All of those names are true ATGs. Pacman is an upper echelon great.
Loma is barely getting started and has just had his first outstanding win. Let's not get carried away. He looked very good last night but Pac and co looked exceptional throughout a career. I feel Lomas best shot at a win would have been JMM.
I think Loma could've beaten Barrera or Marquez. Barrera wasn't the kind of killer we was at super bantam, he was more of a measured and calculating boxer, that wouldn't bode well against Lomachenko who seems to me to be the perfect "anti-boxer", Marquez was also for the most time a boxer aswell, so the same goes to him.
Now Morales would be very problematic because of his excelent footwork, length and his ability to punch while moving even at high speeds. But Morales also was a better fighter at bantamweight so it wouldn't be easy, my take is Morales by close UD.
Pacquiao would probably have worked him and stopped him. Manny was at his most agressive and destructive at featherweight and super-featherweight.
I think Loma could've beaten Barrera or Marquez. Barrera wasn't the kind of killer we was at super bantam, he was more of a measured and calculating boxer, that wouldn't bode well against Lomachenko who seems to me to be the perfect "anti-boxer", Marquez was also for the most time a boxer aswell, so the same goes to him.
Now Morales would be very problematic because of his excelent footwork, length and his ability to punch while moving even at high speeds. But Morales also was a better fighter at bantamweight so it wouldn't be easy, my take is Morales by close UD.
Pacquiao would probably have worked him and stopped him. Manny was at his most agressive and destructive at featherweight and super-featherweight.
how is he the perfect anti boxer when he is a pure boxer? just got confuse by that.
Comment