Vasyl Lomachenko vs Roberto Duran...

Buchanan was a career lightweight when boxers weighed in a few hours before the fight, and he routinely came in well under the limit. He was a small lightweight, particularly by today's standards.

And, since you brought it up, Lomachenko has been fighting welterweights and junior middleweights at lightweight. It's different today. They dry out 30 hours before the fight and bulk up to 150 before the bell. The lightweights Buchanan fought were actual lightweights.

And, if you are referring to Paduano, when mentioning the welterweight he fought, Paduano was not very good at all. (LOL)

Ken Buchanan wasn't "mugging" Lomachenko, not even a 32-year-old Lomachenko.

This content is protected

 

Interesting that you'll give Lomachenko the benefit of the doubt, but not Donald Curry.

 

Oh - it's different now? That wipes away the entire meaning of divisions then, because some boxers fill-up with water after their day-before weigh-in?

You know something else they didn't have back in those days? - Unofficial weigh-ins. So, you have no idea what Buchanan's weight was, at the point his fights started. Or do you think that boxers, who were subject to same-day weigh-ins stayed static at their recorded weight until their fight started?

You also don't know what impact rapid, uncontrolled weight-gain and/or over-hydration can have on the performance of a fighter.

Come to think of it, you're beginning to look a lot like a poster, who doesn't know a lot about anything; including, how to think things through. Same old tired tropes from a modernist - BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Have you ever had to make a same day weigh-in, on the morning of a competition? I'm going to hazard a guess at 'No' being your answer.


Paduano was the Ring-Rated Number 3 Welterweight , but thanks for the video, anyway.

I've seen it before and the only thing worth noting here, is that Buchanan looks to be the bigger man (you know, bigger than the guy who weighed in 10lbs heavier than him) -

Why don't I just re-watch Lomachenko/Lopez - so I can see Loma do **** all for the first six or seven rounds, instead? I'm sure watching him being flummoxed by an occasional jab all over again will be more thrilling than when I watched it the first time.

I wonder how he'd handle Buchanan's jab and his ability to move off of it?

Not all that well, based on last weekend. Easy win for Buchanan.

 

Boxers in the 1970s weighed in the day of the fight, usually when they arrived at the arena in late afternoon. There are lots of articles in newspapers and magazines covering weigh ins for a lot of fights back then. I have several articles covering the day in the life of fighters, many at MSG, back then. For Buchanan's fight with Donato, at MSG, for example, it would be common for all the fighters on the card to weigh in back in the dressing rooms around 4 p.m. on the east coast. You know that, right?

Even if someone had run out and bought him food, I doubt Ken Buchanan would have put on 15 pounds after the weigh in. Or are you going to argue that, too?

Damn, the nonsense people argue about on this board. (LOL) Now you want to argue that weighing in 30 hours before a fight and having a half-dozen meals before a fight, as opposed to a couple hours before on the same day, doesn't matter?

You act like that's the first time you've ever seen Lomachenko fight. Since you apparently haven't, the 32-year-old, who hadn't fought in 14 months, who had shoulder surgery two days ago, has looked better.

And Buchanan doesn't "mug" him.

 

Duran. As I said in another thread Duran @ LW was the most complete Package I ever saw.

 

Well, he wouldn't be now, that's for damn sure. (LOL)

Or maybe I should ask who would you bounce out of the Ring Welterweight ratings and replace with Paduano? Since, clearly, he was so amazing that you brought him up. Ring #3 and all.

 

This thread has aged well

 

LOL - What 'arguments' do you think I made because that^ isn't covering much, if anything at all, of what I put forward. In fact, it looks like you've made a couple of points up and answered those instead.

Nothing - neither one of his performances nor anything on Lomachenko's record is at the level of Buchanan or his best opposition.

That's ok, though. You keep being an 'Eye-test' Joey, if it makes you comfortable.

 

Oh, look! More senseless gobshiting from the board's expert on everything, except on how to string an argument together!!

 

1. Yes, I have. Quite a number of times. I finished second in the Illinois Silver Gloves in 1980. But it's been a while.
2. Paduano was not very good. I have no idea why you brought him up at all. The welterweight champ, when Paduano was rated #3 was Billy Backus. And he wasn't very good, either.
3. Yes, because in his more than 400 amateur and pro wins, Loma never faced someone "who jabbed and moved off of it?" (Christ).

You said based on what you saw Saturday, Buchanan mugs Lomachenko.

All I did was point out he was 32 and had a lot of fights and maybe it was catching up to him, and you started hurling insults.

Grow up.

 

Lol @400 fights. I guarantee you at least 50% of those "fights" more or less equal to what you see sparring at your local gym.

Loma has never faced anyone near as good as Buchanan. You'd have to do some impressive mental gymnastics to convince yourself otherwise

 

Yes, Lomachenko lost. He's awful now. The worst. I'm sure fighting Yasnier Lopez mutliple times and beating him in the World Championships is now just the equivalent of sparring some random guy at the local gym.

All I said was Ken Buchanan doesn't mug him. Sorry I made such an OUTRAGEOUS statement.

Didn't mean to be controversial. I'm sure Ken rips out Loma's beating heart, shows it to him, then takes a big bite out of it before stepping over Loma's body to do the same to Lopez.

Is that better? Do I fit in now? (LOL) Did I leave anything out?

Oh yea, Paduano and Backus were awesome welters. Better than any welters today. Is that what you wanted to hear?

Jesus.

 

No one said Loma sucks. Who you beat does matter though when arguing who was greater than who. Get a grip

 

I didn't bring him up. I mentioned a "career welterweight", purely to make the point about size and strength. You decided to make it about the specific welterweight boxer in question and go off on a tangent - the usual let's hide behind the same-day / day-before weigh-in argument, as if it were the is all and end all of what wins fights.

Let's forget that, had they fought, the rules would have been the same for both of them, for better or worse.

Right, because Loma's Amateur career is really relevant, where his opposition was replete with little Buchanans, waiting to turn pro and take their place as a shoo-in top-25 ATG Lightweight.

I'm betting Lomachenko faced plenty of Amateur opponents who walked at him in a straight line, armed with little else but a jab to the body, as well. These experiences didn't seem to serve him well, last weekend.

I couldn't care less about his amateur experience.

Yes - and that is still my position. It was a poor performance, for which no adequate explanation has been given - and he just hasn't looked particularly great at 135, in general.

Lomachenko is 4-1 at Lightweight and, regardless of his age, his current record and opposition there is what we have to go on.

It isn't spectacular.

BS! - I responded to your initial points reasonably, which is more than I can say for your general attitude towards other posters in your responses to them, from what I've seen and experienced.

Coming from you^^, with your form, that's priceless!!!