Lomochenko vs Modern greats by division....

Featherweight
----------------

Arguello v Lomo......Brillliant straight puncher with the power to destroy 140 pounders (Ask Rooney and Costello) and superb technically Arguello had the height...reach and power to keep Chenky at arms length....Arguello late....

Pedroza v Lomo......Never been convinced by Pedroza and Mcguigan (albeit an old Pedroza) shut him out....Struggled with Laporte too and Lomo is levels above them...Lomo by stoppage late...

Sanchez v Lomo......Hard to call this one....The Mexican was a great matador who loved pressure fighters.....But Lomo would pressure the great Mexican more than any other fighter.......Pickem matchup....Lean towards Sanchez...

Nelson v Lomo.......Two of the best chins and pressure fighters in history....Lean towards Lomo because Nelson sometimes didn't turn up...Lomo decision...

Hamed v Lomo....Now this I would pay for....Hamed had the power to turn anyones lights out...He also had a dodgy chin.....Be great while it lasted......But Lomo is more consistent......Lomochenko late...

Jr Lightweights
-----------------

Camacho v Lomo.....As I think Camacho was the best 130 pounder in history....Never seen hands like it.....Have to think he is too quick for our old Rusky friend....Yes Lomo is a great technician but so was Chavez and he couldn't lay a glove on the fast fellow southpaw Whittaker.....Camacho by decision...

Chavez v Lomo......Going to pick Lomo to win this one.....Thought Chavez struggled with Ramirez and styles make fights.....Lomo just by decision maybe split..

Lightweight
--------------

Duran v Lomo.....Duran pretty much just struggled against elusive boxers......Not sure Lomo would appreciate the dirty...snarling....cunning Duran at his peak...not sure he would be elusive either....Especially not for long in 130 degree Panamian heat........So I'll pick Roberto late...

Whittaker v Lomo.....Think sweet Pea is the best lightweight of all time......The way he made great technicians in Nelson and Chavez look like Amateurs doesn't bode well for Lomo.........Shutout 120-108...

Mayweather v Lomo...Not looking good for Lomo at 135......Two top 10 or close ATG greats arguably in there best division......Be closer than Whittaker v Lomo........But a great defensive counterpuncher would just be too great..

Jr Welterweight
-----------------

Aaron Pryor.......Too big....Punches too hard......KO 7

DelaHoya..........Too tall....Too big....Punches too hard (Ask Chavez)....KO 8


Still......Wins over Pedroza...Nelson..Hamed..Chavez and 50/50 with the great Salvador are enough to suggest Lomo is a special fighter and worthy of a Hall of fame and ATG slot..

Rusky? He's ukranian.

The Soviet Union was respected and succesful.....It's not an insult...

A proud Ukrainian would be delighted at the association with Russia.

You are like a guest at an up-market 5 course dinner that spends all night moaning at the design of the napkins....

Although he won and displayed his class in both of them, the Linares and Campbell fights suggest to me that Lightweight might just be Lomachenko's limit in terms of his potential to beat the really great fighters (though I'm sure he could win alphabet straps at 140 if he wanted to). I don't see him having a chance against Duran, Whitaker or Mayweather. I think given his age we may already have seen his peak, which was probably at Feather and Super-Feather. Elite 140 pounders like Pryor would have just mauled him, too.

It's the fights at 126 and 130 which are really interesting. Hamed has a puncher's chance but you'd expect Lomachenko to be a bit too technically sound and smart for him.

Pedroza's size and strength, along with his rough housing and dark arts, might make him a hard style for Lomachenko, who can fight brilliantly inside in terms of letting short punches go in close, but is weak in the clinches and often complains to referees when he feels he's being manhandled. With the right conditions Pedroza could be in with a shot if he makes it ugly, and stop-start, like Salido did against Lomachenko. Mind you, Lomachenko wasn't quite ready for Salido despite his amateur accomplishments, and if we're talking about a more recent version then Pedroza's rough stuff probably won't cut the mustard. Interesting one to ponder, all the same.

He'd probably outbox Arguello for a while but something tells me Alexis would chop him down eventually. Arguello could adapt and if Lomachenko gets himself squared up and open to a straight right against Arguello like he did against Linares for the knockdown, he could be in a world of trouble.

