Benny Leonard vs Vasyl Lomachenko primes

Heck that moves him up to top 214 in my all-time list at 130-135.

 

I’d expect that’s equally true the other way around as in how many fighters has Loma fought who know and apply some of the things that were done in Benny’s day — especially roughhousing stuff.

He lost his second fight to a guy who schooled him like the playground bully and I suspect there were a number of rough-and-tumble guys of Benny’s day who would fit into that category. Loma didn’t handle that well.

And he danged sure hasn’t fought anyone in his 21 bouts of professional experience in 11 years with as many bouts and as much experience as Leonard or a lot of guys in his day. I suspect if you transported Loma back in time and said ‘here’s your September and October schedule, we’ve got eight fights lined up for you’ he’d **** himself.

That supposedly superior ‘Russian aristocratic style’ has led to him losing three of 21 fights to modern guys who aren’t headed to the hall of fame. Doesn’t sound loo impressive to me.

 

'That's my point Loma has shown he can overcome pretty large size differences and we can both admit size matters, so I think fighters who are the same size or smaller (Leonard was a bit shorter then Loma) wouldn't be as hard for him to overcome but obviously that's just one factor.'

The tricky thing with this is that 'giant killers', which I suppose you can liken Loma and Pacquiao to in the modern era, is that they still lose frequently to great fighters of their own size in spite of being so formidable against great bigger fighters. This is the case for Pacman, Mickey Walker, Greb, etc and I'm not sure how much of an advantage it can really be against great fighters their own size like Leonard. Leonard himself came up on top against the two best welterweights in the world in Ted Kid Lewis and Jack Britton, despite being outweighed by like 8 pounds. What we know of Leonard suggests he has what it takes to accomplish something similar to Loma if given the opportunity.

'Sure and Loma has done the same making good opponents look basic but like I said I think we can both agree southpaws are more advance today then they were in the past.'

I'd agree on most southpaws from the time period and before, but I think the relevancy of southpaws in those days to be truly under-appreciated. They were mentioned in pretty much every manual dating back to the 1800s, so I'm sure there was a portion of the southpaw demographic that was genuinely well schooled and on the level. Our only real gateway into looking at what southpaws looked like back then was Lew Tendler getting outclassed and being reduced to a puncher by Benny Leonard. The other, from my knowledge, is Young Corbett III and Melio Bettina who look solid but were a decade after Leonard retired.

'Well afaik he only fought Americans maybe a Brit or two. It also seems you're not super knowledge on the Soviet school which is understandable, it was an invention of the Soviet Union there wasn't really much of a boxing history in Russia before that, it was seen as a Western sport and not really embraced until the Soviet Union created boxing state programs in 1930s and it was in the 1950s that Soviet boxers started taking over and showing the success of these programs and these programs later spread to countries like Cuba and other Eastern bloc countries which we see now with the rise of great boxers from Ukraine and recently Uzbekistan'

Yeah Soviet boxing certainly not my strong suit lol, but from my research of Russian boxing during the late Tsarist regime it appears that they've had experience with Queensbury boxing from at least the mid-1890s. Before then bare knuckle boxing had a deep root in Russia from as far back as the 13th century. My main question here is; how different were the boxing fundamentals during the 30s-Modern Era compared to boxing fundamentals throughout Russian history and especially between 1890-1920s?

"Perhaps but watching the footage of him (and its hard to judge how good he was with the footage) he doesn't look anything like Loma nor would I say his footwork or handspeed is as good but that's just my perspective"

To each's own, personally I find his attributes such as awkwardness\uniqueness, intellect, shot placement and speed to be relevant when assessing how a Leonard-Loma matchup goes. It's a better technical display when slowed down imo.
There's footage of some other Leonard opponents like Willie Ritchie who, while a great boxer, does not seem similar to Loma in any attributes;

This content is protected

His speed, his feints, his footwork, his defense, his pressure, how he string together combinations etc I don't see any boxer from that era who has a similar style the closest is maybe Pacquiao who is also a modern fighter.

