Devin Haney vs Zaur Abdullaev Scorecard by Gold

scorecard by GOLD



Devin Haney

Zaur Abdullaev

We do need help growing, please share:


Gold's picture

This was Haney's best performance so far, he's definitely graduated to contender status. Great jab, punches looked tight, and his defense was very good. Unfortunately, I don't think he will fight Loma any time soon if at all. If he wanted that fight he signed with the wrong promoter.

Champion97's picture

I agree, Haney has the potential to be a great fighter, is similar to Mayweather. He's nowhere near ready for Lomachencko, but it's a pity he will likely not fight the winner of Commey vs Lopez.

Gold's picture

I think he is closer to being ready than you are saying, if it would have been Haney vs. Campbell like it was originally planned I would have picked Haney. With how dismissive Arum is of Haney it makes me think they definitely believe he is a threat.

Champion97's picture

Strongly disagree Haney would beat Campbell now, I'd be 80% confident Campbell would win, I agree Haney is better, will be better than Campbell ever was when he peaks, but Campbell is far too experienced, Haney needs a good 2 years before he is ready for Lomachencko, I get he's progressing fast, but let's remember the importance of learning fights and enough of them, Alvarez wasn't ready for Mayweather, Haney might well be experienced for a 22 year old, but he is still 22, Alvarez was 23 and was a very experienced fighter for his age, you could argue that the loss was the making of Alvarez and a boxing lesson from Lomachencko would be the making of Haney, but it might not be, and it is a much riskier fight than it needs to be, I think like Lopez, Ortiz, Stevenson, he needs to be built up before he should fight the top opponents, and as of now, I could see Campbell beating him and Lopez comfortably. I just can't agree on that, maybe he's dismissive because of the promotional conflicts, why would he talk up Haney as a fighter unless he thought he would sign a contract? I don't think you can take anything from that. I think Haney is ready for a step up, but let's find the balance between Abdullaev and in all liklihood a disappointing Abdullaev, and Lomachencko, same for all young prospects. I agree Haney has a lot of potential, this was a phenomenal performance, and he might have the potential to be as good as Lomachencko, definitely to be better than anyone else at 135.

Do you still think Lopez is a more well rounded fighter than Haney? Because I think now, people are starting calm down and stop over hyping him.

Gold's picture

I don't rate Campbell that highly so we'll have to agree to disagree there. I think Salt said he had Campbell in the lower end of the top ten at Lightweight, I think I would agree with that. Canelo had a lot more experience than Haney has right now when he fought Mayweather, but Mayweather was also a lot better than Lomachenko is. That's why I don't mind Haney taking a year or more before targeting a fight versus Lomachenko. It wasn't that Arum just dismissed Haney, he made it seem like Haney was irrelevant to Lomachenko and the fight won't be targeted at all.

I think it is an example of guys only being as good as their last fights, if anything Lopez is now underrated because so many people have written him off.

Champion97's picture

Yes let's agree to disagree, but for the record, your scorecard for Lomachenko vs Campbell suggests you rate Campbell very highly, I had the fight wider than you did, but if we go along with your card and not mine, Campbell gave Lomachencko a tougher fight all in all, since Salido.

In my opinion, saying Haney would beat Campbell is like saying Dubois would beat Whyte, I believe Haney is more experienced than Dubois and closer to his prime, but I also think Campbell is better than Whyte, but in both scenarios, it is a case of one fighter having the potential to be a fair bit better than an opponent who might beat them because they are too experienced.

Well like I told him, I disagree, I understand he lost wide to Lomachenko, but Lomachenko is a top fighter, so in my opinion, losing, even by a landslide, to Lomachenko, is no reason to think a fighter loses to at least relatively inexperienced, young prospects, especially prospects like Lopez who have clear weaknesses or tweaks to make at least.

Better? In all liklihood, but a lot better? Very arguable, and I do not think there was a lot in it, and let's not forget how small Mayweather was at 152, and he was 36 against Canelo, his age didn't become a clear factor until the first Maidana fight, and I know it was a master class, but why do you think Mayweather hurt his arm?, it's likely age related, so there are arguments both ways, but whichever way you put it, Haney against Lomachencko is similar to Canelo against Mayweather because both are fighters who are experienced for their age, and might be ready at 23 for tough fights, but likely not ready for the biggest of challenges, because Mayweather, Lomachenko, the levels don't get higher than that, what do you expect from a 22 or 23 year old fighter? I agree that Haney wouldn't be an easy opponent, would make it fairly competitive, but less so than Campbell, it would be a heavy defeat, but it would likely be a great learning fight like the Mayweather loss was for Alvarez.

Plausible, but what Arum said might mean just what he said, I suppose just make of it what you will.

So does Lopez beat Campbell, Haney, both, neither? I think neither. I agree that some people will exaggerate how overrated Lopez was, therefore I think he is underrated by some, but I believe I was vindicated to a degree, because the Nakatani fight proved not that he wasn't good, not that he didn't have potential, but that he was not ready for Lomachenko.

Nakatani, Abdullaev, who did you rate higher before their last fights? Because we both had Nakatani winning 4 rounds against Lopez, we saw what Haney just did against Abdullaev, and this is what I was saying before, after Lopez beat Magdelano, the thing that frustrated me was the combination of Lopez being such an arrogant fighter who I didn't like, and him being overrated, you said (and you were in the majority, you are an example), 'Lopez is the real deal, he would beat Haney because he is a more well rounded fighter', and my response was not that was or wasn't better than Haney, but when that at that stage, you can't say with any confidence that one prospect is better than another.

Gold's picture

It does suggest that? To me, it suggests that Lomachenko struggles versus guys who are bigger than him, and that the southpaw vs. southpaw matchup negated what Lomachenko would usually do. As I've said before, I think Lomachenko is overrated. He is a top 5 pound for pound fighter, and will be in the hall of fame but at Lightweight he hasn't been impressive in my opinion. He is fortunate this is a weaker crop of talent, now guys like Tank, Haney, and Lopez are coming up and he wants to leave the division.

I definitely disagree that Campbell is better than Whyte, so I don't think we have any ground to discuss there.

I understand there is a basis of comparison between Haney vs. Lomachenko and Canelo vs. Mayweather, I just wanted to point out some of the differences between them.

I think Campbell would be a bad style matchup for Lopez, he had a lot of difficulty going forward versus Nakatani, Campbell could probably win a close decision but I wouldn't be surprised if Lopez won by KO, Campbell has been down a few times. I don't think he would beat Haney either but that doesn't mean Lopez is trash.

Abdullaev, but I wasn't sold on him either. Some of Lopez's flaws got exposed versus Nakatani, but again I think there is too much put on fighters being as good as their last fight at the prospect level. The most concerning thing about Lopez after Nakatani is his mentality. It isn't terrible for him to have a learning fight like that where he has to go rounds and face some adversity, but the way he acted after the fight was very bad.

Champion97's picture

It does suggest that because for whatever reason, Campbell lost by a narrower margin on your card than any fighter since Salido. I don't know, he'll have sparred southpaws, the stance wasn't a problem against Rigondeaux, you could say the same for Campbell, he hasn't fought a southpaw in many years, Lomachenko fought Rigondeaux who is a southpaw. Lomachencko is not tiny at 135, size wasn't a big factor in the fight, Campbell had success by using his skills, often on the back foot, it was a very technical fight. I don't agree he hasn't been impressive all in all, the shoulder was a factor against Pedraza, and against Linares, he was great apart from the knock down, I rate Lomachencko higher than you do. I don't believe that for a second, I don't think Lomachencko is trying to cherry pick for fight easy opponents at all, and for the record, Berchelt at 130, is a tougher fight than Lopez and Haney at 135, in all liklihood.

Ok, but it didn't like the 'feed him to Mikey or Loma', suggestion about Campbell as a fighter, I think he was underrated outside of this country, and he proved against Lomachenko he was a good fighter.

I know, but as I ventured, there are also differences that prove the opposite point, and I stated facts, Mayweather being a lot better than Lomachenko is an opinion, not hard to justify, but not hard to disagree with, given that Lomachenko may be the best fighter in the world.

I'm not saying Lopez ia trash, I'm not saying he isn't top 10 at 135, not saying he wouldn't beat Beltran, Mendy, etc. Campbell has been down, but he has also never been stopped. I don't think Campbell is necessarily stylistically bad for Lopez, but I think he would beat him wide, and Lopez, against Lomachencko, would be just like Walters, would get taken apart physically and mentally, would either quit or get pulled out, I thini Haney, at this stage, wouldn't do as Campbell did against Lomachenko, but would do better than Lopez.

No it isn't, I 100% agree on that, prospects need learning fights, and I do believe Lopez learned a lot from the Nakatani fight, but he was hurt in the fight, his lack of experience past 7 rounds was a factor both stamina wise and in terms of knowing how to pace himself, and it is another lesson not to get carried away with impressive prospects. How did he act after the fight? I never want to hear him or his dad talk, I don't watch interviews.

Gold's picture

Ok, well I am telling you specifically I don't rate him highly. If Campbell was the same size as Lomachenko he would have had far less success. It isn't just the stance, it is the stance and size which makes it difficult for Lomachenko to get around. Rigondeaux was way smaller and older than Lomachenko. I agree, Lomachenko isn't tiny at the weight like some of his fans suggest but Campbell was noticeably bigger. I believe I had Linares up on points versus Lomachenko, I wasn't impressed by that performance at all considering he got put on the floor.

What about feeding him to Mikey or Loma? I disagree, he's a decent contender fighter but not world championship-caliber unless he got an easy vacant shot.

