Vasyl Lomachenko vs Teofimo Lopez Scorecard by Champion97


scorecard by CHAMPION97
Round
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
VASYL LOMACHENKO
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
9
112
TEOFIMO LOPEZ
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
10
116

Fight:



More:

Vasyl Lomachenko

Teofimo Lopez



We do need help growing, please share:

Comments

I was out last night and missed the first 6 rounds so I will rewatch at some point today or tomorrow. What did you make of the fight? Personally I think Lomachenko looked gunshy in certain rounds. I won't say if the loss is legitimate right now because I only saw 6 rounds, but I think that he won more then 1 round, that one scorecard was awful.

Champion97's picture

Terrible from Lomachenko in the first half, great in the second half, brilliant from Lopez. He was he was gunshy, he needed to take more chances in rounds 4-6. Definitely, I didn't think it was the hardest fight to score, Lomachenko clearly won 8-11 in my opinion.

I'm going to watch it in full tomorrow, I will have my full thoughts on it. Even in some rounds I saw he looked very hesitant to throw anything. Why do you think that was? Also how is the public responding to the fight? I've been off social media for some time.

Champion97's picture

Sorry Mike, didn't see that post. I think Lomachenko was hesitant to throw in the first 2 or 3 rounds was because he felt the power of his guard, no surprise there, but what surprised me was that he wasn't a step ahead of Lopez, wasn't able to set him up or use his experience, Lopez controlled the distance, so Lomachenko couldn't get into position to land. Most people are disappointed by Lomachenko, impressed by Lopez, I think Lopez deserves all the credit he gets after this win, but Lomachenko did well to grit it out in rounds 8-11.

From what I saw, Lopez did great. He made it so Loma couldn't use any of his angles that he is known for. The power of Lopez was felt too in some rounds. Lomachenko, even in a loss still looked good. He did well defensively in spots making Lopez miss a good bit. He also listens well, he sense the urgency late in the fight and tried but ultimately it was too little too late. It wasn't a bad performance just disappointing. He still did well in some areas. I feel this is his first clear loss in my eyes since I had him beating Salido.

How do you think the rematch goes?

What's the next big fight coming up? Tank vs Santa cruz right?

Champion97's picture

I think Lopez would beat him more easily, Lomachenko isn't improving at 32, Lopez was inexperienced, he'll have learned a lot and improved from that fight. Do you agree? What impressed me most from Lopez was his judgement of distance and timing.

Usyk vs Chisora as well, some good fights in Mexico tonight.

I could possibly agree with that. I feel like Lomachenko might do better the next time around, it's hard to say really. Also I feel that this isn't the weight class for Lomachenko, I think that 130 is where he'd do his best at.

Can't wait to see Usyk resume his heavyweight journey.

Gold's picture

What did you make of how Lopez was able to neutralize Lomachenko's footwork which made Loma very hittable? All of the mythical angles were nowhere to be found

Champion97's picture

Brilliant, he didn't let Lomachenko find his rhythm, attacked the body, was prepared to hit the guard, looking for accuracy against a defensive, inactive opponent is a mistake he didn't make. Lopez did a great job of cutting off the ring, I don't think Lomachenko was an easy target, he was still defending very well, but he couldn't make Lopez pay because he was so cautious after feeling the weight of the shots on his guard, I don't think Lopez was even more heavy handed than he expected, and what I think was key, was that Lomachenko knew Lopez was a counter puncher, knew he could time him, was wary of the right uppercut.

I don't think the angles were mythical, Lomachenko couldn't use his angles to give Lopez any problems, but to be fair, it's something we've seen from Lomachenko many times in the past, a lot of us thought that would be a problem for Lopez. I thought Lomachenko couldn't find an opening, wasn't prepared to get into range, so it didn't matter what angle he was aiming to throw at. Let's give Lomachenko credit for the last half, he was like Rigondeaux against him for 6 rounds, he could have easily lost all hope he could win, and quit, but he didn't do that, didn't go on a survival mission either, he fought Lopez in the pocket, dragged Lopez into deep waters, hurt him to the body in round 11, Lomachenko proved he was a dog, but Lopez took the last round, showed a lot of grit himself.

Gold's picture

He was so negative in the rounds he lost I don't think he really deserves credit for defending well, as you said he didn't do anything with it. He was throwing single digit punches or near single digit in the rounds he lost early on, it was Broner like.

If they don't work for him the first time he faces a skilled bigger opponent how good are they? We saw Pacquiao use his movement versus bigger guys, but Loma isn't that guy. Teofimo's post fight press conference was good, he was saying all of the right things but he was also talking trash, he said Loma literally gave up in round 12 once he started stepping on the gas.

Where do you think Loma will go from here? I doubt he would fight someone like Haney, I think he will drop back down to 130 and fight someone like the Berchelt/Valdez winner

Champion97's picture

I don't agree because Lopez was throwing fast, hard combinations, and at times, nothing landed clean at all, I thought Lopez won the early rounds by default, I'm not one of those who believes Lomachenko gave rounds away and Klitschko gave Fury rounds, Lopez deserves credit for bullying Lomachenko into being inactive, but Lomachenko's defence was good. It wasn't Broner like in my opinion because Broner has lacked output for no reason at times, Lomachenko has more of a mindset of a professional.

Good enough that a lot of decent opponents had couldn't prepare his shots, lost every round, this fight was telling, but it doesn't change previous fights, there are a lot of things he couldn't do well against Lopez, but if he wasn't good at doing those things, this wouldn't be the win it is. I agree on Pacquiao, I would have liked to have seen Lomachenko throw the double left hand and pivot like Pacquiao does and Lomachenko has himself in the past. No need for him to talk trash, I hope Lopez will generally be more humble, if not, I'll enjoy seeing him lose at some point, not that I expect that happen any time soon, he dedicated his performance to a friend who recently passed, which makes it easier to be happy for him, but although he won, he got pushed back and out fought in rounds 8-11, by a smaller, older guy than him, let's see if he's prepared to do that at 147 in a few years. To say Lomachenko gave up is flat out wrong, if he'd given up, round 12 would have been more like the early rounds, but both landed a lot of shots in that round.