Lomachenko likes to attack with subtle, educated pressure but can also box off the back foot if needs be, and if he does keep it long and use his speed / movement he'll give Sanchez kittens if Sal's struggles with other cagey, long guys such as Ford and Cowdell are anything to go by. Nelson will give him plenty of opportunities, too, but he ain't getting Nelson out of there and Zoomy was very good at making his opponent do all the work and digging their own grave before he took over once they'd tired.

I could be doing Lomachenko a disservice but I still lean slightly towards Sanchez and Nelson, even though he has the style and skills to excel against them, just because they have that reassuring factor of having fought and beaten genuine greats at 126 (and 130 in Nelson's case). Lomachenko's story is still being written but he just hasn't had those kind of wins, and unfortunately for him may never get the chance.

Camacho I don't rate as highly as others, and I think his incredible speed blinded a few people to how repetitive his attack was and how lacking in adaptability he was. Great athletic talent but a shade overrated from a technical aspect, for me, and I think Lomachenko beats him.

I'm probably in the minority here but I think Hamed would do a number on Lomachenko myself and i've not seen anything to suggest that he possesses the requisite chin to last the distance and the angles that Hamed attacks from would make him very difficult to plan for especially for someone so technical in how they fight, he was incredibly strong for a featherweight too something that rarely gets mentioned. Interesting that Truss mentions a dodgy chin but I can't remember him ever being truly hurt in a fight, dropped numerously when off balance yes.

Arguello might struggle to start with but I don't think there's ever been a finer straight puncher and he had mean uppercut too when he chose to mix things up (Pryors neck must still hurt now), as you say Chris he had the rare ability of being able to change mid fight if things weren't working, very Monzon like in that regard. I think Alexis would bang the body before going head hunting later on.

Lomachenko does look human the moment he fights a stylist and in fairness to him has eventually won comprehensively against all of Russell Jr, Linares and Campbell but the blueprint is there to an extent. Mayweather and Whitaker would see use that blueprint, build on it and produce a virtuoso performance, I wouldn't put it past Mayweather stopping him mid to late if he wanted to, there's very few featherweights who are going to overcome that 72 inch reach.

I think that the super-feather Floyd would be too much for anyone, Lomo included. The version of Floyd that beat Corrales is, I think, the best we ever saw from him. He utterly owned an unbeaten fighter who was pretty much knocking opponents out for fun. Whittaker would be a fascinating match-up - especially given how Pea could make hugely capable champions look silly. I can't call that one.

But I have to agree with Chris that I wouldn't expect him to do much past 135 - he's just not big enough.

Hamed is an interesting one. If it's the focussed, brutal Hamed that took out all-comers around 1996/7, then I could see him giving Lomo some problems as he was just so unpredictable. I am leaning towards Lomo figuring him out, but you cannot rule out Naseem's power as it was a great leveller. A genuine 50/50 fight.

Mr Bounce wrote:I think that the super-feather Floyd would be too much for anyone, Lomo included. The version of Floyd that beat Corrales is, I think, the best we ever saw from him. He utterly owned an unbeaten fighter who was pretty much knocking opponents out for fun. Whittaker would be a fascinating match-up - especially given how Pea could make hugely capable champions look silly. I can't call that one.

But I have to agree with Chris that I wouldn't expect him to do much past 135 - he's just not big enough.

Hamed is an interesting one. If it's the focussed, brutal Hamed that took out all-comers around 1996/7, then I could see him giving Lomo some problems as he was just so unpredictable. I am leaning towards Lomo figuring him out, but you cannot rule out Naseem's power as it was a great leveller. A genuine 50/50 fight.

Have to agree Hamed with his awkward style and power make him a wild card and I can understand where Requiem is coming from...Just think the longer the fight goes on the more it favours Lomo..........

Not sure I agree with Bouncy that the Super feather version of Floyd beats anyone...Arguello is in the hunt for the simple fact due to the two inch height advantage and the straight power punching (He also went 14 with the relentless granite chinned Mancini so 12 would be a breeze).......Arguello like Hearns is a tough fight for anyone....(Someone as talented as Leonard found the tall straight punching Tommy too much until the desperate flurry)....But who knows..

Chris like Haz sees more in Eusebio than I do...Beauty is in the eye of the beholder on that one......but we see what we see.