Maybe I'm missing the point on what you are saying about Mayweather vs. Canelo compared to Lomachenko vs. Haney. I'm saying it is a fantastic win for Mayweather and Canelo wasn't that green, he was considered a bottom of the top 10 pound for pound guy after beating Trout. Haney is not anywhere near as experienced as Canelo was and Lomachenko isn't as good as Mayweather. As for their resumes, they speak for themselves, Mayweather beat an assortment of Hall of Fame and future Hall of Fame level guys. Lomachenko arguably lost to the best opponent he's faced in his career, and his best win is Gary Russell Jr, which is not bad but there is no comparison.

Basically what I am referring to is when Lopez was thinking about pulling out of the Commey fight because of family issues and seemed very unsure about his ability. Just not the mentality you want to see from someone who wants to fight a top pound for pound fighter let alone someone fighting for a championship versus Commey.

Champion97's picture

Seems like you are reluctant to accept he was a little bit better than you thought, but ok. I disagree, he was backing up and countered Lomachenko, he made Lomachenko have to think, tested his ring IQ (not that it needed to be tested). Yes, so overpowering him, beating him to the punch isn't as impressive besides other things, but he fought another southpaw, could have been a younger, bigger fighter without half the skills of Rigondeaux, and the stance aspect caused Lomachenko no problems whatsoever. Using Campbell's size as an excuse for his success is like using Spence's size as excuse for his dominance against Algieri or Peterson, Campbell is physically stronger than Lomachenko, but what makes you think size was such a factor? Campbell did not smother Lomachenko, make it an inside fight, impose soze and strength, he had success at distance, in a tactical fight that was all about ring IQ, I hope this isn't related to your grudge against Matchroom or British fighters, because I get the sense you don't like us very much, especially not Matchroom fighters, I understand why, you get annoyed by how biased we can be, how carried away we can tet with hype, but be fair man. You didn't, I remember seeing it clear as day, you had Lomachenko ahead and De La Hoya may well have paid the judge who had Linares ahead, as plausible as the possibility he pays judges for Canelo.

What you said after he beat Mendy. I don't know how you can say that after he won 4 rounds against Lomachenko on your card, Campbell is 2nd at 135 in my opinion, is top 60. Campbell doesn't need it to be easy to win a world title, he would 90% beat Linares now, but I think Campbell now would have a better shot against the Linares that beat him, and even if not, that doesn't prove Campbell isn't better than you say.

I know, I agree, but based on how good we now know Canelo is, and how he got not just technically schooled but mentally taken apart, do you not think the lesson in the fight is that for a 22 or 23 year old fighter, experienced for their age or not, fighting a Lomachenko or Mayweather is too much, too soon? I think Mayweather is slightly better than Lomachenko, but don't get carried away with the difference, because there is an argument that Lomachenko is better, a fair few people have made that argument.

I'm going to be careful on this topic, because I think you very much underestimate Lomachenko's resume, yes Mayweather has a better resume, but a lot were against past prime opponents, you could argue that for every good resume, but it is still the case, and Lomachenko's win over Rigondeaux would have been a bigger win had Rigondeaux got the credit he deserved as a masterful boxer, based on how easy the fight was for Lomachenko, and how he out boxed Rigondeaux throughout, did he not prove he was better despite the size advantage? Mayweather has a better resume than Lomachenko, but it doesn't 99% prove he's better, and there isn't so much in it that Lomachenko has no credibility as a threat to Mayweather. What do you mean? Salido is the best he's fought? Well he lost, so you there is nothing to argue against there, he lost by an SD to Salido, a world level fighter, at 1-0, look how dominant Lomachenko has been since the Martinez KO, I think he would have beat Saldio easy even at 7-0.

Right, well his attitude stinks, confidence is a good thing, but not respecting your opponent, thinking everyone is easy work, recipe for disaster, his dad is a complete fool. Lopez's mentality, based on the way he has talked in the past, is very questionable. I think Commey beats Lopez.

Gold's picture

If I remember correctly I picked Campbell to go the distance versus Lomachenko where many picked Lomachenko to win by KO, so I didn't believe Campbell was going to get beaten down. Part of what made it more difficult for Lomachenko was the reach and height advantage, he had to think to get inside on Campbell. The stance did cause problems for Lomachenko versus Campbell because Campbell was big enough that Lomachenko couldn't spin around him as he did with Rigondeaux. It isn't like Spence vs. Algeri at all, Campbell used his size to make Lomachenko have to walk into him, it is not just about inside fighting. This is actually one of the reasons I dislike British boxing culture, there is too much praise put on boxers for being tough and putting in a good effort. I understand it takes two to have a good fight and I appreciate good losing efforts, but the amount of praise and hype some guys get just for that is ridiculous. At the end of the day winning is the goal. I checked and I had it 85-85 even apparently between Linares and Lomachenko.

I do think he got fed to Lomachenko, Hearn didn't want that fight. He wanted Haney vs. Campbell for the vacant title. It is fair enough to say that Campbell would beat Linares now, but Linares is shot. I understand there were outside circumstances but Campbell fought Linares at near peaks in both of their careers and lost.

It just depends on the fighter, some guys that are special can win titles at a young age versus high quality opponents. In a head to head sense between Mayweather and Lomachenko there isn't much of a comparison. You saw the trouble Campbell gave Lomachenko, Mayweather is similarly sized and was many times over the fighter Campbell is. Versus Pretty Boy Floyd Lomachenko would be walking onto shots the whole fight.

I'm very surprised you would say that about Floyd considering how I know you rate him. Rigondeaux was too small, too old, and too inactive. People including myself got tricked into thinking he had a shot in the fight when he didn't. The biggest knock against Lomachenko is that he openly makes it clear he doesn't want to take the most risky fights even if there is a huge amount for him to gain. He didn't want to have anything to do with Pacquiao when Pacquiao was at Top Rank. Yes, I am saying Salido is the best fighter Lomachenko has faced. I think it is fair to say he would have beat Salido if they had the rematch, but it wouldn't have been a beat down. As I have said before, we haven't seen Lomachenko face anyone with the style and skills of Salido since, so we have no idea how much he has improved versus that style. Just for reference, if we agree either Salido or Gary Russell are the best fighters Lomachenko has faced, they may not even crack the top ten best wins for Mayweather.

Well, we'll get an answer to that soon. Seems like Commey vs. Lopez is going to be targeted for the co-main of Crawford vs. Kavaliauskas later this year.

Champion97's picture

You did not expect Campbell to do that well, I am 90% sure of that, not saying he shocked you, but he did at leasr slightly better than you thought. What happened to reach is only good if you know how to use it? If reach alone was a factor, why couldn't Rigondeaux beat Lomachenko to the punch at all?, not why couldn't he hurt him?, not why he came apart mentally, but why couldn't he beat Lomachenko to the punch?, Rigondeaux was older and smaller than Lomachenko? He was also likely more skilled than Campbell, harder to negate the reach of. He could have used pivots, but his game plan wasn't to use his footwork as much as pressure his opponent, break him down to head and body, make him work.

Bad example in that the winner was the bigger fighter, but it's like Spence vs Algieri because it is a case of one fighter being big for the weight, maybe a weight class below his natural weight, and his opponent being fairly small at the weight, a weight above his natural weight class, Spence destroyed Algieri for reasons other than a slight size advantage, and Campbell won 1-2, or 4 according to your card, for reasons other than a slight size advantage, that's the common ground. Lomachencko could win every round stop limited fighters at 147, it would just take him longer to get started find his rhythm, and a stoppage would be more of a challenge, but Campbell did good work off the back foot, was in a competitive battle of brains against Lomachencko, size was a small factor in my opinion, still a factor, and you said it yourself, 'Campbell used his size to make Lomachenko have to walk into him', if he is not a good world level fighter, why was he abke to use his size against Lomachencko, I think he chose to be aggressive, Lomachenko, maybe because he thought Campbell wouldn't expect it, but maybe because he didn't want to give the momentum to Campbell, knew he had vulnerabilities, could be hurt. Campbell is one of the best amateurs the UK has ever produced, he has been in against Linares, Lomachenko, made a great account of himself both times, I would be 80% he beats any 22 year old fighter at least until he declines, and he beats Commey, Easter.

You dislike British boxing culture, ok, I dislike parts of it, but do not take that out on the fighters when assessing them against non-British fighters, because it isn't their fault. British boxing culture, all in all, is great, we create a great atmosphere, the support, in this country, for our own, is phenomenal, not just in boxing, we are loyall, so some of us get carried away and biased, so what?, if you criticise someone for being over generous or biased, and you do the opposite, rather than finding a balance, you are a hypocrite. I am not insulting you, not at all, but you can either take the highground, be articulate, logical, and unbiased, or you can be an idiot who holds grudges, is biased, talks shit, you cannot be both, if you are logical about boxing in general, you have to be logical about fighters from countries or promotional stables you don't like. Who are you to say fighters get too much respect for anything?, in a sport like this, fighters do get respect, backing, they get credit, as long as fans don't say unrealistic things, aren't dishonest or too biased, which a lot of us aren't despite being very glass half full and praising a fighter for winning one round, then you have no argument that a fighter gets too much credit. The amount of hype?, we are all guilty of that, me and you included, but praise?, no, fighters at any level who try their best deserve a lot of credit. Winning is the goal, but is that what sport is all about at the end of the day?, transcending a sport, I think trying your best is the most important thing, no shame in losing to a better fighter.

I thought the fight was a piece of cake to score bar round 7, Linares won rounds 6 and 9, Lomachenko won 1-5, 8, clearly. Lomachenko, in his first fight at 135, came through adversity, went down once, got up and stopped his opponent, raised his stock if anything.

To say Crolla got fed to Lomachenko, is not nice, but to say Campbell got fed to him makes no sense in my opinion, it's just an exaggeration, I don't think Hearn really fancied his chances of the win if that's what you mean, but Campbell was supposed to be and was a live dog in the fight. Yes, but would he lose now to a 2017 Linares? I don't think so, but it is arguable.

