He did lose. It was a competitive fight against a vet who came in overweight (I think), had a size advantage and fights way dirtier than you'd get in the AM's. As far as losses go, it's not a terrible one. But yeah ultimately it's a loss. Has he since gone on to beat better fighters and himself look better? Absolutely. Would I pick him to beat Salido in a rematch? Absolutely. Could we perhaps do with seeing him in against a similar styled fighter just to answer the question this L leaves? Absolutely.
I'm not even sure it's been used as much as Floyd's inconsequential sparring session with Spadafora (when Paul was at the height of his camp for Renato Cornett and Floyd was just getting back into training after three months out), let alone Floyd's first fight with Castillo. Loma will be playing catch-up for a good while yet, not only in the greatness stakes, but in the most hated on stakes. The only guy he's beaten who could reasonably be considered better than Salido is Rigo, and that guy was too small, too inactive and too old for most of us to figure out a way he could win. GRJ is more athletic than Salido, but not necessarily better. He certainly hasn't proven that he's better.
Nice dodge. You said all you have to do to beat Loma is rough him up, which salido proved he could do in the first fight. So il ask again, would you pick salido in a rematch? Bare in mind dodging the question is basically admitting you were talking nonsense as you know you wouldn't pick salido. I am perfectly willing to accept it if you want to say you'd pick salido in a rematch, or do you want to be a grown up and admit lomachenko has learnt from that fight & you know that beating him is now not as simple as just 'roughing him up'. Sorry I've had to put you in this corner blizz.
That's not a question to dodge. And the rest of what you said you can eat **** and die you ****en irresponsible coward. History will now say that all you have to do is rough him up. He's avoided that type of fighter since. Trampler is the greatest thing that's happened to Loma. Perfect match making.
He maybe hasn't had the platform to prove it yet but I'm of the opinion he's better. I'm hoping his career will go on to back my claim up
Having a loss in your 2nd pro fight against a world champ means nothing. If you told a boxing historian that a fighter lost a title fight in his 2nd pro fight and you can't rate him due to that he would laugh in your face. No man is unbeatable. There is not a single fighter who is capable of ever not losing. So why would anybody be undefeated if everybody can lose? Well logically the answer must be he lacked competition.
I don't pick winners in fights that I don't care about. I watch them. And how many Usernames do you use on this site I mean damn lmao?
No and no. Go and check the last round of Loma v Salido and there's only one man getting ****ed up. 1 more round he was getting KO'd !
Lomo could KO God and his detractors would say "but God came up two weight divisions!" And for the record: I think God would win. Lomo looks like the real deal, but he....just like every other fighter EVER...can be defeated. All it takes is the right opponent and the right night when everything comes together for him and goes wrong for Lomo. Floyd ALMOST met that man, and so did Rocky. ALMOST. I'm not going to post in Lomo threads again until his next fight. It's useless to argue with either side.
What they'll never understand is that was the best thing that could've happened to him. He got more valuable experience in that one fight alone than most pros get in years. Pacing, how to deal with the deck being stacked against you, how to handle (and not handle) fouling...the value of it is immense. And even after the L, Loma never whined or cried about it. The mofo took absolutely all the lessons from that fight to patch up whatever he hadn't yet seen in the pro game. Good luck replicating that outcome. It didnt even work the entire 12 rounds. And he backed that up by targeting GRJ in his 3rd friggin fight. Had he lost, starting 1-2 sets him back years.