Pac and Henry Armstrong comparison.

You mean most fighters came to Great Britain and the USA, don't you?

You seem to have never heard of Battling Siki or Pancho Villa.

Go back and look at where many of those fighters were born. Many of those Americans were immigrants or second-generation citizens.

 

You have a few good points. Boxers of the past do have some similiarities as current day which is what makes their own matchups great. Heart will always play a huge part in boxing, as well as ring smarts, can't agree more with that.

There are also alot of great difference to be taken into consideration as well. While most boxing rules are the same, the huge difference is in the knowledge of the game itself. Not only techniques are being more polished but also the training involved to make a fighter more effective as well as the diet, management, and who knows how many other factors.

I will be honest and state that I do not have great knowledge of old time boxing, but if I recalled correctly that back far enough they use to have 1 minute rounds althought rounds are infinite til defeat. There are some amazing feats past fighters has done, but also remember that fighters from their own era train and fight for the rules applied to them. If the rules today are to be 15 rounds, then that is how they will adjust accordingly in their training and fighting stretegy.

 

Nice

 

Nice Post

 

How many boxers of different nationalities had Armstrong fought? His status is great simply because he came from an era where boxing was only then popular or was actually given any priority by a few number of nations! Even at todays standard, we can't truly say that we are international as China and India haven't caught up yet in boxing. Imagine a population of more than 2 billion. Can you honestly say that out of that 2 billion there is no one that can approximate the talents of todays best if they were given the proper guidance and trianing? In the furure when boxing is truly integrated to all the coutries worldwide can we really have an ATG, one who dominated the world...

These are some of the reasons why I don't give much credence to Armstrong's Accomplishments. He had been fighting mostly boxers from Great Britain. You think the boxers there are much better than the boxers from Mexico of today?

Mostly all of them records of yesteryears comes from an era where only USA and Great Britain were involved with a handfull from France and Germany. Any other nationality involved is very far and between...

 

I am going to address your other post and the rest of your point in this one later.

You seem to be referring to the London Prize Ring Rules established in 1838 and revised in 1853. The fighters fought bare knuckled. There was no set time for a round under the LPR rules. A round lasted until someone went down. Push, fall, slip, knocked down; it didn't matter. A round could last a few seconds or it could last an hour. When a fighter went down they had 30 seconds before they had to be ready to continue.

You need to do a google search on the Marquis of Queensberry rules.

They were written in 1867 and they called for fighters to use gloves. Fighters had 3 minutes of fighting with a one minute rest period between rounds. A ten count made for a knockout.

The first title fight under MoQ rules was held in 1884 at middleweight. When Jim Corbett beat John Sullivan for the heavyweight title in 1892, it was the end of the LPR rules.

Sullivan had defended his belt under both sets of rules at one time or another. But if I remember correctly, Corbett never had an LPR fight in his career.

There were still "finish fights" under MoQ rules, but most title fights were scheduled for 20, 25 or (rarely) 45 rounds.

 

Thanks for the info bud, I really didn't know when those rule had occur, just remember them existing at one point in time. Interesting stuff to know, although I am not curious enough to research it, not planning to be a boxing historian atm I do appreciate you taking the time to educate me on that though.

 

You are giving too much credence to the boxers of the past when boxing was mostly a sports between America and Great Britian...Why do you think there is no American HW champion now. It is because Russia and other countries have entered the picture. Do you think SRR would have been as dominant in his time if only there were Russian boxers at that time. The only reason most of the old boxers had a glorious time was that they were fighting only boxers from a very limited number of countries unlike now...

 

And where did the 20 welterweights come from??? USA or Britain???...

 

Back then, boxers were not as scientifically trained as they are today. Could you imagine a boxer in that era having his conditioning coach, nutritionist, full time trainers, and available spar mates. Let's not be mesmerized by the lore that we hear from our great granpas that those legends of the past were much better than the boxers of today. It's like saying runners of yesteryears were faster than runners of today, or say swimmers of yesteryears against Michael Phelps of today. I am pretty sure that Pac,Marquez, and even Floyd can be considered better than storied fighters like Armstrong or Robinson as we have no way of knowing their competitions are.

 

Looking at boxrec, Armstrong won over boxers with so-so records but lost to boxers with better win-loss ratios.

 

That's pure BS...!!! From 4 or 5 countries!!!

 

Owell makes a good point. Boxing is available to a larger polulance currently than in the past. More and more great boxers from the lower weight class has been coming out of Mexico than the old days is an example of the difference that can make. Imagine taking out all the great Mexican boxers in the lower weight class currently and see what you have left as the best.

edit: Actually to be more fair, why not just take the few countries that is very active in participation during Armstrong time and use only those countries today and see who would've been the top boxers of each weight class.

 

SRR fought 200 plus fighters. Do we have any idea about the quality of his competitiions? I don't think we in the modern era should bow our heads on these bygone era fighters and treat our present crop of fighters as inferior. In tennis, Road Laver was a great tennis player but no way can we say that he is greater or a better player than Sampras, Federer or Nadal in the modern era. I think we should disabuse our thinking that legendary boxers like Armstrong, SRR, etc are eternally the best fighters we ever had.

Yes, they were great in their times but it does not mean they are greater than the current fighters we have today.

 

"Hagler was no good" "Why do you say that?" "He never fought anyone from China or India"

"Robinson sucked" "What?" "He didn't fight any Russians"

I think this arguement is ignorant and I hope that line about most of his foes being British is a typo of some kind. I don't know that he fought any Brits.

He fought his early career in LA, many of his earliest opponents were Mexican fighters.

Baby Arizmendi, Juan Zurita and Chalky Wright were born in Mexico. Ceferino Garcia was born in Manila. Benny Bass was born in the Ukraine.

But most of his foes were US citizens that were second-generation Americans. He fought Italians, Germans, Irish, Jews , Slavs, Poles and other blacks as well.