It's still a big ask and Canelo against Mayweather very much backs that up, mostly because of how good we now know Canelo is. I am not saying Campbell would give Haney a boxing lesson, I'm not saying Haney wouldn't beat Mendy, Beltran, Shafikov, and maybe in a year or two Campbell, I wouldn't be that shocked if he beat Campbell now, I think it would be competitive, he would make Campbell think, work, his speed would be a big factor, especially early, I could see him being more impressive than Campbell when he would have success, I just think Campbell's experience at a higher level would be too much for him now. When you compare Campbell to Haney, and both were/are very impressive prospects, both were very good amateurs, both have the skills they have, is it not more logical to favour Campbell, because of his superior experience, pedigree, than a hunch you have that Haney might be not only better than Campbell but already advanced enough to beat him? A good opponent for Haney, if you ask me, would be Mendy. Yes, but Lomachenko still beat Campbell comprehensively, I'm saying Campbell did better than you think, possibly better than anyone since Salido (he didn't in my opinion, but your card strongly suggests so), but I'm not saying it wasn't a one sided fight, Campbell is as good as Guerrero, and maybe a 23 year old Alvarez in my opinion. He wouldn't be walking into shots, he would be cautious, try to beat Mayweather by using his positioning, sidesteps, solid fundamentals, would throw more combinations, but I think the exceptional reflexes, timing, judgement of distance, defence of Mayweather would be too much, and he would out box him, win a UD, but Lomachenko would give him a tougher fight than anyone apart from the 3 who pushed him hard.

I think we are in agreement about Mayweather, but not Lomachenko, we agree Mayweather was better, we just disagree on how much by. You don't understand the point I am trying to make about Rigondeaux. Why would a size and age advantage allow Lomachenko to get the better of Rigondeaux for ring IQ, be a step ahead like that? This is always a pointless topic, Lomachenko has not made it clear he is risk averse, and based on moving up in weight and fighting the best in his division, he is not. After seeing them get beaten into submission, it is easy to forget how good Walters, Rigondeaux were. I disagree, I don't think Salido is anywhere near the best he's faced, and the difference in how high you rate Salido and Rocky Martinez doesn't make sense in my opinion. I think it would have been more one sided and easier than Campbell, Pedraza, the style might have been a small factor, but he lost to Salido mostly because he was 1-0, nothing beats first hand experience. I think Linares, Walters are as good as Russell, better than Salido. I'm not saying Mayweather's resume isn't better, but think about what Lomachenko has done in 15 fights, and how much more he achieved as an amateur than Mayweather did.

Good bill, but is Crawford vs Kavaliauskas a done deal? What about Crawford vs Brook?, I thought that was being negotiated.

Gold's picture

I thought he could win some rounds but would lose clearly, so maybe he did slightly better. I'm not saying Campbell is a bum, he is at the contender level, but he isn't great either. Rigondeaux couldn't because he's too small, old, and inactive. Rigondeaux has very low activity, Campbell was able to keep up better than Rigondeaux. Campbell also could punch down from distance. Both Pedraza and Campbell did a good job of limiting Lomachenko from pivoting by blocking his footwork.

Spence fought very differently than Campbell though, Campbell backed up and tried to walk Lomachenko onto shots. I disagree with saying Lomachenko could win every round and stop limited fighters at 147, but I guess it depends on how limited the fighters are that you are talking about. I think Campbell is top 10, but he's not that impressive. Again, this is exactly what I am talking about, he lost versus Linares and Lomachenko, his best wins are older contender level guys like Perez, Mendez, and Mendy. I would take Haney and Commey against Campbell no problem.

It is impossible not to take that into consideration when you are talking to British fans who tow that same line. You've proved my point exactly in regards to giving credit to guys for putting up good efforts when other fighters win.

Disagree, again people were too unrealistic about the level Linares was at. Linares had been sparked multiple times before and got flattened in one round by Cano.

Campbell was an 8 1/2 to 1 underdog in the fight, people didn't think he had a chance to win even if they wanted him to.

I don't think Campbell's pedigree and experience is so impressive that Haney couldn't overcome it. Mendy wouldn't be much of a step up from Abdullaev in my opinion. Campbell is definitely nowhere near as good as 23 year old Canelo. Canelo beat Trout before facing Mayweather which was a legitimate win versus a respected world champion. He wouldn't try to walk into shots, but it would be very difficult because Mayweather is longer and taller than him, is very quick and at that weight had good power. I think Lomachenko would be in the fight, he wouldn't get destroyed but it would be a clear win for Pretty Boy Floyd.

Rigondeaux couldn't pull the trigger like he used to, that's what people talk about with aging fighters, the mentality may be there but the physical aspect isn't. Why didn't Lomachenko pursue the Pacquiao fight at Top Rank then? Would have given him a career-high payday, best name on his resume, mainstream exposure, etc. Walters was definitely an overrated fighter who wasn't interested in the sport anymore. Rigondeaux as I have said was too small, old, and inactive. Salido has far better wins and ring craft than Martinez, Martinez was mostly a product of being a Puerto Rican fighter fighting for the WBO. Watch Lomachenko vs. Salido again, Lomachenko gets outboxed in the early rounds of the fight. Salido outskilled him early. Linares and Walters are very overrated fighters, I can explain why I believe that if you want. Saying what Lomachenko achieved in 15 fights is just buying into Top Rank's framing of his career. He turned pro at 26, when Mayweather was 26 he had won 12 world championship fights in two weight classes and had beat Hernandez, Corrales, and Castillo. When Mayweather was 31, the same age as Lomachenko now, he had won 19 world championship fights in five weight classes, beat Judah, Hatton, and an ATG in De La Hoya. Really no comparison between them.

Seems like it is close to being done, Crawford vs. Brook seems completely off. Likely they weren't able to make the money work for Brook given what they thought he brought to the table.

Champion97's picture

I think that's fair, I didn't say he was great, I don't think he's top 40. I agree they both did well technically, didn't let Lomachenko have a walk in the park like 6 of his last 9 fights. I disagree on Rigondeaux, those factors are all relevant to fight overall, but reach wise, inactivity, age, size, do not prevent you from using your reach to beat your opponent to the punch, prevents from landing with power, doing it for long, but Rigondeaux had a lot of reach on Lomachenko, is great technically, and he couldn't beat Lomachenko to the punch, so don't put Campbell's success predominantly down to his reach, because based on what I've just said, that makes no sense.

Of course, limited is ambiguous, but every word is, good, great, what is a good world level fighter?, top 100?, top 50?, what's the standard?, people have different ideas of how good you have to be to be good at world level. Spence fighting differently favours my argument, because I'm saying size wasn't much of a factor in either fight, but most importantly, Campbell won at least a round against Lomachenko, maybe more, made it a decent fight, much more because of skill than size. He probably won't go down as a British boxing legend, hard to do that without winning a world title, I don't think he is better than Berchelt, definitely not Davis, but he is a good fighter at any level, not great, but good, and he is impressive enough that any 22 year old prospect is taking a big risk by fighting him, that's my opinion. He lost to who? Lomachenko, maybe the pound for pound best. He lost to Linares but he probably won 5 or 6 rounds, if Linares is good at world level, which he is, as a 3 weight world champion, then Campbell must also be. Yes, but why put stock in his wins when we've seen him be competitive against Linares and Lomachenko?, for the record, Mendy is in all liklihood underrated, and Perez is not bad at any level, I still think you are flat out wrong not to give Crolla credit for knocking him out after Gamboa failed to do it. Campbell was the first to stop Yung, he has been impressive in his fights, he has not under achieved, winning a world title is every bit a out getting the right opponent as it is about being good enough. I'd take Campbell to beat Commey and Haney, no problem.

Explain that. I don't think you have an answer, I just broke down the reason why you pick on British fighters, particularly Matchroom fighters, and I don't think you have an answer. I've proved your point?, That British fans give their fellow Brits too much credit?, I just explained why that is nothing more than a baseless opinion of yours which is based on elitism, this is why I call you a glory hunter, and you are. I ask again, who are you to say anyone gets too much credit for anything? I would agree if people were crying robbery and saying Ruiz has no chance in the rematch, flat out lying, supporting British fighters for causing cuts from headbutts, but what you are saying makes no sense, you don't like people who aren't on a high level, getting credit, well that stinks, sport isn't about that, you should respect anyone who gets in that ring.

You had it even against Lomachenko, don't say Linares isn't a very good fighter, and I'm obviously not talking about Linares now. Klitschko had been sparked, had stoppage losses, some fighters learn, improve after losses.

Nobody over here said he was going to win, we all thought it was a very big ask, the support was great, but people over here didn't expect him to even make it close.

I do, I think Haney is a great prospect, but he is untested in a lot of ways, and in a fight like that, logically, Campbell's experience, pedigree should make him the favourite. This goes back to what I've said many times, people often underestimate the improtance of timing in boxing, and in my opinion, which I have explained, Campbell's superior experience would be enough to beat a raw and relatively inexperienced Haney. Put it like this, is Campbell as good as a prime Trout?, probably not, but it's close, Alvarez at 23 was more experienced than Haney, if you agree on those 2 things, based on that alone, you have to at least agree that Campbell beating Haney now, logically, would seem more likely. He wouldn't in terms of overall skill and ability, but stoppimg him would be a challenge, Haney hasn't been 12 rounds, Mendy is an impsoing opponent, is very durable, doesn't do anything special, isn't the most unpredictable, very winnable fight for Haney even at this stage, but he is a great opponent for any prospect of Haney's experience, to say Haney is beyond the level of fighting Mendy, is ridiculous as far as I'm concerned, and if you think that, then not only are you wrong about us Brits over hyping fighters, but you are guilty of that yourself, and you have already proven you are to a lesser extent, with Lopez, but at that was just a case of getting slightly carried away, but no way is Haney too advanced in his career for Mendy not to be a good opponent.

