Lomachenko vs. Broner

Define "good"

Calzaghe won national titles...isn that enough to be considered "good".

Its not like he was on the world or olympic level.

Provodnikov went toe to toe with a p4p'er last week.
Has a fairly meaningless amateur career.

There are a LOT of good pros who had average at best amateur careers.

Kesslers amateur career was pretty mediocre as well

 

Exceptions?

When I bring up MASSIVE flaws in your argument like Mexicans and most South Americans not caring about Amateur boxing and going straight to the pros, you say "oh,well,thats diffferent"

 

That's easy to say in hindsight. I'm not sold yet, nobody should be at this stage. Those guys haven't experienced the pressures of the peak, facing the best possible competition in a do or die situation. Andre Ward did, he had the champion mentality and ability to cope with pressure and expectations from an amateur. Broner and Russell Jr. don't know what that's like yet, they might not swim. Lomachenko has had the pressure and expectations on him for years and has continuously stood up and performed best when it matters. That mentality doesn't just disappear when you turn pro. Broner may turn out alright, but struggling against PDL and struggling to be mature and professional outside of the ring doesn't bode well for the future. Imitating another fighter, continuous girl problems, whinging on twitter.. it doesn't add up to a stable personality that's going to be consistent at the highest level.

 

It's not a flaw at all, I already said that Mexican culture has their fighters turn pro early so their amateur career is essentially their first 20-30 pro fights. They tend to do well as they are tough and go to the body often. They also sometimes get found out when they step up at that point after padding their records and confidence.
Top amateurs generally make top pros, I don't know how you can try to deny that. You're pointing at some cases that say otherwise, if I decided to it would take me all day and night to give examples that prove my point, because it's so common for the most successful pros to have been successful amateurs.
I really don't even understand how there is an argument at all here, the facts are not even close to being on your side.

 

Marquez
Pacquiao
JCC
Martinez
Hopkins
Duran
Arguello
Alvarez
Morales
Barrera
Hamed
To name but a few

 

You cant just dismiss a massive hole in your argument because you dont like it!

In Large parts of the world, amateur boxing isnt taken seriously AT ALL!

Even in America,plenty of guys go pro in their teens.

Im sure Broner could have stuck around and fought in an Olympics, but he didnt, he went and turned pro young.

Was Hamed held back by not fighting at a high amateur level?

 

To be fair there are lots of great fighters that didn't have an extensive amatuer background.

Does the fact Lomachenko had one guarantee he will be successful as a pro, as big a fan of him as I am, I'd have to say no, it doesn't. That said what we can clearly see is that he has a very pro style, he has exceptional defensively abilties, perfect footwork, speed, every punch in the book etc, so he clearly has a lot of abilties that will translate well into the pro game, as he is showing under pro style rules at present.

There are questions, about his chin, stamina etc which can only be answered at the top level of the pro game. I honestly think the kid will be a star as a pro, and certainly from a purely skills related standpoint is out of this world. It's not a certainty though, the pro game is different.

 

Once read JC Chavez described as a 20 round fighter in a 12 round era. Lomachenko is similar in that over longer distance fights he'll systematically dismantle high level opposition. Think the WSB criticism is harsh. Maxwell is a British amateur champion and has a couple of multi-nations golds to his credit. And a win over Selimov. It's more of a testament to Lomachenko that Maxwell had to claim him to ride out some serious onslaughts. When Lomachenko turns over, the first half-dozen journeymen will be lucky to see six rounds. Remember, Lomachenko will plant his feet more as a pro, but still has that dynamic change of movement. He's got a good guard and great upper body movement too. I'll be surprised if he doesn't make it onto the p4p list in a few years time.

 

youre a ****ing idiot

 

Calzaghe was National champ 3 times at three different weights, and was passed up for the Olympic team due to politics, causing him to turn pro. He was definitely a world-level amateur.

If you watch SRR highlight reels, alot of that footage is him as an amateur in the Golden Gloves.

Pleanty of amateurs go on to not be good pros, and it's usually due to issues like stamina, chin, and maturity, not lack of skill. Name me a great amateur who didn't live up to their hype as a pro, and I'll give you a fatal flaw in their game:

Solis: Being fat
Dirrell: Being a *****
Bute: No cheen
Price: No cheen
Khan: No cheen
Audley: No cheen, no heart

Most guys who are successful amateurs who go on to be successful pros have pro qualities which can be seen in the amateur game. Roy Jones, Andre Ward, Mike Tyson, Floyd Mayweather, SRR, SRL, etc. were all pro types even in the amateurs. Lomachenko has possibly one of the most stereotypical pro styles ever, and he uses it to dominate in the amateurs where he'd be at a style disadvantage. His game is pressure, bodywork, countering, powerpunching, and angles. You can watch entire fights and just look at his footwork and know he'll succeed. He's almost impossible to hit clean, and he can take a shot when he wants to. There is no weakness or question mark about him. He's toying with the best amateurs/semi-pros in the world, which is very rare to see.

i'm making predictions. There's nothing wrong with that, because i'm basing it off what I've seen from him against his current competition. I'm predicting Broner will not continue to succeed, because he's had a hard enough time getting this far against guys who were handpicked to make him look good. Of course he's a more accomplished PRO boxer, but Lomachenko is a more accomplished boxer in general and is clearly a better fighter.

Look at Rees coming straight in and landing, look at PDL controlling the fight and the range. Now tell me a guy like Lomachenko who has vastly superior ring control, head movement, footwork, and power to these guys wouldn't **** up Broner's day.

 

I should also add, Lomachenko's awareness and use of the ring is exceptional. He knows exactly which space to occupy and when. His movement in and out of punching range and multiple change of angles is a different class.

 

yes, we know. he is a professional amateur that specializes in beating amateur amateurs

 

happy

 

atsch
You're a moron. I bet in a years time you'll be saying "****, have you seen this Lomachenko guy?" If you're a boxing fan you can see talent, if you've seen Lomachenko and you don't think he's insanely talented then you don't know anything about boxing.

 

Yeah, no **** he has talent. But there is NO POINT in comparing an amateur to a champion PRO. Got it?