Lomachenko vs. Broner

better schooled as long as he is in 4 round fights

lets see how he does in round 9,10, 11, 12

 

I doubt he'll have much problem with it either, but how about we sit and at least get a little more proof before we make such bold predictions :hey

 

Hes been fighting the best...amateurs.

He hasnt gone near the big leagues yet.

Wait til he steps up to the big time before making any predictions

 

And all the guys with practically no amateur experience who went on to be great pros.

Namely pretty much every Mexican you ever heard of.

 

Mexico is different, they have a culture of turning pro early. Their early pro fights are essentially their amateur career. And as we know they are tough and like to body punch, which always bodes well for the pro game. Oscar Valdez is a good Mexican prospect, was a successful amateur also.

 

The olympics are the big league, fighting Gavin Rees is not.

 

Nobody's arguing that. We're saying it's a predictor of success in many cases. I'm saying that the competion level Lomachenko has been dominating is higher-level than the pro fighters that Broner has been fighting. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Professional does not necessarily mean better than amateur.

Probably when Muhammed Ali was going to fight Teofilo Stevenson.

Rees, Litzau, and Escobedo aren't exactly the big leagues, brah.

And that's the nature of predictions. If I waited, it would be an observation, not a prediction. Much like how I observed PDL beat Broner.

 

Fighting a bunch of guys too young or not good enough to go pro isnt the big leagues.

Gavin Rees is a former world champ.

Lomanchenko hasnt even fought a pro fight yet!

 

No,the guy above is LITERALLY saying what Lomanchenko has done should be considered igher than what the likes of Broner have done.

 

atsch
Broner is fighting pros top 10 guys and champs Lomachenko is fighting ams. One guy is proven to be a good fighter and is already a top 10 P4P talent, while the other hasn't.:deal Log off with your ridiculous post.

 

:deal
Amateur success doesn't mean dick in the pros.

 

How in the hell is he a prospect when he's already won a world title? You might could call him green still but he's not a prospect, he's a titleholder.:deal

 

That's easy to agree with. 3 world championships, two Olympic titles, one loss out of a couple hundred fights. Do you really think losing to PDL and beating DeMarco is better than that? Because it isn't.

 

Newsflash.. you don't have to be good in anyway or even have fought before to turn 'pro'. Beating the top Cubans and Russians is something Broner could never dream of doing, he is one of many USA boxers who wasn't good enough as an amateur so turns pro instead. Gavin Rees is a bum, nothing but a domestic fighter and he still tagged Broner at will in the first couple of rounds.

Lomachenko is fighting 5 rounds without the headgear, pro rules on Saturday against the only person to ever beat him, Albert Selimov. When Selimov was green he almost beat Gamboa, after Gamboa had won his gold medal. Selimov later won a world championship (A true world championship where you have to beat everyone, not pay a sanctioning fee to earn). That's tough competition, Gavin ****ing Rees is not. Neither is old, feather fisted Malignaggi.

 

Ah I do because this is pro boxing and not the ams. Until he actually steps into a boxing ring as a pro he hasn't proven **** but to be a good amateur boxer. He might not be able to take a punch. There have been better amateur fighters than Loma who didn't do **** in the pros.