My p4p list #10-1

IYO, in mine he was ineffective because Floyd countered and was IMO the ring general.

Effective aggression
Ring generalship
Defense
Hard and CLEAN punches.

We can’t go by punch stats alone. An example is a football team that leads in yardage 450-250...but they only score FG’s and lose 14-12.

But this is where the danger lies and we get subjective. Every decision I like gets that benefit every decision I don’t like gets derided...and the ones I don’t know about suffer in comparison because I don’t give them the same benefit.

Close fight. I have no problem with Anyone who thinks Castillo won...but it was a close fight not a robbery

 

I think highly of Ambers and it is a great name, but beating Ross 2 weight divisions up is legendary stuff!

Ross retired with a record of 72 wins, four losses, three draws and two no decisions (Newspaper Decisions: 2–0–0), with 22 wins by knockout. He was ranked #21 on Ring Magazine's list of the 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years.

Edit: on par with Duran beating SRL and SRL beating Hagler

 

Stupid or not it is listed as the 4 components for scoring a match. The issue is change the scoring format...but st the start of the fight this is the rule...we can’t just change the rules to suit our purposes

Edit: I am not a Floyd backer and had DLH 115-113...Floyd won by SD...not a robbery just a close fight

 

It's an amazing win, and Armstrong was one of the best ever, but I think maybe it gets slightly overstated.

Armstrong did hardly fight at Featherweight, Barney Ross had been a Lightweight himself and the Welterweight title was being passed around like a Christmas Turkey.

In fairness I doubt there's a top teir win you can't say this stuff about

 

I’ve never seen Armstrong’s opposition described as poor. His 1937-1940 is up there in the discussions of great runs in history. Jenkins, Montanez, Arizmendi, Wright, Casanova, Bass, Zurita whilst not having the fanfare of Ross or Ambers were all brilliant and mostly in the IBHOF.

 

Your hatred for Ross has reached ridiculous levels. Its comical at this point

 

You are always good for a laugh! Thanks I needed this

 

I have Armstrong as no. 2 all time at WW behind only SRR. I agree - between '37 and '40 Armstrong has a strong claim as the greatest there ever was.

 

Of course, there were so many paper champions back in those days. Not like today thank god.

 

Yes but you have Paul Pender high on the ATG list of middleweights ,so nobody is going to take you seriously!

 

Blah blah blah

 

My water went down the wrong way from laughter after I read this.

 

We've been over this one before. A great run no doubt, but people like to pretend these were his only prime years and anything before or after he wasn't prime... which I simply don't come close to buying. He had losses before and after, and was still winning solid fights after. He simply didn't have a 3 year prime, and has prime losses imo he shouldn't have.