Loma vs 135 Crawford

This, we got a guy who's a natural 130 versus a natural 147.

 

This is just a side effect of the mega-ownage you got over GGG / Ward. You're bitter and twisted now

Duran doesn't box anymore dip****. Maybe you never noticed, with your amoebal attention span.

 

I never claimed Loma would beat Duran. Just what's on the table, pal.

Pimp showing ya that love?

 

As a god of combat and fighting, looking at both, I think it's fair for me to pass on the judgement / verdict that neither really is that good of a 'fighter' from the standard I've set. Thus, from where I'm standing, both are just low level worthless bums from the context of REAL combat, fighting and at being a warrior. However, between both these worthless bums, I think Lomachenko still happens to be SIGNIFICANTLY superior with a skill - set that is much more worthy of praise and that is much more credible. Since he has greater variation of feint, greater number of angles he can attack from, can attack with greater variety of punches, with greater variety of speed, greater variation of power and can overall use more versatility with more effectiveness. Whilst Crawford is an ABSOLUTE stiff Amero-Bum that just stands there, being able to switch stances every now and then (which gives him no advantage over Lomachenko anyway to begin with) whilst having laughably inferior (or non-existent) feinting skills, combination punching skills, punch variation, variety of angles he can attack from, nimbleness and so forth so on.

I may also add that Lomachenko is far more coordinated and superior when it comes to multi-tasking as a COMBATANT! Meaning, he can perform more moves / techniques simultaneously whilst maintaining far greater control over his body, than what Crawford can ever even dream of achieving.

 

Sure we can do that too, here you compare Pedraza to Corrales:

Here you suggest beating Pedraza LEGITIMIZES Davis:

That's Davis' best win so it's hardly a slight on Loma beating him too is it? You clearly rate him

Difference is, Pedraza isn't Lomachenkos best win & triangle theories don't work.. Frampton stopped Martinez, Warrington couldn't. Pedraza said Lomas better (which anyone can clearly see)..

We all know you're still upset over:

But taking it out on Loma via triangle theory & fictional matchups won't help..

& nor will:

Playing the ethno national card...

Should it be ANTI EE then? & how do you know the true balance of opinion? Source?

P.S No I'm not mad, they're perfectly entitled to think Crawford wins. It's a dangerous fight but then again Lomas still finding his feet a the weight so its not a surprise people favour TC to beat a man who's been a 135lber for less than a year..

 

What's my point?

Let's have a look:

So 2-3 out of 10 here..

'Most' here..

So out of Lomas first 22 rounds at 135 you had him winning most of them? Brilliant stuff again, you excel yourself.

& what you failed to mention in your pitiful Gamboa comparison is neither Linares or Pedraza were unranked, inactive for 12 months & semi retired for about 3 years prior LOL Nor did Loma have a 4' height advantage & a 9' reach advantage over them..

It was a NEW weight. Allow for it, allow for injury too, you clearly do for Furys son Wilder:

That's my point you ****ing clueless goon! Someone give this man a tissue...

 

Loma UD. Crawford looks clueless.

 

Salido is a dirty fighter, a steroid cheat, cuts like 20 lbs to fight smaller fighters, and did he really win the Loma fight?

 

Totally blowing off the weight limit and coming in at a MUCH higher weight makes manhandling an opponent and inside fighting much easier.