I think Alvarez was already better than Campbell at 23, but not by much, think how much Alvarez has vastly improved in the last 6 years, Mayweather, Lara, Cotto, those fights were the making of him, I think a younger Mayweather would have beaten him even more one sided, Alvarez was not at all overrated in terms of potential, obviously, but he was very overrated in terms of what he was capable of at that stage, again, don't underestimate the improtance of the timing aspect in boxing.

Mayweather has height and reach on him, but again, it is extremely hard to use technical advantages against Lomachenko. Lomachenko has more output than Mayweather, throws combinations, steps to the side, uses angles, is a great thinker, and has incredible skills, maybe footwork than is even better than Mayweather's, and for these reasons, that would have been a fery tough fight for Mayweather, but I think Mayweather would beat him, Mayweather is one fighter we seem to agree on.

He could still use his reach and judge distance well enough that to do that better than him, out think him, beat him to the punch despite a big reach disadvantage, is very impressive, and based on that, you can't put anyone having success against Lomachenko, down to a sheer reach advantage. How do you know he didn't? Most of us aren't in the boxing industry, what proves that a fighter does or doesn't persue a fight? We don't see all the discussions, negotiations, some people say Pacquiao ducked Lomachenko, which I think is more likely, and if that is the case, it is down to Pacquiao knowing the difference between necessary risks, and fights he doesn't need to take for his legacy, not a dig at Pacquiao at all, but there is no logical reason to think Lomachenko ducked Pacquiao, 90% of ducking is boxing is people being stupid in my opinion. Again, it is easy to say that now, revisit Walters as a fighter before Lomachenko broke him mentally, Walters was not definitely overrated, I don't think he was, but schooling him and making him quit is a testament to Lomachenko as a fighter. Again, stop using those as excuses when none of us expected Lomachenko to win like that, he didn't just win, he boxed him into submission.

So why was it 1-0 to Martinez?, why did Martinez drop Mikey and not get dropped himself until round 8? When Saldio went down 4 times against Mikey. Opinions aren't definitive, facts are.

I'm not watching it again, I have better things to do, you have as much reason to watch it again as me. That doesn't prove your point at all, he struggled, especially early, learned on the job, it was not much about styles, it was about Lomachenko's professional inexperience, and the lesson in that fight is that you cannot fight at world level at 1-0. That's another opinion, and I do not agree they are overrated, they are underrated if anything, Walters, weight advantage or not, did well to knock Donaire out, and Donaire was not shot, the weight was a factor, but if Donaire is not shot now, which he obviously isn't, he wasn't shot 5 years ago.

It isn't, it is a fact, he has achieved what he has achieved in 15 fights, was probably the best amateur of all time and has adapted well to the professionals. I agree that amateur careers, and WSB, which is sort of semi professional, is very important, Lomachenko was needed about 6 professional fights if you ask me, most need about 20, a fighter like Alvarez, with very little amateur experience, needs a good 30, but I am not saying Lomachenko doing what he has done in 15 fights is better, but given that that's all he's had, you can't make much of the number of names on Mayweather's resume, it is fair to compare their top 3 wins, and I agree Mayweather's resume is a lot better, hard to deny it is better, but it doesn't make much sense to count the number of world champions Mayweather has beat, compred to Lomachenko, that's what I mean. Mayweather had a quarter of the amateur fights Lomachenko had, Alvarez at 23 might have been inexperienced as we have established, but he was more advanced than a 23 year old Mayweather, doesn't mean he's better. If Mayweather is better than Lomachenko, then what he had achieved at 26 is not the reason, it is about how good you are in your prime. For the record, I think you exaggerate the difference, De La Hoya was past his best, I agree his resume is clearly better, but I don't think Mayweather beat anyone who Lomachenko couldn't beat.

Gold's picture

Almost all of these points I don't think we will be able to come to a point of agreement on, so if parts the discussion becomes tiresome for you, I think it is better for the both of us to agree to disagree.

I disagree about Rigondeaux because inactivity, age, and size do directly influence boxers from using the abilities they once had. Guys come in rusty to their fights with inactivity, age means they can't physically pull the trigger the way they used to, and size disadvantage means they have to punch up and can be outmuscled. I'm not saying it is a write off of a win, just not as good as some people make it out to be.

Yeah, I am asking because you said that he could beat a limited fighter at 147, so I am asking what your interpretation of limited is. I'm saying that Spence used his size (and power) to walk Algeri down and overpower him. Campbell used his size to make it more difficult for Lomachenko to box him without walking in. I'm not saying Campbell is a weight bully or that his success only comes from his size, but that it was a relevant point in the fight. I do agree it would be a risk for Haney to fight Campbell by the way, just that I believe Haney would come out on top in that fight. Again, boxers are ultimately there to win, Campbell did well versus Linares and Lomachenko but ultimately he lost, it is hard to rate him over people who have actually won versus better opposition than Campbell has. Guys like Mendy and Perez are fine for getting to a contender level, but once someone is at that level and expects to fight for a world title they aren't that great of wins. Yung is not a relevant name at all for someone who wants to be at that level. I think he has underachieved, the hope was certainly for him to win a world title. Part of Eddie's job is to steer him to an easier world title opportunity, I agree with that, but it is partially Campbell's fault for losing to Mendy which delayed him significantly.

There is no way to discuss this without getting into a massive battle, as the examples I would use are fighters we've gotten into it about before. I think it is great that boxers get that level of support and get paid well because of it, but sometimes it gets into the level of delusion. Perhaps an example would be Ricky Hatton, very good boxer, but he had an unreal level of hype at the time that was larger than his actual ability. You can see that across many boxers in the UK that have recently or are currently at the top level as well. I respect good losing efforts, but it is very annoying when fans overhype fighters levels because of them.

Linares is a really hard fighter to rate because his flaws are obvious, he's lost by knockout and lost early in fights because of them, but he has some really good attributes as well. However, if you look at his resume it is not very impressive given the on paper record. Klitschko had a great run after being sparked and really improved under Steward. I don't know how much Linares really improved if at all, I think the matchmaking really favored hiding his flaws.

I think the timing is decent for Haney, not optimal though. He has contender level experience, Campbell obviously has a lot more though. That's the thing, I don't think Haney is that raw, I think he is polished enough to beat Campbell. I don't think Campbell is anywhere near as good as prime Trout. Trout was a bad style matchup for Cotto but he still beat him clearly which is a very high quality win, Cotto is a first ballot Hall of Fame. I do agree that Canelo was obviously more experienced at 23 than Haney though. Mendy is like a gatekeeper level guy for the contender level, and Abdullaev was at that same level as well. Haney wants to keep moving up, but I'm sure if he is fighting again soon like he's scheduled to be, he may get an easier opponent at or below Mendy's level. The thing is that I'm not hyping fighters because of their nationality, that's part of the issue I have with some of the British fans.

Canelo was much better at 23, he was at the bottom of the top 10 pound for pound, and you said yourself you may not have Campbell in your top 40. Agree with most of what you said regarding Canelo, but not that he was overrated at that time, Trout was a very good win for him.

Likewise, you could say it is extremely hard to use technical advantages against Mayweather. Mayweather had a higher output earlier in his career and threw more combinations than he did later on. It is tough to see Lomachenko winning the fight at 130 or 135 lbs because of the difficulty he has had versus guys like Linares, Campbell, and to an extent Pedraza, who are many levels below where Mayweather was at that time.

Lomachenko specifically said that he was offered the fight and turned it down. If you want me to link you to the story I can do that. He said "fighting Pacquiao will not give me anything" which is hilarious. Pacquiao wanted the fight versus Lomachenko at the time. You think Pacquiao would decline to fight Lomachenko and then fight Thurman? That makes no sense, Thurman isn't as good in a pound for pound sense but he is more challenging for Pacquiao than Lomachenko is because of the weight and size of Thurman compared to Lomachenko. Walters was definitely overrated, he beat Donaire who was far out of his weight range, that was it.

Why was it 1-0 to Martinez? Are you talking about Salido versus Martinez? Because Salido was finished as a world level fighter at that point. Be careful using the triangle theory in boxing, it doesn't work at all. For example, why did Gamboa tool Salido when Lomachenko got beat by Salido?

When Salido was moving in on Lomachenko, hitting him to the body, and outboxing him on the inside, that doesn't have to do with experience, it has to do with in ring skill. Have we ever seen Lomachenko fight someone like Salido since? We haven't. Donaire was way out of his weight range at Featherweight and that was Walter's reputation.

That is the framing though, people often see number of fights and think experience, when Lomachenko had a massive amount of amateur experience which allowed him to shortcut into the top levels at professional. Winning a world title at a young age with far less overall experience will always be more impressive to me than what Lomachenko has/is doing. It is on Lomachenko that he only has 15 pro fights, he could have done one Olympic cycle and had a lot more. That shouldn't go in Lomachenko's favor to excuse him. If you compare their top three wins at the same age, again really no comparison, Mayweather's is much better. Oscar was past his best but he was still very good, bigger than Mayweather and more adapted to the weight. I would pick that Oscar to win by wipeout knockout over Lomachenko, I wouldn't pick Lomachenko to beat someone like the Zab Judah Mayweather fought either. Remember that Lomachenko wants absolutely nothing to do with 140 pounds let alone anything above that. Also, are you impying Lomachenko could beat the Canelo that Mayweather beat when you say you don't think Mayweather beat anyone who Lomachenko couldn't beat? That would be quite the claim

Champion97's picture

We agree Mayweather is better than Lomachenko, you think a lot, I think slightly, you think Haney beats Campbell, I think Campbell beats Haney, let's agree to disagree on those points.

