Lomachenko should have fought John in his first pro fight

Yes I am aware. But he would still be a handful for a guy who had never had a fight over 5 rounds. Make no mistake about it. Uncle Bob chose Salido because he thought he was a washed-up clubfighter. He chose Russel because he's 5'4 with no power. I don't hold it against him, that's what managers are supposed to do.

 

I think he had a little more in his tank. Not to mention the size advantage. John wouldn't outweigh Loma like Salido did.

But ultimately, my point in all this....how the eff can anyone actually criticize Loma's first couple fights unless it's simply nitpicking.

 

No you're right, he had an excellent start to his career, and has had a very good career to this point. Epic? No.

I'll give you an example. Tim Witherspoon a heavyweight champ from the 80's had SIX amaetur fights, 4-2 record. In his 16th professional fight, 22nd time in the ring, this is what he did...

This content is protected

 

Good grief... You know the exact reasons why those guys were REALLY chosen don't you.

Salido was a solid and experienced fighter, who had fought some top guys over his career. Most guys face someone 0-1 or 0-0 in their first fights. If anything, it was a very good learning expereince for Loma. I'm certain he's a better fighter for it.

 

Yes, solid, experienced and good. It was definitely a good second fight, good and impressive, but the guy was 34 with 12 losses. Don't be mad at me bro, I'm just telling the truth.

So who had the better first 12 fights?

[url]http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/35832[/url]

 

Mad? You think talking about this stuff makes me mad?

Funny thing is, if Loma took the conventional route, no one would be saying anything. But he does what virtually no one has done, and gets criticized for who he didn't face right off the bat. Gotta love boxing fans...

 

Dude, you are ignoring the fact that he turned pro after hitting his prime in the amateurs. There was basically nothing left for him in the ams. Then he turned pro. It's not the same thing if he achieved all that at the ripe age of 18. Loma's circumstances are a special case.

 

Not ignoring anything. Pros and ams aren't the same.

 

Huh? That's ignoring everything.

 

OK...then the pros and ams are exactly the same....

 

Dude stop arguing and think. No one said the pros and the ams are the ****ing same. You're ignoring that he turned pro late in his ams career and when he turned pro he was at his peak both physically and mentally. And add to that you're giving props for achieving **** like he was a 19yr old phenom. Get a ****ing clue.

 

Perhaps, but let's not forget Loma had never fought anything other than a 3 round fight prior to turning pro. Even though his record was virtually flawless in the amateurs why throw him into a 12-round championship fight with no previous pro experience. I wouldn't have done it. I am sure his father was thinking the same thing. What does it prove?

 

Arguing. FFS....this is just discussing. If you think this is arguing, you should step back for a bit. And now you are all pissed an ****. Over what man?

Again I am not ignoring when Loma turned pro. Rigondeaux had a major am pedigree, even he went the more conventional route by working his way up in competition as a pro.

Giving props like he was a 19yo phenom? FFS dude... if you are going to be this hysterical over nothing, then why bother replying to anyone you disagree with. Go smoke a joint man

You accuse me of being mad, then come back with this cuss filled rant.


OK...this will make you happy. Loma SHOULD have faced a near shot Chris John because a decade earlier, Chris John was very underrated by many, and beating him then would make his resume SOOOO much better. Because a shot name is better than a no name. There you go, YOU WIN!!

 

Lance had a stroke and completely forgot what he was originally arguing for somewhere during all of this bickering.