Originally posted by Toney Loc
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Did Hank Armstrong ever go up against a great boxer?
Collapse
-
Originally posted by Barnburner View PostYou can't win the only belt in the division cherry picking opponents.
Promoters like to make sure their guys keep winning so they match em' proper to make sure they will most likely win.
Look at Floyd, lol. He becomes WW champ by picking Baldomir. As if that was the best WW at the time. Half of this stuff is politics, the other half is just greed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Toney Loc View PostPacquiao has done it. The sport is being run the same way as it always has.
Promoters like to make sure their guys keep winning so they match em' proper to make sure they will most likely win.
Look at Floyd, lol. He becomes WW champ by picking Baldomir. As if that was the best WW at the time. Half of this stuff is politics, the other half is just greed.
Or I hope you have?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Toney Loc View PostYou can win titles in multiple divisions and still fight cherrypicked opponents that play into your style.
If there were great boxers back then, his managers weren't interested in putting him in with them. From the film, I could see why.
Its not as mind boggling as you think to have so many wins either. Chavez Sr. has about the same amount but you'd be hard pressed to find anything but bums. Its called padding your record.
Watching Ross I didn't get the impression he was a great boxer. Having technical ability doesn't equal great boxer.
And you base that off what? You tell me the boxers he should have fought instead of the people he faced.
I didn't say a single thing about how many wins he had.
Barney Ross is absolutely a great boxer. That much is undeniable.
He's not slick but you can't have to be slick to be a great boxer.
Comment
-
Originally posted by IronDanHamza View PostBut can you win the only title? In 3 divisions? At the same time? No, you can't. You had to fight the best to do that.
And you base that off what? You tell me the boxers he should have fought instead of the people he faced.
I didn't say a single thing about how many wins he had.
Barney Ross is absolutely a great boxer. That much is undeniable.
He's not slick but you can't have to be slick to be a great boxer.Last edited by BigStereotype; 04-05-2012, 06:24 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by IronDanHamza View PostBut can you win the only title? In 3 divisions? At the same time? No, you can't. You had to fight the best to do that.
And you base that off what? You tell me the boxers he should have fought instead of the people he faced.
I didn't say a single thing about how many wins he had.
Barney Ross is absolutely a great boxer. That much is undeniable.
He's not slick but you can't have to be slick to be a great boxer.
I know you can be a good stationary boxer, like Mosley for example, but that would play into Armstrongs strengths.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Toney Loc View PostBut that was what I've been asking. Has he fought a great slick boxer that counters and moves.
I know you can be a good stationary boxer, like Mosley for example, but that would play into Armstrongs strengths.
Which boxers should he have fought?
Comment
-
Originally posted by IronDanHamza View PostBarney Ross did counter and move but he struggled to apply that with Armstrong who was very good at getting inside and keeping it there.
Which boxers should he have fought?
Comment
-
Look, it's all well and good to see how Armstrong can be out boxed due to his technical deficiencies. Why did great boxers (and yes, they were great, perhaps you should watch them against other opponents) struggle to do it? Because it's one thing to pick a guy off in an instant. It's another to pick him off the entire round. It's a whole 'nother story doing it for a complete fight. Henry Armstrong was perpetual motion. He never stopped punching. Ever. His opponents basically had no choice but to run out of gas. And when you compare him to other fighters that always keep punching (not guys that hold and take breaks either mind you), you will notice his technical skills surpass them.
Conditioning and a chin is damn near everything in boxing. If you've got the best of each you don't need much technical skill to be the best in the world. That's just a fact. End of convo.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Obama View PostLook, it's all well and good to see how Armstrong can be out boxed due to his technical deficiencies. Why did great boxers (and yes, they were great, perhaps you should watch them against other opponents) struggle to do it? Because it's one thing to pick a guy off in an instant. It's another to pick him off the entire round. It's a whole 'nother story doing it for a complete fight. Henry Armstrong was perpetual motion. He never stopped punching. Ever. His opponents basically had no choice but to run out of gas. And when you compare him to other fighters that always keep punching (not guys that hold and take breaks either mind you), you will notice his technical skills surpass them.
Conditioning and a chin is damn near everything in boxing. If you've got the best of each you don't need much technical skill to be the best in the world. That's just a fact. End of convo.
Still not seeing any facts. Just a lot of butthurt and excuses. Where are Armstrongs slick boxing opponents?
I stand by my prediction. Floyd absolutely destroys this clown.
Comment
Comment