Yes, but so much so that Lomachenko doesn't deserve credit for disallowing Rigondeaux to use it at all?, I don't think so, I was very impressed by that performance from Lomachenko, good win, great performance, and he should get credit for that win, if you simply disagree, fine, but is there anything more to say on this?

In this context, I mean a 147lb fighter who is not top 150. I'm not saying size was not a factor at all, but a small factor, but for what it's worth, Spence's size was more improtant against Algieri than Campbell against Lomachenko because Spence was more aggressive, was on the front foot, still, my main point is, Campbell, predominantly, had success and made it competitive, with skill, not size, and he was good enough to use his size, which is a skill in itself.

They are not great wins, Campbell is nothing special, but I think you hold fighters to unnecessarily high standards to get too small an amount of credit. He was the first to stop Young, that was a statement, but I agree. He hasn't under achieved in my opinion, why has he under achieved? Because he got edged by Linares?, he was the underdog in that fight, he avenged the loss to Mendy, and he just lost to Lomachenko, a fight against a top pound for pound fighter is not a test of whether or not you are good enough to win a world title, winning a world title, in this era, is just as much about being lucky enough to get the right opportunity as it is about being good enough.

Not always, and what I criticised you for is not logically saying a British fighter is not as good as his fans say, but saying a fighter gets too much credit or praise, because there is no reason to say that. What do you mean by hype? Fans cheering him on? Or fans exaggerating how good he was? I agree when it comes to fans saying things that aren't true, lot of us over here said Brook hurt Golovkin, that's an example, there was a lot of bias before Brook vs Spence, I think Bellew and Froch's commentary for Whyte vs Parker was terrible, but when it comes to fans showing up, travelling to support fighters, at any level, there is no aspect of delusion in that. Who in the UK gets too much credit?

Agree to disagree on Linares, but I agree he is hard to rate because he is a fighter with clear strengths and weaknesses, not a solid, but limited fighter.

Again, I've given my opinion on that fight, I think 2 years from now Haney beats Campbell, maybe one, wouldn't be that shocked if he beat him now, but I think Campbell would win. Like Mayweather and Lomachenko, we agree who is better, disagree how much there is in it. Yes, but Mendy is very different to Abdullaev, and Abdullaev was unfortunate, there was a broken facial bone I believe. Mendy is very durable, would pressure Haney, is very experienced, that would be a great fight for Haney because he could either do rounds 11 and 12, or be the first to stop Mendy, make a statement, not saying he can't beat better fighters than Mendy, but it would be a tougher fight than Abdullaev, would be an interesting fight. It goes back to exactly what you mean by hyping, do you mean sheer support? Or people getting carried away and giving unproven fighters high rankings? Because I think the US are guilty of that as well, Lopez was overrated and might still be, and he isn't the only one.

If he was ranked top 10, he was overrated in my opinion.

I know that, he was a small welterweight, it affacted his output, he tried to save his hands as well, and his pure power was underrated, people forgot how much harder he hit at his natural weight, which was probably 135. Both are hard to use their technical skills against, I believe there is not a lot in it. Look how Lomachenko adapted to their styles though, took over the fights, he didn't lose 5 rounds in any of those fights, not saying that means he beats Mayweather, but you can't take too much from losing a couple of rounds to Pedraza, Linares, Campbell in my opinion.

All fighters have turned down fights, but you don't know why they turn them down, but ok, I didn't know he flat out turned the fight down. No that wasn't it, you don't stop Donaire even at 130 if you don't have power, he was unfortunate to get a draw against Sosa, beat Darchinyan, Walters was underrated in my opinion, and Lomachenko vs Walters was a much bigger fight than it will be remembered as because of the dominance of Lomachenko.

It isn't meaningless, it isn't reliable, but I don't put a lot of stock in the triangle theory, look at Gonzalez, Rungvasai, Cuadras. I'm not necessarily saying Martinez was better than Salido all in all, but there is not much in it, another case of us agreeing who is better by disagreeing about there being much of a difference. Because Lomachenko was 1-0 when he fought Salido, that doesn't go against what I'm saying at all.

Yes it does! Skill is highly related to experience, that was 90% about Lomachenko being 1-0, it was very close, so maybe if Salido had been no better or worse but had a style that wasn't bad for Lomachenko, being 1-0 wouldn't have cost him the fight, but that was about Lomachenko's inexperience, because even an amateur veteran with WSB experience, needs at least 5 fights I would say. Lomachenko peaked in 2016, he needed those first 5 fights to adapt to the professionals, a prime Lomachenko would have beaten Russell wider. How many fighters are there like Salido?, he is unorthodox, we also haven't seen Lomachenko get protected by fighters with that style, and styles aren't enough in any case when a figyter is as dominant as Lomachenko has been, you can't beat a guy who is a level above you regardless of your style, better than you yes, doesn't have to be even a slight edge if your style is that bad for the opponent, but no, the Salido that beat Lomachenko, would have been like Walters and Sosa in my opinion, and Walters, Linares, would have beaten a 1-0 Lomachenko.

And they are right to do that, as long as they consider all the other factors, but 1-0 is not enough for any fighter. I'm not saying Lomachenko's vast amateur experience wasn't very important, I'm saying on average these fighters need 20-25 fights before they can fight for a world title, Dilliam Whyte has needed more, Canelo needed about 40, I'm saying Lomachenko needed about 5, but those first few professional fights were vital for his career. That seems like a double standard, Lomachenko getting to the top of a lot of pound for pound lists isn't a credential but now winning a world title at a young age is? Which is it?, or have I misunderstood? Nevertheless, he did what he did with 15 fights, less names, ok, how many fighters had the amateur career that he had?, he has still won titles at 3 weights as a professional, still arguably the best of his era, certainly top 10, probably top 5. You can't do what he did as an amateur and be a professional at the same time, I don't know if there is a better or worse, just different ways of working your way up. I definitely think Lomachenko would have beat De La Hoya, again, no way Judah beats Lomachenko in my opinion, his speed would trouble Lomachenko early, as it did Mayweather, but no, Lomachenko would have beaten Judah. If there was a big enough fight at 140 I reckon he'd take it, but he's a 3 weight world champion, also, don't forget Lomachenko is a natural super featherweight, probably a natural weight smaller than Mayweather, not much, but Lomachenko fighting at 147 is like Mayweather fighting at 154. A 23 year old Alvarez? The size would make it a big ask, because Alvarez was obviously already very good at 23, but size aside, yes, given that Lomachenko is more or less as good as Alvarez now, how on earth is it quite the claim that he is better than a 23 year old Alvarez? A lot of people think Lomachenko is better than Mayweather, understandable in my opinion even if I don't agree, I definitely it is more justiable than saying a 23 year old Alvarez was better than Lomachenko, a lot of people still rate Lomachenko higher than Alvarez now.

Gold's picture

Okay, fair enough.

I'm not saying it is a write-off win, Lomachenko looked great in isolation but it is hard to judge how much Rigondeaux had left in the tank. As I have said before, the list of fighters who immediately moved up two weight classes and won a title is extremely small. People including myself should have taken that into account when talking about the chances Rigondeaux had.

Ok, that's fair enough about limited fighters. A good example of someone using their size to counter punch I'll be getting to later in this post.

He's underachieved because he should have beat Mendy which could have set him up to possibly face Crolla earlier when Crolla was the WBA titlist.

It is fair to say that someone gets too much credit or praise, why would there be an issue with that? I mean hype as in exaggerating how good they are if people cheer them on that's all well and good. AJ vs. Ruiz was basically a home fight for AJ in terms of fans, that's great for him.

He was ranked #9 by The Ring, pretty fair if you ask me. Trout was at his peak and coming off his career best win.

Lomachenko is facing guys who are more limited than the guys Mayweather faced though, so it is harder to say he could make the adjustments at the highest level. I think it is fair to say after facing Linares, Pedraza, and Campbell that he has trouble with bigger guys, but his skill is enough to beat those guys convincingly.

Yeah, I remember discussing Pacquiao vs. Lomachenko with you following Horn before Pacquiao signed with PBC, that's when the fight was proposed to Lomachenko. Donaire was way out of his weight range, I thought 122 was his last really viable weight. You have to remember he started at Light Fly and so did Darchinyan. Walters was a natural 130 so it is hard to say those were impressive stoppages.

I'm talking about actual mechanical skill in the ring, rather than knowing how much output to throw over the distance, professional tactics, etc. Salido out skilled Lomachenko in the early rounds. I don't think it is super rare but there aren't any around his weight range with the skill of Salido at the moment. Berchelt isn't far off but he's less of a than tactician than Salido. Fair enough to say he hasn't been protected against it, but if he moves back down I definitely expect the Berchelt fight like everyone should. I definitely disagree Salido would have been trashed by Lomachenko with more experience, we've seen crafty guys have success versus Lomachenko later in his career, they just didn't have the skill level/physicality to pull it off.

I'm saying that people who believe that Lomachenko winning titles in a very few amounts of fights are getting tricked by Top Rank's marketing because they equate a lower number of fights with experience and Lomachenko was 26 with a ton of experience that allowed him to shortcut the normal process. I'm saying that winning a title at a very young age, like Benitez or Tyson, was more impressive because they genuinely had less overall experience. You think Lomachenko would have beat the De La Hoya Floyd beat? De La Hoya is 5'10 1/2 with a 73 inch reach, he was a legitimate Super Welterweight at the time. Floyd is bigger, taller, and longer than Lomachenko, and had a hell of a time early in the fight getting through Oscar's jab and counters because he was using his size. Oscar would look huge next to Campbell let alone Lomachenko. It would be a total wipeout. Again, Judah was a legimitate Super Lightweight with fast hands and good power. His boxing IQ was non-existant but Lomachenko doesn't have the frame to beat bigger guys like that. Again, do you think Lomachenko will ever fight pound for pound level champions at Welterweight? He won't even say Pacquiao's name let alone Crawford's. This is irrelevant for him being a top pound for pound fighter, hall of fame, etc, but it is relevant when people compare him to legends like Mayweather, and you see that Lomachenko can't cut it in comparison. How on earth is it quite the claim? You said he could beat anyone Mayweather has beat. In your analysis of Canelo vs. Kovalev you said that it is a big ask for Canelo to move up because of the size, you wouldn't be surprised if Canelo got put on the floor because of it, now you are saying Lomachenko who won't go up to 140 would beat the Canelo or De La Hoya Floyd fought? Definitely not unless I'm misunderstanding what you are saying.