I know there's no rematch clause, but I don't know if a rematch could still happen, I'd want the rematch if I were Lomachenko, but if not, I'd take the Haney fight, I know he's small at 135, and Berchelt is a Top Rank fighter, but I could see the Haney fight getting more interest, I don't know who's a tougher opponent out of Haney and Berchelt, would Haney be a better win on paper. What do you think?

I had to kick you out of the competition this month, sorry pal, but there's no point otherwise, there's always next month.

Gold's picture

I understand where you are coming from, just saying it is easier to be negative and defensively sound than to throw punches and do it, but that's obvious. Whatever the reason, the outcome was the same as the Broner fights, just trying to be defensive moving around without throwing punches thinking he won rounds. I think what was surprising about Lopez and the result was Lomachenko legit got outboxed. He wasn't relying on size or strength when he went up 6-0 or 7-0 in rounds. I doubt many people predicted that.

Agreed, as you said it is telling but it doesn't mean he is trash. Asking him to win all the rounds would be a big expectation, Loma threw nothing early on so he had to start sometime. Not my opinion, just conveying what Lopez said.

I definitely don't see the rematch happening and there is no reason for it if you are Lopez. Won fair and square, there is no way to even get a draw without wishful thinking. I don't think the Haney fight will happen for either of them, I think Lopez will have an easier defense and then they will target the Ramirez vs. Taylor winner. I think the Haney fight is just as bad for Lomachenko as the Lopez fight, crosspromotional and relatively high risk. I think Haney is tougher than Berchelt, Haney is bigger, more fundamentally sound than Berchelt, and can cause some of the problems Lopez did. I think Loma can beat Berchelt with the style he used before but it isn't a guaranteed win, it would be a good fight to make.

Understood and no problem, I thought about picking but completely forgot.

Champion97's picture

I see the comparison, low output is the common ground. It was round 4 that I started to doubt Lomachenko would win, I found it hard to read Lomachenko in the first 3 rounds, I didn't know how much of his low output was strategic, because using the first 2 or 3 rounds to frustrate the opponent, make them miss, and stop them finding the right range, can be an effective tactic, Porter used it well against Garcia and Spence, Peterson also did that against Garcia, Jack fought similar against Stevenson, but it's a strategy that can go wrong, it's hard to get any momentum, and Lomachenko wasn't able to frustrate Lopez, couldn't turn the screw when he needed to.

Lopez didn't just lose rounds 8-11 clearly, he got backed up and bullied is what I'm saying, his durability is the one thing I question, but he proved his was tough as well in the last 2 rounds. You have to respect is Crolla, a lot of people in the UK were writing Lopez off, Hearn saying Lomachenko will humiliate him, Lopez and his dad said a few things when Lomachenko beat Crolla, it would have been easy for him to have said Lomachenko would destroy Lopez, but he said Lopez had a good shot.

I don't agree because he was a big underdog, so a rematch is a chance for him to put the peg in the ground, Lomachenko is declining, that was a great learning fight for Lopez as well as a career defining win. I think Berchelt is very underrated, if they were the same size, I'd say Berchelt is a slightly tougher opponent, but Lomachenko has not adapted well to 135, naturally I'd say he's a similar size to Pacquiao, and Pacquiao adapted better 147 than Lomachenko to 135, you'd think Pacquiao has a style which is more reliant on size and strength, but after last night, I agree Lomachenko isn't amongst Mayweather and Pacquiao. I think Berchelt would be the hardest puncher of Lomachenko's career apart from Lopez, and he does the fundamentals very well, he's certainly not as fast as Haney, and I think Haney's the better technical fighter overall, but I think Berchelt hits harder than Haney.

I've been saying for years that Robert Smith, head of the British boxing board of control, is a villain, but now a lot of people are agreeing with me, he isn't taking the Terry O'Connor incident seriously.

Gold's picture

I thought so as well, after that I noticed it had to be because he couldn't get started without taking risks he didn't want to.

I disagree with that, if I remember correctly it was round 11 where it was the only one he was really clearly beat in, but he came back in round 12. Lomachenko wouldn't have been able to trade like that throughout the fight. Speaking of Hearn, did you see the clip going around of Barry Hearn last year saying Lomachenko is a good but not great fighter? Jeff Fenech said something similar, said Inoue is much better skill-wise. Fair from Crolla, some guys get delusional or try to make it about themselves, I don't doubt he is a grounded guy.

I don't think so, I don't like that guys have to beat a champion twice to "win" sometimes. He won clearly, no way to score a draw, time to move forward to bigger and better things. I know we disagreed about Berchelt's footwork in the past but I doubt he would be able to do what Lopez did in negating him. I think Lomachenko did fine, beat B level guys at the weight well enough. I think we could see Loma vs. Berchelt so that could be interesting in the future.

I saw that about Smith, the guy is an idiot and is hurting the sport if he won't do something about O'Connor, that is unacceptable.

Champion97's picture

I would have been interested to hear what the advice was in Lomachenko's corner, either it was poor or he wasn't following it, and Lopez Sr did a good job, he still has a lot to prove, but the game plan was great.

