He would beat the crap out of Loma at his best. Two totally different classes of talent. And if wouldn't be close.
Paez would be a problem for Loma. Roger if he's at his best maybe because he had pretty good power and he's tall with a good reach. Nelson would run over Loma. Ramirez might not be fast enough. Greg wouldn't have enough speed or firepower.
I gotta lean towards Loma. Loma knocked out Jose Ramirez in the fourth round, and Ramirez was one of the only people to beat pea.
Sweet Pea, maximus overatus. The only question I have about this fight, and maybe you can help here? Would Pea run all night, counter clockwise, flicking the jab with minimal offence. or try and trade vs a quicker, more skilled, and smaller Loma?
He was fighting in the pocket against Chavez (levels above Lomachenko at pressure fighting and hits harder than Lomachenko) and Nelson lmao Lomachenko has nothing for him. Those overrated angles that you fanboys rave about will get shut down by Whitakers footwork. Those same angles that costed him the fights against Salidoe and mediocre Lopez
Why do people constantly miss stuff like this? I know it's to say, "Well, Pea would have obliterated Loma...." but FFS...Pea didn't blow out EVERY lesser fights he fought. Same w/ JCCsr
He'd likely realise Loma hates it downstairs and doesn't have the reach to score often enough if Whitaker walks him down. Best bet is he'd get inside and work the body, and keep the range with his jab from the outside like Teo did. And Lomachenko isn't quicker.
It's funny, Lomachenko lost more rounds in one fight vs Teofimo Lopez than Whitaker did in both the Chavez and Nelson fights; two guys better than Lomachenko himself.
And yet, he's still inferior to Lomachenko OFFENSIVELY. Lomachenko probes better, feints better, has shorter punches, has more compact punches, can throw punches from more angles and so forth so on... Only pure nostalgia bias and hard-on for past-fighters would lead one to believe such is the case. It might be a highlight video, but just take a look at how wild, telegraphed and technically flawed some of Whitaker's punches were: You'd find some wild Wilder esque swings every few seconds Whereas here, you'd be hard-pressed to find even 1 or 2 wild, technically flawed swings from Lomachenko: Objectively, it becomes very quickly apparent and clear just how much more technically sound and proficient Lomachenko was in comparison to Pernell Whitaker, who threw pretty much no punch better than Lomachenko. Let's cut the celebrity worshipping and only evaluate the amount of techniques and the level of the techniques of the boxers, ignoring everything else about any of those boxers. Lomachenko's punches are clearly seen to be tighter, more compact, shorter and nearly every punch lands with the knuckles. Whereas Whitaker's punches are wild, wide, telegraphed and far more land with the palm, side of the gloves and etc. Offensively, these two guys are in different leagues altogether. Lomachenko is minimum 2 levels above Whitaker. And I've just covered punch technique / mechanics only. If we are to also examine other facets and nuances of offensive skills like feinting and probing, it becomes a massacre in terms of just how lopsidedly better Lomachenko is compared to Whitaker OFFENSIVELY. Funny how none of the guys claiming Whitaker is better have actually provided any actual arguments. Everything so far can be knuckled down to "Whitaker is better because I say so" or "Teofimo Lopez and Salido DOE" LMFAO! There's not a single thing Whitaker did better than Lomachenko, except for having better hip and upper-body flexibility.
