Henry Armstrong's and Joe Fraziers style

[K-DOGG]

Would it be successful today? Refs seem to break up fighters immediately to get air time or something...This type of style could give certain fighters serious problems as it completely nullifies a lot of things

ABSOLUTELY it would be successful today,/provided you could find a fighter with the stones and the stamina to make it effective.

A fighter like Frazier and Armstrong are the truth syrum of the sport......they find out how bad you really want to be great.

Wlad would fold to such a style from a determined and skilled opponent, Mayweather would be/forced to reveal the full/repotoir of his skill set/and be pushed to his limit against such a style.

YES, YES, and YES!

[Humean]

theres not too many boxers now that could deal with that awkward pressure. it would nulliify their style completely. I man even Ray Robinson, 6ft tall give or take with his guns couldn't put him away. Look how small thurman became when Guerrero smothered him inside.

You're dreaming. Some refs would be shouting break every 5 seconds. If he was allowed to fight his fight he would absolutely have the same success, he would be just as dominant. Do you know how many guys can't fight inside today? Armstrong would have the time of his life bulling them around the ring and wailing away in close.

There would only be breaking if there was a clinch, part of Armstrong's brilliance was making it hard to clinch him. Fighters would clinch him more now but on the whole he'd still be able to fight in his style. He wouldn't be as dominant for the following reasons: the top guys today at his weight are physically stronger and more powerful (even taking into account weight because he was probably in the low 130s when he fought at featherweight and at most the mid 140s when he was a lightweight and welterweight during his 'prime' years). I also think the top guys are more skilled, for example I think the current Super-Featherweight king Takashi Uchiyama is a better fighter than say Barney Ross or Lou Ambers and they were two of the very best fighters that Armstrong defeated.

From what I have seen on film and read Armstrong was pretty much was on top of his opponent within seconds of the opening bell and was never off them until he stopped them or the bell rang. Why was that? There have been countless brilliant in-fighters and pressure fighters in recent decades and even the very best of them had difficulties here and there staying on top of their opponents. Part of the answer is that Armstrong was damn good but also that his opponents weren't as good, not as good as equivalent fighters from the more recent past.

Here is some evidence to back up what i'm saying, look at the knockout percentages of Armstrong's opponents as a percentage of their wins. I estimate that he fought 35 'world level' opponents. Today if your KO's as a percentage of wins is under 50% then you can be ruled out as being powerful, and that is being very conservative. Only 8 of Armstrong's 35 opponents had a KO percentage over 50%, only 5 over 60% and the highest was Lew Jenkins at 70%. In short Armstrongs opponents didn't have the strength and firepower (and physical strength is a component of power) and skill to keep Armstrong off them. It is very unlikely he'd be dominant today, still very good but not the monster he was in his era.

[them_apples]

There would only be breaking if there was a clinch, part of Armstrong's brilliance was making it hard to clinch him. Fighters would clinch him more now but on the whole he'd still be able to fight in his style. He wouldn't be as dominant for the following reasons: the top guys today at his weight are physically stronger and more powerful (even taking into account weight because he was probably in the low 130s when he fought at featherweight and at most the mid 140s when he was a lightweight and welterweight during his 'prime' years). I also think the top guys are more skilled, for example I think the current Super-Featherweight king Takashi Uchiyama is a better fighter than say Barney Ross or Lou Ambers and they were two of the very best fighters that Armstrong defeated.

From what I have seen on film and read Armstrong was pretty much was on top of his opponent within seconds of the opening bell and was never off them until he stopped them or the bell rang. Why was that? There have been countless brilliant in-fighters and pressure fighters in recent decades and even the very best of them had difficulties here and there staying on top of their opponents. Part of the answer is that Armstrong was damn good but also that his opponents weren't as good, not as good as equivalent fighters from the more recent past.

Here is some evidence to back up what i'm saying, look at the knockout percentages of Armstrong's opponents as a percentage of their wins. I estimate that he fought 35 'world level' opponents. Today if your KO's as a percentage of wins is under 50% then you can be ruled out as being powerful, and that is being very conservative. Only 8 of Armstrong's 35 opponents had a KO percentage over 50%, only 5 over 60% and the highest was Lew Jenkins at 70%. In short Armstrongs opponents didn't have the strength and firepower (and physical strength is a component of power) and skill to keep Armstrong off them. It is very unlikely he'd be dominant today, still very good but not the monster he was in his era.

Good points except the first, you are completely wrong about the weight. The best fighters today come in on weight and in shape. Mayweather, Pacquiao, Hopkins (in his prime), Rigondeaux...etc.

Some fighters do dehydrate and are legitimately bigger men such as a guy like Margarito. But these guys have always existed such as Jake Lammotta and Duran. Cutting weight weakens you, it doesn't make you stronger.

Was Armstrong a small WW? yes, because he wasn't a natural WW. But keep in mind fighters also aren't half as cut because they don't train as hard as they used to. They have ****ty stamina, even some of the better fighters today like Cotto and recently De la hoya. The rehydration issue is massively overrated.

It's only until you have to make weight do you realize that cutting weight and re hydrating massive weight is not a benefit at all.

[Humean]

Good points except the first, you are completely wrong about the weight. The best fighters today come in on weight and in shape. Mayweather, Pacquiao, Hopkins (in his prime), Rigondeaux...etc.

Some fighters do dehydrate and are legitimately bigger men such as a guy like Margarito. But these guys have always existed such as Jake Lammotta and Duran. Cutting weight weakens you, it doesn't make you stronger.

Was Armstrong a small WW? yes, because he wasn't a natural WW. But keep in mind fighters also aren't half as cut because they don't train as hard as they used to. They have ****ty stamina, even some of the better fighters today like Cotto and recently De la hoya. The rehydration issue is massively overrated.

It's only until you have to make weight do you realize that cutting weight and re hydrating massive weight is not a benefit at all.

Pacquiao cut a lot of weight in his earlier days, including some of his greatest fights. Golovkin and Kovalev cut weight and they are two of the best right now.

Cutting weight only weakens you if you do it wrong, usually by attempting to cut too much weight. I dont really disagree that probably most fighters would actually be better served moving up a weight class rather than going through losing so much water in the days leading up to the weigh-in but as I said if you do it right then it shouldn't be a problem.

I certainly don't think fighters don't train as hard now as they did then, the difference between now and the 30s is that fighters now train better and more efficiently when they are in training. However it is also easier for the lazy ones to pile on weight in between than it was in the 30s because unlike now they were fighting every month or two back then, and also because it is simply easier to put on weight now.

[joeandthebums]

even Ray Robinson, 6ft tall give or take with his guns couldn't put him away.

The Robinson-Armstrong fight was a fiasco, Robinson refused to hurt Armstrong and anybody who witnessed it was in any doubt to what happened.

-

I think Armstrong would be a pay-per-view fighter today if he stuck at Featherweight and is the norm, re-hydrated up to Lightweight on fight night.

[Humean]

The Robinson-Armstrong fight was a fiasco, Robinson refused to hurt Armstrong and anybody who witnessed it was in any doubt to what happened.

Yeah the newspaper reports I have read said that the crowd were booing Robinson for not finishing Armstrong off. Shows you how some things don't change, two of the greatest fighters of all time fighting and the crowd are booing.