Naoya Inoue's defense

Persuasively argued.

I'll be curious to see if Inoue's explosuve power carries up to 122lbs and beyond. Many assume it's a foregone conclusion that it will, but there are numerous instances throughout the sport's history in which that hasn't been the case.

Consider the most recent example. Everyone presumed Teo's power at 135lbs would automatically translate to 140lbs. Yet, thus far, his power at 140lbs has not produced the same destructive results.

Again, this isn't to suggest that Inoue's power can't or won't carry to 122+ ; rather it's merely a reminder that the jury is still out.

 

Giving up so much reach would be impressive if he had any non-fodder tier wins at lightweight. Wins over Linares and Commey might impress if he was undefeated, but he was soundly outboxed and outslugged by Lopez who isn't quite elite at lightweight. When Loma steps in with a real elite lightweight this year, the gap will be apparent.

 

Loma was not "soundly" outboxed or out-slugged by Lopez. Lopez's size and speed troubled the Ukrainian in the first half of the bout. Additionally, Loma is a notoriously slow starter. Consequently, he lost rounds largely due to inactivity.

Nevertheless, Loma won the majority of the rounds in the second half of the fight and should have lost by no more than a 115-113 margin. The notion that the fight was somehow a one-sided affair s revisionist non-sense.

 

Lomachenko outpunched Lopez in only 3 rounds. He wasn't landing harmful punches in the rounds he was being outlanded in. It was the opposite, if anything. Even on websites where Lomachenko is a huge fan favorite (nearly everywhere) they usually have him losing 8 rounds to 4.

Besides that, again, failing to beat somebody significantly larger than yourself is not the same as beating somebody significantly larger than yourself. Loma has no elite 135 wins. None.

 

If by harmful you mean punches that buzzed or put the other guy in some jeopardy, then no---Lomachenko didn't really land many particularly "harmful" punches. Then again, neither did Lopez (other than a brief body shot, I believe,.in the 12th).

Moreover, you could readily argue that Lomachenko landed the more eye catching punches. And why do I care about comments on some anonymous website? I've been watching the fight game for over 30 years; I don't need the input of some internet rando to form an educated opinion.

Define "elite" wins. Pedraza and Linares were both title holders when Lomachenko dethroned them. Lomachenko can only fight the belt holders who were available at the time.

What was he supposed to do, move up to 140 and fight Taylor and Prograis to satisfy your definition of an "elite" win?

Linares, incidentally, was a much better fighter in or near his prime than the likes of Paul Butler.

 

Linares is and was nowhere near Paul Butler. The guy has been KOd multiple times by fighters outside of the top 30. Get a grip on reality.

Inoue vs Butler was probably the first time you had even watched the guy, but you have an opinion on him because you heard somebody talk about him. And before you start spouting lies, remember how pathetic it is to lie about having watched fights.

And if Linares is "elite" because he held a title, isn't Butler elite because he held two titles? Lol. Follow your own logic.

Here's the right answer: Neither are anywhere near elite, because holding a title doesn't make you an elite fighter.

 

You can only fight who's available, you hysterical clown.

So I ask again: who should Loma have fought to satisfy your esteemed definition of an elite win?

Linares had a weak chin. And? In terms of raw natural ability, he's light years ahead of Paul Butler, and if you had 1/10 the eye for talent (to say nothing of objectivity), you'd acknowledge as much.

Fanboy? That's rich--you're the biggest Inoue nut-hugger this side of Joker.

And why would I lie about watching fights? Who would I be trying to impress? Some internet nobody like you?

Please, man. You aren't that important.

 

Lol, look at my prediction rate. I'll bet you 25 dollars that you can't out-predict me for the full January schedule. You have literally no idea what you're talking about. Butler is technically miles above Linares.

 

There were three elite fighters during his time at light weight before he lost: Lopez, Haney, Mikey Garcia. He didn't manage to get the Garcia fight before Garcia moved up, he vacated the WBC to not fight Haney, and then he lost to Lopez. Linares was never elite no matter how much you try to spin it.

 

I won't address the "whooped" comment again because I've already undressed that stupidity in an early post.

You can't even keep your bull**** straight in the same thread.

In one post, you state that Teo isn't quite elite at 135, yet here you claim that he was one of three elite lightweights campaigning at 135lbs with Loma.

Or is Lopez elite when it suits your arguments? Very flexible definition indeed.

 

In case you attempted to edit it, here's you originally claiming Lopez "isn't quite elite at lightweight."

 

I should clarify that Lopez was perceived as elite after his KO 2 of Commey. He was later found to not be elite. I should have clarified that. Still, no elite wins from Loma/

 

I don't have time for all that.

But since I'm a sporting man-- how about the following:

Have Serge or one of the other well respected posters run a poll:

Who was more naturally talented and a better fighter, Linares or Paul Butler?

If a majority of the posters agree with you and select Butler, I'll leave the board for good.

If a majority agree with me (Linares), you don't post for 1 year.

What say you??

 

Back pedal much??.

 

No, because I have a better prediction rate than literally everybody else with over 50 fights by far. Why would I listen to people who unironically think Joe Louis would smash Anthony Joshua? There's an objective way to measure who is usually correct.