Yeah, that must be all there is to it.... Armstrong late TKO. Pep wasn't a backfoot boxer, he was an angle fighter who liked to use slips and counters within range, using side to side movement to avoid punishment. The best pressure fighters/swarmers/spoilers would be bad for him IMO, as his side to side style of movement wouldn't allow him to avoid their reach and relentless punch output for long. Noone better than Armstrong to do it, IMO, aside from the guys that already did it, such as Saddler and Angott. But then that's just my opinion.
Kid Gavilan vs Billy Graham: The champion Kid Gavilan, the challenger Billy Graham. This was a very controversial fight (their 3rd of 4 or 5). This fight occured in the early 1950's, when the mob had more power than the commisions, and ultimately controled the out comes of fights. Although a few champions managed to stay out of it, and managed to win fights on their own, such champions were Rocky Marciano, Carmine Basilio, and Sugar Ray Robinson. Kid Gavilan was not one of them. He was heavily tied into the mob, much like Sonny Liston and Jake LaMotta (unwillingly though). Billy Graham was the victim of an atrocious decision against Gavilan. The judges were paid off by the mob to score for Gavilan no matter what, but to make the scoring look real as possible so people wouldn't suspect much. Well, Graham beat Gavilan pretty badly. Gavilan was battered and beaten at the end, but still got the verdict. Graham would pick off Gavilan's jabs, and nail him with right hand counters. Later on 1 of the judges admitted that he normally would have scored it about 10-5 or 11-4 for Graham, but he had to or the mob would have killed him. -from a website about boxing forums... i also watch a program on espn with al bernstein and he said that he was in the press row of that fight and could not believe that gavilan got the decision
Good for them. I've watched and scored the fight twice, and had it for Gavilan very clearly both times. All rounds were very close, but Gavilan more or less just outworked him the entire time IMO. I've taken ganders at the fight since then during similar arguments to this one, and have seen people's difference in perspective on the fight, but it really just comes down to how you judge or what you watch. Graham was likely landing the cleaner blows, but Gavilan was definitely landing, pressing the fight, and outworking Graham throughout. I believe I had him winning the first 8 rounds of the fight (all close, competitive rounds), which pretty much screwed Graham's chances at winning on my cards, even though he did the better work in the latter half. I'll have to re-watch it again sometime, just to see if my score differs when watching from Graham's point of view, as it likely will. Still, I think it's ridiculous to say this fight was a robbery, regardless of who you think won.
No way did Gavilan lose. I can't remember my score, but I've posted it before..... Pea, good points as usual. Just a thought, and to be honest Mijares is one of the most 'hittable' 'defensive' fighters I've ever seen.....dunno why I favour him over Tapia, sometimes you just get hunches like that I guess.
You make it sound so easy and cut and dried. I've always felt Armstrong had the perfect assets to potentially smother Pep out of the fight.
Are you being serious, joking, or misquoting yourself on this? Let's say Berstein was born in 1950. That would make him 59 now. Let's say he's 70 now, which he's definitely not that old. He would have been about 11 in 1951. He was on press row for this fight? I highly doubt it.
as for pep armstrong i think it would be a close fight and i do like both men but i do see peps skills winning him it as i think his movement could offset Armstrongs pressure in the early rounds and build him enough of a point lead to win a very close UD but a draw is likely.
Holy had a granite chin, a big heart and the ability to fight different styles against different fighters. I think he does well against any heavyweight in any era H2H.