Well its just over 4 years since Loma..

At age 27, with over a decade of internet experience under one's belt, being labelled a 'hater' is low on the chuckle scale. It's an eye-roll thing, bemusing more than amusing, and yet wearily familiar. I trust you've been met with cries of 'hater' when expressing an honest assessment of a fighter at some point? Did it make you chuckle, or would you agree that it's a cliché at this point? Grown men of my age and older can't handle a considered opinion without all this subcultural baggage being applied to the discussion?

Ironically enough, just a couple of weeks before the fight happened, someone found fault with me for saying that Lomachenko's opposition was stronger than Rigo's in the last few years. Depending on who you talk to, you're either a fanboy or a hater of the same fighter.

But you're entitled to think whatever. The only cost is that it turns threads into meaningless mush and trash.

And I wouldn't ordinarily make this observation, but, seeing as we couldn't have this conversation without skirting the gutter, I'll take the opportunity to pass comment on the aforementioned subcultural baggage. That lounge is a gosh-darn sewer. We all could be talking about the arts or other worthwhile things in there, but the last time I went in, pretty much every darn thread on the front page was about taking a dump on other ethnic groups. I'm all for saving civilization from seditious and savage elements, but it's very difficult to assume that moral high ground when your behavior (or, in your case, the behavior of those you break bread with) is uncivilized, dishonorable and anti-intellectual. Do I think there should be far fewer Muslims and Africans shipped into Western Europe? Absolutely. Would I have the unassimilated millions shipped out were it up to me? Absolutely. But I would justify this with rationale and logic, not by asserting the worthlessness of every human being outside of my own ethnic group, as your peers appear to do. Or maybe they're just trolling or exercising their right to speech. Or something. Whatever they call it, it's pathetic and only results in grown men painting bitter, basement-dwelling, micro-hung portraits of themselves (the exact opposite of the image they're trying too hard to project). Anyway, each to their own.

 

Well he wont have no choice. I dont see many fighters 140 and under wanting to get in the ring with him. They'll say they do only cuz it looks good on camera. 2020 is only 24 months away and thats when I see Loma invading the WW division.
What you guys think about lets say....Loma vs Broner at 147as his first fight ?
I think Adrien will fight him if the offer is on the table.
Also in 2020 the WW landscape will be different. I think Spence at least will be fighting at a higher weight. Maybe even Keith Thurman.
What about Loma vs Danny Garcia ? It could happen. This guys, AB and Danny have nothing to lose anymore, unlike Mikey Garcia who has everything to lose if he gets a boxing lesson from Loma.

 

Is Broner even going to be available to fight in 2020, let alone pull the trigger in a world class bout? He's an incorrigible felon and an alcohol abuser whose history of poor lifestyle choices between fights is bound to be catching up to him as he hits 30 (if it isn't already).

 

Great talent, but four years, 11 fights, 30 years old.

 

Racist.

 

10 title fights. That's more than Ward, Rigo, Mikey, the same as Bud, and he's younger than all 4.

Canelo's the only younger guy (27) on the p4p list with more championship experience (11 title fights).

The only dude really ahead of the game pace-wise is Monster Inoue, who's already having his 10th title fight coming up at the ripe old age of 24.

 

I don't mindlessly jockey every Slav that comes down the pike, it's true. But Andriy Kotelnik was one of my personal favorites of the last era, and Sergey Kovalev has long been one of my very favorites from the current era - and if I cared to draw up a P4P list, he'd also be my current #1 (notwithstanding his defeats to Ward, which, by my lights, have more worth than the other guys' best wins).

I'd suggest growing up and learning to apply actual reason to differences of opinion.

So I hear. Anyway, I suppose we'd better rerail this thread and allow for others to pass comment on Loma's first four professional years.

 

Not bad, but put into perspective, even recently:

Leo Santa Cruz is 6 months younger, he's had 13

Choclatito is 4 months older, has already had 17

Paquiao had 15 by age 30.

Mayweather had 19 by age 30.

DLH had 25 by age 30

 

I've gone to bat on the last four names you listed at one point or another when people called them out on resume so those aren't surprising numbers, but props for pointing out LSC. I didn't know he has that many.

 

Yes, it seems like Fernando Beltran is still his promoter.
Nevertheless the problem here is that Berchelt himself is not interested. He lacks that competition spirit — to fight another best just to see who is really the champion.

 

Scanning back over my posts, I think the closest I came to a rhetorical device were my use of the phrases "midget-beating" (how else to put it?), which I thought was valid criticism of Walters' anaemic ledger, and "guzzle the Kool-Aid", which was to say that I found it unreasonable to expect those who are unconvinced of Loma's upper echelon quality to just accept the conviction of those who are convinced ("a wide range of stylistic opposition winds up looking just as useless vs him as any other" is in the same ballpark as "Floyd would've beaten Margarito anyway so Baldomir is just as good", i.e. useless).

