Pac and Henry Armstrong comparison.

Who was boxing unavaiable to back then?

 

Carl Lewis was not getting punched in the face by Jesse Owens. Michael Phelps didn't drill Mark Spitz in the solar plexus.

 

You obviously did not get my point.

 

Sampras is 6'3 210. He had wings on his feet and a 125 mph first serve.
That could be a description of a prime Larry Holmes or Ali. But could he take a punch?

Boxing is not like those other sports.

 

Kindly reread history. In Armstrong's time only a few countries were actively engaged in boxing. The reason Pancho Villa from the Phillipnes was given any break was that it was a colony of America at that time. Villa had an spectacular reign in the Philippines hence was deemed by the American overlords as worthy of an stint in the US. Most of the latin countries, South America countries, African Countries, and others weren't as lucky then...

 

Again, you didn't get my point.

 

You seem to have answered your own question. Those guys were brought up in the USA. That doesn't mean that they were \better than those guys who grew up in their native land...furthermore, that conglomerationation of nations is still far to few as compared today.

 

Well, Pacman KO in 2 Hatton, the best 140 pounder in the world...

 

Now if only there was one heavyweight from the Phillipines, so he could take out Lewis, Bruno, Haye and Harrison on the same night...

 

Boxing is not a team sport and it is not a national sport. It doesn't matter where the individual was born or raised. It only matters how good they can fight.

 

This is my statemaent: Henry armstrong may have been able to beat one or two of the three AMIGOS in Morales, Barrera and JMM but never the three in todays era!!!...!!!

 

I think the few arguing about how boxing was limited to mostly a few countries in the past is trying to say that given a greater populace there would be more competition, not neccesary those legendary fighters couldn't do the same if there were.

Please don't argue just for argument sake to prove you are right. It is a discussion so both sides can make statements regarding a topic and usually each person have a point and it shouldn't be disregarded.

If there were more people from different places involved, things can change, not saying there would be a definite change. Like if we were to lockout the philiphines, mexico, south america, puerto rico and such countries, then the lower weight classes today would have a huge difference in ranking would it not?

 

In Henry Armstrong's time, travel is much too slow and too expensive. How do you expect the best boxer from Argentina or Rhodesia to travel to America or London to try his luck if it was only a fifty-fity chance that he might win the trophy? Even if perchance that he is much better than what English newspapers or American newspapers maybe proclaming at that time. Such can only be ascertained if a fight is done. You think that guy from Rhodesia is going to do that?

Right now, it is more feasible for the reasons that inclinations to a fighter from a certain region can catch-up to the attention of the media hence the build-up for a showdown with whoever is at the top unlike before...

 

This content is protected

 

You don't seem to get the point... Manny Pacquiao wouldn't be where he is today if he had not opted to try his luck in Manila. If he had only stayed in General Santos City, he may now be an accomplished stevedore.

The point here is that even in todays standards, many countries are at the limbo regarding to boxing discoveries of potential boxers. How much more in Henry ASrmstron'gs era...!!!