Orlando Salido SD12 Vasyl Lomachekno. Will this be the best win of 2014?

Tell me about it, some of us like to talk about boxing and then there's others who like to bring up homo***uality for whatever reason out of nowhere.....

 

Who cares if people temporarily have a dip in interest in Lomachenko? They have every right to because 1. they don't know anything about Lomachenko, they probably assume him to be this gun shy dude because as pro boxing fans, pro fights is all they care about and that's all that Loma has shown them 2. Lomachenko didn't live up to expectations. We can throw the pacing strategy as the excuse or anything, the fact of the matter is, he didn't live up to expectations. He didn't beat Salido like boxing experts thought he would.

The pro boxing fans aren't going to know **** are they..Anyone who has seen enough of Lomachenko and isn't butthurt will vouch for the fact that Lomachenko when fully adjusted will be a monster.


Based on what I've seen from the amateurs, Lomachenko with his 403-2 record (Salido fight included), knows how to adapt to fighters otherwise he couldn't have had a record like that, wouldn't have pulled out certain performances we've seen him pull out in times of adversity.

He has been able to take good punches from a huge pro guy, and has the stamina to go 12 rounds which is the validation he needed...


I admit I have a slight fear where Lomachenko is concerned...the Lomachenko we saw against Salido...that gameplan, I don't like that coming into play unless he's so far ahead in the scorecard and just has the agenda not to get knocked out..
Lomachenko needs to understand he's a come forward pressure fighter predominantly who has abilities as a counter puncher and has good defence, but these abilities here are complimentary features to his primary style, they are not independent but enhancements, so to fight primarily in this way is not necessarily a great thing, and we saw that against Salido (but the 'loss' is virtually attributed to Loma's **** pacing strategy). It wasn't just about Lomachenko failing with pacing, it was also what I mentioned just now.
Lomachenko should be expected to be blood and guts at times, but the only difference is that he will get hit relatively little because of the features he has that I was just talking about.

Now, isn't anyone going to go on the Inowhoue thread and talk about Inoue, or is no one interested? lol

 

Hell no. Lomanchenko no matter how many fights he had or how good he can potentially be...is still a guy with very few professional fights.

 

Link to a legit source with a full list of his opponents with dates & results or stfu

Loma did not have 400 am fights

No, because there's already a thread on the same exact subject for anyone interested

 

classic

 

DrMo, post something that DISPROVES it. For you to say he 'did not' have that amount of fights, the onus of proof is on you too. Don't take your life stresses out on me, man, you've been stalking me here.

I can't prove it. I can prove that Lomachenko's record is around 90-1 including Olympics and WSB, from 2004-early 2012 AIBA site.
Also, in his younger years, he said he would fight far more often but as he got older he would fight less and less. So that's from age 5-15. 10 years, I imagine he had 1 fight every fortnight for 10 years, that's 27 fights a year, x10 years, that's around 270 fights before 2004, that sounds reasonable. And yes, he started his actual amateur career when he was very young.
Consider he is double olympic champion, been in three world championships, euro championships etc.
Manny Steward pointed that amateur fighters would sometimes have fights twice a day.
Lomachenko seems like a man of honesty, I've watched him before his pro career and you had a taste of his character during post-fight against Salido. Why does a double olympic champion who only has one recorded loss on the senior level have to lie about a number? Or was he a **** fighter when he was a youth? Well I have GIF's from his young age which show he was already copying Roy Jones in his fights in very early 2000's. A master like him who lost just 1 fight in an era where medalists have win:loss ratios from 80:20 to 50:50 is hardly going to be full of losses growing up - that's an argument, not a fact, but reasonable.
Also, I remember counting his medals/awards to prove the point in a clip, there were around 80+ - are those awards (granted some of them may just be honouring his talents) given after just 1 or two amateur fights?

 

Loma will cut easy.
400+ amateur fights, with head gear.
In Pros and no gear, Loma's face will lack the resiliency of an Oscar DeLaHoya.

After GRJ, like in Raging Bull, "He ain't pretty no more".

 

No, that's not how it works.

You claim he had 400 fights, I call bull**** & ask you to post proof of his 400 fights, a legit source with times, dates, locations, opponents etc.

You don't post proof (as always) but instead ask me disprove your spurious claim.

atsch

 

:-(
No, thats not logic my friend. I don't care how you think it works. You say something is definitely not the case, you are making an absolute verdict, you thus ALSO need to prove why it is not the case.

I said I can't prove it because I don't have the records, but there are there nonetheless reasons to believe why it is plausible to think he had that many amateur fights, and all it takes is around 1 amateur fight every fortnight, for 10 years.

Nevertheless, an extra point I will like to throw out there is that an absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. So just because it cannot be verified, it doesn't mean it is NOT true. What we are left with is argumentation.

 

Stfu then

 

DrMo, stop trolling. You're also ignoring the statements I made about logic - will you continue to shun double standards?