ok enough games.. gimme lomo vs mikey garcia NOW!!!

[Seano]

They fight quite a bit differently. Garcia is a pretty measured boxer-puncher, whereas Salido is a fairly wild pressure fighter who likes to get inside and go to war, so we can't draw too much from the respective fights (not to mention Lomachenko is far better than he was then). Garcia is still a considerable challenge, though (he'd be by far the biggest challenge of Lomachenko's career).

Until I see it, I don't believe Lomachenko can fight the way he fights against a guy like Garcia.

 

[JayE]

Until I see it, I don't believe Lomachenko can fight the way he fights against a guy like Garcia.

What do you mean by that, exactly? I'd agree that it will be far more difficult to look good against a fighter of Garcia's calibre, but I doubt he fundamentally changes his style.

 

[Seano]

What do you mean by that, exactly? I'd agree that it will be far more difficult to look good against a fighter of Garcia's calibre, but I doubt he fundamentally changes his style.

Because I don't believe he's been fighting good competition. I think Garcia would be the first guy he's fought that had advantages on paper.

 

[rb3b3]

Because I don't believe he's been fighting good competition. I think Garcia would be the first guy he's fought that had advantages on paper.

of course garcia would be the first to have more advantges on paper. garcia is no joke man.. lomo can have all that fancy dancing foot work thats fine but garcia is a warrior with power in his hands.. salido beat lomo by walking him down mexican style and i believe garcia will just keep walking towards lomo. garcia will not quit. that boy is bad!

 

[ironfist05]

I'm not sure about that, really. Walters' career wasn't exactly on the up and up when he fought Lomachenko as he was coming off a year long layoff after having a very competitive fight with the then unknown Sosa (who, while being decent, still struggled a ton with the ghost of Gamboa). He's a good win for Lomachenko, but I wouldn't necessarily call him a better win than Broner (especially considering that Garcia went up in weight to make that fight happen and gave up a fair bit of size).

Those are all fair points, but they can be applied to Broner too (Broner struggled with Granados, let's remember). Walters at least had his 0 intact, while we'd been Broner lose twice and we'd seen Broners limitations spelt out in most of his fights. Broner was definitely bigger, but Walters was bigger than Loma too. I don't think Walters is necessarily THAT much better, but I do hold him as a better fighter than Broner, the weight is the only thing that really might swing it for me.

 

[ironfist05]

Because I don't believe he's been fighting good competition. I think Garcia would be the first guy he's fought that had advantages on paper.

what advantages though? Loma has fought bigger guys, guys with longer reaches etc...

Saying that he hasn't fought good ocmpetition is just wrong. You can say you're underwhelmed. You can definitely say it should be better relative to where Loma is in the sport. But not good? He's faced several titlists and ranked fighters, with a fairly diverse set of skills. That at least warrants a "good"

This sounds like when people were screaming at Pac and Floyd to go up in weight until they lost. They wouldn't be impressed with who they picked as an opponent (finding all manner of excuses) until they lost, then they got exposed. This isn't appreciating a fighter for his career, it's cheering for his downfall and holding silly, often innaccurate, things against him.

 

[JayE]

Those are all fair points, but they can be applied to Broner too (Broner struggled with Granados, let's remember). Walters at least had his 0 intact, while we'd been Broner lose twice and we'd seen Broners limitations spelt out in most of his fights. Broner was definitely bigger, but Walters was bigger than Loma too. I don't think Walters is necessarily THAT much better, but I do hold him as a better fighter than Broner, the weight is the only thing that really might swing it for me.

Granados is a decent and ever-improving fighter, though (as evidenced by him stopping Imam and giving Porter a good fight up at WW). I won't say it's a ridiculous position, but Broner at 140 is a more proven commodity than Walters at 130, and Garcia was moving up in weight to meet Broner, whereas both Walters and Lomachenko are perfectly comfortable and reasonably sized at SFW. There isn't a lot to choose between the two wins at the end of the day, though, aside from maybe the fact that Broner was a lot more battle-tested than Walters (Broner, for all of his faults, has gone a lot of tough rounds and still shown some resolve, whereas Walters quit at the first sign of meaningful adversity).

