Sandy Saddler vs Hank Armstrong......
 

Rarely if ever seen this one.

What a matchup! Lots of exchanging and infighting.

How do you see it?

Re: Sandy Saddler vs Hank Armstrong......
 

We just mentioned this one in my head to head thread!

I favour Armstrong on points with even 15 rounds not enough to seperate them to our satisfaction.

Re: Sandy Saddler vs Hank Armstrong......
 

Sorry, that's what gave me the idea it deserved an entire thread devoted to it :oops:

Re: Sandy Saddler vs Hank Armstrong......
 

yeah I favour Armstrong too but like I said on the other thread Saddler is one of the hardest men to beat so it a pick em fight.

Re: Sandy Saddler vs Hank Armstrong......
 

Armstrong would make Saddler mighty uncomfortable & grind him down in a brutal fight, the styles suit Armstrong more I feel.

I think Pep stands a better chance of outboxing Hank stylewise TBH, I might actually lean that way in a FWT bout.

Re: Sandy Saddler vs Hank Armstrong......
 

A lot of people will claim Saddler had the right mix of height, reach and power like a smaller, slower Thomas Hearns, but with the added advantages of inside strength and an iron jaw. Saddler did possess all this, and the people who reckon he had what it took to maim Armstrong may be right - but I disagree.

Probably a product of subconscious, people seem to think Saddler would hold the intellectual superiority, but Armstrong was smart - he could counter punch well, avoiding a shot to put himself in position and land two of his own.

Now there is only one direction Armstrong headed, and that was forward - Saddler was pushed back in his career, but I can't ever recall Armstrong being physically overpowered, even against bigger challengers. Saddler may have been able to suffocate and claw away at contenders or potential champions, but trying to contain Armstrong, especially at featherweight, was like attempting to put out a raging fire with a water pistol.

That's the key factor here actually - featherweight. Or anything around that poundage - Armstrong was not quite human. 1937 - 27-0, 26 knockouts. He wasn't just winning, he was smashing the house up, more so at that time than the version we usually see on film, whose punches admittedly looking fairly light. Not that he wasn't still smashing everyone up of course, but there were a few who went the distance as Armstrong put on a bit of weight, and coincidentally these are the ones on film.

At featherweight, it was pure hell to even try to withstand the fanaticism of his attack.

Saddler could hold and hit Willie Pep, but it's not the same. It's as simple as this, to me; Armstrong would be too much for him. The reality is that Saddler wouldn't have the physical advantages, because despite being strong for his build and a very hard puncher, he wasn't a good enough boxer to work his way around Armstrong. Which means he'd have to deal with him at mid to close range, and that would be murder.

How could he even hope to cope with a man who, at that distance, is stronger, quicker, has more torque in his hooks and uppercuts, uses his head, and who throws a hundred punches in every round?

I'm confident in Armstrong's chin holding up. It may very well be one of the very best in history.

Re: Sandy Saddler vs Hank Armstrong......
 

I agree with lots of that good post Manassa, but you make it sound...easy for the little man...is that how you feel about it?

Re: Sandy Saddler vs Hank Armstrong......
 

Nah. Fight of the Decade. Armstrong, bleeding, batters Saddler over fifteen rounds who's holding on by the end. 10-5.

Re: Sandy Saddler vs Hank Armstrong......
 

I actually like Saddler in this one. I think it would be an absolute war on the inside but Saddler had massive power in his left hook/uppercut to the body and head on the inside I doubt any feather could take them without dropping his work rate, even Armstrong. He has a lot of reach too and a good jab I think he'll get the better of the rough housing as well. Probably go the distance but I'd favour Saddler in a close one.

Re: Sandy Saddler vs Hank Armstrong......
 

It's not the knockout, it's the fact Saddler may make Hank's face swell up tremendously.

Re: Sandy Saddler vs Hank Armstrong......
 

I remember in the other thread, someone said he thought Saddler's inside clinching/spoiling would foil Armstrong's workrate and technical skill. I actually see it as the other way around. I think Armstrong could pick off Saddler's uppercuts, stop him from effectively tying him up, and catch him with over-the-top right hands. Saddler tended to stand straight up inside and could potentially be outworked/outskilled by a low crouching pressure fighter. For example, look at his fight with Charley Riley, and how Riley more than held his own through the first few rounds on the inside with Saddler, and eventually convinced Saddler to change his style and box from the outside.

Re: Sandy Saddler vs Hank Armstrong......
 

So did Ceferino Garcia though, and that was all the way up at welter and middle. Armstrong was able to foil him twice by picking off his uppercuts and countering over the top.


But was Hank prone to cuts/swelling while still a FW? Or did that only start later on, after cumulative damage from his wars at LW and WW?

Re: Sandy Saddler vs Hank Armstrong......
 

You'd have to rate Saddler as both sneakier and crisper though...still, it's an interesting point and it might be one of the areas where the fight is decided. I like seeing guys try to solve each-other, especially in a really violent confrontation. Adaption and counter-adapation.

Re: Sandy Saddler vs Hank Armstrong......
 

True but Saddler throws his with more vemon and he would holding and hitting plus sneaking in an elbow or two of good measure which makes them more difficult to counter. Also while both are great at this weight Saddler is more proven at feather and only lost over 15 once. I think an argument can be made either way I'd just lean towards Sandy.

Re: Sandy Saddler vs Hank Armstrong......
 

An interesting point, but I was more going off the reasoning of Saddler being a notorious face-shredder.