? You are the one who needs a logic course because damn.

    So if I decide to have 10 amateur fights, win and gain nothing, while another guy has 10 fights with the same exact guys I fought and wins something, his wins are now more impressive ? moronic logic. That whole "false equivalence" thing you did was childlishly pathetic.

    If you want to go to College, and you require good grades from High School in order to do so, will you skip primary and middle school just because their grades are worthless for college, despite not knowing ANYTHING when you get to High school ? that is literally the same thing with amateur fights in Boxing, they don't count, but they give you the necessary tools to turn pro ( aka go to high school) and be succesful ( aka go to college ). Again, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to discount experience, that cannot ever happen. it's basic freaking logic, not rocket science.

    As far as your smartass wannabe debater questions go : 1. Yes, that is exactly what I mean because they are completely different things
    2. No, never said that. You just make stuff up on your own.
    3. Yes, again, completely different things.
     
    George Crowcroft likes this.
  2. JOKER

    JOKER Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,886
    9,387
    Dec 18, 2019
    Pacquiao's offense > Lomachenko's offense
     
  3. nervousxtian

    nervousxtian Trolljegeren Full Member

    13,968
    991
    Aug 6, 2005
    Skill wise he’s up there. Career wise no. He waited too long. I don’t rate Lopez highly and he lost. He shouldn’t have. Injury or not. Still elite skills.
     
  4. Zhuge Liang

    Zhuge Liang Active Member Full Member

    932
    894
    Jun 30, 2018
    True, but craftmanship and technical-wise Loma is way better than Pacquiao. Pacquaio might be one of the best boxer ever and might beat Loma if both fight each other in their prime. But Loma is a genius artist of boxing. The way he lures his opponent or how he control the rhythm and speed, his beautiful footwork, his accurate punch combinations, etc. are all very delightful to watch.

    I don't really care Loma will become ATG or not as I'm very grateful to see the great works of such a great artist in my time.
     
  5. JOKER

    JOKER Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,886
    9,387
    Dec 18, 2019
    Pacquiao would KO Lomachenko. I'm 100% certain of this outcome. Lomachenko might make it more competitive below 135, but 135 or above, it's a violently one-sided affair with Lomachenko taking a savage beating before being knocked out.

    That said...

    They approach and apply their craft completely differently. Pacquiao's less refined, but he's much more savage while being much more effective. But we've seen brilliant boxing clinics where Pacquiao doesn't lose a single round (Rios, Vargas, Bradley III, Algieri, Diaz, Oscar) and controls every facet of a fight.

    Inoue is the best offensive fighter in the game and he's also the most dominant. Way less flashy, extremely economical, just as aggressive, and just as effective or even more violent. So Lomachenko is a dazzling display of activity, but can you say he's more effective than Inoue at anything?

    I don't agree that Lomachenko is way better than Pac at anything. Pac is faster, hits harder, and throws just as good combinations or better. Pac's footwork has also lead him to ATG status over a career spanning decades.
     
  6. VG_Addict

    VG_Addict Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,094
    3,199
    Jun 13, 2012
    No. Not even in the top 50.
     
    kaapa2 and slash like this.
  7. Zhuge Liang

    Zhuge Liang Active Member Full Member

    932
    894
    Jun 30, 2018

    What I was trying to say is, Loma boxes more beautifully than Pacquiao.

    Of course, you might disagree with this too because you only see boxing as 'knocking out or beating up your opponent' sport.

    And how can you say that Loma is ineffective ? You do realize that not all boxers are hard punchers ? Some boxers are strong, some boxers are fast, some boxers are formidably solid, some boxer are intelligent. Every boxer have their own strengths and weaknesses. Every boxer have their own way to win fight. Just because Loma lacks of power in his punches, he can't be considered ineffective or wasteful. He has his own way to win fights. And the way he wins fights are through his immense technical ability, tactics and knowledge of boxing.

    It is sad to see some people compare Loma or other boxers of today with legends of the past just to discredit his achievements.
     
  8. Loudon

    Loudon Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    37,295
    6,536
    Mar 7, 2012
    What is your obsession with these hypothetical MMA fights?

    Seriously?

    How many threads have you mentioned this in now?

    This is a boxing forum.

    Anybody talking about the GOAT, is talking about their opinion of who is the GOAT in boxing.

    Who cares whether or not they could transcend and find success in another combat sport like MMA?

    That is a completely different argument altogether.

    Why are you obsessed with this?

    It’s very strange.


    Regarding the thread, Loma’s skills are a thing of beauty. In terms of technical ability, you could put forward an argument for him being the GOAT on a H2H basis based on those skills.

    Under traditional ranking criteria, he can’t be anywhere near.

    He’s only had 18 pro fights.
     
  9. JOKER

    JOKER Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,886
    9,387
    Dec 18, 2019
    I never said that Lomachenko was ineffective. You said that craftsmanship and technically, Lomachenko is way better than Pacquiao, which I disagreed with.

    Pacquiao has picked apart fighters and looked every bit as graceful and technical as Lomachenko.

    And then I highlighted how Lomachenko is flashy and comes with a lot of special effects, but so did Pac. And then I used an example of Inoue who is far less flashy than Lomachenko and Pacquiao, but is equally or more effective than both.
     
  10. derekcantona

    derekcantona Member Full Member

    347
    316
    Feb 6, 2020
    Lomachenko isn't miles better technically than Pac was, if Pac was just some crude brawler then there's no way he would have been able to accomplish anything of note past 135 given his size or lack of it. Pound for pound, Pac was better.

