Lomachenko, because he combines athleticism with far better technical and tactical abilities. Lomachenko had mastered his fundamentals, unlike Pacquiao. Furthermore, Lomachenko looks like a more coordinated and a more controlled boxer.
The pac who lost against morales may lose to loma but the pac after that would maul loma. Pac is an absolute beast feasting on hof fighters in his prime. Loma and pac may be equal in talent but pac's power is the great difference.
The Pac that lost to Morales, lost because Morales made him wear those pillow like Winning gloves. That being said, that Morales would beat Lomachenko as well.
PAC man covered all the corners for me... and now Loma covers the same Two great fighters ..Loma needs to find his weight and rinse it..
I personally prefer to watch Pacquiao, he was just a more dynamic fighter, his speed, power, work rate, combinations, he was just breathtaking to watch in his prime. I'll never forget him beating Barerra, that left me gobsmacked that anyone could dominate Barrera like that. Lomachenko is great to watch for different reasons. He's a beautiful boxer to watch, but more for the purists with his brilliant technique and defence.
I think Loma is absurdly overrated right now, especially on this forum. Prime Pac wouldn't have a tough fight with that scrub Linares. I think young Pac dismantles and stops Loma. I very much question Loma's ability to handle Pac's speed and firepower.
Loma doesn't fight like marquez. Marquez was the perfect opponent for pac. But like i said the pac before the first morales loss was too crude and only relied on his money punch but the pac after was different.