That's the only round he was really hurt, but Lomachenko was the effective aggressor in 8-11, it wasn't just Lopez dropping his output. I agree, when a fighter let's round after round slip, in a fight with so much at stake. Yes, I think that was based on the Campbell fight, you could argue he was right, but it depends on how you define great. I think Lomachenko has been something of a fancy Dan at times, what Inoue does when he wins rounds look more technically skilled, but he has a solid skilset, it's hard for me to say who's technically better out of Inoue and Lomachenko, because Lomachenko, although we've seen a lot of cameos from him, but he is a legitimate master boxer, has exceptional technique.

I know he doesn't have to, I'm saying Lomachenko will definitely want the rematch, and Lopez might as well because he'll be confident he can dominate Lomachenko in a rematch. I could see Lomachenko being more likely to open up, but Berchelt isn't as explosive as Lopez.

He won't take action, he refused to conduct an investigation on Loughlin after Eubank vs Blackwell, Robert Smith is a scumbag.

Gold's picture

I don't think it necessarily has to do with advice but it may have, it would be interesting to hear. I saw a tweet about how people underestimate how important athleticism is in boxing which I tend to agree with and Lopez is clearly the better athlete, I think Lomachenko may have had a plan to feel him out for a few rounds but after he felt his power in round 2 he backed off and tried to pour it on late versus the inexperienced fighter. I agree, their gameplan was good and they walked the walk. They have talked about how they'd beat Lomachenko for like two years now and they did, so from me credit where credit is due.

I thought 8-10 were all competitive rounds, as I said to craftycounter I don't think 119-109 is an impossible scorecard but you'd have to give the benefit of the doubt to Lopez in 8-10. Can we say Lomachenko is a master boxer? We watched him get outboxed by Lopez, yeah Lomachenko is really good and has great attributes, but great boxers can adapt, Lomachenko couldn't. Not saying Lomachenko can't go on to do other great things but time waits for no man.

I don't think Lomachenko will want the rematch to be honest, if they both wanted a rematch clause they would have made it happen, it was Lomachenko's side that apparently didn't want it. Some people have suggested Lomachenko's slow start was mental but as I have said, I don't think it was. I think it makes sense for Lomachenko to drop down to 130, fight for a belt and then try to target a unification versus Shakur Stevenson, that would be another big fight for him and a chance to redeem himself.

I thought I had heard today that they were going to do something? I could be wrong about that though.

I could be wrong but I heard that the friday DAZN card in Mexico may be unsanctioned like the ESPN card with Berchelt from earlier this year, it's stupid they can't figure this out. There is zero point in having world level fighters in fights that will be put down as a no contest, puts a damper on a card I was hoping to watch.

Champion97's picture

I don't think Lopez is clearly the better athlete, he was tired in the second half, found a second wind in the last round, but he doesn't have the better stamina or resilience, he's more explosive, faster, but athleticism covers a lot of aspects. I agree, but I think what was key wasn't just him feeling the power, but also Lopez's control of the distance, I think what it comes down to is Lomachenko could see Lopez react every time he tried to cut the distance, he knew Lopez could time a counter, could see the reflexes, and it wasn't that Lomachenko's angles were non existent, but he couldn't use them because he was out of his own range.

You don't like Lomachenko, so as I did, you have to take your own judgement with a pinch of salt, 11-1 is a terrible card, 9-3 is off the mark, you're good at separating your bias from your scoring from what I've seen, which to your credit, isn't easy, but I think you'd agree with me if you weren't rooting for Lopez, I watched it again, and I agree 3-4 eye catching shots from Lomachenko weren't enough to make an argument he won round 2, Lopez won 8 clear rounds, but the legitimate landed stats wouldn't reflect 8-4 because Lomachenko out landed Lopez more heavily in his rounds, as far as I'm concerned, giving Lomachenko rounds 2, 6, 7, because he did better than in 1, 3, 4, is like giving Lopez rounds 9 and 10 because he landed a couple of hard punches. When I say master boxer, what I mean is his technical skill, his footwork, accuracy, but when it comes to being a top draw fighter, I agree, because boxing is about adaptability as you said.

That suggests to me that Lomachenko thought a first fight would be a lot easier than a rematch because of the experience aspect for Lopez. I agree, that's a great fight, as well as Berchelt, or even the winner of Herring vs Frampton.

It seems they are after all, but let's see what action is ultimately taken.

I agree, if they can hold professional fights, they can protect the a commission that's present.

Champ and I clearly saw the fight similarly as we had identical scorecards. I agree it was a very easy fight to score. I didn't see any close rounds as such, which is rare.

I also agree with champ I wouldn't say Loma 'gave rounds away' or certainly not purposefully. As I said earlier, I think what happened was Loma was expecting his natural classy footwork to generate opportunities and I think he was shocked Teofimo was so technically good. I also think he felt the weight of those body shots early so taking shots to get inside the jab and fast combinations in the first half of the fight when Teo has all his energy was deemed too high risk.

Against Luke Campbell Loma eventually decided he could walk through shots in order to get inside and I think he got hurt a few times in that fight. He didn't fancy that this time, especially when he realised Teofimo hits harder than Campbell.

I'm not wanting to take anything away from the class or skill that Teo showed but at the end of the day he was just too big for him with all that power and skill. In the were the same size Loma would win but that's not how boxing works!

What's next for Loma, drop to 130 and stay there. There's a reason Mayweather didn't go beyond his means. At 130 I don't think anyone touches him for many years.

I wonder what Tank made of the fight.....

Gold's picture

I agree with most of what you are saying, but you should remember that Mayweather started at 130 and went up to 154 multiple times even though he was clearly undersized at the weight, we're talking about Lomachenko starting at 126 and going beyond his limits at 135. I wouldn't rate Mayweather as the best of all time because I don't think he took enough risks in his career even though he may have the talent to be the best of all time, but he took a lot more risks than Lomachenko has taken thus far in his career.

