This victory gives nothing to Lomachenko

He fought at 135 and looked god awful, he was clearly past his best/past his weight class. The weight discrepancy was much larger in TC vs Gamboa than Loma vs Rigo irrespective if Gamboa had fought at the weight before. Rigondeux was considered by the vast majority as a p4p top fighter whereas Gamboa was not at the time he fought Crawford.

 

Vast majority is irrelevant. Instead of using that as an argument why don't you look at actual facts. The facts are since 2014 Rigo looked awful against Amagasa, then fought 2 complete nobodies none of us have ever heard about, then fought one round with Flores. You say Gamboa looked awful at 135, Rigo never even FOUGHT at 130 prior lmao or 126. Gamboa was also 32 while Rigo was 37. These are facts. What the vast majority thought prior is really irrelevant, you should be basing wins off how you judge things. From 2014-2017 what did Rigo do to be considered p4p top 5 and keep that position?

 

Gamboa also beat Salido easily now didn't he?

 

From 2014-2017 Rigondeux made an entire division turn into chickens, his competition wasn't great, you're correct but he never lost his status in the ring, he struck the fear of god into multiple fighters, these are facts as you like to say. Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux has always been a fight that has been in the back of fans mind ever since Lomachenko turned pro in 2013, it was the first time two double Olympic champions fought in the pro ranks.

 

He beat him in a good fight, wouldn't say easily but clearly beat him. With all due respect, that is an casual fan view point on boxing, triangle theories in boxing do not really work, fighters get worse, fighters get better etc.

 

But he didn't actually BEAT them. It doesn't matter if Floyd, Pac, GGG, Loma, Wlad, Wilder, etc ducked him. You actually have to do SOMETHING. I don't know how that's relevant to anything.

 

It's relevant to the point that Rigondeaux didn't fight high level competition between 2014-2017 as It was one of the reasons he didn't get big fights, I never ever said that was the sole reason but to say it wasn't a factor is crazy.

 

It's not a factor at all. The only way you determine p4p is by analyzing fights that have happened. In these fights you use the "eye test" which Rigo didn't look that spectacular let's be honest, you look at the level of opposition, and how dominant they were.

 

Triangle theories do indeed work. PBF beat JMM and Pac and JMM beat Pac and Pac beat JMM but neither could beat PBF

 

Both men needed roids to beat Pac.

 

You get into P4P rankings by beating other quality fighters, Rigondeaux beat p4p level Donaire. Crawford has never beat a current top 10 p4p level fighter. The fact of the matter is, Rigondeux was listed as p4p by all credible outlets before the Lomachenko fight. Lomachenko has beaten a listed P4P fighter, Crawford has not.

 

Actually I misspoke there. It's not the only way. But I think it's the most reasonable way. Especially with a 37 year old fighter in a division where old guys tend to age bad.

 

Absolutely not. Then GGG would have never been ranked p4p. Also Loma wouldn't have been ranked there pre-rigo by your logic correct? I think it's absolutely ridiculous anyways to give someone a p4p spot for beating an inactive 37 year old moving up 2 weight classes. Even if Rigo was active beating Frampton, Quigg, etc at 122, he moved up 2 weight classes.

 

Show proof of failed dug tests or log off and continue to take those Ls.

 

That is true and I currently have Loma as my #1 P4P fighter. Crawford will get his chance to fight a top guy at 147.