Vasiliy Anatoliyovych Lomachenko Vs. Edwin Valero — Who Wins?!?!?!

Early on in his career when he was training at Garcia's gym.

 

Only present fighter that fought from 126-135 that I think could catch Loma with a load of a shot is Mikey Garcia, and he is up at WW.

 

I would have NEVER counted out Valero. He was indeed a beast!

 

Valero had a very god chin. I think, Loma would dominate the first few rounds, but Valero would take over in the second half and stop him late. Remember the fights against Mosquera and DeMarco! Valero was able to work over 10 rounds with a very high output and never lost his power.

 

Yeah, but often with a certain jaundice and dubious rationale. Walters was hyped up on killing guys whose best days were between fly and bantam while rehydrating massively. In reality, he was always a fairly basic boxer puncher, fodder to be exploited in center ring by Loma, even in his best state of preparation (which he was a ways removed from when they did meet, for what little that's worth). Russell is primarily pure speed, which *should* be negated by a guy who knows how to better manipulate the long-to-mid range transition and has pretty fast hands himself. I picked Lomachenko to beat both.

Valero was vastly more canny and nuanced than most are aware of or care to admit to.

Linares was a glorified boxer/athlete speedster by my lights, too reliant on getting off first. I was never especially impressed by his timing or his general ring savvy, another guy I expected Lomachenko to deal with quite handily. Valero was more rounded and crafty than Linares (and would have summarily executed him H2H, t'boot). We were yet to see the best of him.

I don't fall into the 'picks everyone to beat Lomachenko' category, by any means. But I fancy Valero here.

 

Styles make fights. Cambell is tall, lanky and exceedingly cautious in his defense. Valero is non of those things. That display of boxing he put on against Demarco was....shocking actually for all the hype we had heard. Loma lights that chin up in a major major way.

 

Edwin Valero doesn't belong in the same sentence with Lomachenko.

 

Exactly - people somehow extrapolate Valero being this A+++ fighter off his biggest step up in class, versus a B grade opponent, with a B+ performance.

 

I prefer a paraphrased version I coined. Stylists make fights. Nominal styles don't mean as much without the levels and nuances to impose them, and...

...there is always more than one way to skin a cat.

I know Luke's strengths and weaknesses pretty well. Valero is a higher caliber of gun, and would have represented a massive threat to Loma and would have kept him exceedingly honest.

Valero vs. Lomachenko would have been a hotly anticipated matchup had the pair existed in the same 130-135 era, and for very legitimate reason.

I found it a skillful, methodical and comprehensive dissection. Besides the first couple rounds of feeling out, the only real issue he had with the rangier DeMarco came from the point of his elbow, an inconvenience he shrugged off in going back to work and breaking the teak tough Mexican down.

I've taken to applying a certain litmus test when faced with remarks like the above, i.e. those which make me suspect that the author might be missing a trick or two;

I do believe you stated that styles make fights. Aside from which, that you so casually credit Big Baby Miller with the stuff to replicate Fury's success suggests that you did not discern what is unusual about Tyson (beyond the inches in height he holds over the average modern heavy).

You also stated that Conor McGregor is a better boxer than Valero, which is in no way a defensible comment. It's a risible one.

Most of the recommendations of Valero I'm reading are restrained and speculative. "I'm very angry that we never got to see how far Valero could have gone" and "Dude was a crazy warrior, too. Fought with his skull exposed and forced DeMarco to quit on his stool" are tantamount to touting the DeMarco fight as the key, categorical evidence of "A+++" quality?

Those who rate Valero are generally not basing their belief in him solely on the DeMarco fight. Heck, his critics were the first to mention DeMarco in the other thread.

We who believe that Valero had serious promise have to resign ourselves to it being forever lost and unproven in the elite category. You may say that it's easy to big up a guy who passed before the bigger tests came his way, but I say it's easy to tear him down on the same account.

If Valero wasn't prematurely deceased, and therefore an easy mark for offhand dismissal, I'd also say that you must have a liking for the taste of hat.


Meanwhile, if we must speak of hyperbole and grandiose claims;