Nelson is a fascinating one...I had it pretty much pickem.....Azumah is probably the best pressure fighter I ever saw, the way he could be on top of opponents without throwing anything and making them work was amazing.....Cowdell...Ordenes...were great examples of losing rounds while winning the fight.....Cowdell threw heaven knows how many punches in 3 minutes and Ordenes won the first four rounds while we were wondering which round he'd get knackered and go....But like I said Nelson had off nights too.....McDonnell...Martinez 2...Suarez spring to mind where he looked disinterested..

Excellent replies by the way....

One things for certain with Nelson is that he would win any rematch.

Going further back the body punching, pressure and southpaw stance of Saldivar would make for an interesting match up as would Ken Buchanan.

I don't know, as I said above I think the best I could give Hamed against Lomachenko is a puncher's chance in which he wipes out a points deficit, or at the very least turns the fight on its head, with one Hail Mary of a shot. Would probably happen at some point if they fought often enough, but relying on that kind of approach makes me think a Hamed win would be the exception rather than the norm.

If we get the version of Naz which beat Robinson and Bungu then it would be a more interesting fight all-round, as the Naz who turned up on those nights was a little more measured, put combinations together properly rather than loading up and jumping in with one punch at a time and also went to the body (especially against Bungu who he ripped up with body shots). For some reason he went full fights at a time without ever throwing body shots, which is hard to understand.

But again those guys were stylistically made for him, and Bungu was a smaller man and a little bit long in the tooth. If we get the Hamed of the Johnson, Kelley or Vazquez fights (even though they're arguably his three best wins) then he's going to get out-boxed and his only hope is going to be landing that fight-changing shot. Those three were good technicians but not in Lomachenko's class by any stretch. Hamed was wide open in those fights, didn't set things up or work the body at all, walked on to quite a few shots and leapt in with all kinds of clumsy punches which someone of Lomachenko's class would see coming a mile off.

Obviously you can't rule out Lomachenko struggling with Naz's power, because it really was fantastic. A lot of his knockdowns (and even some of his knockouts) were achieved with just one shot, having not landed anything to soften his opponents up in the few moments immediately before. Even when he wasn't knocking them down, you could see he really hurt and shook guys like Johnson and Vazquez with every shot he landed.

The question is, does he land those kind of shots on Lomachenko? And even if he does, supposing Lomachenko doesn't fold instantly - does he get to land anything following up? I appreciate he probably didn't give of his best against Barrera and could have improved on that performance, but watching that it takes quite a big leap of faith to see him beating someone as smart and technically sound (as well as prime) as Lomachenko very often. Regardless of excuses, he just lost a little too widely to the best counter-puncher and all-round fighter he faced for me to give him a particularly big chance.

Excellent analysis but not all the questions would be on Hamed's side.....Lomochenko hasn't fought anyone with Hamed's power in his weight class.....

Would Hamed's vaunted power make Lomo respect him and be more reticent when it came to attacks.....Or perhaps a power shot may make Lomo go into his shell ?? Obviously works vice versa too..

Would Hamed wind him up so much pre fight he gets a composed technician more eager and loose....(Have to think no but who knows ??..Hamed was great at pushing buttons...)

However I do go with Lomo.......

Helluva shame we haven't got a time machine isn't it ???.....Happily shell out for any of the matchups listed....

Yep, you have a point there Truss. Would certainly be interesting if Lomachenko did get clocked with something really big and telling - his chin looks decent enough thus far, but Hamed has had very few equals at 126 in terms of heavy-handedness.

It's funny, as great as Lomachenko evidently is, and for all the titles he already won in the pro game, I still think of him as having a bit of an amateurish-looking style at times (accepting the clinches once they've been initiated, not closing his fist or fully sitting on his shots sometimes, looking as if he's touching guys up rather than working them over at times etc.). I guess with such a huge amount of amateur fights that was always going to be something which would never be fully removed from him. And he is a thinker and slickster, after all. He's arguably the pound for pound number one, so it's clearly not harmed him!

But as an all-round technician, for whatever reason I still prefer watching Crawford to him. Just one of those styles preferences, I guess. Even a guy like Prograis, who I really like as a fighter and stylist. Come to think of it, if Lomachenko ever did move up to 140 a fight against Prograis is one I'd be intrigued to watch.