Gold's picture

He was more tired comparatively because he actually fought the first half of the fight unlike Lomachenko, which makes it very easy to say that about Lomachenko's stamina. It was actually Broner like in that regard, he didn't empty the tank and try to win the fight, not even close. I also think he has better resilience already, I thought the clear round for Lomachenko was round 11, and Lopez had a great round 12, if the ref didn't break them up to look at the cut it looked like he had Lomachenko hurt. Exactly, they were non-existent when he needed them, he couldn't use them to cut the distance on a bigger opponent like a Pacquiao, I agree with why you are saying he couldn't use them though.

11-1 is a bad scorecard but possible, as I said before I think the scorecards should reflect what happened in the fight, 11-1 does not, but it is possible whereas 114-114 is not, the rounds don't exist for that. Lomachenko did worse in round 2 than Lopez in those rounds. I don't want to argue this though because it is pointless, the right guy won, we think 116-112 is a good score and that it was a clear Lopez victory.

That's possible, I don't know why they didn't want it, but it didn't happen so that's that. I think he should take the Berchelt vs. Valdez winner first, there are good options for him at 130 at TR, and if they want to make a cross-promotional fight with Tank that is there too.

Agreed, they may just be doing it to address the outrage, a lot of these commissions have major nepotism if not corruption issues.

Champion97's picture

As you know, there are more aspects than who's busier, Lopez had more control over the pace, Lomachenko took more shots, there was a big difference in fatuige in rounds 8-11, Lopez was backed up by a much smaller Lomachenko, Lomachenko was tired as well in the last round, and Lopez emptied his tank, but Lomachenko has better stamina than Lopez. We've discussed the Broner comparison, but it wasn't Broner like in the last 5 rounds at all, I think there are better comparisons, Mikey against Spence is an example, because it was about the opponent being a counter puncher who controlled the distance, it wasn't about work ethic in itself. Lomachenko didn't look worse than Lopez in the previous round, Lopez was hurt to the body, and when Lomachenko landed clean, it was interesting, because Lopez is a lot bigger than Lomachenko, Lomachenko wasn't able to set him up, and you could see the shots still taking an affect, I'm interested to see how Lopez fares against bigger opponents, certainly no reason to question his heart, he showed grit to finish like that, after that 11th, but I question his overall durability.

We can agree to disagree if you don't want to discuss it, but I disagree based on the second time I saw it, when it's easier to be unbiased, I'd say 11-1 and Lomachenko winning 7-5 are equally off, I didn't think Lomachenko did worse in round 2, I thought round 11 was more one sided than most of Lopez's rounds which is what I meant by the Frampton vs Quigg comparison. The first time I watched it, I was open to the possibility I was unconsciously biased, which I was, you dislike Lomachenko, so you can't trust your own perception when you disagree with the concencus, it's hard to be accurate it you're not neutral. Lomachenko out landed Lopez more heavily and pushed him onto the back foot in those 4 rounds, I know he still didn't always land harder, but the power difference was a lot less than in the early rounds. I suppose it doesn't matter, a more interesting question is, did Lopez out box Lomachenko? Because as crazy as it sounds, if your basis for a fighter out boxing his opponent is hitting and not getting hit, whether it's because he's defensively great, or keeps his opponent out of position to throw, then Lopez did out box Lomachenko.

Gold's picture

Yes but regardless, Lomachenko did nothing for half of the fight, he was not expending a lot of energy with his defense and movement either. As I said, I would hope Lomachenko would step on the gas at some point, he did and in both of our opinions won rounds, but according to Compubox (again as we discussed in the past, I am using it in a very general sense), Lopez outthrew Lomachenko in every round including rounds 8-11 by a significant margin and overall he threw over double the punches Lomachenko threw. I'll just have to disagree and say that I didn't think Lopez was significantly fatigued if he was at all, and that he has better stamina than Lomachenko. Sure, but the overall performance I am saying was Broner like in that as a generalization he lost the fight by moving around defensively not wanting to get knocked out. We disagree on Mikey vs. Spence, I thought Mikey's performance was dreadful, though I don't know if I would say it was worse than Lomachenko's given there are different factors at play. I agree that it was about counter punchers being able to control the distance, but both Mikey and Lomachenko didn't take the risks to try to win the fight, so in a way it was about work ethic. We may just have to agree to disagree on that though. Both of them were billed as great fighters by their proponents, I respect them as boxers but the way they failed to try to take the initiative in those fights is a major black mark against the argument that they are or will be great boxers. It doesn't necessarily mean that they can't overcome that, boxers have in the past, but I don't think it will happen with Lomachenko or Mikey.

I'll agree to disagree because I don't really want to have a lot invested in that point, I'd rather stick to my guns (where we agree) that Lopez won the fight clearly and that it was not hard to score, I would not score it 119-109, I scored it 116-112 which I we both think was a fair score. Yes, he did outbox Lomachenko on that criteria. There was a size difference but it was not a huge, Lopez did not crowd Lomachenko to impose his size, he boxed Lomachenko which yes, does rely on his bigger frame, but great boxers can adjust where Lomachenko failed to do so. Luke Campbell is taller and longer than Lomachenko and Lomachenko was able to solve that problem.

Champion97's picture

He was having a lot knocked out of him and pushed out of him, I suppose he didn't take a high volume of punches or get forced to throw a lot of defensive shots which did no damage, but I still think he has better stamina for the reasons I said. I know you are, but I'm not a believer in compubox, even as an approximation, Lopez out threw Lomachenko in round 9, and Lomachenko made him miss with most of those shots, he didn't out throw Lomachenko in rounds 8, 10-11, certainly didn't land nearly as many, I've seen some ridiculous numbers from compubox, they are not credible.

