How the **** would anyone of us know? You can hardly find any fights on these guys. Whats the point to this thread?
clown...hardly? go look for some...and what was the point of posting in the thread if you were going to be a dickhead? what the point of all fantasy matchups? you dont know for sure
Pep by very thin decision. This would be the two greatest smaller fighters ever fighting for the greatest smaller fighter ever. You can't go wrong picking either 1.
Knowing what I know about both fighters (admittedly not a whole lot) I would go with Homicide Hank in this one. I just can't see Pep hurting him and while Willie O'Wisp was hard for most fighters to hit, Armstrong isn't most fighters.
I've seen quite a bit of both, so I'll comment. Though 126 would be better, seeing as Armstrong was tremendous there, and Pep would be at no disadvantage moving up. I think a fighter capable of boxing very well off the backfoot(if not, then a big puncher) is the way to go against a perpetual motion machine like Armstrong. I don't believe a great pressure fighter would be as confounded by side to side motion, as Pep implied. He wasn't one to box off the backfoot, he was one to use angles and stand within range, using movement, to make you look like a fool, and outbox you with slapping shots, though he did have a good jab, not a great one. Armstrong never stopped coming forward, and never stopped throwing punches. I think he would be missing quite a few in the early going, but if you've ever watched substantial footage of Armstrong, it's really something how good his stamina and never ending workrate are. He never relinquishes, and always tires his opponent, especially one who will be forced to move like Pep would. He looks awkward at times, when not punching, with his head down, the cross arm defense, but once on you(which he would be against someone who stood in range) he was just relentless. I think Whitaker beats him at 135, no bias involved, because he was such a skilled fighter off the backfoot, with such a good, consistent jab. Pep, on the other hand relied on using his angles and side to side movements, slips, etc. He would dazzle Armstrong at times, taking early rounds, but soon he would succumb I think to Armstrong's continuous workrate. I can't see someone being in range and beating Armstrong unless they were a brutal puncher, like Ike Williams, or more versatile, with skills to hang inside, like Duran.
At 130, Armstrong by decision Pep was a defensive genius with great movement and fluidity. Armstrong, on the other hand, was completely different with his come forward swarming/pressure style and extremely high punch output. Great contrast of styles in this one. I see Armstrong having the right style to beat Pep. His swarming attack would allow him to get in close and outwork/rough up Pep. I believe Armstrong would catch the attention of the judges with his workrate, despite missing more than ever, and win a clear decision. Ultimately, I see Armstrong's style being more effective against Pep than vice versa.
I was thinking almost the exact same thing Whitaker has the style to beat Armstrong because of his ability to fight off of the backfoot, while still being able to maintain a distance with a snappy, piston-like jab. Plus he had a great workrate himself at 135. Pep, from what I've seen, didn't have the same ability off the backfoot. To me, he looks more like a speedy boxer with lateral movement, who would potshot and throw quick combinations. Whitaker's style could offset Armstrong's swarming/pressure, wheras Pep, I think, would get roughed up a little bit and wouldn't be able to deal with the relentless pressure of Armstrong to the extent that Whitaker could.
At 130 I think Armstrong would win he would probably gain many of the latter rounds due to his punch output staying the same and Pep getting tired due to the relentless pressure.
There are plenty of Pep and Armstrong fights out there, I got about 7 with Armstrong and about ten Pep fights.