All great attributes, no doubt about that. Dundee doesn't show Loma's workrate nor front-foot combinations\pressure in the footage we have. However, I don't think these attributes being performed on the level of Pacman or Loma to be exactly new. For example, I think Ritchie strings together combinations brilliantly especially later on in the clip. We don't have footage of that many other Leonard opponents but we do have other lower weight fighters from the time putting together quick blistering quick combos which shows it isn't unique like Pancho Villa and Midget Wolgast;

This content is protected

This content is protected

The thing with Loma, is that I actually find a lot of his feint and defense to be old school. His footwork being involved with his feints as well as excessive hand usage in these feints actually remind me a lot of Leonard and Gans. A lot of Soviet-styled boxers seem to have these traits, which makes me think that the style itself may have it's roots in Russian bare knuckle boxing. The other thing is that, it's hard to prove how frequently Russian boxers and Western boxers came into contact and sparred one another.

 

Well there's a reason for that because it's not allowed in the rules today.
It was his second pro fight........ plenty of great fighters have early losses to worse fighters then Salido and it was still a close fight against someone who came in overweight and fouled like crazy. And since that fight he has become much better at dealing with such tactics so I don't think it's relevant for evaluating him at his best.
Not really relevant to evaluating how good he is H2H
That is the epitome of results based analysis maybe watch the actual fights to get some context instead of just repeating wiki records.

 

I saw the fight and I didn’t mention anyone’s record. The guy roughed Loma up and beat him. He was 3 pounds heavier than Loma and you’re crying about it — Benny gave up 14 to Soldier Bartfield, a man with more than 100 wins, lol.

If you agree to step into the ring after the weigh-in, you forfeit the right to use the weight as an excuse. You took the fight and we’re talking about a couple of sodas or a Big Mac and fries difference on the scale.

How good Loma is H2H against his own generation is 18-3. He’s lost three out of 21 times. In previous generations (heck into the 1990s and probably beyond) he’d be fighting eight-rounders now on undercards.

Loma was an outstanding amateur and basically that’s what he still is. He fights an amateur style, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But he is not some magical ‘Matrix’ generational quantum leap in either species or style.

He’s averaging about two fights a year with months an months to prepare and he still has lost three times in that few fights. That’s telling.

Who did Loma ever fight or beat with more than 100 wins … or even 100 fights? How many times has he fought three times in a month in a pro boxing ring? Benny did all that and often without breaking a sweat. He’s a proven ATG, arguably the best lightweight ever … or one of them.

Loma’s record at 135 is Ike 8-2. Honestly, how does that stack up? (And some of his fans say ‘well he’s fighting bigger men’ when he hasn’t scaled 130 in seven years … if he’s not a lightweight I guess he should drop back down.

 

Perhaps but Loma is beating guys who outweigh him by much more so I would consider it more impressive but to each their own and all his loses were to people who were bigger to him he never lost to someone smaller or the same size which some people tend to ignore.

I just don't really see it southpaws in the modern day look much better then any southpaw in the past and southpaws today have a much better understanding of their game and how to leverage it which afaik you don't really see in past fighters nor would fighters in the past know how to deal with a well schooled modern southpaw without some adaptation.

I imagine its like comparing bare knuckle boxing to modern boxing which are completely different sports in all honesty. The fundamentals were rudimentary, with a focus on basic punching and straightforward brawling rather than sophisticated footwork or defensive skills there was little to no emphasis on counter-punching, combinations, or setting up punches with feints. Fights were more about brute strength and endurance. Modern era Soviet boxing is much more technical with more emphasis on footwork, movement, feints, good jab etc as well as being the one of the first countries to implement sports science into their boxing training. Someone like Bivol would be the quintessential Soviet style boxer imo

Perhaps I mean I can probably use the Haney fight to assess how Loma would do against someone with a style that is somewhat similar to Leonard's style but obviously I don't think it would be the best comparison

This content is protected

The attributes themselves may not be new but how he puts it all together into one package is unique imo like even in these examples none of them have his pressure, footwork or use combinations in the same way he does

Maybe on some level but I think a lot of those similarities might be superficial at best while its true the Soviet style took inspiration from the West because boxing never really had a strong tradition in Russia what they did is more or less take the framework and create a systematic and data-driven training regimen for their fighters with a style that prioritized efficiency, accuracy, and control with great footwork and distance management.