Broner lost rounds against Molina and Malignaggi because of his low output, it was laziness, he wasn't trying not to get knocked out, that's the difference. I think smart fighters are hindered by their own intelligence when they're comprehensively out boxed, because they can't convince themselves they can win, have a realistic mindset, only throw shots when they are confident the shot will land, and that would explain why Klitschko, Canelo, Rigondeaux came apart mentally in the last fights they lost. I think Lomachenko's loss takes more from him than Mikey's loss, Mikey was already a 4 weight champion, he was the underdog, moving up 2 weights, Lomachenko was fairly experienced at 135, Mikey was on a quest to be great even fighting Spence. It depends how you define great, if Lomachenko moves back down and beats the three opponents we mentioned earlier, you could argue he does down as great, but I agree neither him or Mikey are all time greats.

That's fine, it's not often we see such an easy fight to score. I agree, and the main differences between Lopez and Campbell in my opinion were power and timing, Lomachenko was a step ahead of Campbell, but he wasn't able to set Lopez up, could see the counters coming, especially the right uppercut. I saw your post about the shoulder injury, I believe the injury is real, but the IQ aspect of Lopez's win has nothing to do with that.

Are you watching any of the fights live this weekend? None are being shown on UK TV unfortunately, but I'm looking forward to catching up on Estrada vs Cuadras II, the Gonzalez fight, and Lipinets vs Clayton.

Gold's picture

I'm not a believer in it's statistical accuracy either, punch "stats" in general are a guide rather than a statistic. Put it this way, from compubox the lowest punches thrown differential was +18 in favor of Lopez. I doubt they are that far off, but in the past there has been a service that rewatches the fights to try to get a more accurate counts. If I see one for this fight I will keep an eye out for it.

Right, but what about fights like versus Pacquiao where his output was low because he didn't want to get countered? That's the analogy to Loma vs. Lopez and Spence vs. Mikey. I think a significant part of it is that only some fighters will go for broke, risk getting KO'd and really try to win. Many are willing to at least say they went the distance or to take their chances with getting lucky on the cards. I think Mikey's loss was effectively worse than Lomachenko's, but I personally think Lomachenko's was worse. Mikey was considered around a top 5 or even in the top 5 pound for pound fighters, after the way he lost to Spence I don't think anyone considered him a top 10 pound for pound fighter. Mikey also didn't have the benefit of the ridiculous cult of personality Lomachenko had/has to make loads of excuses for him. You could argue that Mikey was doing it because it was the most lucrative fight available, I have heard some people suggest Mikey isn't that into boxing and treats it more as a job, which is fine, but he tried to convince people he had figured something out about Spence so he should get criticism for that. Lomachenko would have to have some great performances versus quality fighters to redeem himself, it is possible but unlikely.

Agreed with your comparison about Lopez and Campbell. I think the injury is "real" in that he has had issues with it in the past, so it could be cleaned up further. However, there is no validity to it being some fight effecting injury. If it was something they have known about for sometime like it supposedly was, why did they not push for a rematch clause? Why not push the fight back? Why are there videos from the training camp of the fight of Lomachenko doing all of these intensive exercises? It has no validity as a reason why Lomachenko lost, it is just an excuse which is to be expected. It would have been far more surprising if he said the better man won on that night and left it at that without excuses, that rarely happens.

I'm going to catch the DAZN Mexico card, don't know how excited I will be about it if it really is unsanctioned. I'm surprised Sky hasn't been able to pick that up for cheap considering it's a Matchroom card. Are you familiar with Clayton? I'm not, I may catch the Showtime card but I may have other plans.

Have you seen the story about Donaire saying he wants to target Chocolatito at 115 if they both win? That would be crazy, I don't think he should go down to 115 at his age but he proved me wrong at 118. He is already a HoF lock but he deserves a lot of respect for his strength of schedule, he has fought so many guys over his career.

Champion97's picture

I'm saying they're not always even a guide, the judges aren't the only ones who are biased, and in this fight, there was bias on both sides, more people were biased for Lomachenko, but the officials obviously weren't, and clearly compubox weren't either.

There were times when he didn't want to engage with Pacquiao because of what's coming back at him, but that wasn't the case in round 8, Pacquiao punched himself out in round 7, stepped back and took a breather in the first half of round 8, Broner just sat back and let him recover, unlike Horn, who took the fight to Pacquiao, didn't give him a second more than the minute's rest, desire was the difference. Some try to go for broke when they are too far behind, others don't, but I don't think that's just about heart as some people think, it's also because the less intelligent fighters can more easily convince themselves they can land, can miss the reaction, the sign the opponent is setting them up, but intelligent fighters see everything. It's worth noting that Mikey has said his performance was horrible, I don't think he was particularly proud he went the distance. That might be true about his ranking, his loss was obviously a lot closer than Mikey's, but I'd be surprised if Lomachenko didn't drop down more places given the upset and being at a smaller size disadvantage. I haven't seen a lot of excuses, the shoulder, but it's plausible the injury we know he had before, came back. He said in the face to face that it was more about him believing in his own skill, but I think what he saw was Spence's susceptiblity to the screw shot left hook, he landed it in round 2, but like with Loma vs Lopez, it's about control of distance. I agree, especially given his shoulder, because he'll have had the best rehabilitation the first time, if that wasn't enough, it will only get worse with age and wear and tear.

