Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Journeyman92, Aug 3, 2022.
Seven wins is better than seven loses, chief.
Is that all you have to say at this point ? Hilairious
14 >7 in HoF
65 > 27 in top 10 rated opponents
39 > 27 in top 3 opponents
19 consecutive defenses in a single weight division in 2 years> 19 defenses spread in different weight classes with multiple breaks across
Those are the stats. Floyd would have packed several more losses than he did if he fought in Armstrong's place. Henry may have lost more, but he won way more to compensate when he actually hit his prime. It's a completely one sided comparison
Barely. Against a guy with1/2 the talent of Armstrong
Tough call, but I put my money on Armstrong
Fairweather lacks the punching power to stop Armstrong who is a tough nut to crack.
Also I highly doubt Fairweather will be able to outbox and outrun him for 10+ rounds; thus the unavoidable wear and tear will gradually affect Fairweather's stamina and mobility.
Soon or later he won’t be able to dodge Armstrong's relentless swarming and will start taking heavy damage.
Anyway, as much as I dislike Fairweather I don't think Armstrong manages to stop him. Fairweather's amazing defensive skills should allow him to still end the fight on his feet.
To give the boring fence sitting answer I think this is a way tougher fight for both guys than their fans believe.
14 wins is better than 7 wins
Or maybe you are slow and dumb, cause you don't realize that Armstrong cut off the ring better than anyone in history, making then look that way.
Keep in mind that Armstrong fought in the same era as SRR, your beloved GOAT.
What size advantage? Floyd wasn't bigger than Armstrong.
Armstrong has 180 fights in only 13 years compared to Floyd's 50. He fought more ranked opponents than Floyd has fights in his career. Are you talking about intelectual dishonesty? You even admited here that you don't read replies to your posts.
You can't be taken seriously in any discussion here.
Castillo was bigger than Floyd.
And IMO Floyd is way way more skilled than Hank.
Armstrong fought before SRR. A young SRR met an old Armstrong, and SRR took pity on him and carried him.
Also, SRR was far better overall than Armstrong.
You can look at old timers with rose tinted glasses all you want, it ain't gonna make them any better. Modern athletes are just better, it is what it is. This doesn't diminish the greatness of the old timers, but it also doesn't give them a chance against a modern ATG.
Jesse Owens won the gold medal in the 1936 Olympics, he wouldn't even be top 30 in the world nowadays. Same goes for boxers.
They fought in the same era, it's ridiculous to call SRR from completely different one when he's only 9 years younger. Once again you show how illogical and biased your posts are.
That's not true, you just want to see it that way because you love SRR.
So SRR wouldn't be top 30 boxer at WW today? Good to know.
Picking modern fighters again... who knew!?
That's patently false.
Jesse Owens raced on a horrible track with starts that he dug himself and no modern spikes - other than improvements in nutrition and better sprinting mechanics, the biggest improvements in sprinting have come from improvements in spikes and the track itself - not because athletes are so much greater than a few generations before - genuine evolution doesn't work that fast.
Owens' running stride and leg speed has been biomechanically analysed and the findings were that with modern spikes and on a modern track, he would be within a stride or two of Usain - clearly world class level and arguably still placing amongst the medals at the highest level.
There's plenty of old timers that would smash modern ATGs - they may be better nutritioned but there's a range of experience, skills and ringcraft that today's fighter outside of the outliers will never achieve.
If you're going to insist that x is supremely more skilled than y, the onus on you is to demonstrate what skills you mean, compare the level of skillset demonstrated with the relevance of the greatness/skills of the level of competition that they demonstrated it against. A fighter like Benny Leonard, Ross, Canzoneri, Williams, Pep, SRR, Louis, Charles, Moore demonstrates as much and many more skills than the vast majority of today's so called top fighters.
There's a reason why greats such as Hop and Toney are called old school when praise is given.
You don’t take into account that Armstrong remains the gold standard of infighting (along with Duran). Modern rules significantly restrict the usage of the head, shoulders, and forearms, and the way Armstrong used to control his opponents wouldn’t be allowed in today’s boxing environment. Therefore, the art of infighting couldn’t have evolved that much compared to the other aspects of boxing. All things considered, Armstrong is actually quite modern. As of yet, no one has surpassed Armstrong or Duran at infighting, and it will remain so.
This content is protected