- Jun 4, 2013
No, because Garcia has been shown to be lacking as a boxer by being outboxed and losing every round against Spence. He would’ve been better off winning a couple of rounds and getting knocked out in the third by going out on his shield, he wasn’t expected to look so inept as boxer (by most, I knew why his best win is Salido and why he got busted up against the likes of Lipinets and Broner).Again, you're utterly missing the point. It's about history books and how fights are perceived. It turns out that Lacy was not a good opponent for Calzaghe really...but that's not how it goes down in history. So YOU think that Campbell is better than all those other guys, and you think he'd be a better opponent than Mikey Garcia...great, history and the general population won't see it like that.
Campbell has lost twice and lost to Linares who an injured Loma already beat, and who has since been destroyed by someone else too. Garcia has lost to fucking Spence Jr at a much higher weight. Garcia was in the ring p4p top ten and tons of people thought he would beat Loma, so Garcia would be the best possible opponent despite you thinking he's crap.
Likewise, Lopez is getting hyped, if he's still unbeaten in 18 months and got number 1 contender status or picked up a vacant belt, he will be seen as the heir apparent, and beating him would shit on beating Campbell in terms of legacy. It's not about how YOU rate them, it's about building legacy.
Santa Cruz is half an inch taller than Loma, with a 3.5" reach advantage, so yes he is bigger than him in terms of height and reach, and if they met at super feather, the weight would be natural for him as by his own words he is about 130 or 131 on fight night at feather.
You are incapable of being objective when it comes to Loma and you constantly misinterpret what people are saying about building his legacy with what you think his opponents offer. You are on record saying that you would pick Campbell to beat Garcia, but do you think for one second that if Loma fought Garcia and beat him it would not be deemed a bigger win that would do more for his legacy than beating Campbell?
Maybe if Mikey had a title and a decent win against an opponent like Linares it would be better for Loma’s legacy to fight him. Since the fight against Campbell is for a title and for another piece of the unification puzzle, it’s completely insane to suggest that the Mikey fight is more meaningful than this Campbell fight right now. That’s by objective measures, that’s not my opinion.
Exactly, it’s not about how you rate them, it’s about legacy. For some strange reason you don’t seem to understand that boxing is about titles and unifying, that’s what history remembers.
Lopez is complete trash, for you to mention him now as a legacy fight just shows how out of touch you are. Likewise for Santa Cruz, Lomachenko gets no credit for beating up a smaller guy. If he didn’t get credit for dismantling an undefeated Rigondeaux what do you think would happen if he fought Santa Cruz? That is a completely meaningless and pointless fight, it’s a bizarre suggestion and I’ve only ever heard you make that suggestion. Reach and height isn’t size, again Rigondeaux had the reach advantage on Loma.
You can’t just dismiss what I say because I’m known as a Lomachenko fan, I’m being objective and rational here. You are saying the outlandish things that aren’t aligned with reality or any logic, that’s why you come across as an irrational hater here. Your whining about Loma’s opposition just sounds like Pedders when his vagina starts flapping, endless irrational and out of context claims with an “But I’m actually a big fan of Lomachenko” exclaimed at the end to give an impression of objectivity. As I said, in response to me laying out the level headed facts it’s “You can’t be objective when talking about Loma”. Anybody reading this who follows the sport and is honest can see what’s what.