He hurt it just before the fight from what I understand, everything would have already been signed. I suppose it's hard with the pandemic, but I suppose you could argue a last minute postponement isn't as bad for that reason because there isn't a crowd who've paid for flights, hotels, etc. When abouts in camp? And how extensive are these exercises? An injury doesn't have to be so bad you can't do a lot in the gym, for it to be a factor in the fight, when you're pushing your body to the limit, and I doubt anything that's filmed is the hardest he'll have trained in the gym, but I suppose if it was that bad it would have made no sense to use it as normal. It has validity as a factor in my opinion, but I agree on the loss overall, it wasn't a one handed performance where he clearly had one specific problem, he was overwhelmed by the weight of the shots on his guard, and I think Lopez proved to be the more intelligent fighter. I can think of a lot of examples but I don't know if they are at a high enough level, Prograis against Taylor is a good example, Porter against Spence and Thurman, Parker against Whyte, and after he was robbed of 3 points. I knew of him, but I hadn't seen him fight before yesterday, he's a good fundamental boxer, has a solid jab and straight right, to head and body, good blocking, I can see him being ahead on the cards, but I think Lipinets will take a toll and come on down the stretch, and I think he'll stop Clayton, he's a solid offensive fighter, is an underrated puncher.

No, but I don't see him getting down to 115. Definitely, none of us expected what he did against Inoue even considering the long count, he's had a great career, what's your take on the Oubaali fight?

Gold's picture

I disagree with that about it being about intelligence, for example, Holyfield and Morales were intelligent fighters, both of them went for broke and they were not afraid to brawl if needed.

Allegedly he hurt it in training camp, good thing as I said, you can watch the videos of him doing all kinds of exercises during his training camp in the videos Top Rank made to hype the fight. You should watch them yourself, it is a clear and obvious excuse, I wish I would have made a post calling that there would be one, there almost always is when someone loses a fight of this level in a way like Lomachenko did. I think it is logical to pick Lipinets as well, he's the more known and proven quantity, he is a good contender level fighter at 147.

I don't know, I wonder how much the Inoue fight took out of him, he's old and sometimes guys like that have a last stand before dropping off. Oubaali has good power, strength, and activity. He boxes pretty well offensively but I don't think he is great defensively. I didn't think a lot of his performance versus Takuma Inoue personally. Obviously, Donaire is a fantastic puncher, but he can get hook happy and spoil his own offense. Donaire is by far the most experienced and is likely still the best fighter Oubaali has faced in his career. It will be interesting to see the size comparison considering Donaire thinks he can go down to 115.

Champion97's picture

Good points, but I'm saying not going for broke is more prevalent amongst intelligent fighters, not that they almost never go for broke, I don't dispute some intelligent fight f ighters have gone for broke despite their intelligence making it harder.

I was under the impression the footage was from a boxing reporter, but if it was from the magazine show, it's likely the injury occured after that. I think you're making too much of it because of your dislike for Lomachenko, I don't see a reason to think the injury didn't exist, but he might have had an injury in fights he won, and we'll never know, and Lopez won't have been 100% injury free, the loser sometimes feels the need to make the injury known, but we don't know what the winner is dealing with himself. I don't think Lomachenko handled the loss why worse than Golovkin in the Canelo rematch, left the ring, but it was his team that made the excuse, not him, at least he didn't do what Wilder did, which is make a handful of excuses in the ring, and then make a ridiculous excuse, it's sad how much he damaged his reputation not by being easily beaten but by making excuses.

I keep changing my mind because it depends on an unknown, the fact that we don't know if the Inoue fight was his last stand makes it a tough one to call.

There were 2 trash talkers who fought on Saturday, Lopez and Joe Laws, here's a tough question, which of the 2 trash talkers did better?

Gold's picture

I get what you are saying, just that it is a choice between going on to fight another day or potentially taking a big risk with a chance to win.

It wasn't a magazine show, it was pre-fight promo, like their low budget version of the HBO 24/7 or all access. I think it is a clear excuse, what I would ask you is if you believe Pacquiao's excuse versus Mayweather, I don't and I presume you wouldn't either, if you don't, what is the difference between them? I think he handled the loss poorly, said he thought he won the fight and made an excuse for his performance. Not as bad as Wilder of course who did it in a historic way, or as bad as Broner versus Maidana.

I'm really excited for Oubaali vs. Donaire for that reason, I think the fight is unpredictable but they seem to be well matched.

Joe Laws? Not familiar with him, you'll have to send me a link.

Champion97's picture

I know it is, I think less intelligent fighters are more likely to think an opening is there, get set up, or just miss, punch themselves out, and get stopped, one way or another, but I know it isn't exclusive to fighters who aren't intelligent, and intelligent fighters can go for broke, but if they are that intelligent, they know their chances of coming off worse are high, so you can't blame intelligent fighters for waiting for an opening that never comes.

Ok, but that doesn't prove he didn't injur his shoulder after it was filmed. I believe Pacquiao had a shoulder injury, but like with Lomachenko, I think the injury was exaggerated, I don't think it was worse than injuries he has in most fights, what I'm saying is, nobody fabricated the shoulder injury in either case, a minor injury was blown out of proportion to use an excuse. What I'm saying is, I agree the injuries weren't big factors, I only disagree in that I think they were exaggerations rather than flat out lies. The only difference between the 2 scenarios is Lomachenko's history, he tore his labrum against Linares, and I thought his performance was relatively one handed against Pedraza. No worse than Golovkin against Canelo, I know that was a closer fight, but you can't blame Lomachenko himself for thinking he won, rounds 2, 6, 7, although definite Lopez rounds on reflection, were easily close enough that you can't expect the fighter himself not to think he won them. It's sad how much damage Wilder did his reputation, and his loyal fans, like SalTnutZ1, who weren't about to stop being fans when he got dominated and stopped, deserved better, Wilder fans have taken a lot of stick from UK boxing fans over the years. Broner wasn't physically or emotionally up to a post fight interview after that, but in his other defeats and the draw he's been worse.

I wonder if the reason the Matchroom card hasn't landed on Sky is because the fights might go down as no contests.

He's been yapping about Haney for a while, he was an idiot at the fighter meeting, is like Teo outside the ring, but he got dropped 3 times, stopped in 3 rounds, good result for both of us, I don't like fighters who run their mouths, and it's a good result for you when one of Fast Eddie's fighters loses.

