Vasyl Lomachenko - The Best Opposition Ratio of all time

Why would sixteen and eighteen year olds with almost no amateur experience have the same confidence to fight world ranked fighters as a 25 year old with hundreds of amateur fights? You ask me, Lomachenko was the ***** who didn't have the confidence to turn pro until way late. I have way more respect for what Benitez or Canzoneri did grabbing world titles at 17 and 18 than I do for Lomachenko.

 

I'm saying Lomachenko ain't faced the best because he faced the worst kind of competition from 18-25 that any boxer could face by staying in the amateurs. That's worse than fighting pros with losing records. That 396-1 amateur record states loud and clear that Lomachenko has fought more no hope bums than any pro boxer in history.

If you wanted to be fair about it you ought to make it chronological and see who fought the best competition from 25-29 to see how Lomachenko squares up. Tony Canzoneri was already a three weight champion by the age of 23, had beaten Al Singer, Billy Petrolle, Kid Berg, Lou Ambers, and Kid Chocolate by the age that Lomachenko decided to enter the pro ranks. By the time he was the age Lomachenko is now he'd faced Barney Ross, Baby Arizmendi, Johnny Dundee, and Jimmy McLarnin. He's faced most of these guys two or three times each and fought more hall of famers than Lomachenko's had fights but if you want to act like he faced lighter competition than Lomachenko, you go on ahead and do that.

You want to do it your way. That's fine, but I think it misses the point, and I think I might go ahead and do more of my own median stats, because I feel they capture the spirit of the thread more than the letter. You've inspired me a little to look into this. And I've got nothing but time now that it's the holidays. I'm thinking I might run some numbers on Ezzard Charles or Barney Ross. I'm curious, what did you find their averages to be?

I don't mean to be disrespectful to you or Lomachenko. You're alright, and Loma's #1 p4p right now. But I feel like his accolades are just way overblown around here, same as Floyd's were for years.

 

First of all I'm not angry. Second, my point was valid. You can't compare a boxer with 11 bouts with a boxer having 30-40+ bouts. It's statistically incorrect. Period. End of statement. Run this again after Lomo 's 30th bout. Then we'll have a full dataset .

 

Yep. Just as with any real sport analytics, there are qualifiers. You have to place minimums otherwise results will be obviously skewed. Ignoring this is in metrics cherry picking. For ex. in the NBA if a shooter hasn't taken enough shots they won't even make it onto the chart.

 

So outside of fighting six current or former champs in his first eleven fights, he's fought bums with padded records.

How'd your Rigo-Loma pick go by the way??

You're anti-Loma bias is absurdly transparent.

 

Lomachenko's pro record is 17-1. That is a fact. If you are paid for bouts after your amateur career is over, that goes on your pro record. He lost his first attempt at a title in his seventh pro fight, and won a title in his eighth. Not bad. Salido wasn't a bum, but also wasn't top level. Russell Jr. is his best win. He's the only upper level guy that Lomachenko fought, who gave it an honest effort. Yes if you look at Loma's ledger, he fought some bums in those 17 fights, but fought titlists also. Not hard to get a title now days though. Should Martinez or Sosa have honestly had a belt?

My Rigo vs Loma pick was wrong. My gut told me that Loma was too young, and big. I knew from the Dckens fight that Rigo would have trouble keeping the distance, and also closing it, as he has lost a step at 47 years old. His loss was expected. So what.

Not at all. The main issue here is that some Loma fans(I'm a fan as well) are more than fans. They are Loma ball gobblers. I can be a fan of a fighter, and also be objective, and critical. I point out that Loma is feather fisted, and his face damages easily, and some of you don't tolerate that, as you peer from under his balls, in anger whenever somebody keeps it real. Lomachenko is a top level talent, one of the best amateurs of all time, and one of the best fighters of this generation. He doesn't walk on water though, and at 5'7, he has the size to truly test his mettle at higher weights when the time comes.

 

Wow....a well argued, defensible, reply.

So you picked Rigo despite believing that Lomachenko would win?? Hmmmm...sounds like you're harboring a bias (my exact point).

I would disagree with the featherfisted remark, however. When Lomachenko elects to sit down his punches, he's more than s adequate puncher. You don't blast out Roman Martinez, a generally durable veteran with solid whiskers, without having pretty good pop. Similarly, Walters and Rigo weren't beaten because they didn't give it "an honest effort." They were embarrassed and quit. Huge difference, my friend.

Cheers.

 

well the boxer with 40 fights has had far more "opportunities" to lose. It is true that comparing 10 with 40 isnt statistically sensible, you'd need to take like with like, for instance LOmas first 10 title fights with someone elses first 10.

though its true that Lomas has an unparallelled rise to elitedom in terms of swiftness, in recent times.