This is a great question concerning the worth of amateur boxing vs professional boxing. James Toney repeatedly says "Amateurs don't mean nothing", but I totally disagree. Boxing is boxing, and Rigo already embarrassed pro boxing with his almost complete shut out annihilation of a guy who was no.5 p4p on some lists, and Lomachenko will continue this trend.
I think "embarrassment" is too strong a term. It's more of a reality check. A double Olympic gold medallist is a fine boxer for sure and an all time great in the making.
Im more excited for this fight than any other fight in March including Chavez vs Vera.
To your point, no it wont give anyone any black eye. How many former Soviets or E. Euro amateurs had the success that Loma had in the amateurs? very few and maybe those could do the same but I doubt there be more than a handful of Lomachenko's. Loma is considered to be one of the very best amateurs ever as is Rigondeaux
You're right and whoever says no is a nuthugger but the truth is that every situation is different.
Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier and George Foreman beat the best East European amateurs when they were amateurs, and they wee the best when they became pro's in their respective time.
With that said; other boxers in the soviet block after them did great in the Olympics but never went pro, We will never know how they would have performed professionally.
Teogilo Stevenson was a 6'5'' Cuban heavyweight amateur who won 3 gold in Olympics, if he would have went pro he might have given Ali, Foreman or Frazier all that they could have handled.
Felix Savon, another 6'5'' Cuban heavyweight amateur is the 2nd of only 3 amateurs to win 3 gold medals in Olympic boxing.
If these guys would have gone pro they might have dominated OR they might have gone out like Kelson Pinto, who beat Cotto in the amateurs but got destroyed by Cotto professionally.
Not by a stretch. There have been former amateur fighters before who have done it led by Thailand's Saensak Muangsurin who won a pro boxing world championship in only his third fight. There's a question about the forthcoming Salido fight as Lomachenko's first officially as a pro since he had previously seen action in an international boxing circuit where pro boxing rules are implemented and the fighters are also paid. Aside from this, there's no gainsaying the fact that Vasyl's extensive experience fighting at high level in the amateurs have more than prepared him for the pros. Cuba's Guillermo Rigondeux has proven to be the best in his current division despite logging just more than ten pro fights, beating no less than a top rated pound for pound fighter who was also adjudged as the best boxer the year before.
Vasyl destroying an old and jaded Salido is not far-fetched Mikey Garcia who is into boxing for less than five years and without considerable experience in the amateurs have shown how easy it is for somebody like him to handle a fading veteran as Salido.
No ,but if Vasyl Lomenchenko loses to Salido ,chances are Lomenchenko will be the one with a black eye ,fighting someone like Orlando Salido in his second pro fight is a bold step forward.
I'll give Lomenchenko his due credit ,he impressed me in the 2012 olympics and can make some noise as a pros but one punch or one techinal error can change his whole career (David Price) ,then everyone will be saying he was over hyped ,that's why he should take his time and at least build up some sort of record.
I feel that pro fighters that have about 15 to 20 fights deserves a shot over a fighter that only has 2 fights because the fighter with 15 to 20 fights has made more sacrifices ,Mike Tyson and Oscar De La Hoya had very promising futures as pros but they still took their time and worked their way through the ranks.
What if Spiderman was allowed to be professional Boxer and dropped down to Welterweight and faced Floyd Mayweather in his first professional fight, do you think he would win, I mean with all special senses and super strength he'd be able to out-box Floyd with ease.
Truth of the matter is this; we can sit here for years and argue the "what if's" because they can never be proven wrong nor can they ever be proven right. I like to look at the facts and what actually happens in reality versus what might have happened.
Lomachenko beating Salido wouldn't be a black eye to Boxing nor do I think it proves anything as it relates to how Eastern European fighters would've faired as professionals, thats like giving every Euro fighter the benefit of a doubt without them getting in the ring and actually proving it.
Lomancheko is just as seasoned as a fighter as Salido is, the only difference is that the bulk of his experience is as an amateur. Some fighters make the adjustment easily, some it takes longer, and others don't make it at all and I think after the fight we'll be able to see.
I don't think Lomacheko will have any problems inside six rounds but after that we'll have to see how he preforms, it'll be interesting.
Nonetheless, I don't think him winning is a bad look for Boxing I think its impressive if he can win with very little professional experience.
No. Being a great amateur, and a great pro are two different things, and besides Cuba would of had the same complaint.
Ha. Loma doesn't have experience fighting past 4 rounds.
Can you imagine what that could mean? All these former Soviets and E. Euros will then say: "Here's a green guy with only one professional fight, against a 3 time experienced world champion with nearly 70 professional bouts and he made him look like a clown"
I think Lomachenko VS Salido is a way more significant fight than most fans think and if Lomachenko wins BIG, then I am afraid there will be even more doubters who will be like: "What if these E. Euro amateurs could have been professional boxers back in the 50s and 60s"