Gold's picture

I see what you are saying now, never mind regarding Lomachenko's injury.

Possibly, I did look into it some and it does seem like it will be NC's (at least in their boxrec records) but that the belts will still be on the line? Which is very strange. Apparently, DAZN is hiring the officials for the event, the Mexican commission still isn't sanctioning bouts. I understand why boxrec wouldn't put them in as official bouts for their records, it is a bad precedent to allow unsanctioned fights on records.

I'll have to look it up, I'm not against all Matchroom fighters by the way even if I don't like Eddie as a promoter.

Champion97's picture

It hard to get your head around fighters wining a belt without the result being an official win, makes no sense, I don't know why they don't move the card to the US. I doubt the fighters are too bothered about belts and records, they'll be happy to be fighting at all. That would be a slippery slope, if they made an exception for these unsanctioned fights, I could see them continuing, and then where does it end? It's disappointing from the Mexican commission.

Understood, but neither of us like Mathchtrom hype jobs with big mouths, I should probably be more respectful given Laws still got in the ring and deserves credit for that.

Have you seen Xavier Martinez fight?

Gold's picture

I think the status of the fights has changed (thankfully), it has the Mexican commissions assigned to it on boxrec and it has the red question mark it often has instead of the yellow exclamation mark for unsanctioned bouts the other fights at the Azteca TV Studio had. So should be good to go.

No I haven't, have you? I saw he's on the Lipinets undercard.

Champion97's picture

Yes, I saw his KO against Rosales, great left hook around the guard, and I saw some of his 8 round win, he has a well timed, accurate right hand, good jab, can fight on the inside, does a good job of switching the attack from head to body, he fought a tall opponent with a long reach, who was moving and throwing his own jab, and Martinez did a great job of cutting off the ring, walking him down, and applying educated pressure. I expect Martinez to stop Marrero in the mid rounds. Carlos Castro is another unbeaten prospect who's fighting this weekend, I haven't seen him fight.

The board have cleared O'Connor of misconduct, disgraceful, I think they only investigated to look like they were doing their jobs, not because there was ever going to be action taken.

Gold's picture

That would be a good win to stop Marrero in mid rounds.

I saw that. It's ridiculous, hurts the sport of boxing.

You'll like the DAZN Mexico fights when you are able to watch them. It was definitely worth watching.

Champion97's picture

Just as I was saying I was impressed by him, he gets dropped twice against Marrero, it might have been the learning fight he needed, but he isn't one of the stronger prospects based on that.

I'm looking forward to catching up on the recent fights, from what I've read, Estrada vs Cuadras II was a great fight.

Have we discussed Dubois vs Joyce?

Gold's picture

I saw he got floored by Marrero but still won. I haven't watched the fight though, not sure if I will but I saw Clayton did better than expected.

It was, there was a slight controversy I read about afterward, I didn't notice it at the time. I thought it was very good, it became too one way for me to call it a great fight in my opinion though. Hopefully, Eddie can make Estrada vs. Chocolatito II work financially. I feel confident in Estrada winning if it does, Chocolatito is too declined physically to win whereas I think Estrada is at or near his peak. I hope Chocolatito can pull it off but it will be really tough, he'll have to keep on the pressure all night.

I don't remember, I feel confident in picking Dubois but Joyce is a real live underdog. Joyce looks like trash on the eye test with how he boxes but his size, engine, and power will make it a tough fight. I feel like Dubois has a better pedigree, he will be able to box Joyce and potentially stop him. What do you think? I assume the fight will be hyped in the UK even if it is without fans, especially given it is free on TV as far as I understand.

Champion97's picture

I think there will be a rematch, makes sense given it was for the interim title.

You know more than me about the business aspect of boxing, but I don't see why that fight won't happen next, I don't see a reason they can't make it work financially, but I don't know much about the logistics of it. I agree Estrada would have too much for him, but win or lose, Gonzalez has done phenomenal, to come from the Rungvasai KO, when he seemed done, to being a champion again.

I'm also confident Dubois will win. I agree with all that. I think Joyce will impose his strength and output in the first 6 rounds, make it competitive, but whenever the pace drops, Dubois will potentially knick the round with his fundamentals. I don't think Joyce can sustain his own pace in the second half of the fight, and when he can't be relentless, Dubois can create the distance, and attack on the outside, I think Joyce will take Dubois's power better than any of his other opponents in the early rounds, but he'll walk into Dubois's shots, that will take a lot out of him, and Dubois can do a lot of damage to the body. It's not being as hyped as I thought, it's not more hyped than Usyk vs Chisora or Povetkin vs Whyte II. I didn't know it was free, I assumed it wasn't given BT's track record of charging over £50 for a month's subscription, which was disgraceful, there will have been people who paid £56 for Fury vs Seferi, and a month with very little boxing even on BT and no decent fights, but if Dubois vs Joyce is free, great.

Gold's picture

I would figure so as well, I think the IBF would need to take the initiative with that though. If you watch the fight you'll have to let me know if you'd want a rematch from an entertainment standpoint as it seems like most people thought the draw was the correct score. I saw Lipinet's camp wants the planned Abdukakhorov fight or a fight versus Porter (seems like wishful thinking).

From what I've heard it just comes down to does the amount Chocolatito/Estrada want make sense for Eddie/DAZN financially. I agree Gonzalez has done very well to win a championship again, he is ancient being a former Minimumweight champion who won his first title in 2008.