 

[JABMALASSIE]

Watching boxing since the eighties and never seen a fighter like Loma. He has elevated the game. People don't want to admit it and it didn't either. lol

 

[Sunfish]

Fuck me seano. Like I’ve told you I listen to you and have no issues but seriously, yeah if he loses you’re vindicated. He won’t. Did you make a bad prediction on him early in his career?

 

[stuff jones]

Seano's Lomachenko hate is so transparent. It boils his blood to see him doing this well.

 

[rb3b3]

i can not believe max kellerman said that there is a chance that garcia would also quit vs lomo during the last fight game show. There is NO way mikey quits, mikey will beat lomo end of story!

 

[AJBG]

Considering his only two losses in 397 amateur fights, 6 matches in the World Series of Boxing (semi-pro), and 11 pro fights, we can say with certain staistical confidence that the probability that someone beats Lomachenko is 0.005 (i.e., half of 1 percent!!!). Now, the question is: what is the probability that Mikey defeats Loma given the fact that Loma lost to Salido?

First, let's consider Loma/Salido ended in a controversial result, with judges having it 116-112 and 115-113 for Salido, and the other 115-113 for Lomachenko. So, without much speculation we can say with certainty that Loma probability to defeat Salido is at least 33%.

So, using conditional probabilities, we may say that the probability for Mikey winning given Loma's lost to Salido is something about: the product of the probability of both Mikey and Loma beating Salido, divided by the probability Loma losing to Salido. Since we know Mikey beat Salido unanimously, his probability of defeating Salido equals 1.

Finally, the probability for Mikey winning is (1)(0.33)/(0.66)=50% at best.But if you consider that Salido probability of beating Loma is 0.005, then, Mikey's chances drops to about 1.5%.

 

[Seano]

Considering his only two losses in 397 amateur fights, 6 matches in the World Series of Boxing (semi-pro), and 11 pro fights, we can say with certain staistical confidence that the probability that someone beats Lomachenko is 0.005 (i.e., half of 1 percent!!!). Now, the question is: what is the probability that Mikey defeats Loma given the fact that Loma lost to Salido?

First, let's consider Loma/Salido ended in a controversial result, with judges having it 116-112 and 115-113 for Salido, and the other 115-113 for Lomachenko. So, without much speculation we can say with certainty that Loma probability to defeat Salido is at least 33%.

So, using conditional probabilities, we may say that the probability for Mikey winning given Loma's lost to Salido is something about: the product of the probability of both Mikey and Loma beating Salido, divided by the probability Loma losing to Salido. Since we know Mikey beat Salido unanimously, his probability of defeating Salido equals 1.

Finally, the probability for Mikey winning is (1)(0.33)/(0.66)=50% at best.But if you consider that Salido probability of beating Loma is 0.005, then, Mikey's chances drops to about 1.5%.

What is this? Is this sarcasm?

 

[Seano]

i can not believe max kellerman said that there is a chance that garcia would also quit vs lomo during the last fight game show. There is NO way mikey quits, mikey will beat lomo end of story!

He quit against Salido, to be fair. He just had such a lead in the fight that it didn't matter.

 

[Seano]

what advantages though? Loma has fought bigger guys, guys with longer reaches etc...

Saying that he hasn't fought good ocmpetition is just wrong. You can say you're underwhelmed. You can definitely say it should be better relative to where Loma is in the sport. But not good? He's faced several titlists and ranked fighters, with a fairly diverse set of skills. That at least warrants a "good"

This sounds like when people were screaming at Pac and Floyd to go up in weight until they lost. They wouldn't be impressed with who they picked as an opponent (finding all manner of excuses) until they lost, then they got exposed. This isn't appreciating a fighter for his career, it's cheering for his downfall and holding silly, often innaccurate, things against him.

I'm just not a fan and it amuses me how many of you guys can't seem to accept that.

I think Lomachenko is a classic Arum built fighter. They saw a style he struggled with, avoided fighting that guy or anyone like him again and then cherry picked whatever recognizable named looked beatable in their last fight. The gushing from the fans is just embarrassing too.

Sorry guys, thats just what I see. I know that seems to booboo a lot of feelings here, but too bad. I'm just not a fan. There's never been a fighter that was universally liked, its not starting with Lomachenko.

 

[The Can Opener]

The gushing from the fans is just embarrassing too.

To be perfectly fair your overwhelming hate is just as ridiculous as the overwhelming love he gets from other people.

Neither look is a good one.

