Henry Armstrong vs. Terence Crawford.

I read Rollin’s post in Bert Sugar’s voice.

 

peter schmeichal was a ****ing beast at what he did, prob the best ever for me. can he win an all around soccer skills contest against erik edmond(edmund maybe, the spurs left back for a couple years)? no, he can't.

 

Hence why the rules and time period matter.

Still, even in relatively modern boxing you can find inside game (one that was still common when Hagler and Duran fought, and could still be seen shining in the Whitaker-Chavez spanking, where Pernell was breaking posture, framing, looking for space and off-balancing to no end.) Time period aside, I reckon the hugging is more common nowadays because majority of the time neither fighter is willing to engage in an inside clash; the ref is stil very much allowed to order the fighters to punch out of the close quarter position. Armstrong was not Saddler, Greb, or Zivic who would try to all kind of dark magic, or in Sandy's case pull your arm out of the socket. He could get point deducted, but he was a tier lower than some of the worse offenders.

Disagreed on Armstrong being hittable at long range. He was deceptively hard to hit clean, in the same manner Tyson or Frazier could get tagged with glancing, perhaps scoring blows, but the force was mostly dispersed, and they created openings for a dynamic counter. At his best he would rubber neck and ride the shots (Jake LaMotta was underrated in that aspect as well), fixing in some elements of the crossguard to deny certain selection of punches and angles whilst diving down.

Crawford never in his life faced somebody with such class of head and upper body movement (including the elite wrinkles like aforementioned rubber necking), punch selection (clever, relentless body work, sneaky uppercuts, air-cutting overhands, and leaping left hooks), and relentless Honey-badger aggression, acivity, and athleticism. Elite inside game (with all the smothering, space making, under and overhooks, posture breaks and whatnot) sprinkled on top of that.

Bud's weight? Well yeah. That's an issue. Armstrong coming out to middleweight bout barely above 140 is a strong point for Crawford, who likely enters the ring at around 160. Still, it's important to remember Armstrong was always conditioned for 15 rounds of non-stop activity, and in a what if scenario we might as well assume Terrence having to adjust to a same day weigh in. Pitching the old stars against the modern elites should have some modicum of compromise as far as the different standards go.

 

I do not agree with the saddler comparison. sandy was a dirty ****er but 90% of his footage is fine. 90% of armstrong footage is headbutt, headbutt, headbutt, left hook, headbutt, headbutt, headbutt, right bodyshot, left hook, then 5 more headbutts. he was great at it, i'm not taking anything away from a guy doing what was allowed, but it isn't today.

clean or not getting hit is getting hit and crawford isn't taking a counter for most of them.

i agree it's untested waters for crawford.

it's more than an issue, it defines this matchup. if crawford has to do same day weigh in then the fight would not be allowed. he'd be a legit world class mw and hank would not be. 126? more than world class, close to the same at lw, 147? he's looking small, 160? crawford has 1 inch less height and reach than hagler and it's not like he's lanky.

 

Armstrong drove his head into an opponents chest, but its not uncommon in infighting. Placing head on either shoulder and securing an over or underhook, or using head, forearm, and elbow to posture break and shove an opponent out of the optimal punching position are the fundamentals of close quarters. Duran did that, Hagler did that, Whitaker did that. Armstrong often lead with his head, that's true, but due to his size, crouched position and the intention (forcing the opponent off-balance; controlling the leverage and center of gravity) I reckon it didn't often result in head clashes.

Boxing being cleaner and judges more strict is also not a given. A few examples:
a) Holyfield was a very notorious headbutter (Rahman's face looking like a Halloween mask, Tyson bouts) as he often ducked from a more classic, upright boxing position, coming in with a smother or inside entry.
b) Mayweather mastered the elbows to frame and control his opponents (not judging, I love good use of forearms and elbows, though taking a few right on the nose I can understand some of the clean, amateur-style fighters having complaints) and Haney elbowed the hell out of Lomachenko (preventive defense, as Ward like to call it.) Mayweather's study and understanding of classic inside fighting was part of the reason he had an edge over so many fighters at ranges where rougher or more aggressive, hook 'n uppercut fighters would presumably thrive.
c) Klitschko and Okolie did not have a single DQ loss. Klitschko-Povetkin and Okolie-Billiam Smith are some of the most jarring, dirty bouts, where the judge clearly refrains from DQ'ing the other for holding.
d) Andre Ward and Bernard Hopkins were very good at walking the tightrope between legal and illegal. John Ruiz was notoriously dirty hugger.