I think the strength difference will be interesting, I think they are both the strongest opponent each other have faced. I think it's funny we both think Dubois has a better pedigree given the significant amateur experience difference and age difference, but from everything we have seen from them, it seems to be true. I think that as you said Dubois should try to chip away at Joyce and put it on him later. Like you said I don't think Joyce will be able to get out of the way of the shots from Dubois and that will take more out of him than Joyce can take out of Dubois going down the stretch. It appears you need to have BT Sport, it's not a PPV though. Is Sky included in some sort of TV license in the UK whereas BT Sport isn't? I've heard TV licenses mentioned before. Someone I know told me that a lot of EPL matches are ~15 pound PPVs on Sky, I didn't know that and that would be ridiculous to pay frequently.

Champion97's picture

I saw that as well, I suppose it depends on which can get him a title shot, but unless they've heard a rematch wouldn't be for the interim title, that makes me think Lipinets's team aren't confident he wins a rematch despite being the older fighter. I think 147 is PBCs strongest division, definitely one of them, and if Garcia beats a possibly damaged Spence, the division is wide open. I don't know if you agree, but I think Porter's style is terrible for Lipinets because although Lipinets might hit harder, Porter would push him onto the back foot and stop him fighting his fight. I think Porter vs James would be an interesting fight.

I was very impressed by him against Israel, some people don't realise how old 33 is for such a small fighter, he's done phenomenally well.

No, Sky isn't included in a TV licence, it has to be purchased individually, BT sport is accessible amongst the sports channels on Sky, but not for free. I think BT is disgraceful, Boxnation haven't had a card live since Kownacki vs Helenius, but over the years, they've given us big fights, for £10 a month, BT charge us 50 for a month, bearing in mind a lot of us are hard core boxing fans who aren't particularly interested in other sports, so the fact that it's one month means very little. A fair amount are 15 or £20 on Sky, Ruiz vs Joshua II was 25, which was about as much as I was willing to pay for one card, and I don't think Usyk vs Chisora should be ppv given how weak the under card is.

beaunuitmem's picture

11-1 is only possible if you watched the fight with your eyes closed. Loma clearly won 7,8,10 & 11. I thought Lopez won the fight but to say Loma hasn't taken risks is a bizarre statement to make about a guy that is the quickest 3 weight world champion in history.

Gold's picture

He didn't clearly win round 7, if you think 119-109 is watching with your eyes closed, 114-114 or Lomachenko win is deaf, dumb, and blind. Kosei Tanaka tied him to quickest 3 weight champion and could beat him to quickest 4 weight champion, how impressed are you with his resume? Put it this way, Lomachenko fans bang on about being the quickest 3 weight champion but it's not just about winning titles, it's about who he beats and how. Lomachenko's best win is Gary Russell Jr, who is a good champion but not a great one. Lomachenko's strength of schedule is not poor but it is not great either. Great fighters have great wins, Lomachenko doesn't. I think Lomachenko is a HoF fighter but he didn't want to take a big chance with the Pacquiao fight when they were both at TR. He took the franchise belt instead of fighting Haney. He strategically managed his career to the Lopez fight after he took a chance with Salido and lost, which is fine and his own prerogative, he's done well for himself doing so, but he never deserved the ridiculous comparisons his fans and media fans made for him.

beaunuitmem's picture

He clearly won round 7; not wide but he clearly won. Maybe even 6, almost gave it a draw. Agree with you about round 2 though.
Strategically manouevered his career to an undisputed shot against a fighter of equivalent ability? Coward! Been ducking fights his whole career by moving from one unification to the next.

Gold's picture

Lomachenko did not win round 6, he was still woefully inactive, and he likely did not win round 7, again, still too inactive. Look at who Lomachenko beat and how instead of just the titles. He has never been in a 50/50 or close to 50/50 fight in his career, he was a 4 to 1 favorite or more versus Lopez. The fight arguably wasn't undisputed because he took the franchise instead of fighting Haney. His best win is Gary Russell. Hardly the mark of an all-time fighter he was made out to be by his fans.

beaunuitmem's picture

He's been asking for the top figters since he became pro and he conquered his weight class and the weight above in 11 fights. He's been fighting much bigger guys since linares, Pedraza was a fairly close fight until the knock downs. He's not a Mayweather type who actively avoided fighters at the top of their game.
We can debate a lot of things but 119-109 isn't one of them. A heavy bias or heavy eyelids were required to get there.

Gold's picture

As I said he didn't want the Pacquiao fight when they were both at TR, would have been a huge fight for him. Linares and Pedraza are B level guys, the best guy Lomachenko beat is a B+ at best in Gary Russell. He has never beat an A level guy, he arguably lost to the two best fighters he faced. Floyd beat what would be Loma's best in Genaro Hernandez to win his first title and beat Corrales before the age Loma even turned pro. No comparison between Mayweather and Lomachenko. Mayweather is much better and faced much better opposition.

Julio Cesar Chavez Sr said the same thing I'm saying on a Mexican TV interview, that he didn't believe in the Lomachenko myth and his resume was overrated.

Chris M95's picture

@Gold you think Tanaka quality of opposition was better tho...for them 3 titles

Gold's picture

No, it wasn't, and it is generally known it is easier to win titles in those very low weight divisions. I don't know how much better the Lomachenko quality of opposition was, I think it was better than Tanaka's but it wasn't a strong strength of schedule. The point was more that strength of schedule and how boxers do against that strength of schedule is more important than just winning titles

Chris M95's picture

strength of schedule?...just the quaLity of opposition...or the quantity of fights an elite fighter fights in a set period of time holds a lot of weight to you as well?....what if any are other factors do you consider?

Gold's picture

Everything (quality, quantity, timing, etc) I guess? Sorry if that is a bad answer, I think that beating a lot of quality guys back to back is very hard, it's draining and someone will have their number eventually.

Loma landed the only clean combo in round 2. That round should have been his.

Watch here: https://imgur.com/gallery/Nqmimnb

Pages