And I was around when he started his career and you complained many times how it was unfair and corrupt that he was getting fights against good competition and fighting for belts so early on. You said he should have to go through the ranks and earn main event status by beating a bunch of nobodies and then journeymen first. Yet now even though he is barely 10 fights into his career you constantly complain that he isn't fighting good opposition which is as flop floppy as it gets. So it's pretty obvious that no matter what he does you'll find a way to shit all over it.

I think he's technically amazing as a fighter but it's boxing and anyone can get got at any time in any fight. Which is why I like boxing in the first place.

 

[Seano]

To be perfectly fair your overwhelming hate is just as ridiculous as the overwhelming love he gets from other people.

Neither look is a good one.

And I was around when he started his career and you complained many times how it was unfair and corrupt that he was getting fights against good competition and fighting for belts so early on. You said he should have to go through the ranks and earn main event status by beating a bunch of nobodies and then journeymen first. Yet now even though he is barely 10 fights into his career you constantly complain that he isn't fighting good opposition which is as flop floppy as it gets. So it's pretty obvious that no matter what he does you'll find a way to shit all over it.

I think he's technically amazing as a fighter but it's boxing and anyone can get got at any time in any fight. Which is why I like boxing in the first place.

Stop saying "hate" already. You all sound like a bunch of emo crybabies. "Wah, you hate the fighter I like!"
I don't give a fuck about the guy. I just think fans have made him a legend he doesn't deserve to be. I'm a fan of the sport and the history of the sport and I don't think he's earned the title of greatness that has been bestowed upon him. Its a mockery of the history of the sport and true greats who accomplished miles more than this guy ever will. Every single fight, the fans are pretending he's fighting someone who is really going to test him and you all know he's not. You'd think Nicholas Walters was prime Roberto Duran coming into that one, going on what fans were pretending to see. Fans pretending to be truly shocked that he dominated a guy moving up 2 weight class, its silly. Same people probably laughed at Canelo, Floyd and GGG for the same thing.

 

[AJBG]

What is this? Is this sarcasm?

Oh, no. It is called statistics... (this is sarcasm, see the difference?).

 

[KillerIsBack V2]

He quit against Salido, to be fair. He just had such a lead in the fight that it didn't matter.

Loma didn't quit against the same guy with barely any pro experience. but he made others quit later on.

 

[ironfist05]

I'm just not a fan and it amuses me how many of you guys can't seem to accept that.

I think Lomachenko is a classic Arum built fighter. They saw a style he struggled with, avoided fighting that guy or anyone like him again and then cherry picked whatever recognizable named looked beatable in their last fight. The gushing from the fans is just embarrassing too.

Sorry guys, thats just what I see. I know that seems to booboo a lot of feelings here, but too bad. I'm just not a fan. There's never been a fighter that was universally liked, its not starting with Lomachenko.

That's fine, you don't have to be a fan, I'm not really a huge one myself and I agree Loma's fanbase is irritating. But to say that he hasn't faced fighters that are at least "good" is just factually wrong.

You're right that they definitely saw Loma struggle with Salido, but he's grown immensely as a fighter since that, which seems like something you refuse to accept. Not only that, but Salido has wanted nothing to do with him since he got that first win yet you still insist Loma was the duck. Frankly, you seem pretty set on being underwhelmed, even when Corrales was hot, you said that you weren't interested in Lomachenko facing him, even though it would have been for the lineal title.

And honestly, who at 126 or 130 (while Loma was at those weights) fights like Salido? Maybe Miura, but he's not really an elite fighter, as much as I like him. Berchelt is another guy that more recently came on the scene and Lomachenko called him out. The whole "Arum built fighter" narrative just doesn't fit. Loma is 11 fights in and he's already faced a variety of styles and levels of fighters.

It's not that you don't like him, nobody cares about who you're a fan of or not, it's more that you just want to not like him and you'll insist on being underwhelmed until he loses, and then you'll say he got exposed. You exagerate how bad his opponents are, IE: Pirinyapanyo, whom you called a total tomato can, but is realistically closer to a regional champion level fighter; hardly an elite fighter, but certainly not a total tomato can, or Walters, who was universally regarded as at least pretty good.

The fact that you're expecting him to go up two weight classes to face Mikey shows how unreasonable your expectations are. Nobody cares, it just seems a little illogical is all.