I agree on Hopkins, solid fighter with a special record but there are many MW's who would have won wide against him. Jermaine Taylor anybody ? As far as bygone era's go, why wouldnt past generations have been better ? They fought more often and there were far more quality fighters to come up against. Its not like football where the boots are better, pitches are better quality, balls are lighter. The basic rules of boxing are the same as they've always been apart from maybe there isnt as much hunger now, they dont have to fight all the time just to pay the bills.
I get so tired of the people saying boxing has advanced so much. its regressed. Back then the talent was up to the ****in rafters.
Just the intelligent response I expected from a moron like you, obviously you please easy if you see merit in the , excuse me for not laughing the , "Executioner's' work, maybe the "Pacifist" suits him more these days.
Sport has evolved. Fighters from the 40s couldn't compete with modern day fighters. But in terms of ATGness Armstrong>>>Mayweather
I dunno mate, i was watching old vids of Dick Tiger last week ajnd it was obvious to me he'd destroy the current batch of MW'S with relative ease. I reckon he would have done a number on Hopkins.
Agree "Hook", if you were great then you would be greater today, especially in lighter divisions, invariably, walking around weight was their fighting weight as they fought more frequently, mostly monthly and sometimes sooner, they did not need six or twelve months to prepare for a fight.
Floyd will struggle to land clean against armstrong. This will spell trouble for a man who relies on his ability to outpunch his opponent. Armstrong will be able to force floyd back and will outpunch and outland him. Wide points win for hank.