Armstrong would win points (overall) on the inside in my opinion, and he has the style advantage in that he can do his best work in that fight than McGovern can. McGovern is a monster puncher. Is he also a clever one? Is he a smarter, sharper puncher than anyone Armstrong met in his prime? If so he can win, but I think that Armstrong makes it look, yeah, easy, outside of the inevitable wobbly moments.
I have always taken it prety much as a given theat McGovern was a clever puncher. If you look at his rapid destruction of defensivley capable fighters, in low weight classes where that sort of thing dosnt happen so often, I dont think that mere power and agresion can explain it.
I agree with McGrain's take. Armstrong would more than likely smother away McGovern's explosion and beat him on the inside. Same reason I take Armstrong to beat Pacquiao, really.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeQGaNDNi78[/ame] He has a creeping pressure and a sudden attack. Married to power and speed, that's all the clever a durable fighter needs. I don't say he wasn't clever, but it looks to have been, from the short clips available, a certain kind of cleverness. It is interesting to me that, inside, McGovern gets out hit by Gans for spells up close. He seems to trade on bulling, strength and wrestling/mauling inside. That's fine. But guess what? Armstrong makes those moments count with brutal violence. Watch 3:40 above, at mid-range, Gans is out-landing McGovern (who I accept entirely may be playing a waiting game). That pattern continues throughout the first round at both closer ranges. McGovern is not, to me, a Ketchel, with a hideously violent punching in-fighting game, but rather an exhausting attrition warrior who has lightning in either hand on the outside. This being the case he is very very hard to box, but if you know how to fight at a given range - and Armstrong was likely the best who ever fought at that range - you have a very good chance. Armstrong should be favoured here for these reasons.
I don't think that Mike Tyson was a clever puncher. But he was technically superb, powerful and very fast. How many defensive specialists are beating him out? All time, perhaps none, but in a given era, it would be astonishing if there were two who could do it. McGovern was another Tyson.
I disagree with some parts of your assesment. Your interpretation of the film is sound, though god knows we would rather have any McGovern fight other than this to interpret him by! You question McGoverns cleverness, and his power, and suggest that he won on attrition. This to my mind does not allow much room for the results he achieved in the ring. They would surely have to be explained by either Ketchell level power and raw agression, or Dempsey style power and methodology. I do not see Pedlar Palmer stretched out at the feet of a fighter who was neither exceptionaly powerfull nor methodical in the first round.
Yes, it's a glimmer and we have to accept that, but I guess we should be glad to have it. No, I don't. I think he was enormously powerful, a huge hitter. I shouldn't have said "lightning in either hand", I should have added thunder. He could unquestionably hit, and my comparison with Tyson in this regard stands. If he landed big, you went. But it's very very hard to land on your opponent if he's fighting persistantly at a range you don't like, where he is fundamentally better than you in almost all aspects...aside from maybe strength. I suspect McGovern was monumentaly strong, pound for pound type strength. Perhaps nobody could bull Armstrong at this weight, but if it was possible, this is the guy.
So in your opinion McGovern is the prototype for Tyson, even down to the mode of his demise. He was shorter than his opponents, and unbeatable pressuring them at mid range, but then some bright spark had the idea of actualy fighting inside his range! If you are right then Armstrong is certainly the man to do it.
I'm a little short on what represents technical excellence in McGovern's era; i try, like you have indicated, to allow results to depict acknoledgement of technical ability to a degree. But yeah, in terms of his essence, I feel that Terry and Tyson can be lined up pretty neatly. I think that Armstrong might be the definitive genius in terms of executing his particular style. His particular style. If I am right, then nobody who allows him to fight in his style can beat him - that couldn't happen unless someone captured lightning in a bottle. In a trilogy, Armstrong could never do worse than 2/3 against such a man, almost regardless of his quality.
If anyone can take out Armstrong it is McGovern. A murderous puncher who very well could catch Armstrong coming inside. But as McGrain says Armstrong is clever and effective in the way he smothers his opponent on the inside. Generally, Id think trying to smother a puncher would be like trying to smother a nuclear bomb with a fire blanket, but the fact Armstrong is clever defensively and has such great physicality it does not sound so stupid. Armstrong should be favoured but a McGovern KO cannot be ruled out IMO. I think it could be the type of fight which would be one sided in favour of Armstrong but we would be really waiting and watching for McGovern to explode.
From what of seen of both fighters on film and in their records, McGovern wasn't on Armstrong's level. Not only was McGovern a rather crude-ish looking fighter by comparison, but he only had a relatively brief run at the top, and seems to have been done once a fighter turned the tables on him and gave him a taste of his own medicine. I can't picture a guy like that beating a heyday Hammerin Hank. I expect McGovern to get the Lew Jenkins treatment. Once his big power fails to get him quick results, he gets chewed up on the inside and spat out.
