Pac and Henry Armstrong comparison.

Put a reason out there that makes sense. Analyze the match-up based on the individual.

In three wars against each other, MAB and Erik proved they were bad asses. In his two brawls with Manny, JMM proved he's no punk.

For all their boxing skill, the first time anyone landed a bomb; Morales and Barrera went straight to war. You think they'd have the discipline to stick-and-move or bob-and-weave when Armstrong is throwing his usual hundred punches a round? Hell No! They're going to slug it out.

Armstrong easily hit just as hard as either of them (101 KOs) and he was stopped only twice in 181 fights. So that's two right, there that he has at least a 50/50 chance against.

Marquez has the skill and the discipline to box against Armstrong, but he didn't beat Manny because he was down four times. Henry would be putting at least the same level of pressure on him. Not too difficult to see JMM getting dropped in this match-up IMO.

Now what weight are they matched at? Armstrong was a naturally bigger man in his prime than all three of them.

When is the weigh-in? Because if those have to weigh-in the day of the fight, they are screwed. If Armstrong weighs in at 126 the day before, he steps in the ring at 140 the next day. Either way, more likely Armstrong will be the stronger fighter.

 

Is there an American HW champion today?...

 

Join the discussion or be arrogant somewhere else, you ain't intimidating anyone here.

 

You don't seem to grasp the logic in here. Henry Armstrong had been fighting boxers from one or two countries at the most. Definitely he was the best from tose countries...but that does that not necessarily means that he was the best fighter in that era as there were no other boxers from different countries for him to try his mettle at that time.

America had dominated the HW division before but with the incursion of the Soviet block countries no American boxer is quite as good today like in the times of SRR when such countries were inactive. English and Americans were dominant in the lower classes before but when the third world countries has caught up, how many American or English title holders can you see in the horizon.

That shows you that all the records in the past were established when only America and England were very much active in th sports but when the third worl countries caught- up...They aren't the best as thought of...

 

Another point here is that if you think Armstrong is gonna fight one of the thre AMIGOS at a certain weight and then fight the others at anotherwight, then this will not justify his sooooo much invincibility. Pacman fought those guys at their own weight........Sucker...

 

Like Max Schmeling you mean,knocking out Joe Louis.

 

Well he did hold the WBC-Ring Super Featherweight and then won the WBC lightweight title. So he had 2 titles in 2 division at the same time. :good

 

Armstrong won titles at 126, 135 and 147.

MAB and Erik won belts at 122, 126 and 130.
JMM won titles at 126, 130 and 135.

It stands to reason that the contracted weight would be at 126 or 130 vs MAB or Erik and at any of the three vs JMM.

Pacman-MAB 1 was at 126, then re was at 130. Same for Manny vs JMM. The only one Pac fought at one weight was Morales, all three at 130.

What a fighter weigh-ins in at the day before the fight is not the weight he enters the ring at. Either day off or day before weigh-in has to favor Armstrong who was naturally bigger in his prime.

 

This is not about America vs Mexico. It is about matching up individuals. Why don't you address my arguement on its merits. If you think MAB, Erik or JMM were too skill or too strong or too powerful for Armstrong, just say so.

 

A point should be disregarded when it is irrelevant. None of you seem willing to discuss any match-up on the merits of the individual fighters involved.

It doesn't matter what Armstrong accomplished because he didn't fight some mythical guy from Russia or China or Peru or Zambia that never got to become a boxer? Is that what you're saying?

 

I would have loved for Abramov, Schozikas, Lezin, Yagubkin, Kandelaki, Yagubkin, Savon, Stevenson and Balado to have turned pro and fought the best heavyweights of those times.

Does that mean that Ali or Holmes or Holy didn't accomplish what they did now because those guys didn't turn pro?

And I can see a potential British heavyweight titleholder on the horizon, because one is getting the next title shot.

 

The main gist I got from it as an outside observer isn't that Armstrong's accomplishments should be worthless, but that it was possibly easier for him to accomplish what he did because countries/regions who traditionally have been powerhouses in the lower weights in recent history (Mexico, for example) weren't involved in the sport when Armstrong fought.

It's a fair point to ask. Today people point out when white fighters back in the day didn't fight black ones and put an asterisk by their accomplishments because they truly didn't fight everyone, but nobody really mentions the lack of opportunity given to most country's fighters to compete on the world stage for the better part of early boxing history. It's not nearly as egregious or wrong as drawing the color line was, but it's still a valid point to bring up.

I don't hold it against Armstrong because to accomplish what he did and to beat the great fighters he did still make him an ATG, but overall, most country's lack of participation in pro boxing is still a pretty big question to just write off like it's nonsense. If the Easter block countries eliminated all their participation, imagine how different the face of the HW division would be right now.

 

I understood your bull**** point completely. This idea that Mayweather is as good as or better than Armstrong or Robinson because of some kind of real or imagined advances in athleticism is bunk.

Once the bell rings, all that stuff wouldn't matter. Mayweather would be getting drilled in the head and body by guys with 221 kayoes between them. Mayweather wouldn't just be standing there letting his ass get kicked, he'd be fighting back.

But all this stuff about Laver and Sampras or Lewis and Owens or Phelps and Spitz is irrelevant in the ring. Maybe you don't get the point that a fight is a different kind of competition.

 

That's because your point is unclear. You're making a bunch of broad assumptions based on athleticism, without scrutinizing the skill level associated with fighters of then and now.

 

What is so special about today's era?

Assuming you're refering to skill of course...

Cuz I think Armstrong would whup Morales and Barrarra's ass, and maybe JMM would be competitive, but I doubt it.