 

He was more then 3 pounds heavier at the fight he had at least a 10-15 pound advantage over Loma which is a pretty big advantage and again it was his SECOND pro fight still a close fight that if the referee actually enforced the rules he probably would have won.

Again you're looking at the wiki page not his actual performance he beat plenty of good fighters making them look average at best and even in his losses he was the smaller man in all of them and they were all close fights one of which he should have clearly won despite being past his best and fighting at a huge size disadvantage (Haney) and one in which he was injured and at a size disadvantage and still arguably won or at least had a draw in (Lopez) and one which was his second pro fight and he was outweighed and had to deal with dirty tactics that he had no experience with. He also had his moments in all of these fights where he was straight up dominating so again bring up his losses isn't really relevant to the discussion especially since its clear you haven't actually watched any of them.

Because he started late and so doesn't have the early fights that most pros do to build themselves up obviously when you're fighting the best constantly you're going to lose especially as you get older and its a bit of a double standard in these forums that if a fighters undefeated then he's a coward who's avoiding all risks while if he challenges himself and losses while taking risks then he's a bum

Again none of that is relevant in a H2H discussion we are talking about how their styles compare not comparing their wiki pages which so far seems to be all you're capable of doing.

It seems the entire basis of your analysis is just looking at wikipedia instead of actually watching fights and assessing what a fighter is good or bad on maybe watch a fight for once in your life and then talk otherwise you just come off like a goof

 

I haven’t looked at Wikipedia.

I’m glad Loma has a lot of good excuses. He’d need them if he fought an ATG like Benny Leonard.

The weigh-in weight is all that matters. That’s why they only have to make a certain weight at the weigh-in. Loma has been fighting lightweight exclusively for seven years but you want us to put an asterisk by his fights and say *but he’s really a featherweight. Scales don’t lie. He’s a lightweight and has been one for the majority of his career.

Comparing differences in experience in professional boxing can’t be dismissed as ‘you’re going off Wikipedia.’ Benny’s record is one of sustained greatness for a long period of time, fighting frequently and winning. One guy having only 10 fights (with two losses) at lightweight and the other probably more than 100 tells us something.

Loma has months on end preparing for each fight, his team breaking down tons of video to study and prepare for every idiosyncrasy while Leonard stepped into the ring without such and was more dominant over a longer period of time. A very good argument can be made that Leonard was the best lightweight ever and Loma hasn’t consistently been the best lightweight of his own era.

 

Again you're confusing resume vs H2H we're not looking at resume we're looking at H2H and Loma has the skills and talent to give any fighter at his weightclass a tough fight win or lose as he's proven in the ring

 

No, he’s proven he can hang with and sometimes defeat some of today’s top guys. And it’s a particularly weak era.

H2H are you saying experience doesn’t matter? Are you saying that a guy like Ray Arcel who saw both him and Duran considered Benny to be the greatest lightweight of all time doesn’t know anything?

H2H Loma is not even the best lightweight of his generation. So he’s not H2H better than someone who might be the best lightweight ever — and is in any reasonable accounting at the very least one of the top two or three. Those guys who beat him did so fighting him H2H, lol.

 

Hi Saint.
Like your riposte, and agree with your sentiments, don't think your assertion that Leonard will be regarded in most people's top 2 or 3 as outlandish, moreover I think you could have said top 2 and not got many dissenting views.
stay safe buddy, chat soon.

 

Poleesque repertoire of low blows goes a tad beyond inside game and roughhousing in my book, but fair.

 

Considering he's a natural featherweight being able to beat top lightweights yeah its impressive af and he's def one of the best lightweights considering he's past his best and still able to give the top guys a tough fight and even beat one of them (Haney) you're way too negative about fighters you don't even watch

 

He's not "a natural FW," he was stronger & better up @130.

 

He’s a lightweight. Has been one for seven years. People grow.

That he was once a featherweight doesn’t mean we grade him on a curve, give him browny points for wins or asterisks for losses. “Oh, he was outweighed by 3 pounds, we can’t count that” is so lame when you’re at the same time talking about how he would fair against true ATGs.

Stop acting like I haven’t seen Loma fight. I’ve seen most of his fights. He’s an advanced amateur with 21 pro fights. He’s not that special … if he was, he wouldn’t have already lost three times with so few fights and so much time to prepare for each of them.