Pacquiao or Armstrong

Rios bagged a belt at lightweight while showing less defensive ability and speed. Hatton showed less dimensions to his game and still managed a decent reign at 140, with a couple of wins over elite guys. A fighter with Armstrong's attributes probably can do pretty well, methinks.

 

You think Manny would stand a chance against Froch, Ward, Kessler or Abrham, his body would look odd at 168?

 

Of course no one would teach a guy to hold his hands down by his side, or to arm punch as many modern boxers love doing with the exception of Deontay Wilder. To many guys get caught up in the perfect techinque and completely forget at the end of the day its a fight its about who can whoop who! These modern fighters its as simple as that they would get just outworked and beat up by many of the older fighters.. I mean come on you have to be a troll or not to educated in the sweet science Foreman at 40 plus with what little he had left came back to the more modern era and won the heavyweight title! Same guy who got stopped in his prime by Ali and beat by Jimmy Young,, Hopkins was able to fight until he was 50 in this modern era of prize fighting. You put him in the ring in any other era no way jack! They would treat him like he is 50 and walk through that man,,

 

Indeed there is - and I believe, we all know the reason!

 

It's not like Pac was a technical marvel at the start of his career, either. He left himself open a lot and relied on the 1-2 and the 1-1-2. Not much to his game at that point.

 

Wide open guys don't make championship caliber fighters miss repeatedly with head movement.

 

Anderson Silva fought quite a few stiffs though. Doubt he would have looked like that against either Romero or Whitaker.

 

Margo was coming off a hard loss to Mosley, and had done nothing at 154lbs, except lose to the solid but unspectacular Daniel Santos at 154lbs. Pretty weak way to win a title at JMW, really.

 

Hatton has far more skills than Armstrong. If you watch Hatton and Armstrong fight side by side and you genuinely believe Armstrong has better skills, then I know you never boxed a day in your life.

So many people here comment based on boxing history knowledge, rather than actual boxing knowledge.

Armstrong was a primitive man overhelminh other primitive men. Any boxing coach without bias and half decent can see that.

 

Was Hatton a crap win for floyd since he didn’t really do jack **** at 147? I’m basing the Margo win based off margos career at 147, which was pretty good.

 

Championship caliber in a primitive era. Do you think Jess Willard would even be top 10 today? He was championship caliber then.

 

Around the 70s boxing skills pretty much became “modern” and imo was at its peak in the 80s. So foreman, Hopkins all fall in that.

Look at my join date, post count. I’ve obviously been following boxing for a long time and intensely. I also boxed for over 10 years and coached. I’m Pretty sure I know more about boxing than 99% of the pseudo-boxing intellectuals here. But of course, I’m hurting someone people are biased to because of their legendary status so I must be a troll who doesn’t know **** about boxing.

 

Let's just pretend fighters like Porter, Calzaghe, Usyk, Hurd, Miller and other high workrate/big engine fighters don't exist.

 

Right, I just watched that vid and saw a fighter throw10 punches with his head down and feet planted against an opponent with absolutely zero upper or lower body movement himself. Directly compare Armstrongs inside game with Durans and you'll see a world of difference in skill and technique.

 

Aint hurting my feelings your way of thinking is very popular so to each their own! If you think that Danny Garcia or Thurman could beat a Sugar Ray Robinson or Armstrong then were on two different complete tran of thoughts,,