Are there any complete Armstrong fights on video? 4 minutes of parts of the 4th and 9th rounds of a fight is almost nothing.
The 38 year old Shane wasn't "fast as hell". Armstrong is also going to be throwing dozens of punches per round at a high pace as opposed to the fairly basic methodical approach Shane had. Floyd picked Shane apart because he had little to fear after the 2nd round and fought at a pace that suited Floyd (Shane seemed to just mentally check out). Film is literally the only viable way of telling whose faster outside of occasionally dubious boxer testimonies. If you're going to dismiss film whenever it doesn't suit your agenda you're on the wrong forum.
Because he knows he has to pay Robinson lip service, otherwise he'll look even dumber than he usually does. It's cognitive dissonance. Somehow Robinson is one of the best ever based on beating bums and mediocre boxers who wouldn't make it as 3 round amateurs today according to his logic. If you press the issue he'll just use the magical "eye test" trump card that covers all his bases.
The issue is that no real eye tests exists for Armstrong unless you saw him live. We know he won fights at a lower rate than than Mayweather against top shelf fighters. We know he bore size and stylistic similarities to Manny, who Floyd schooled while 38 years old. Objectively, Floyd is the favorite. Any other opinion is a faith based wish.
Your opinion is that Floyd beats Armstrong based on dismissing any old footage as unreliable (which is goofy because literally all footage of old fighters is unreliable by your logic and begs the question of what the point of these threads is), and the fact Floyd beat a past his prime Manny with a shoulder injury. There is nothing objective about your argument, or any other argument you've made for that matter. I get it, you want to go against the grain to seem special but some of us grew out of that in highschool. Kind of sad coming from a guy whose at least 45. I'm a huge Floyd fan and have defended him numerous times but I'm not going to blindly pick him in this fight just because he's more modern and has an undefeated record.
He just wants attention. He said I can't bring up how bad Floyd looked against Maidana since Floyd was past his prime, but it's ok to bring up Floyd beating a past his prime (and injured) Manny Pacquiao since Manny was similar to Armstrong. It's very easy to poke holes in his arguments but he thinks he's a genius.
Could you explain what you mean by "live"? Is it the black and white film? Or are you making the more extreme assertion (I assume not) that people can only compare fighters they've personally seen from ringside?
65 wins (not fights) against top 10 world ranked fighters would say otherwise, but I guess they're just bums useful only for record padding because they don't have wikipedia pages. Most of those unknown guys weren't any worse than the likes of Corley, Mitchel, Sosa and Baldomir. Manny was also 36, it's a great win but stop trying to make it look as if a 38 year old Floyd beat a prime Manny. Key word is similiraties. They're both aggresive and high volume fighters. However Manny was many times a reckless fighter who would rely on speed,mobility, power and explosiveness to overwhelm his opponent before he had time to counterpunch, which proved his undoing against Floyd and Marquez. Armstrong was relatively methodical and calculating on the way in, but would unleash hell when he got inside and took his preferred range. A scenario Floyd has proven he doesn't do well in against average guys like Castillo and Maidana. Ironic.
There apparently isn’t a high quality film of a complete fight of his—>either you saw him in person or you don’t have much to base an eye test on. And if you did see him, it wouldn’t even be a reliable memory after 75 years.
How high quality, and how much film, is necessary to make a good eye test? What's the bare minimum in terms of footage quality and length?
