First of all Lomanchenko's style is NOT D'Amato's "Peek-a-boo." Let's clear that up. He uses a deceptive high-guard, but the turns and transitions are not the same. The methods of making the turns happen are different.
Secondly, the Eastern Bloc and Cuba did build off of American fighters. That is true, however, with broken lineages in America and continuing expounding on basic principals, it's pretty clear there IS a distinct style to the former USSR and Cuba. They still practice things Americans have since forgotten (like turning, moving the hips, stepping around and not back). As of right now, it's us in the U.S. who could and should learn from them. It's no coincidence many of the best and most fundamentally sound fighters in the World come from the same places again and again. Or that if you scratch the surface of a very good fighter coming from anywhere else, you'll likely find a Cuban or Eastern Bloc trainer at the helm (my own teacher Milke McCallum, his first trainer in Jamaica was Cuban before he met Harry Wiley Sr. through Bunny Grant).
As for orthodox, it does seem that many of the best technical fighters right now are Southpaws. And that many of the best orthodox fighters are instead more big punchers. But it tickles me how people consider Lomanchenko's skill exceptional. As if he's doing some things no one else has ever heard of. You pair ultra-sound fundamentals with speed and intelligence, you get a fighter like him. As he doesn't have say, a left hand like Pacquiao, or even that same level of foot speed (sorry, he doesn't), thus he doesn't get away with slacking on technique so easily. Errol Spence is also a Southpaw, Tevin Farmer, Rigondeaux, Lara, Robiesy Ramirez, Yasnier Lopez, so many of the very very good technical boxers. However, it's not like orthodox fighters who know how to box don't come along:
And it's not as if they never existed (P.S. - THIS was defense before everyone forgot how to teach and started screaming about hands being up):
