Some say Vasyl Lomachenko is a bit overrated. Your thoughts?

[CauliflowerEars]

With Loma's minimal amount of fights and a loss to Salido, some have referred him to being hyped up. Do you agree or disagree?

I hope you and others read my first post, but I wanted to add a couple brief points.
You might want to clarify what you mean by "hyped up".

He gets a lot of praise in the press, as well as a P4P ranking above that of Canelo Alvarez, who has a longer and arguably more distinguished career/resume than Loma. You also have the Lomachenko Loyal who sometimes say things like, "the best fighter of all time", "TBE", "ATG", and stuff like that.
While he may deserve to be "hyped up", I believe labels that include fighters who have already retired must wait until a fighter is completely done with boxing and retired himself.

This thread will definitely generate some discussion on Loma's status, career, and ranking, but to agree or disagree that Loma is "hyped up" may require a little more definition or clarification.

Peace.

[Joe Beamish]

I hope you and others read my first post, but I wanted to add a couple brief points.
You might want to clarify what you mean by "hyped up".

He gets a lot of praise in the press, as well as a P4P ranking above that of Canelo Alvarez, who has a longer and more distinguished career/resume than Loma. You also have the Lomachenko Loyal who sometimes say things like, "the best fighter of all time", "TBE", "ATG", and stuff like that.
While he may deserve to be "hyped up", I believe labels that include fighters who have already retired must wait until a fighter is completely done with boxing and retired himself.

This thread will definitely generate some discussion on Loma's status, career, and ranking, but to agree or disagree that Loma is "hyped up" may require a little more definition or clarification.

Peace.

Really? You sure about that? A longer pro resume, I get. But more distinguished? I see a loss to Floyd in which he was totally dominated, a questionable win over Lara, a totally dubious draw with Golovkin, and an unimpressive win in the rematch, and otherwise a few solid but unremarkable wins over guys like Jacobs.

Loma's complete ownership of Rigo is more impressive than anything Canelo has done. (And Canelo had his chance against Floyd -- a very analogous matchup, actually.)

[CauliflowerEars]

Really? You sure about that? A longer pro resume, I get. But more distinguished? I see a loss to Floyd in which he was totally dominated, a questionable win over Lara, a totally dubious draw with Golovkin, and an unimpressive win in the rematch, and otherwise a few solid but unremarkable wins over guys like Jacobs.

Loma's complete ownership of Rigo is more impressive than anything Canelo has done. (And Canelo had his chance against Floyd -- a very analogous matchup, actually.)

I wouldn't argue with you at all if you have Loma over Canelo in P4P best.
I'm just saying there are very knowledgeable folk on here that passionately argue Canelo over Loma. I am not one of those guys and you can check every single one of my posts to see it.

So, am I "sure about that" ? Absolutely not, and I have no problem at all saying so. I'll never be baited into an argument about it either (not saying you are), because I "love" both fighters and arguments can be made for both. Also, "distinguished" is another subjective term. I'm not arguing Canelo's GGG win or draw either, but they were close fights and GGG was/is on most P4P lists.

Anyhow, if you're looking for a debate, I'm not your guy. Not into "fandom" passion or anything close to it. You want to talk positive about Loma, I'm with you all day. Same with Canelo. Rarely going to hear me with the negativity or rants against fighters. Again, wrong guy.
Can I assume you read my first post ? If not, you should immediately. That would have told you what I think of Lomachenko and hype-hate. I only mentioned Canelo because I know the arguments out there, and they didn't originate with me. If you want to have that discussion, there are Caneloites out there for you. I'd rather you comment on my other post where I defend Lomachenko as opposed to acting like it doesn't exist.
Peace.

[CauliflowerEars]

Really? You sure about that? A longer pro resume, I get. But more distinguished? I see a loss to Floyd in which he was totally dominated, a questionable win over Lara, a totally dubious draw with Golovkin, and an unimpressive win in the rematch, and otherwise a few solid but unremarkable wins over guys like Jacobs.

Loma's complete ownership of Rigo is more impressive than anything Canelo has done. (And Canelo had his chance against Floyd -- a very analogous matchup, actually.)

Wow I just read your other posts where you seem to agree that Loma is a hype-job or undeserving of hype, or something. Then you @ me with praise of Loma and support of Loma, over Canelo. What ?
Bro, if you're just looking for debate, or you have something against Canelo, I get it. You are free to rank, rook, and rant all you want. It's all opinion, and I'll respect your opinion unless you're profaning my wife, kids, or mother. If you have Loma below A,B, or C, fine I respect that. If you have Canelo below C, D, and E, go for it. I'm in NO camp, and have NO desire to convince you of anything except I like boxing, talking about it, and my steaks on the grill are damn tasty. If you want the names of guys I saw worshiping Canelo, let me know. I had no intention of arguing.

Peace.

[CauliflowerEars]

Loma lacks a meaningful opponent to help elevate his future. Your opponents define you. Loma got nothing.

Loma's complete ownership of Rigo is more impressive than anything Canelo has done. (And Canelo had his chance against Floyd -- a very analogous matchup, actually.)

I keep looking at this. "Loma got nothing" then "Loma's complete ownership of Rigo…"
Do you know what an "agenda" is ? Guys on here have "agendas" all the time, for one reason or another. You may have confused me with one of those guys. You picked a detail out of my post that had nothing to do with my main idea, which was simply, "clarifying what the OP meant by hyped up". That's what guys with an agenda do.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that if that's your thing. Your mistake is in thinking that I won't cosign your agenda in a heartbeat. Albeit, that's difficult when you kind of contradict yourself in the same thread. Ya see, that's what often ends up happening when you stray from the topic because something touched your "agenda".
What should I cosign, "Loma's resume is nothing" or "Loma's complete ownership of Rigo...blah blah...more impressive than anything Canelo...." ??
Not sure how it could be nothing if it's better than Canelo's. Unless of course your intention all along is simply to discredit Canelo.
I may be wrong, but I'm guessing you have an issue with Canelo and have been in these debates before.

In hindsight, perhaps I should have just said, Ok bro, Loma's resume is more distinguished than Canelo's..., BUT... not so distinguished as to think he has "any opponent on his resume that would be meaningful or elevate his future".

Wow, you must really hate Canelo Alvarez, the way that sounds. What about Manny ? His is pretty good ain't it ?
I'm just playing around, bro. Look, you can pick apart any boxer if you really want to. That's just not my thing. Hope I didn't rile you up or offend you. I can tell you're a real boxing fan and into it. Peace and good will to you, bro.