Lomachenko; is he a H2H beast all time?

Watching the fight the other day.....a huuuuge problem for Loma against Arguello would be his total lack of defense against the right uppercut to the body. Haney didn't miss one for a handful of rounds and i wouldn't want to be taking a dozen or two of those from Arguello.

But i agree overall his elusiveness would turn Arguello a lot and that's a big key to beating him. He only punched when his feet were set.

 

Yeah, Loma is one of these modern, coddled/protected boxers, who was moved very quickly - and was a 3-division title holder after less than 20 fights! How much of a joke is that!

Pretty much the same career trajectory as Naoya Inoue - another guy who lacks the reseumé to be compared to the experienced oldtime ATGs of yesteryear.

 

I'm not really sure what your on about TBH, Lomachenko has been fighting world class opposition since he turned professional. And has one of the most impressive resumes ever for guy with his amount of fights.

Jamie Muniga didn't fight a notable fighter until his 29th pro fight vs Sadam Ali, and his best win after 41 fights is probably Liam Smith.

So your more impressed with a fighter with a heavily padded 41-0 ? Rather than a fighter like Lomachenko who has took alot of risks since he turned professional ?

Give me fighters like Lomachenko any day of the week who may not be undefeated but atleast they take risks, rather than undefeated fighters like Crawford, Muniga, who sit on their undefeated record refusing to take risks.

 

Lomachenko has some of the best footwork ever, and as @JohnThomas1 pointed out Arguello has to be set to punch. Arguello did show some weakness against movers and I feel like he would find Lomachenko a tricky opponent style wise.

Don't get me wrong I favour Arguello in the fight, but I feel like fighters like Duran, Chavez, would have an easier time and would be able to walk down Lomachenko and beat him up.

Where as it might take Arguello until 2nd half of the fight to finally start to find the range against Lomachenko kind of like vs Ruben Castillo.

 

Spot on. He has a decent chance of beating Arguello, who could struggle with excellent movement as you mentioned (like a lot of 'textbook' fighters do in fairness) but as JT hit on, Alexis' body attack could be key (the right uppercut being successful vs Haney, combined with his great left hooks to the liver, to set up that devastating right cross) and his mechanical breakdown of opponents was something to behold at his best, culminating in some great late stoppages during the championship rounds.

A really tough call especially at super-feather, and the 'resume' argument doesn't really wash with me personally anyway in any h2h debate, as fighters from the 20th century virtually always had the better record and fought 'more' quality opponents, that's the way the sport was then.

 

I personally think Loma would have been able to beaten Teofimo more convincingly had he been at his full 100% as well, it's just a shame that we couldn't see them run it back.

Ramirez and Ganigan were big punching southpaws albeit a bit slow, only difference was that Ramirez is tough as nails as able to take Arguello's power. I think it was just down to styles. I don't think it's valid to say he struggled with southpaws just because he had a harder time against certain fighters that just happens to be southpaws.

I agree that Loma's footwork would create problems and Arguello is susceptible to being outboxed by someone with quicker footwork. But with Loma's style I never saw him as this Whitaker, Pep-like defensive mover, he was always more of a technical high workrate boxer swarmer with a solid defense who tends to move forward more often, and that can create more opportunities for Arguello's power. But I do think Loma would give Arguello a good tussle.

 

Inoue doesent have 3 losses out of 20 fights

 

Good observation on both the possibly misleading 'cause-and-effect', re southpaws, and the use of Loma's footwork.

Arguello was just fine against southpaws - pretty much taking the textbook approach to beating them, in fact - with the added ability of using any reach advantage he had to spear past his opponent's right-jab, with his own. He might well be demonstrably one of the most accomplished of fighters in the face of southpaw opponents.

Stoppage wins against Tam, Limon, Navarrete, Boza Edwards, Watt, Busceme, Ganigan (have I missed any?) - the close SD with Ramirez seems to have been an anomaly.

