For Chenko to equal Duran.

The Loma vs Duran comparisons are a new thing now When all is said and done... Loma will no doubt be greater than Duran was.

 

Loma still hasnt finished his pro career, and you people are already throwing him under the bus. Wait till his career is over!

 

THEY are comparing him with Duran because they want to see people side with Duran over Loma because Hearns, Hagler and Leonard have W’s over Roberto We both know how bad THEY go ******s Gone Wild over Mayweather comparisons! Lol! Imagine a “Lomachenko’s resume thus far vs Leonard” Thread.


I swear Lomachenko, Gvozdyk, Beterbiev, Usyk, GGG, Derevyanchenko and Hrgovic’s careers are going to be soooooo much fun to watch unfold. Lol!

 

Leonard, Hearns, Hagler and do not forget the might William Joppy.

 

So who's Ken Buchanan and Esteban DeJesus?

 

Actually it was his 8th or 9th pro fight, not his third. He was paid to fight in bouts, after his amateur career ended. Not sure why they try not to count those on his ledger. They did initially.

 

No. 16 year old Duran started at bantamweight. First fight was against Carlos Mendoza at 118 lbs.

 

I don't think Loma has enough time to achieve what Duran did, and he isn't taking any easy options unlike almost every other champion today.

Duran and Loma are very different fighters. A tank vs cyanide gas; pommel horse vs rhythmic gymnastics; dirty dancing vs ballerina.

Duran was an extremely skilled fighter but his power and durability were also essential assets to his style. Loma relies on movement and speed and has a small frame. If he moves up to 140/7 he will be dwarfed and I can see bigger guys walking through his punches and swinging for the fences, especially given fighters today cut a huge amount of weight. Loma's frame would be too small to take the battering on his guard.

This is just my opinion. You'd probably be best interviewing Duran and Loma.

Mikey Garcia will be a great yardstick for Loma. Mikey has the frame to move up weight divisions with success but at 135 it would be an intriguing fight. I feel Loma would outbox Mikey but Garcia is a very skilled boxer who has the power to change a fight.

 

Those wicked blue meanies, all they ever do is check our overinflated estimations of Lomachenko's ostensible, predeclared greatness.



If exceeding Duran is an actual expectation of Loma's most (ahem) ardent admirers, the fifteen years of conniption-inducing disgruntlement they're about to endure will make the fifteen years and 586 pages of frustration they've suffered since Lewis-Klitschko seem like a mild irk.

 

Who was trying to compare Loma to Duran in terms of accomplishments?

I don't really see the point of the thread to be honest, Loma is (practically) never going to catch Duran in terms of greatness as a pro boxer and that's pretty obvious to anyone with any intelligence. Lomachenko turned pro too late, doesn't have the frame to move up as far, etc. and Duran is one of the very greatest anyway.

 

No-one that I noticed, prior to the TS, but the thread brought a certain conceit out of the woodwork nevertheless.

Among other things.

Leonard's first 50 months annihilate Lomachenko's first 50 months, and that's with prime Kalule and Hearns falling outside the window (by a matter of a few months). It's not slightly close. If one's objective was to prove Leonard greater than Lomachenko after 50 months, it isn't even vaguely necessary to pull the Duran résumé triangulation trump card.

As for Hagler and Hearns, their greatness took longer to fully establish than Leonard's. That's true of a lot of great fighters. Lomachenko himself is yet to establish professional greatness - if he calls it a day now, no historian of any scholarly repute is putting him anywhere near a Top 100 ATG list, let alone Top 50 or Top 25.

I am, however, aware of the emotions involved and thus fully prepared for my considered critique to be labelled "hate". [url]https://i.img.ie/36X.gif[/url]

 

Boxing politics is different today. Loma has done everything in his power to fight the best from the start. There is nothing more he could have done to have a better resume thus far.

How about tellIng us how Duran would go head to head against Loma - prime for prime at 135?

 

Well, maybe his promoter/matchmakers could be showing a little bit more creativity and/or initiative in making offers to guys outside the company. Maybe we didn't need to see Lomachenko in with Romulo Koasicha after two ho-hum mandos. Maybe they could have done better than pulling Miguel Marriaga up a weight just a few short months after his gruelling defeat to Oscar Valdez. But I'm not placing blame on Lomachenko personally, faulting him for the circumstances of every last bout or even outright slamming his body of work. It's just a matter of perspective. I'm only going to award the credit I feel is due for what he's done, presumptions of greatness and permutations of coulda/woulda/shoulda be damned. It was the same situation with Golovkin, and his rabid fans struggled as much with reality as Lomachenko's seem to (some of them are, of course, the same people).

Moreover, I was replying to the suggestion that Leonard's first 50 months would suffer in comparison to Lomachenko's, which is a risible conceit. Even with the best of creative and intrepid matchmaking, there wouldn't have been much chance for Lomachenko's first four years to have equalled Leonard's extraordinary first four years. There's no Benitez and Duran-level talent in his vicinity (and maybe it's better for Loma's budding star that there isn't).

I have a suspicion that you wouldn't like it if I did.

 

Duran's best win was against Ray, but he really does not have many legends on his win record. He fought a lot of them, just didn't win.