I wouldn't say I found the charge of hating/trolling insulting or offensive, it's just old hat. Which isn't a criticism of you personally, so much as a criticism of the ongoing subculture of online boxing discussion, with groups of fans seeming to be so deeply lodged in these demographically oriented entrenchments as to be unable to process honest criticism as anything but polemic. Viewed objectively, is the following statement really so unreasonable (especially given that we're talking about the consensus current P4P)?

To cite a parallel example and hopefully make my position clearer,

While an admitted critic of Golovkin's run of opposition, I was never among those calling for him to face Lara or even extend a return call-out to him, which I guess would be the equivalent to Loma-Rigo in the case of GGG. Outside of whether Lara was genuine or not, I didn't consider it the kind of fight that would prove anything Golovkin needed to prove re. his assumed greatness, and felt that rising to the goading of Lara and his three fans would have been quite lame in Golovkin's position. To his minor credit, he ignored the catcalls of the 'Cuban boxing school' crowd.

Though I didn't think it was a good fight, I'm not overly concerned with Lomachenko-Rigondeaux individually. A lot of these fights in this string might be given a pass individually. It's the trend they establish over the course of almost four years I'm more critical of. I don't even understand how the type of Lomachenko fan who believes him to be among that most rarefied class of fighter (I'm not saying this is you, as I don't know what your real estimation of him is) can be so satisfied with the last eight opponents. If I'd been an avowed believer in his upper echelon potential, I would now be frustrated with the résumé since Russell.

Lomachenko is not a personal favorite of mine, but I have few currently active personal favorites. If I felt strong aversion to fighters who aren't among that group, I'd be hating on pretty much the entire sport.

I thought I made a point, throughout the discussion, of articulating why I feel a certain type of way about Lomachenko's body of opposition post-Russell. To wit;

I also made a point of applying credit where credit was due for a good, solid win;

In another thread, I was taken to task, not for criticizing Lomachenko's body of opposition through 2014-2017, but for recommending it over Rigo's. My criticism of Lomachenko is relative criticism, and that should be kept in mind. It would be fair to say that I can be a stern and exacting critic. But then again, a great deal is being assumed of Lomachenko on his behalf, by both the industry hypesters and consumers of his product. To restate, if I'd been an avowed believer in his upper echelon potential, I would now be frustrated with the résumé since Russell (in much the same way that certain long-standing Golovkin fans I've corresponded with over the years had grown frustrated and critical of the management of his career by the back end of 2016). I don't think my feelings toward Lomachenko are wantonly or unreasonably negative, I don't feel any particular way about the man.

I think there is a difference, too, between criticising the overall quality of a body of opposition and stating that its quality is solely or largely the fault of the fighter. The two positions aren't mutually exclusive, of course, but it shouldn't be assumed that the latter follows the former.

David Lemieux fans might have a better case for indicting me on charges of hating, as I do have a rather dim view of his abilities and have questioned his fortitudinal quality (especially relative to the type of fighter he is). But even there, I feel my criticisms are valid and demonstrable.


Fair enough, with regard to the Lounge. The term 'racist' (much like the term 'hater') has been washed of all meaning by wanton overuse, so it's not my intention to call that place out for racism as such, but more broadly for its arrested intellectual development and absence of accountability when it comes to the principles of civilized discourse. The soft (combined with the hard) genocide of white people is a demonstrable cultural reality, but would that the best we could mount in terms of an intelligentsia to resist it were the posse of impotent obsessives and mentally feeble, uncivil, dribbling morons in those threads, it would be hard to make a case that we deserved to continue existing. But I guess if there's anything more to be said on that it could go to PM.

 

It might be a matter of making him a compelling offer and giving him adequate time to prepare for a fight of such career magnitude. Can we agree that a month was hardly fair notice for Miguel Marriaga to prepare for the biggest challenge of his life (especially when receiving it a mere three months after the kind of gruelling bout that a fighter could reasonably be expected to need a period of time to bounce back from)?

And as I said, if there's nothing doing at 130, go wherever you can get credit for something. Top Rank and its matchmakers need to get creative, that's what they're there for.

 

The whole point of the Lounge is to talk about irrelevant things, pick fights with people you hate on ESB and say whatever you want. 90 percent of the Lounge is a troll fest. You are missing the point of its existence. Also the hate that goes around there is not just by white people. I guess you werent there when a bunch of the bigots, Pro Floyd bigots on ESB decided to troll the lounge and pick fights.

 

That's your interpretation of its existence. Another interpretation (given its detachment from the main site) might be that it's a toilet in which to place the forum's turds so that they don't make this place stink. So a subforum that could be good is actually God-awful because people just can't help being twats. Anyway, I'm not advocating 'muh censorship' or curtailing anyone's 'free speech, maaaaan', I'm advocating personal accountability in regard to the principles of civilized discourse (which I stated). Part of the responsibility that comes with the right to speech is to use it wisely and thoughtfully, with honorable convictions. I'm also criticizing the hypocrisy of the self-appointed defenders of civilization in there.

I didn't even say it was. Culture of victimhood strikes.


Anything thoughtful to add on Loma's first four years, or are we just potshotting?