Lomachenko the ATG

Jun 4, 2013
7,008
618
Morales >>>>>>>>> anyone Loma has ever faced.

Most guys that Loma stopped at 130lbs quit. Only a damaged goods Martinez at 130lbs and never known for his durability Linares at 135lbs were legitimately KOd.

Based on what exactly? By going life and death against ATGs like Mitchell, Crolla, and Campbell???
Morales that had just been beaten by Raheem? When they were both prime Morales beat Pac.

Based on the fact that he was undefeated in a long time after taking his career seriously, and being THE champ at 135. There’s a reason why Mikey’s vagina started flapping when that fight was offered.
 

Zopilote

SuperFly!
Jun 5, 2013
8,175
2,034
Morales that had just been beaten by Raheem? When they were both prime Morales beat Pac.

Based on the fact that he was undefeated in a long time after taking his career seriously, and being THE champ at 135. There’s a reason why Mikey’s vagina started flapping when that fight was offered.
Even Morales at that stage was far better than anyone Loma has beaten. He was one of the most durable fighters of the last 20+ years and Manny was the first guy to stop him.

Of course Linares was undefeated for a long time when the best opponents he was facing were guys like Campbell, Mitchell, and Crolla.
 
Reactions: Pedderrs
May 16, 2013
5,558
3,788
The things you’ve mentioned with Pac are all disputable other than resume. You’re putting unorthodox in a good way as criteria? You’re saying Pac has better punch selection? That’s something you simply can’t argue for a straight line simple fighter like Pac who never really developed his right hand.
It’s hard to respond to what you’ve written because it’s clearly biased and poorly thought out.
No never said he had better punch selection, just better overall offence, all things considered. Yes Pac's unorthodox style helped him in many ways, everyone knows this. A bit more at the lower weights I'd say.

It's hard to understand this response of yours as it's clearly biased and poorly thought out.

My simple breakdown of the two was quite reasonable, actually.
 
Reactions: Zopilote
Jun 7, 2013
4,576
1,195
Dumb comparison.

Pacquiao was very early into his career and wasn’t anywhere near to being the elite fighter he would eventually become.

Linares on the other hand, was in the middle of his career, even with Freddie Roach in his corner. It’s safe to say that it was at the very peak of his career when those losses happened.
Linares was on his 33-34th fight, Pacquiao was on his 28th. How the fuck is that early in your career? Linares was developing under Teiken.
 

Pedderrs

DKSAB
Jun 1, 2012
22,047
14,366
29
United Kingdom
Linares was on his 33-34th fight, Pacquiao was on his 28th. How the fuck is that early in your career? Linares was developing under Teiken.
Manny started as a Pro at the age of 16 and had fought 10 times in his first year...

You see where I'm going with this pal?

Linares had been a Pro for 10 years when he was stopped by Thompson, Manny had been a pro for...err.. 4 years.
 
Reactions: Zopilote
Jun 7, 2013
4,576
1,195
Manny started as a Pro at the age of 16 and had fought 10 times in his first year...

You see where I'm going with this pal?

Linares had been a Pro for 10 years when he was stopped by Thompson, Manny had been a pro for...err.. 4 years.
My point is Linares has improved aince then, and so has Manny. You can't discredit Linares.
 

Pedderrs

DKSAB
Jun 1, 2012
22,047
14,366
29
United Kingdom
My point is Linares has improved aince then, and so has Manny. You can't discredit Linares.
No, you were trying to suggest that both Manny and Linares were at a similar stage of development when they both lost to lesser talents, and they clearly weren't.

Linares has been proven to be a good fighter down the years and a decent champion, but he was nothing overly special. I mean someone like MAB has been mentioned several times in this thread already. Linares obviously wasn't that level of fighter. I honestly don't recall too many serious boxing people thinking a fight between him and Mikey Garcia was a 50/50 either. If you could direct me to some sources to suggest otherwise I'd definitely be willing to have a little look though.
 
Reactions: Zopilote

Zopilote

SuperFly!
Jun 5, 2013
8,175
2,034
Manny started as a Pro at the age of 16 and had fought 10 times in his first year...

You see where I'm going with this pal?

Linares had been a Pro for 10 years when he was stopped by Thompson, Manny had been a pro for...err.. 4 years.
This.

Plus Manny was a malnourished Flyweight at the time and Linares was at his comfortable weight. Same weight he has stayed in for this whole time.
 
Reactions: Pedderrs

REDC

Get-rich-quick scheme investor
Dec 12, 2015
1,716
425
Dumb comparison.

Pacquiao was very early into his career and wasn’t anywhere near to being the elite fighter he would eventually become.

Linares on the other hand, was in the middle of his career, even with Freddie Roach in his corner. It’s safe to say that it was at the very peak of his career when those losses happened.
I disagree with that last sentence. An athlete is as good as his/her last perform3ance and Linares looks like he's on top of his game right now.
Also if you have watched those 2 losses in a row (and I'm sure you haven't because why would you, it's not that interesting) then you can't but applaud Linares for his grit. His injury wasn't healed properly which contributed to that 2nd loss in a row. There's more than meets the eye at first (boxrec) glance.
 
Last edited:

REDC

Get-rich-quick scheme investor
Dec 12, 2015
1,716
425
What do you believe are Linares' most imprevious recent wins?
Sorry I was still editing my post when you replied because I wasn't done and accidentally clicked post.

To answer your question: I don't know. But how relevant is it? An athlete can look pretty bad and win or have an excellent performance with no excuses whatsoever and lose. I.e. it's how an athlete loses or wins. Point in case: he lost against Loma but put in an excellent performance.
 
Reactions: paloalto00

Pedderrs

DKSAB
Jun 1, 2012
22,047
14,366
29
United Kingdom
Sorry I was still editing my post when you replied because I wasn't done and accidentally clicked post.

To answer your question: I don't know. But how relevant is it? An athlete can look pretty bad and win or have an excellent performance with no excuses whatsoever and lose. I.e. it's how an athlete loses or wins. Point in case: he lost against Loma but put in an excellent performance.
I agree with you in that Linares is probably as good now as he's ever been. I don't think he was ever all that good though. Credit to him for remaining unbeaten for so long, but you only have to look at his recent level of opposition to know that it does flatter him somewhat. Luke Campbell? Anthony Crolla? These are European level fighters at best. You can go a little further back to another Brit, Kevin Mitchell. European level too, but he actually went and life in that one. I take no satisfaction in knocking down a professional fighter, Linares has had a good career and he's a very good fighter, but he was never going to be good enough to beat Lomachenko. He was never going to be good enough to beat a Mikey Garcia either. He has never come close to reaching these heights in a long, long career.

Back to the original question, Linares was obviously a more developed Professional when he sustained his early losses compared to Manny Pacquiao. It's what we could call a false equivalency.
 
Reactions: Zopilote