Lomachenko; is he a H2H beast all time?

Lomachenko wasn't the best of his OWN era. Him Holding his own against the best feathers, super featherweight, and lightweights in history is a definitive no in my opinion.
Personally he's more a glorified amatuer ( the way he fights) than a seasoned pro, ( Like Usyk) .
His success is more an indication of how bad the competition he's faced is than anything special about him ( Like Usyk).

 

Good Lord no

 

Goodness gracious.

He’s 17-3 and you’re asking if he’s Sugar Ray Robinson. That record in Robinson’s day would get you a good six-round undercard spot.

 

GTFOH with that dumb “Well he’s 17-3 though!” Crap. We all know those three ‘Losses’ have a story to them and that Loma was screwed in two of them.

Lomachenko at his best (25-30 years old) is definitely a H2H ATG. We also have to remember we are talking about arguably the best amateur boxer of all time! No amateur isn’t the pros but it’s part of the sport!

 

His amateur background has nothing to do with assessing him as a professional boxer. Just like a great college football player doesn’t get called one of the greatest in NFL history if he didn’t have a great NFL career. You don’t get to be Babe Ruth because you were a great hitter in high school … you have to do it in the Major Leagues.

This much has always been true in all sports: Winners adjust, losers make excuses.

Loma’s always got apologists. He’s had 20 fights and he’s won 17. I’m sorry he didn’t win some close fights but he didn’t. He’s 17-3. That’s fact. Greater fighters adjust and find ways to win those bouts — I don’t think he got ‘screwed’ at all; he just didn’t win.

 

I don't know if he is H2H P4P better than Wladimir Klitschko in any weight class.

 

No, the guy is a great boxer, an amateur legend, but as a professional - he's just very good, sorry you don't get greatness with poor activity and few fights (like his cruiser/heavy compatriot), some of them lost (oh, yeah - he didn't lose, he was robbed and I don't even mean his last bout).

 

Way too deep of a division to make that claim. Been a lot of terrific lightweights the last 120 years to select from.

 

I would say yes but he pissed all over his chances of carving out a legacy for himself by insisting on fighting at weights where he's a midget. He's going to get little credit for it in future and people will look at his record and wonder what the hype was about. It's like Beterbiev going to heavyweight and everybody looking at his mediocre results and going pshaw.

 

Lomachenko is an excellent fighter…he seems to do most things very well. Fast hands, accuracy, timing, an excellent defence. I can’t fault him too much at all.

And to be fair to him regarding his 17-3 record…he didn’t exactly take the traditional route that most take in the pro ranks. You know, the traditional route of being spoon fed beatable journeymen, and over the hill pros, as you gradually learn your trade and slowly fight better guys.
No…Lomachenko went right in the deep end and fought for a world title in his 2nd pro fight, winning a world title in his 3rd! So his three defeats in twenty kinda looks different with a bit of context.

However…as a couple of others have touched on, let’s see him fight more and dominate in this era first. He did well in defeat on Saturday night, and whether you agree with the judges decision or not, it was still a competitive fight. I gave it to Loma by a round…but either way I don’t see much between any of the top 3 or 4 LWs today.

What I will say though is Loma is the most skilled of todays bunch for all the good it did him at the weekend.

 

At 126 and 130?? Yes. People are thinking about his last few years at 135.
Lets not forget had he turned pro 4 years earlier in 2008/9 who would you favor over him at 126 and 130 from 2008-2017 or whenever he moved up??

At lightweight and in his 30s hes very good but not great

 

I'm going to disagree here.
If You look at it - this era of Featherweights and Super Featherweights was not particulary strong. Gary Russell was the best H2H fighter between 126-130 for Loma to beat at least until Gervonta and Shakur showed up - and Gervonta's team had 0 interest in fighting Loma, so it was never realistic, while Shakur fight would probably be on the table only about now one way or the other, so Loma would have to wait until 35 for a proper rival.
I think him moving up to 135 is a positive for his legacy. He beat some very good - while not great - lightweights in Linares and Campbell on the road, plus some others and I think Haney fight is legacy fight for him also, regardless of the official result.
People will be scoring this fight and arguing about the result for years to come.

Of course it would've been better if He beat all those guys, but I think smart fans will always understand He was handicapping himself while trying to be great. Him hanging around at weak division with no career-defining fights would've been worse even if He stayed undefeated.
It's like Holyfield path - after He left Cruiserweight - vs potential Ricardo Lopez path. I'll personally take the first one.

 

He was the best at 130 during his time there.

At LW he hasn't been the same force since he can't enforce himself in quite the same way, but the LWs back in the day wouldn't have had the same size advantage that for example Lopez and Haney had over him.

 

Conversely, would he be weight drained with a same-day weigh-in at 126 or 130? And could he fight 6-10 or more times a year at world level like the greats did? And what has he shown as far as 15-round stamina?

I think the Sandy Saddlers and Henry Armstrongs run him out of the ring. I think Alexis Arguello patiently boxes with him and is probably behind when he lands a sniper right hand and takes Loma out.

In short, I don’t think he’s nearly ATG world-class based on his 20-fight career in which he’s been far from dominant.