Robinson. When the fought Armstrong might have been passed his prime but Robinson hadnt reached his prime either. I feel Armstrongs WW run is pretty overrated. The vast majority of WW defenses he had were against lightweights and while Armstrong wasnt a big WW either that doesnt really help his chances against a guy who grew into being a big WW who was also very fast, hard hitting, durable, and could box better than anyone. I think Armstrongs come forward style and size detriment would have played right into Robinson's hands.
Wow, I misread the title of the thread as Prime Henry Akinwande vs. Sugar Ray Robinson LOL I think Akinwande would be fighting scared like a little rabbit (as he always was doing when he wasn't fighting a bum) even against middleweight
Wasn't it though? (in a way); afterall Robinson was taller than all of them. And if their skill didn't challenge Robinson, then Armstrong's must, right?
Fullmer and Basillio beat a past prime SRR. And Lamotta was bigger. Plus SRR beat him on 5 other occasions. And Turpin faced an exhausted SRR, who was doing exhibition bouts all over Europe at the time.
I meant that it was more their size, strength, awkwardness, etc. Henry absolutely has the style and skills necessary to give Robinson fits, just not the physical attributes.
Keep in mind that that was a long time ago when I said that, although I still hold to it. However, now i say that an outcome here is difficult to predict. You have good points though. However, I disagree on the belief that Robinson was post prime in the Fullmer and Basilio fights. Robinson achieved WAY TOO MUCH upon his return in '55 all the way til '58 to be said that he was post prime.
He achieved a lot cause he was a brilliant boxer, the best ever. But one cannot say he was still in his prime after the age of 35.
Man, he had THREE title reigns in less than 4 years. He beat Olson, Fullmer, and Basilio for them. Three great fighters. That doesn't sound like a wash-up to me.
I never said he was washed up, but he wasn't prime either. He was still a great boxer, but not 100 %.
That's true, and I'm glad you at least have the courtesy to call it post-prime, but I think the same thing happened to him that happened to Ali. He was not as flashy as before, but still awesome. I think he was entering a prime where power, stamina, chin, and courage were what was primarily winning his fights. Kind of like Ali in the 70s.
I agree with almost everyone here. Armstrong easily could have the style & skills to trouble or bear even prime SRR: IF he was either near his height or reach, or less likely but possible, at his very best at 147. But while Lamotta was not nearly as skilled as either, he had to work to be the 161 he was when beating Sugar once, & one other fight of theirs was close. And he was taller & longer than Armstrong. You do not have to be as good a swarmer to beat a great boxer if there is not such a large disparity in overall size. This is why while Duran was better P4P than Hearns, he was never likely to beat him. Where he could also afford to operate more as a slugger, a styllistic avantage.
A discussion almost as old as the sport itself. To many, the two finest pound for pound Fighters in the history of Boxing. They really can't be separated in terms of skill and their styles are a perfect blend. What nothing can change however, is that we're pitting a miraculous Lightweight against a very big Welterweight. There would be a stone between them and even Armstrong couldn't spot Robinson that kind of weight and hope to profit from it. The later going would be dreadfully hard on Hank. Robinson by 2 or 3 rounds is my pick.