Champion97's picture

He was still unbeaten, didn't have too many miles, he was at age and size disadvantages, if he hadn't been, that would have been almost undoubtedly Lomachenko's best career win. I know, went wrong for Rigondeaux, Khan, Brook, Mikey, and although I don't think it will, it might go wrong for Canelo. At least you include yourself in that, but I don't think my prediction was illogical, 2 tosp technicians, possibly as good technically as each other, I thought Rigondeaux, with more reach and experience, might get better of the first half of the fight, but the age, size advantages for Lomachenko would be enough to swing it heavily in his favour in the second half. What I'm saying is, you don't do what Lomachenko did against Rigondeaux with sheer size and age, you have to be a lot better technically to nullify reach like that and technically get the better of, out smart a boxer like Rigondeaux.

He's under achieved just because of that? You realise that might well have been an off night? People said he mentally wasn't right, and even had that not been the case, it was early in his career, Mendy is likely underrated. After what Campbell has done against Linares, Mendy, Lomachenko, I don't think he has under achieved, maybe slightly, but he won't be remembered as an under achiever.

I disagree, people can show whatever level of support they want. Who is anyone to say a fighter at a low level, who tries his best every time, gets too much credit from loyall fans? Fans sticking with a fighter through thick and thin, is not a bad thing, so stop making them out to be annoying, because plenty of them know what the deal is, know how good Crolla, Price is, you have no logical reason to criticise fans for the support they give, that's just elitism. You love Andy Ruiz you said, well if Joshua beats him, and people give him a lot of stick, you won't be a loyall fan, my dad's favourite fighter is Stuart Hall, my favourite fighter is Mikey Garcia, even after the Spence loss, disloyalty is poor to see in sport, or am I wrong?, are you an Andy Ruiz fan? Not just glad to see Joshua lose?

It's not that I don't think he was already very good, I just don't think he was top 10 at 23, top 20 maybe, but not top 10, again, think how much he has improved since then.

You can only beat who's in front of you, and not only is Lomachenko's opposition no worse than Crawford's, better than you say, but Lomachenko is more dominant than Mayweather. Fair enough, I'm not saying Walters was great, not saying he was underrated before Lomachenko beat him, but he isn't remembered as better than Sosa, Marriaga, and he is better than those guys in my opinion.

Those were bigger factors than mechanical skill, but for what it's worth, Lomachenko's mechanical skill has also improved. We are not going to agree on the reason Lomachenko lost to Salido. The concenus is, and I agree with it, that Lomachenko learned on the job, didn't know how to do 12 rounds, found that there was a bigger difference between professional and amateur boxing than he realised, and the lesson in that fight is that 1-0 is not enough, I do not agree that there was much in particular about Lomachenko or Saldio, but more that ut was a case of it being too early.

It's all about the level to which you believe that, we both know Lomachenko's age and amateur background was important, but we also both know that there is no substitute for professional boxing experience. Lomachenko might have had WSB fights, 400 amateur fights, been at a high level as an amateur, why do you think I said he needed about 5 professional fights and most fighters need about 20? Of course, he should have been fast tracked, was more experienced at 6-1 than Canelo before he fought Trout. Do you believe that even if your record is 1-0, that anything other than professional boxing experience prepares you for fighting at world level? Because I don't, and if what you say is true about Lomachenko at 1-0, why did he step down between Russell and Martinez? The answer is, he should have had those fights before Salido. It's more that he has only had a short space of time, Lomachenko, rather than it being some great achievement, my point with Lomachenko only having had 15 fights is more that you should give him a pass when it comes to counting the good fighters he's beat comapred to Mayweather, who had 3 times the fights.

You're talking in a practical sense, head to head as you say, I'm talking in a pound for pound sense, so to be clear, no, a current Lomachenko wouldn't beat a 23 year old Canelo at 152, and no, he wouldn't beat De La Hoya at 140 or 147, because of the size disadvantage, but he is better than them in my opinion. To make this clear, if we rank Mayweather, his 48 opponents, and Lomachenko, on my list, Lomachenko is 2nd, between Mayweather and the rest of his opponents, McGregor is bottom of the list, but in a pound for pound sense, Lomachenko, given that is more or less 50/50 between him and Alvarez for who is ranked higher, he was better than a 23 year old Alvarez. Mayweather is naturally bigger than Lomachenko, but smaller than De La Hoya and Alvarez, and Mayweather vs Lomachenko at 135 would have been the fight.

Is it quite the claim to say a prime Lomachenko was is better than a 23 year old Alvarez? And if so, I ask again, how on earth is that quite the claim?

Gold's picture

His quality of opposition went way down though compared to fighting someone like Donaire. I don't think it will go wrong for Canelo either, but the circumstances are different. I don't think it was illogical either, but sometimes when people make predictions they hit on all the right points but with the wrong amount of emphasis which ends up making the difference in the fight. I don't agree with saying he's "a lot" better technically because of that performance, but if you want to say he is better in general I think that is fair.

Yes, because losing to Mendy had a knock on effect in his career which potentially cost him a title opportunity he may have been a favorite in. I do think he has underachieved, but I don't think there is much in us discussing it further.

It isn't criticizing them just for having support, it's criticizing them because they are overvalued in terms of their skill because of their support. Definitely a difference. I'm not a Ruiz fan, just enjoyed the moment. It easily could have been someone else and Joshua would have got the win.

It is fair to say he had improved, but you have to acknowledge that sometimes guys on the bottom of the top ten pound for pound still have some question marks about them, not a complete resume, but have passed the eye test so far.

Ok, but it is easy to say that when he doesn't take the challenges he could take, for example like I said, Lomachenko could have fought Pacquiao. If Mayweather stayed at lower weight classes like Lomachenko he could have been extremely dominant as well, but he challenged himself instead of being complacent like Lomachenko has arguably done/is doing.

Agree to disagree on Lomachenko and Salido.

I agree he was more experienced at 6-1 than Canelo was before he fought Trout. I don't think we actually disagree that much on this, just the level it is important like you said. I'm not giving him a pass on it because he chose to take another Olympic cycle. As I pointed out before, I compared what their resumes were at equal ages and there isn't much of a comparison.

You can't expect to compare guys in a pound for pound but head to head sense that are that far apart in weights. So if Lomachenko couldn't beat DLH at 140 or 147, why is he considered to be in the same ball park as Mayweather who went up in weights and beat guys at their adapted or best weights? Again, it is easy to say Lomachenko is dominant when he isn't facing the competition Mayweather faced. There have been lots of guys in boxing who looked the part until they lost.

Yes, because the way you phrased it was that Lomachenko would beat 23 year old Alvarez heads up. Not that he is better in a pound for pound sense. If you want to talk about head to head Lomachenko only really has an argument against the greats of each division at 126 and 130 in my opinion. His run at 135 has not been impressive to me.

Champion97's picture

I think at this stage we can agree to disagree on most things we have discussed, but often we don't disagree that strongly, but there are certain aspects one of us condiers more important than the other, I think the difference between amateur, even semi pro (WSB), and professional boxing is more important than you think, and in Lomachenko's case, we disagree on how much he has improved since the Salido fight. I am more of a believer in the importance of timing in boxing than you are, which is why I think Campbell beats Haney, Lopez, and other fighters who probably have more potential than him, but you disagree, because you seem to think fighters improve faster and can beat world level opponents earlier than I think. In my opinion, you can't isolate Lomachenko from Crawford, Spence, yes he doesn't have a great resume, like Usyk, Canelo, Pacquiao, but a lot of top fighters don't, because the business can go against the sport, promoters having bad working relationships stops fights happening, but still, although you have explained why you don't rate Lomachenko's resume, and stated facts, I just don't see any way you can criticise his resume which you can't also say for Crawford and Spence.

I appreciate your honesty on Ruiz, but a lot of people are fans of Ruiz now, and if he loses the rematch, the real fans will get separated from the people who are only fans, only support a fighter when it is easy to. I agree with you in part, because British bias does annoy me, there is a lot of it over here, but the bias, people lying, getting very carried away, is not the same as just being glass half full, and showing up in numbers at venues, suppprting fighters at any level. It is great that Frank Bruno got the support he did as a fighter, very likable, had his ups and downs, but my dad was at his fight against Witherspoon, and he told me it looked like Bruno was winning, so I agree, there is more bias over here than in other countries.

Fighters do what they are told, Lomachenko's team might have told him to turn down the Pacquiao fight, but definitely, you don't always know the reasons why fighters turn down fights, Lomachenko is not the only one who has turned down fights. Lomachenko moved up to 135, he is a natural 130lb, Mayweather's natural weight class is either 135 or 140, if we say it's 135, then Lomachenko fighting at 140 is like Mayweather fighting at 147, so I see what you are saying, but Lomachenko has not had as much time as Mayweather, he didn't take years away from boxing, he is arguably the best amateur who has ever lived, for a reason, but also, you can't expect Lomachenko to fight at 147 any more than you can expect Mayweather to fight at 154 or maybe even 160, which he rarely did, you definitely have a point about Lomachenko not moving up to 140, and him wanting to drop back down as the division gets more interesting, but not only is the Berchelt fight likely to be tougher than any fight at 135 apart from Tank, but what is there for Lomachenko at 140? If he'd moved up to 140, he wouldn't get credit, the Ramirez fight would have been a good one, but some fighters never move up, and Lomachenko has done that.