Loma, while having electric footwork, is not the classic dancer/counter-puncher, a la Vilomar Fernandez. Arguello would need to pick his moments with great patience and timing, as he usually did. @JohnThomas1 's comment re the uppercut to the body is a good one, too.

 

You could say that Inoue hasn't been smaller man in some of his big fights like Loma has been vs Lopez, Haney, etc.

And you could also say that Inoue's list of opponents isn't as strong as Lomaechenko's.

Inoue's best win is over an old Donaire, Lomachenko destroyed Rigondeaux who schooled Donaire years before.

I would say Inoue's upcoming fight vs Fulton is similar to Lomaechenko's fight vs Haney, let's see if Inoue passes that test with flying colours.

 

As others have pointed out Lomachenko's footwork is brilliant , some of the best I've ever seen . However I do think his prime was 126 but a guy like Sandy Saddler, or Armstrong would be in his grill. Higher weights he's in trouble against great fighters.

 

Loma’s been a lightweight for, what, five years now? He’s not a flyweight fighting middles. He’s in the division where he’s obviously most comfortable at 135.

Could he make 130 and still be strong? Maybe. Who knows? Just like maybe Canelo could make 160 still (and has more recently than Loma was 130) or even 154, but nobody considers that since that’s not where he’s been fighting.

Loma’s a lightweight and there’s years of track record at that weight. Maybe he thinks draining to 130 would weaken him, but let’s not act like he’s fighting out of his weight division when he’s been in that division for so long.

 

I think your missing my point. Loma had his pro debut against Ramirez at the age of 25 and currently is 17w 3L. Munguia had his pro debut at the age of 16 and has racked up since 41w 0L. Munguia is only 26 years old now only 1 year older then when Loma had his pro debut. So who is not to say Munguia's next 17 fights are not world class opposition especially since Munguia has made it very clear he wants to fight the best and is willing to sign.
My point is Munguia went through the grinder to get to where he is. Loma on the other hand was gifted top ten fighters without having to earn his place.

 

Pat just look at this picture here.

https://www.boxingnews24.com/2023/0...-rehydration-clause-for-gervonta-davis-fight/

Look at the size difference come fight night it was like Lightweight vs Welterweight, in none of Inoue's fights has his opponents had that much of size advantage over him.

Lomachenko was also cheated in one of his other losses vs Salido in his 2nd professional fight, the fight was at Featherweight yet Salido came into the fight as a Welterweight which is why he was stripped of his title.

People are discrediting Lomachenko for having 3 losses in 20 fights, yet 2 of them were highly controversial fights. And i don't understand why a fighter should be discredited for taking risks and fighting high quality opposition. I'd rather see fighter's take risks and fight more dangerous opposition early on, rather than seeing a fighter pad his record against no hopers for 30 odd fights.

Someone brought up Jamie Muniga who's had 40+ fights ? compare his opposition to Lomachenko, or even Crawford another undefeated who has one of the most mediocre resumes for a guy who's apparently P4P, when there's plenty of risky fights for him vs Spence, Ennis, etc. But yet he hasn't fought any of them and is already 35 years old.

 

Lomachenko was thrown into the wolves early on his career and was cheated vs Salido, and has fought nothing but world class opposition ever since. So no i don't really understand your point at all, Lomachenko got where he's got by beating high quality fighters.

Lomachenko has been willing to take risks and fight the best, Muniga hasn't done either yet so i don't really understand your point at all.

I also don't understand your logic of a fighter padding their record for 30 or so fights, yet a fighter who was fighting world class opposition from the get go doesn't impress you ? baffling logic to me.

 

Well this is where we disagree. I say Loma was gifted top ten fighters without working his way up the ranks and earning his spot.
You say Loma was thrown to the wolves.
I say Munguia has worked his way up the ranks earning his spot after going through the grinder.
You say all Munguia has done is pad his record.
Lets not waste eachothers time debating this since we both have two entirely different perspectives.