    Yeah, Loma is brilliant to watch and he richly deserves his nickname. He's also undersized at his weight, which like Floyd and Pac is a consequence of moving to a more lucrative division, so we should be taking that into account. The major problem he seems to have is that he doesn't adapt to adversity quickly enough, and that might be a consequence of remaining an amateur for so long. A record breaking amateur career that furnished him with technical brilliance also absolutely did not prepare him for the roughhousing and fouling that Salido brought to the table, nor did it help when Teo was all over him in the first half of their fight.

    When things are going his way, the highlights are about half as long as the actual fight, it's great to watch. He's in his element and he can almost do whatever he wants in there. When they aren't going well and he's facing an opponent who is trying to rough him up or comes out with a good offensive gameplan of their own to put him on the back foot, he drops rounds and looks a bit lost before rallying late on. That's what his pro career has shown so far. His ability to adapt and to implement different plans when plan A, plan B aren't working, and to do it quickly, must improve or he'll lose a couple more times against the division's leading lights.
     
    roughdiamond and Pimp C like this.
  11. Brighton bomber

    Brighton bomber Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,076
    16,903
    Apr 4, 2005
    Loma does have beautiful technique, his mastery of the fundamentals is also amazing and he makes everything look so easy because he's so well schooled. For fans that admire traditional technique he's a lot of fun to watch that's for sure.

    But Pacquiao is also very technical, his lateral movement, his use of angles, his counter punching, the way he picks open an opponents guard etc. But unlike Loma he breaks certain rules which means he can look worse from a technical and a fundamental stand point. But it also means it makes him more unpredictable and hard to prepare for and the reason why he breaks these rules is because it's effective and others don't do it because either they don't understand it's value or are just incapable of replicating it.

    For example the way Pac rushes opponents, he's begging to be countered on the way in from the traditional understanding of boxing technique as he could walk into a punch, which is no doubt a risk. But as we saw in rd1 vs JMM when Marquez landed a nice combo, he backed off, extended the jab to draw a lead to land a counter but Pac covered the distance in an instant and landed a hard straight left dropping JMM and breaking his nose. Technically it's wrong but it's been a potent weapon throughout Pac's career. What's technically wrong for everyone else is technically right for Pac because he has a unique ability to cut the distance between him and his opponent while landing a viciously hard punch. It's similar to Hagler's gazelle jab, how many boxing trainers would teach their student to launch themselves across the ring like that leaping in and possibly walking into a punch but it was a very effective weapon for Hagler.

    Many great fighters have broken the rule book in terms of technique. Foreman would throw a punch and leave his hands out not going back into a guard position, technically wrong from traditional rule of boxing but Foreman did it because he could then after throwing a punch that maybe missed, use his extended arms to manhandle an opponent into a position where he could hit them or pull away their guard to expose them for the follow up punch. So in this case Foreman was using a technique that was effective for him but had to throw away the traditional technique to be able to pull it off.

    Tyson Fury is another great example of less than beautiful technique, in fact his technique is pretty ugly, but nobody will say he isn't incredibly skilled. What is effective isn't always beautiful to watch. So Loma may look perfect when he fights and Pac may look flawed in areas but in reality you're seeing two very technical fighters one that's mastered the traditional techniques while another has thrown some of those traditional technique aside and replaced them with other techniques that specifically work for him and his skill set.
     
    Zhuge Liang likes this.
  12. George Crowcroft

    George Crowcroft 'Snarky Little Gobshite' - IntentionalButt Full Member

    25,265
    39,161
    Mar 3, 2019
    Lomachenko has better fundamentals and a more aesthetic style, with a better defence. That doesn't make him a better boxer, but it does make him a more pleasurable watch for purists.

    Take Pacquiao from the DLH fight, and you'll see he was better at countering jabs, better at getting in and out of range; more creative at setting up power shots, has better lateral movement, and is a better ring general. The reason Pacquiao at his best was so dominant isn't just the speed and power; it's because he was such a dominant ring general.
     
    roughdiamond and Zhuge Liang like this.
  13. divac

    divac Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    30,947
    1,883
    Jul 24, 2004
    Good God, GOAT Lomachenko is'nt even on the radar.
     
  14. MrFoFody

    MrFoFody Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,521
    1,366
    Dec 17, 2005
  15. Luis Fernando

    Luis Fernando Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,120
    1,256
    Aug 23, 2017
    Because boxing encapsulates a lot more than just what takes place under Marquess Queensbury rules.

    To claim or to think otherwise, is to be ignorant and is to do a major disservice, is to disrespect and is to sell short the martial art of boxing,

    Bare knuckle boxing is also a constituent of boxing.

    Amateur boxing is also a constituent of boxing

    Ancient Greek boxing is also a constituent of boxing

    Kickboxing is also a constituent of boxing (hence the word 'boxing' after kick).

    Boxing techniques are also prevalent in unarmed freestyle hand to hand combat (such as in military warfare, pankration and MMA competitions).

    There are plenty more examples, but this should be enough to drive the point home.

    Ultimately, the name of this forum is 'BOXING FORUM'. Thus any of those aspects of boxing is relevant here. Now if the name of the forum was 'Marquess Queensbury rules of boxing' then you'd have a point, but it isn't.

    Anyway, I'm not all that bothered about who the GOAT is. Nobody can ever know who the true GOAT of boxing is.

    But what I will say is, in terms of what I as a student can learn about the sport of boxing, and the sheer multitude of skills displayed by any single boxer, Lomachenko is easily the best / greatest in that regard. In all my years of watching boxing, I've never seen anybody display the multitude of abilities Lomachenko has been displaying on a consistent basis.

    So in that regard, he is the best for me.