He is considered to be in the same ball park because he is arguably as technically skilled as Mayweather, he isn't in my opinion, but it's close, and more importantly, beating De La Hoya, for a natural 130, must be a bigger ask than beating De La Hoya for a natural 135-140, Mayweather is bigger than Lomachenko, so you can't give them the same opponents when it comes to moving up in weight.

I should have been clearer, but no, I meant in a pound for pound sense, I think it's more or less dead even between Lomachenko and Canelo now, Lomachenko is better than a 23 year old Canelo was, but I don't think he was so much better that he could jump 2-3 weights, 3-4 weights above his natural weight, and win that fight, not that it matters, because just because you can't win with a size disadvantage like that doesn't mean you are not better.

Gold's picture

It is fair if you want to criticize Crawford and Spence for their resumes, I believe that Crawford is better in a pound for pound sense and will win the fight versus Spence which is why I have him rated higher. I saw Crawford is trying to push for a PBC opponent, I'm assuming it would be Danny Garcia or Thurman they would target.

Yeah, it is easy to have fans when winning if he loses it will definitely separate the real fans from the fake ones. Bruno is a great example of what I mean.

It is possible, but ultimately Lomachenko is responsible for his own career. It doesn't necessarily mean his team is aggressive now but they were very aggressive early in his career. They wanted a title fight in his first fight and fought Salido in his second. The point is that if Lomachenko wants to be considered to be at that level, he has to make the move up to chase bigger and better competition like Mayweather did. Berchelt would be a good name on his resume but Berchelt won't be a HOF, he needs to chase better opposition. At Super Lightweight, there is Ramirez as you said and potentially Prograis if he wins (he has been rumored to sign with Top Rank). Prograis would be way too much for him in my opinion but Ramirez would be a good fight.

Arguably with much less of a resume, as I said before it is difficult to make that claim when he hasn't been tested to the level Mayweather was. That is a fair point regarding De La Hoya, but the overall point I am making is that he wouldn't be able to beat guys of the same quality Mayweather beat with the same amount of weight difference, do you agree or disagree with that?

That is definitely fair to say that Lomachenko is better than Canelo at 23, but even though Canelo has been in a lot of controversial fights, he has fought great and very good opponents to a much greater degree than Lomachenko. The thing is that someone can be an all-time great fighting at a few weights or just one weight, but they have to build the resume to do so. The divisions Lomachenko is in will make it difficult to do that.

Champion97's picture

Why not Spence? Why is another PBC opponent who is managed/promoted by Al Haymon any easier to make than Spence?

Yeah, so what I'm saying is, you have a point, I understand why you don't like part of the British boxing culture, the bias can be annoying, but at the same time, don't get too frustrated, and mistake loyall fans who support a fighter at any level and be glass half full, for deluded, biased fans who talk shit, because they are not the same.

I know they did, but what I'm saying is, if that was about mechanical skill, styles, Salido being a better boxer, take your pick, and it wasn't about it being Lomachenko's 2nd fight, then why did he step down like that in his next 3 fights after Russell? The logical answer is because they knew the Salido fight was too soon, we might have to agree to disagree, but I think I'm in the majority on this one. Certainly when it comes to being a fan favourite, reputation, how he goes down as a fighter, but even if we say it's true he should go to 140, and he doesn't, it doesn't mean he is overrated, and really, that's my argument, that Lomachenko is almost as good as Mayweather, even if he won't go down as the same great fighter historically, but if we are talking about that, it's almost a different topic, because Pacquiao will go down as much of a name as Mayweather, maybe even more, Lomachenko is a 3 weight world champion, Mayweather is a 5 weight, well Pacquiao is a 6 or 7 weight champion, so by that logic, you have to put Mayweather below Pacquiao. I agree Berchelt won't be the career defining win, but I disagree he needs to chase better opposition, Berchelt is a boxer-puncher, has very good skills, great power, is a threat to Lomachenko. I know, I didn't mention Prograis because he hasn't signed yet but it wouldn't be surprising if he signed with Top Rank given how much easier it would be to make the Ramirez fight, and that would be for undisputed. I think you underrated Ramirez, and I think he is the best in his division, fair play to Prograis if he proves me wrong, but I don't think he's top 2, and I don't think anyone at 140 could beat Lomachenko, the champions would all give him a tough fight, would be threats, but I think Lomachencko is that good, and he wouldn't necessarily be fry at 140, because his natural weight is 130, but I think Berchelt is better than anyone at 140, but if you agree which I don't think you do, Lomachenko would be at a size disadvantage at 140 which he wouldn't be at against Berchelt.

No, but it is also about attributes in the ring, are you not impressed with the exceptional footwork of Lomachenko? Defensive angles, positioning, accuracy? And you insisted Lomachenko would not KO Beltran, I think he would, Lomachenko can set up and execute a KO, you don't have to be a devastating puncher to do that if you have the timing, accuracy. Lomachenko is a phenomenal amateur who has adapted very well to the professionals, he is more aggressive than Mayweather, doesn't do what you criticised Andrade for which is coasting, what significant weaknesses do you see for Lomachenko? Sometimes fights don't happen for a number of reasons, but it is fair to assume fights would have gone a certain way, and it is logical, based on how impressive and dominant he is against the decent level of opposition he's fought, to say he is better than Mayweather, and I personally think he would have beaten every Mayweather opponent and given Mayweather problems, I think Mayweather would beat him, but not because of his resume, because of his reflexes, ability to make adjustments, defence, etc.

I disagree with that, I think Lomachenko would beat the calibre of opponent Mayweather beat with the same weight disadvantage, and I think Mayweather and Lomachenko are top 2 of those 50, McGregor is bottom. How close it is between Mayweather and Lomachenko is something we simply won't agree on, but we can agree that Mayweather was better, and one thing I will say is I think Leonard might have had too much for Lomachenko, because he had all the skills, power, could fight, I don't think he'd have beaten Mayweather, but maybe Lomachenko, you?

I know, more credit for edging Lara and Golovkin by a whisker than knocking Crolla out and schooling and stopping Marriaga, but it's a case of whether, based on what you've seen from Lomachenko and how highly you rate his opposition, you think he is good enough to do the same as Canelo, same logic as Mayweather. I agree Lomachenko doesn't deserve to go down as a fighter who achieved as much as Mayweather, Canelo, Pacquiao, but that doesn't mean he isn't as good as them. I agree, Lomachenko is fighting solid opponents, deserves credit for his dominance, but winning against top opponents is more important than dominating against lesser opponents, and if the fights just aren't there at 135, move to 140, but even though it is a drop down, you have to give Lomachenko credit for fighting a high risk, relatively low reward opponent if he fights Berchelt, because that's a lower reward fight than fighting for undisputed, but I'm 90% sure Berchelt is a tougher opponent than Commey or Lopez, but still, moving up in weight, further away from his natural weight, being a 4 weight world champion, would be better for his resume, would at least get him closer to going down as a boxing legend.

Gold's picture

I can see why you would say that but it is easier because while both sides want to build Crawford vs. Spence, PBC might be interested in sending one of their unoccupied boxers over to fight on ESPN to make Crawford look underwhelming (reducing his negotiation potential) or even winning and taking the belt back to PBC. Crawford vs. Spence would have to be a big successful PPV to make the money work out while Crawford vs. Danny Garcia, for example, wouldn't have to have the same success.

Happens in every fan culture, I guess I am just more exposed to British fans online. Yeah, that is an important distinction.

Right, but you can also frame that in saying that Lomachenko needed more rounds to develop his professional skills. I'd have to go back and look to see what the options were at the time, I don't know what fights there were other than taking the easier fights he took off the top of my head. The problem I have with this argument is that boxers can stay in one or two divisions and become an all-time great, but they have to have the strength of schedule to do so, going up in divisions is a shortcut to getting that when they don't exist in the division they are already in. That's why I am criticizing Lomachenko. I think Berchelt is underskilled for a matchup with Lomachenko which is why I would pick against him, but he has a good stylistic matchup.

Yes, of course those are great attributes of Lomachenko. It is just that I would like to see him against better-matched opposition to see if those attributes will hold up. The weaknesses of Lomachenko in my opinion are punch resistance to the body, strength, and overreliance on creating angles. If you think he can beat Mayweather opponents that is your opinion, but as I have said before it is one thing to say that in theory, it is another to beat the opponents in reality because it becomes harder to execute what he has done versus his previous opposition.

I would pick Leonard over Lomachenko without thinking, Duran beat Leonard with a style Lomachenko couldn't replicate at all. Leonard had all-time great athleticism and skills, Lomachenko would try to make himself a difficult target and cut the distance like he did versus Campbell and Pedraza but Leonard would be too skilled and too athletic for him. Again, I think it is much fairer to match Lomachenko versus greats at 126 and 130 lbs.

Ok, but if you are talking about the potential to do something versus the proven ability to do something, take the proven ability to do it every time. I wouldn't be surprised if Berchelt was tougher than Commey or Lopez, but it wouldn't surprise me if the opposite was true as well. Basically, what I am saying is that Lomachenko needs to do something else if he wants to be considered with the all-time greats. He is kind of on the same path as Golovkin before Golovkin fought Canelo in my opinion. Lomachenko had his big name opponent in Mikey Garcia but that fight is dead in the water with no fault of Lomachenko's, so he has to find something else.