Debates with Hamed always go one way. What about his fight with Barrera? We'll compare that version of him with the best of Lomachenko, not sure why but he's one of a rare few who gets entirely rated based on his worst performance, the travails against Kelley and Johnson get blown out of all proportion too, he ended both fights when he could be bothered too, was in no real risk and quite clearly wanted to entertain.

I do agree with Chris in that I do find Lomachenko a bore to watch and actually think his technical ability is somewhat over rated based on his hand speed, he's beaten some very good opponents like Linares and Russell (ignoring old semi retired Rigondeaux) but as of yet he's not fed at the highest table compared to almost all those mentioned.

Well I think you have to look at the Barrera fight, Soul, because ultimately he's the only guy Hamed fought who you could realistically put in or around the same class as Lomachenko. If he had other wins or performances against comparable technicians then the loss and pretty awful performance against Barrera wouldn't be such a big issue when discussing this fight. It makes no sense to ignore it.

Also I'm not just taking the worst of Hamed and putting it against the best Lomachenko - I mentioned a few of Hamed's fight spread across his championship reign. I've said he looked a million dollars against Robinson and Bungu. With regards to the other fights I mentioned, yes he was always likely to come out on top in a wide-open slugfest against Kelley, and he never looked like losing against either Johnson or Vazquez despite having a few problems, particularly against Johnson. As you allude to he knew his power would almost certainly win the day eventually and he could afford to be a bit more slack with the finer details. The point is, someone like Lomachenko is a lot better than those guys, and what he got away with against them he won't get away with against Lomachenko. Just as, eventually, he didn't get away with it against Barrera.

You can't rule Hamed out, I just think he's the definite underdog here and it requires a bit more of a leap of faith to see him beating Lomachenko than vice versa. But Lomachenko would have to be at something very close to his best.

At the same time though Chris it has to be accepted that Lomachenko hasn't fought anyone with the ability of Hamed or Barrera so we're basing his ability on performances against similar level of opponents to Kelley, Johnson and Vasquez for instance. It's very easy to forget that a shop worn Linares was giving him all he could handle before the body shot.

I just think people are bit blinded when it comes to Lomachenko because of the speed with which he's become a triple weight champion, his record is very thing on actual top level opponents.

Linares gave him a good fight, but I don't know about giving him all he could handle. From the third round onwards I didn't give Linares much apart from the knockdown round, obviously.

Given only nine rounds were completed and as one of Linares' rounds was a 10-8, I can see why it was close on points at the time of the stoppage, but I think the judge who had Linares ahead was being very generous to him. I thought once Lomachenko had settled into his boxing in round three or so he always looked as if he'd go on to win, that knockdown later being the only real blemish. I'd liken it a bit more to Hamed against Johnson. Not his best performance and took a few more shots than normal, but never in any grave danger and always looked as if he could step it up if he absolutely had to.

I agree that Lomachenko's record doesn't boast any extraordinary names as of yet, but I think the sheer speed in which he's managed to already beat a decent crop of good names and the high level of dominance and class he's displayed in most of his wins suggests he's a fighter who is greater than his record (which is already impressive) indicates. The Salido fight was overambitious and a bit too soon even for an astonishing amateur like him, but despite those remaining amateur habits (or what I perceive them to be - most people I've talked to don't agree) he's clearly kicked on and improved / adapted a lot since then.

Again I'll say that while Hamed is the underdog in my opinion, I wouldn't rule him out against Lomachenko. I just think there's very little to suggest he'd do a number on him, based on their respective styles and Hamed's poor showing against the best counter puncher and pure boxer he faced. Hence me saying he's got a (admittedly higher than usual) puncher's chance.

Think Azumah Nelson deserves special recognition for managing to get a title off a great like Gomez in Puerto Rico..

They love their heroes in PR....I had Davis comfortably beating Rosario...Lockridge won ten rounds and lost to Gomez in San Juan.

Before bent judges were needed as a last resort the Ricans had other special tricks like sending high class hookers to opponents hotel rooms the night before the fight and trying to get members of the entourage arrested on flimsy charges...

Failing that the arena temperatures got turned up for elusive opposition or in poor old Juan Nazario's case he found a 12x12ft ring waiting for him v El Chapo....In fairness he wouldn't budge until they made it bigger.

Canny operators the Puerto Ricans....