Biggest nuthuggers and haters here on ESB

ok, I agree wth your last sentence

 

Frazier used headmovement too. I agree with PacDBest that Armstrong is alot more like Frazier than Duran. Duran was more like a younger MAB imo except better.

 

The issue is that Armstrong clearly isn't that impressive compared to moderners like Duran, and that what was phenominal in his time(which he was), is more ordinary now.

So PacDbest had the assessment correct. H2H, Armstrong is not much, and loses to Manny Pacquaio.

 

Actually that wasn't the issue at all. The issue is that A) PacD thinks Armstrong was a brawler, which today is used to describe a crude fighter like Gatti was before he learned to box and B) that he is comparing Pacquiao to Armstrong in greatness, not H2H (and we know you feel old timers can't beat moderns). Even if we were to take your assessment on the era vs era argument, it would have to be put into "relative" terms. And Pacquiao in relative terms is not comparable to Armstrong or his accomplishments. Saying that because Armstrong can do something, Pacquiao can isn't logical in the sense that while ANYTHING is possible, anything is not REASONABLE and Armstrong is an exception, not the rule.

 

Let say you have 90% of Einstein's Brain. still you can't compare yourself to him coz you haven't accomplished anything yet in the name of science.

Pac can be compared to Armstrong coz they are both the one of the top P4P Fighters in their eras. Pac has the Chance to Match Armstrong's Greatness if he beat JMM, then Juan Diaz & then followed by Floyd or Hatton at 147. If Pac able to accoplished that that He'll be considered Greater coz he's also a Champ at 112, 122 & 126. Armstrong weighs only 142 when he fought at Welterweights & become successful. All I'm saying is Pac has the Chance & you can't deny that.

 

Again, you don't know if I have contributed anything in the name of science because you don't know who I am. On top of this, as I have already illustrated, many people test higher IQ wise (at least his estimated IQ) than Einstein....so as far as capacity goes, I would technically carry more "capacity" as do many. At least speed wise. Power wise, it is impossible to measure so you would be incorrect to assume one way or the other at that level of intellect.

Pacquiao has very little chance of accomplishing what you say he does. That is the point. I have clearly said he has a chance, as there is a chance of anything. But it is not an equal chance. Right now, Armstrong dwarfs Pacquiao in greatness, so you cannot make the comparison now on equal grounds.

 

Armstrong in the whole of boxing is 20x greater than Pacqauio, unless PacDbest was suggesting my logic on old timers, then he is way off, as usual.

But H2H, Armstrong is just so slow, especially comapred to Duran. Lacks the accuracy and timing of Duran also, or Pac for that matter.

Furthermore, PacDbest is obnoxious, almost as bad as Bigtime9.

 

There is something that would be universally agreed, that would be that PacDbest has a very low IQ, like his peer Bigtime.

Though, Bigtime provides more entertainment.

 

He was a brawler.

Wasn't he?

He was smaller than most of his opponents and didn't fight them from the outside. He prefered to use pressure and work on his opponents at close range.

He turned boxing matches into fights.

Sure, he had better technique than Gatti, but why wouldn't you consider Armstrong to be a brawler?

That's what he did.

 

What the hell are you doing comparing yourself to Einstein?

Stay on topic.

What you are saying is not only irrelevant, it's audacious and disrespectful.

 

Go back and read the original statement made. Learn to actually read a thread in context or simply don't respond. (if you did you would realize he questioning the validity of simile and I am responding in kind) And never lecture anyone on being disrespectful considering some of your uncalled for responses.

As far is it being audacious, I compared IQ's, and it's a scientific fact that many people have since tested higher than Einstein (his range) in this department. So it's not audacious in the slightest.

 

Ahh....so fight from the outside is boxer, fight from the inside is brawler. Glad to know that there are only 2 styles of fighter from your point of view.

 

Pacquiao has very little chance of accomplishing what you say he does. That is the point. I have clearly said he has a chance, as there is a chance of anything. But it is not an equal chance. Right now, Armstrong dwarfs Pacquiao in greatness, so you cannot make the comparison now on equal grounds.[/quote]

To be fair..If Pac beats JMM and Juan Diaz...he would be mentioned in the same breath as Armstrong.. forget PBF and Hatton

Armstrong was a very agressive fighter, attacking fighter thus "Homicidal Henry"..He carried a stiff punch and took a good one and had great stamina. Id say he can be called a brawler.. Similar really to PAC. Would you call Pac a boxer or a brawler??

 

When you break it down, I believe there are three.

Sure, there are boxer/punchers, but as Frazier stated, when a guy is forced to fall back, there are three styles he can fall on.

Slugger, Volume Puncher, Boxer

But when a guy has no option but to fight on the inside and STAY there, making sure not to step out of range, then yeah, I'd say he's a brawler.

That's a guy that turns a boxing match into a fight.

That's what Armstrong did.

He got in his opponents chest and stayed there. PacDbest makes a good point.

If you want to narrow it down though, I'd say that Armstrong was a pressure fighting volume puncher with a bit of pop.

 

He was pressure fighter, not a brawler. Brawler have no other options, Armstrong did. Brawlers also can fight from the outside as they could care less where they do their damage.