Pac and Henry Armstrong comparison.

Yes!!! Because that is a very strong probability.

Why didn't any American beat Stevenson in his time whereas when Cuba was not involved in Boxing most olympic champs comes from the US???

 

Easy(er) for him to accomplish? Are you even aware of his record? He was kayoed in his pro debut. He lost three of his first four. He wasn't some pampered Olympic Gold Medalist with four different belts to shot for in 17 weight divisions.

He wasn't 15-0 with a nice fat TV contract when he got his first title shot. It was his 91st fight and he was challenging a champion (Sarron) with 125 bouts.

Any he fought the top Mexican (Baby Arizmendi) who was around 6 times.

The heavyweight division sucks now. I don't see how it could be any worse without the Ruskies.

 

Armstrong was beating guys from America and England alone. He was never match against any fighter from Argentina or Brazil or Panama or South America or Thailand or Indonesia or Japan or Russia or Mexico or Puerto Rico... These are the countries where the fighters who are now dominating the scene of boxing nowadays come from. It is the weights he have dominated in his resume..l. That means that his resume is purely fictional and based on what the American and English writers have written so far.

 

I'm talkin about skill because I've seen Armstrong on film.

 

His skills is good because he had never fought a fighter of today's era...

 

Guess you never heard of Craig Payne or Duane Bobick? Stevenson wasn't invincible even at his peak.

 

So, what is so impressive about the skillset of fighter's today compared to the past?

I don't understand.

 

Armstrong's record of hip=hopping was only made possible due to the few numbers of combatants in that sport at that time. I am sure he would not have done such a feat in today's era...

 

Not at all, what Armstrong accomplish is very significant not trying to discredit him for what he have done, just trying to be reasonable and realistic here.

How widely and popular a sport is or was should be taken into consideration. If a small nation invented a new sport and welcome any comers worldwide, but participations is far and few in between among all of them, how great would the champ be? Not saying this is boxing, just an example on a way to look at it. So I wouldn't say it is just about how many nations is involved, but also the popularity of the sport.

It is not Armstrong's fault but it still plays a role how great a champ is. Let me ask you, would there be any difference if 100 people is competing in a sport instead of 1 million?

One other thing to take into consideration would be the quality of people allowed into the sport. Current day you need a professional license, and most have tons and tons of amatuer experience who trains from young age. Back in the days alot of boxers being taken to the ring are more raw.

 

It is not simply the skill of today's era but rather the number of countries involved in the sports. It means there are 100
+ more times the number of combatants now than in Henry Armstrong's time. He would have had a harder time beating the best that boxing has to offer now than in his time.

In today's standard, he was just fighting in a regional championship and not a world championship...

 

Just my interpretation of the argument. Easy there, killer.

I'd already weighed in my 2 cents around the 2nd or 3rd page.

 

Yeah, but that just means more people who can't fight.

Skills are what matter.

 

This is either a pack of lies or you simply don't know what you are talking about. I already pointed out that he fought guys from Mexico, Russia and the Phillipines, PR, Italy, etc.

 

You were qouting people who were already there in America, hence American citizens and not people from there native lands...

 

What is skill if you don't use it against an opponent???...