|
|
|
#16 |
|
Steele the Tacoma Assasin
ESB Addict
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,445
vCash: 773 |
Henry Armstrong ! ?
I'm surprised seeing that Henry Armstrong isn't up much he fought exacly like what your asking just chin and punching.... He fought toe to toe non stop punches. He had unlimited stamina and i believe could outlast anyone, the reason i havn't said Greb is because he threw punches from angles and i don't believe he would be very effective if he couldn't go past the white line. If heavyweight though i would agree with Foreman he would suit it well because -His height would prevent uppercuts he can get the better leverage. -Toe to toe is perfect for his wild style of punching And definatley Marvin Hagler aswell see Vitor Antuofermo fight But p4p It has to be Henry Armstrong, |
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
|
|
|
#18 | |
|
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 10,066
vCash: 1000 |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
#19 | |
|
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 10,066
vCash: 1000 |
Quote:
Height and reach? Yes. Speed? No. Ferocity? I doubt it. Power? Debatable. Sullivan certainly tamed his era much more thoroughly and emphatically than did Foreman. Sullivan was also not a small man, a shade under 6 foot and around 200 pounds when trained hard. Speed and finesse he was noted for when Foreman was only noted for power. Look at Foreman's record, pre-Frazier, a goddamned list of tomato cans as long as your arm. He defended twice including once against some member of royalty named Roman, and then faded into Bolivian. That is the legacy of prime Foreman. Do you really want to compare that to how Sullivan owned the world of pugilism? |
|
|
|
|
#21 | |
|
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 380
vCash: 535 |
Quote:
power? Debatable! Lol lets debate that shall we. You are saying john l sulivan that has a serious weight disadvantage strength disadvantage and a speed advantage hits harder than forman one of the hardest hitters of all time. With that logic tyson has a speed disadvantage to pacman and so its debatable whether he hits as hard. |
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,708
vCash: 330 |
For me it's between 3 men.
Foreman Tyson Louis Foreman is the hardest hitter but in terms of speed and accuracy the other two shit all over him so probably land more frequent thus negating the power edge. Tyson might be a shade quicker than Louis but his timing and accuracy is about even as is the power. The biggest difference though has to be in stamina. Louis could carry his power all night long and carried it further than Tyson ever fought for. As Tyson tires Louis will not, his punches will still have snap on them and consequently will knock Mike out. Louis wins it for me. |
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,509
vCash: 500 |
p4p? Battling Nelson. He was tireless and you'd break your hands on his head.
Harry Greb. He'd hit you so fast you'd be off balance the whole time, unable to get the proper leverage to land your power shots. When you DID land, he could take it, no prob. Overall? Tyson would destroy Foreman. He would land 3 punches to every one and all 3 would be KO shots. Liston stops GF, too. |
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,523
vCash: 1551 |
If two fighters just start trading shots standing in front of each other with zero movement and defence?
Randall Cobb Mccall Tua Ike |
|
|
|
#25 | |
|
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,523
vCash: 1551 |
Quote:
And don't twist my words that I said Cobb is a better boxer than Ali because I didn't/ |
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|