Roberto Duran, narrowly, and Pernell Whitaker who I'm not dead set on. I reckon Armstrong was the best at 126/130lbs though.
Yeah there's that footage, and Gatica... And Bolanos III. Don't think the Gavilan fights exist.
Nah, some of us are just well versed in certain areas. I'm more of a '20s to '80s, featherweight to heavyweight type. I know hardly anything about...
Williams is one of three lightweights I've choose to beat Armstrong, and he'd do him the most damage. Armstrong, at his best, was obviously better...
Yes, we both think you are radio rental.
:blood
Yeah, I reckon a young Robinson would have been out of his depth against a seasoned, primed Armstrong of 1938 and drop a decision.
Yeah, course. I'm not an out-of-touch fogey who actually believes the bear-on-the-back stories. Pacquiao is brilliant. Good enough for me to say...
Well, you said it yourself. Armstrong's featherweight endeavours are only rubbish compared to his others - this division was the lesser of his...
I have to say, I think Armstrong's the best we've seen at 126-130lbs. Sometimes overlooked is his top five all-time offence - I mean come on,...
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were being sarcastic. But yes, Armstrong's featherweight achievements - while brief - were tremendous....
Yeah, but it's not just that. I can't even write ******** (j u g g l i n g). Or *** ***** (b i g s h o e s).
It was a statement; 'why he was...' Not a question; 'why was he...?' This thread is not open for debate. Just wriggle under the rays of greatness.
To start off, look at his record. These are fighters who were rated, at one time or another (but mostly at the time Armstrong beaten them) in the...
Yeah I noticed that. Weird.