Disqualifications being relatively uncommon in our era is not what I would attribute to a shift towards clean fighting. Bouts take place less often, there is stronger A-B side promotional and marketing bias, and with boxing shifting into more of a niche compared to the titanic cultural évènement it was, unabashed protecting of certain fighters is easier to get away with, compared to some old school gentleman backlash that could occur when the observers were bamboozled. Shifting away from strict disqualifications began already around the Schmelling-Sharkey controversial ending, during Carnera's rise to championship. The public was often left disappointed and on border of rioting when they paid dollars for a bout to end in such manner, and the referees were urged to loosen up a bit.

My point being, Armstrong was definitely not as dirty as some others. He lost two bouts by DQ, and was heavily penalized in one of his fights against Ambers for low blows. Those are the only notorious examples out of his 180 bouts. The truly dirty boxers would be:
a) Zivic: cutting with laces, thumbing, low blows, stepping on an opponent's feet, elbowing, shoving, headbutting, kneeing. The man was the greatest dirty fighter in history and he almost made an art out of it. Armstrong was afraid he would go blind in their bouts.
b) Harry Greb would often cross the line in his assault, low blowing, elbowing, and whatnot. In fact during some of his fights he adapted a more orthodox style, because he knew he ref is going to watch him closely.
c) Mysterious Billy Smith. 22 losses by DQ.
et cetera.


As to the size: sheer level of Armstrong's boxing dominance against quality of opposition would be enough to presume he can adapt to certain weight disparity. 18 lbs that would be the difference between supposed rehydrated ring weight of Crawford and Armstrong's weight during his middleweight title shot: well, that's a big hurdle. Too big perhaps, agreed. Then again, it's impossible not to take into account that he was in a peak fifteen round shape; in a modern championship distance either Armstrong would be weighing more, or Bud would be cutting some to adjust to a possibility of fifteen rounds.

At the end of the day if somebody says Crawford is realistically in different weight class compared to Armstrong whose strongest weights were feather and lightweight, I won't argue against it. Napoles, a fantastic if small welterweight brutally found his limit against Monzon; Ray Robinson clearly dropped in consistency at Middleweight, and there are some violent examples of the old adage that weight classes exist for a reason.

Still, I stand by the point that Armstrong has attributes to give Bud hell and possibly take the bout under certain circumstances. Our modern ATG in Lomachenko, a featherweight, enters the ring against rehydrated giants; Duran-Barkley lives rent free in my head, and Barbados Demon Joe Walcott terrorized the divisions above his small stature.


EDIT: Sandy Saddler: as much as I admire the man (George Foreman, Sandy, and Archie Moore are my top 3 favorite boxers, with his style being the most beautiful thing I've ever seen in my life) he could be brutally dirty. Collar ties, shoves, brutal wrestling that could obliterate an opponent's joints. It was not a petty, sneaky thumbing, but there is a reason why one of his bout with Willie Pep regularly resurfaces as an example of one of the dirtiest fights of all time.

 

i understand your viewpoint. the weight seems too much for me but i'm not always right.

saddler: yeah, but it was more an addition to his ability than an intrinsic part of it. and let's not pretend pep wasn't dirty as hell in those fights too. his other fights look a lot cleaner to me (not clean but a lot cleaner).

 

Crawford murders homicide Hank!

 

Fair enough on Saddler. He spent more time in terminator mode, cutting the ring and throwing throwing slugs.

 

Armstrong is small and Crawford is something he's never seen. He could clear lightweight, he'd be horrible for Lomachenko and Tank, he's not beating Bud