Vasyl Lomachenko vs Roberto Duran...

Lopez did the other night.

 

You’re from the U.K. and you’re being biased

 

Lomachenko has better wins than Buchanan ‘El Nino de oro’ Jorge Linares is better than Ismael Laguna

 

Linares isn't even better than Navarro, let alone Laguna. Actually, the past prime verison of Linares that was needing gift decisions over Luke Campbell isn't even better than Jim Watt.

 

The Campbell fight was not a gift decision

 

Duran by late stoppage, while clearly leading on cards

 

I had it 115-112 Campbell iirc. That's a pretty a big disparity in favour of the challenger. I'd certainly call an 8-4 decision a gift.

And you didn't reply about the other guys mate. How much have you seen of those? Because it's the only reason I can think of why you'd say that they're worse than Linares. Especially a verison of Linares who'd get clattered by an old Cano two fights later. Cano being a guy who couldn't even beat an old El Terriblé ten years prior.

 

I'd also like to see Lomachencko easily beat a top-3 Ring-rated Welterweight, having weighed in at 136, like Buchanan did - even if it was only a 10-rounder.

 

Old Cano? He was 29 and Linares was 33 and Linares was fighting well above his natural weight

 

Yes, better than Buchanan

 

So, 4-1 at Lightweight Lomachenko is "better than Buchanan"? No - not by some margin.

If and when Lomachenko demonstrates he can go into the trenches, away from home and eek out a 15-round victory over a shoo-in top-25 ATG lightweight; maybe beat a Top-3 Ring-Rated Welterweight along the way, then perhaps we've got comparable Lightweights.

For now, Lomachenko isn't bothering Ken 'Made in Scotland from Girders' Buchanan.

 

Yes old Cano, his prime was 9 years before. And who gives a ****? Linares was KOed. In one.

Just because Linares has fought lower than 135, doesn't mean that 135 isn't his best weight, and his natural one. You can get for damn sure that Laguna wouldn't need gift decisions, or go life and death with the likes of Mitchell, Campbell and Crolla.

 

I don't think anyone is 'mugging' Lomachenko. Plus, he is 32. Buchanan was retired when he was 32. And Ken wasn't a big lightweight, unlike Lopez.

Loma lost Saturday because he rarely threw a punch for the first half of the fight. Once he did, he was fine. All those fights are probably just catching up to him. Guys who have 400 or so amateur fights tend to fizzle out sooner in the pros.

 

He's not fought anyone on Buchanan's level or above at 135 so, how do you know?

What's that got to do with anything?

Not that it really matters but, Buchanan was a career lightweight, who would have out-sized Lomachenko. Not only that, but he handled a ranked, career Welterweight with ease so, in terms of meeting a challenge in terms of size and strength, I'd say Buchanan's ahead on those fronts.

Reads like a statement of the obvious, followed by an excuse for Lomachenko and it might well be a valid one, but you don't really know what the reason is for his poor performance. You've just asserted that, once he started throwing punches, he was fine. So, what caused him to falter in first half?

Lomachenko is 4-1 at Lightweight and last weekend looked to have been stymied by little more than a forward march and a jab. So, as my earlier comment made clear - based on what I saw, Buchanan is winning easily - and that isn't an unreasonable position to take.

And, to be clear, I think the best version of Buchanan would, right now, beat Lopez without too much difficulty, as well.