Champion97's picture

Makes sense, I think it would be a successful PPV, but my knowledge on this particular topic isn't good, so I don't know about the money there would be in the fight, even roughly. I think Arum is more to blame than anyone else if the fight doesn't happen, very clever man, but not a nice guy and more importantly, not easy to work with, I think he is more to blame than anyone else for Lomachenko vs Mikey not happening.

Yes, he needed more rounds to frame his professional skills, that doesn't go against what I'm saying. Title fights at least, if you look at the opponents he fought between Russell and Martinez, he was just getting the fights, rounds he needed. I think Lomachenko needed 5 fights before fighting for a world title fight, but fighters without his exceptional amateur background, need 3-4 times that before a world title fight. That's fair enough, I understand, but I just think when it comes to thinking about how capable a fighter Lomachenko is, him not having a great resume doesn't stop him being a fighter who is great in the ring, still, I suppose you could say why not take all the risks he can if he's that good, and legacy is what matters when it comes to being a legend, I think he does what he's advised, but I can't speak for Lomachenko, so I think just leave it there. I don't think Berchelt is underskilled at all, I think he is an underrated boxer, maybe we'll find out if he is in a big fight next year, the Sosa fight isn't bad, but not great, because we know where Sosa is at, and he should be no threat.

Ok, but we've seen him step up in levels at least to some degree, he has moved up from 130, and his skills has held up fine, no reason to think he would get out skilled by anyone unless he just came across a fighter who was even better, but that isn't the same as mentally coming apart, not having a plan B, not being adaptable, and Lomachenko has fought everything from Salido to Campbell, very different styles, he proved against Linares he could get up off the deck and win, but not like Khan against Diaz, just hanging onto a lead, but being able to finish his opponent after being hurt himself. When have we seen him hurt to the body?, Salido did a lot of body work, but I've not seen Lomachenko hurt bad to the body. I don't see any lack of strength for his size, Lomachenko backed up his last 3 opponents at 135, I don't think he lacks strength for his size. It's hard to say it is or isn't an overreliance in my opinion, because although we haven't seen him just do the basics without using angles, positioning, trying to make it as one sided as possible, we also haven't seen him need to do that, in other words, I'd agree if an opponent was able to deal with the angles, negate Lomachenko's strengths, and Lomachenko couldn't adapt, but that hasn't happened. It is harder, which is why I think against Porter, Taylor, Prograis, he wouldn't have it all his way, the fights would be closer, but I think he would still win. Crawford against Lomachenko at 135 would have been a great fight, but it was never really on the cards because Crawford went to 140 in 2014, and Lomachenko was inexperienced at that stage.

I struggle to say who I think is better out of Lomachenko and Duran, but what a fight that would have been. I get why Duran will go down as a better fighter, he did more to seal his legacy, still, it would have been a 50/50 fight in my opinion.

I'd be more confident Berchelt would be a tougher opponent than Commey or Lopez. I agree on Golovkin, and unfortunately for Golovkin, the big fight ne needed might have come a year or even 6 months too late, I believe a prime Golovkin would have beat a prime Canelo, and Canelo will go down as a great, Golovkin might not.

Also, you might or might not find this amusing.

Gold's picture

Crawford isn't a draw on PPV (at least yet), him versus Khan did terribly but the promotion was terrible as well. I also think Spence vs. Porter will do very poorly compared to Spence vs. Mikey, but I could be wrong about that. Arum is definitely not to blame in this situation, him and Crawford have far less leverage so they want the fight to happen as soon as possible, while PBC and Spence want to delay it more to build up their leverage and consolidate the belts behind Spence as a star. That is just smart business though even if it sucks for fans. I don't know the details of what happened between Arum and Mikey, but their relationship was so terrible the fight wasn't going to happen.

I thought Berchelt was more skilled when he was first getting exposure versus Vargas and Miura, but I haven't been impressed with his boxing skills since. Especially in the Roman fight he was off balance a lot, had issues with his footwork, and left himself open to shots. I don't think the Sosa fight is good either, he should be fighting Herring if he isn't fighting Valdez which is apparently up next for him.

Right, I agree he is a top 5 pound for pound fighter and will be in the hall of fame, he has stepped up the competition in that regard. However, I'm talking about going even a level above that. Personally, I don't think that is a very impressive resume of adaptability, they are different styles but those are good to very good fighters, not great ones. Yeah, he didn't like the body shots versus Salido and he didn't like them in his amateur career either. Lomachenko backing them up is also about the stylistic matchup, and Lomachenko had issues getting around Pedraza and Campbell because of his size and strength. Both Prograis and Taylor are bigger and better than Campbell, I think they would be a bridge too far even if Lomachenko would be competitive versus them. Lomachenko won't even say Crawford's name, he realizes it is a bad idea and in hindsight seeing Mikey versus Spence it is a good career strategy.

I would pick Duran every time, but we have went over this before. Duran was a big Lightweight, very heavy puncher and extremely skilled, especially on the inside. I don't think Lomachenko could box on the outside to frustrate Duran, Duran was very good at cutting distance and working the body. I think matching him versus Azumah Nelson, Alexis Arguello, Salvador Sanchez, etc would be much more interesting as Lomachenko's best weights are below Lightweight.

Golovkin will be in the hall of fame for sure and is a great fighter but is clearly not an all-time great in my eyes and it would be shocking if he got to that level.

Did you hear Vanes talked about how he didn't get any money from Don King for that fight? Crazy anyone would trust Don King in the 21st century.

Champion97's picture

There is always 2 sides to an argument like this, it's not an argument I'm ever on either side of with a few exceptions (Stevenson probably ducking Kovalev), because I'm not in the industry, so I don't know the facts, we know who turns down offers and sometimes which fights are in negotiations, but as far as I'm concerned, we never know what people's intentions are, we will never know if Mayweather really didn't want to fight Pacquiao in 2009, we will never know if Malignaggi's theory about Pacquiao and the toradol was true, and we will never know whether you were right in saying Hearn and Joshua didn't want Wilder, if the majority were right to accuse Wilder of ducking after he turned down all those offers, or neither.

Spence vs Porter might do poorly, and yes, Porter isn't unbeaten, some people don't like his style, the fight isn't in as big a venue, but Porter was in a FOTY candidate against Thurman, Spence should be the same draw he was when he fought Mikey unless his stock dropped from the fight being relatively lacklustre, and there is a bit of needle between Spence and Porter, people will buy it for that reason alone.

It seems like more of a case of him not boxing because he didn't need to box, a lot of fighters are aggressive, try to knock their opponent out, and are deceptively skilful. That's a great fight, an all Mexican scrap, brilliant.

Not great ones, agreed, like Crawford, Golovkin. Which fighter likes body shots? I've never seen him hurt to the body, and when I say hurt I don't mean a wince, I mean Thurman against Pacquiao, Jack against Stevenson, because just not liking it to the body, showing a small amount of discomfort means nothing. I don't think it was stylistic, he has pushed back all the lightweights he's fought. We will just have to disagree on how good Lomachenko is, nothing but opinions, nothing either of us haven't considered.

I agree Campbell is not as good as Taylor or Prograis, but I don't think either are so much better that they could beat Lomachenko at 140, I think welterweights as good as Taylor and Prograis would beat Lomachenko at 147. I think Taylor and Prograis would give Lomachenko tougher fights than anyone since Salido, but usually a fighter can move 2 weights above his natural weight class if he does everything right, without size being a serious problem.

We did, and again, just opinions, nothing either can say we haven't said already.

Yes, but he was good enough to have Canelo's legacy, and lack of opportunities cost him, because any 36 year old who wins 5-6 rounds against a 28 year old great fighter, is great himself.

Head movement, head movement, head movement, head movement, remember that pal, best boxing advice you'll ever get! Jokes aside, you said Edmond didn't know boxing, I hope he knows at least a fair amount, because based on Rousey vs Nunez, he knows nothing about UFC. Did you watch any other videos from that channel? Some are funny, I recommend the Malignaggi vs Lobov press conference, the one where Paulie tries to make White release the 12 rounds, and GGG vs Canelo post fight.

Gold's picture

You can go and watch Spence say Crawford isn't in their plans at the post-fight press conference, and they immediately put Danny Garcia up in the ring to try to hype that fight. PBC clearly doesn't want the fight, I think they believe in Spence but they are looking out for their bottom line and being strategic.

The difference between Porter and Mikey is that Mikey brought the Hispanic market in and Mikey's fight had the intrigue of him going up in weight which drew people in. I think Spence vs. Porter will be a success but it won't do the big numbers Spence vs. Mikey did.

It is possible that could be true about Berchelt vs. Roman, that and the failure to make the Herring fight are not good signs though.

Yeah, no one likes them but it hurts the most versus guys who use a lot of movement like Lomachenko. Agree to disagree.

Yeah, Edmond is considered to be a joke, terrible trainer in MMA. He has had talented fighters stagnate and significantly regress under him. The Malignaggi and Lobov press conference one is funny. Paulie really embarrassed himself with that ordeal and is still trying to fight McGregor who is just ignoring him.

SalTnutZ1's picture

You think he’s better off moving up to 140 and shoot for a belt, or try to wait out the Loma/Lopez/Commey situation, and hope if it’s Loma or Lopez. They vacate and move down, or up, and then go after a vacant belt or 2?

Gold's picture

Wait the situation out at Lightweight in my opinion. Haney is young and if he thinks he can keep making Lightweight why not stay and wait the situation out? Going up to Super Lightweight there aren't easy title fights for him that are aligned with DAZN, and there may not be any aligned with DAZN at all if Prograis wins versus Taylor. The most likely thing I think that could happen is if Lomachenko beats the Commey/Lopez winner, Lomachenko will either be made franchise champion by the WBC which would free the actual title up for Haney, or Lomachenko will vacate to go back down to Super Featherweight which would free all the titles up at Lightweight.