Ring Magazine's new pound 4 pound list.

Why should number of fights matter if he dived straight in at the deep end and got great results? The loss shouldn't really affect his standing either considering the way it came about.

 

He isn't, he retired already after Saturday

 

Lomachenko has done more in 5 fights than Brook has done in 30+

 

And beating Diego Chaves does nothing to improve his P4P credentials.

 

Wlad is a shit fighter and belongs nowhere near a P4P.

 

word.

Xplosive knows what's up.

 

Agree 100%. His win over Gary Russell was SUPER impressive to me.

Usually, it takes time for any fighter to get on a p4p list, but I think in this case, Lomachenko is one of those guys that is THAT SPECIAL and his performances prove to me that he is easily one of the best fighters in the world and if the fight with Rigo is ever made, I have no shadow of a doubt that he would prove it.

I'd make him number 1 if he won that fight.

 

Objectively, he is a top 5 fighter. If you only like exciting fighters with pleasing styles then sure...he's a bum.

 

Believe me it is with great PAIN that I put Wlad up there, but he has longevity.

I can't wait for him to retire, though. Even if I don't watch heavyweights ever again, I'm just done with it all. Wlad is a waste of time.

 

Number of fights doesn't matter, per se, BUT...only FIVE fights matters! Especially as he has a loss in those five fights...giving him only a 80% winning record.

Now, that doesn't take away from him as a fighter in potential, not at all, but at the moment he only belongs in a potential P4P list.

 

Miguel Cotto has a better claim than both Garcia and Brook.

 

Same.

 

Those are stats man, and don't really mean much when you consider the caliber of fighter he's been up against since the get-go. How is it potential only when he's already won a belt, defeated an unbeaten US Olympian (in some style I might add) who is now also a belt holder and only lost a split decision in his second fight to an established world champion who outweighed him by 11 pounds and low blowed him all night?

 

Objectively speaking, there's no top P4P fighter that would ever lose to LAMEon Brewster, Corrie Sanders, and go life-and-death with Sam Peter.

Wlad has turned into a SHAMELESS clinching faggot. That, and the fact that the division is dreadful are the only reasons he's reigned for long.

 

Aye, Sly is way off base on this one. Loma has done more in five pro fights than most pros do in 35. The remarkable speed at which he has claimed a 'world' title should be a positive factor, not a negative. And his 'Loma have losses' speil is right out of his homo-crush Floyd's playbook.

MTF

 

The idea of Wlad having more skills and ability than a guy like GGG, Kov, Crawford, or Loma is laughable. Those guys don't have to clinch 85 times a round in order to win.

The Klit sisters are frauds and always have been.

The only 3 heavyweights in the last 30 years who were legit P4P fighters were Tyson, Holy, and Lewis.

 

Yep. It's a weird reason to keep a guy off the list. At what point does a fighter go from the 'prospect' list to a p4p contender? Makes no sense.

 

Without wanting to turn this into a Klitschko thread, I think it's unfair to lump Wlad and Vitali together. Vitali would be a tough fight for most heavyweights in history IMO. It's hardly his fault the competition around was shit and he didn't have the chance to prove himself. Now I know you'll bring up the Lewis fight (which proved he could hang IMO but that's a different topic), but that's the only legendary guy he was able to face. Maybe Lewis always beats him and is just a stylistic nightmare. Let's imagine the only legendary fighter around in Duran's time was Hearns, he's never going to come out on top in that one so what does that do to his all time standing? The only thing you can really judge Vitali on is his ability to "take out the rubbish", which he's done efficiently and whilst barely losing a round.

 

Was Vitali much better than Wlad? Yes.

Not sure about him being a tough fight for heavyweight greats though. In his BIGGEST fight, he got stopped by a fat, outta shape, unmotivated Lewis. Think about that. Vitali brought his A-game, Lewis brought his C-game, and Lewis still won.

Imagine Vitali vs a younger Lewis who was on his A-game?

Holmes, and Ali slice Vitali to piece. And prime versions of Tyson and Foreman beat the living fuck outta him. Prime Lewis stops him with less trouble. Holy decisions him clearly, much too quick for Quitali. And prime Bowe stops him.

 

It's hard to say with wlad because he's been so dominant over who's available but he still seems vulnerable. You get the sense that if he's not in complete control of a fight that it automatically becomes legitimately dangerous for him. So the consistently weak opposition means something since the argument is you have to give him credit for constantly winning.

 

That doesn't exactly tell the whole story. Lewis wasn't in the best of shape because he was supposed to take on a less threatening opponent in Kirk Johnson who had to pull out due to an injury. Both fighters however were training for a fight. It's not as if Lennox was laying on the couch for months and took a phone call asking him to fight Vitali the following day.

Then you have the fight itself. Klitschko's horrific cut didn't come from a fist. The tape on the side of his glove ripped open Vitali's skin resulting in a nasty gash. How often do you see that happen? We will never know how it would have turned out but it's not as if it's some huge stretch to think it would have been different if not for a freak injury.

 

This post right here saved me from typing it out myself.

Anyway, to go down Xplosive's route; what if it turned out to be that Lewis just happened to be Vitali's bogeyman? A style he could never beat? I don't see why that discounts him against every other good/great heavyweight. What if Duran only had Hearns? Does that mean he can't beat Leonard? What if Foreman only had Ali? Does he then become a heavy hitting bum who wouldn't stand a chance against the likes of Frazier? Delving even deeper, what if Lewis was denied the chance to set the record straight against Rahman like Vitali was against Lewis? Is he still a p4p fighter?

 

Vitali was a good fighter with a good chin. That uppercut Lewis hit him with would have decapitated many heavyweights, but he took it well and came back fighting. He took out the trash as he was expected to, on the whole. His size and reach would have caused plenty of elite fighters a question or two.

Wald is a fanny.

MTF

 

Honestly, I don't see any of those fighters having an easy time with Vitali. Vitali is a tough fight for any past
heavyweight.

And yes I can imagine Lennox vs a young Lennox. And it very well could turn out just like it did versus McCall or Rahman.

 

Also, p4p George Foreman had zero skill and zero capability. That style would never have worked if he hadn't been so big and strong or is his opponents hadn't been so poor. That's why p4p lists if we do them should only be about achievement, not style

 

You'd pick him over young stribling, jeffery?

 

Zero is a bit harsh, but I agree. It's hard to see someone as dumb and crude as young Foreman winning consistently at a world level outside of Hw. Julian Jackson was a master craftsman compared to big George.

 

Foreman's boxing skills are highly underrated.

 

It seems a little convenient that the one great hw he fought who was also at the end of his career just happened to be his "boogeyman".

 

Yeah it seems a little convenient that he took the fight on 2 weeks notice with no tailored sparring and got unlucky with the cuts which NEVER reoccurred despite his facing quite a few heavy handed dudes thereafter.

Also Vatali was 21 years of age at the time and was in prime condition, having never been out of the game with injuries or anything.

Also Vatali was behind on the cards.

Also Lewis was fresh as a daisy.

Also, if Lewis had wins over Tyson, Holyfield and Golota then maybe we could take him seriously as a good heavyweight to lose to.