The "Greatest of All-Time" Discussion

[The Old LefHook]

In Duran’s autobiography he claims he injured his right hand in the 5th round. Said he basically fought the rest of the fight one handed because he couldn’t throw the right with any power.

The fight is not worth watching again to look for that IMO.

[QueensburyRules]

The fight is not worth watching again to look for that IMO.

- -But it was worth you questioning the information, so mission accomplished.

However, true fight aficionados never tire of Duran classics no matter the broken knuckles or broken knucklenoggins.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Duran did not fight better comp than Armstrong.

Many things affect sports, so? Again searching for absolutes.

lol. when did a fw armstrong blowout someone as good as Marcel?

when did armstrong fight a Lw like buchanan?

we have seen ambers and zivic, though. neither was as god as duran


i'd say ortiz fought and won against better competition than armstrong.

[billeau2]

lol. when did a fw armstrong blowout someone as good as Marcel?

when did armstrong fight a Lw like buchanan?

we have seen ambers and zivic, though. neither was as god as duran


i'd say ortiz fought and won against better competition than armstrong.

Armstrong fought more world champions in more divisions than perhaps any other fighter. And this was when there were only eight divisions. Yes we have to deal with what I call the "Greb Effect", namely we have to evaluate guys who we don't have a lot of information on in recent times. But the historians, guys like Flecher, and others, all have Armstrong's comp as among the best.

Put another way: When we look at Robinson and lets just say Roy Jones...one argument for their supposed ranking is their technical skills...I use Roy here because we have to suppose that Jones was a technical marvel to consider him a great fighter and I use Robinson because no fighter could do more things than Robinson in the ring.

HOWEVER with Armstrong, he was like the Hobbescian man: Brutish, nasty and short lol... So why is Armstrong consistently ranked in the top 5? It was not his technical abilities...though like most great fighters when you study his methods there was a lot more than meets the eye initially. It wasn't that he was a heavyweight....A division that seems to get special treatment... No it was because there are three guys who stand out for their record, the sheer amount of great fighters they beat during prime years: and these men are:

Greb
Armstrong
Robinson

[Curtis Harper]

For me, the GOAT should be the guys who travel through multiple div's and succeed. Simply fighting a guy isn't big enough of a compliment. It's all about winning.

Multiple divs
Successful/enviable resume
Longevity

(A person can't be blamed for a weak div/era)

[Rusty Tromboni]

Armstrong fought more world champions in more divisions than perhaps any other fighter. And this was when there were only eight divisions. Yes we have to deal with what I call the "Greb Effect", namely we have to evaluate guys who we don't have a lot of information on in recent times. But the historians, guys like Flecher, and others, all have Armstrong's comp as among the best.

Put another way: When we look at Robinson and lets just say Roy Jones...one argument for their supposed ranking is their technical skills...I use Roy here because we have to suppose that Jones was a technical marvel to consider him a great fighter and I use Robinson because no fighter could do more things than Robinson in the ring.

HOWEVER with Armstrong, he was like the Hobbescian man: Brutish, nasty and short lol... So why is Armstrong consistently ranked in the top 5? It was not his technical abilities...though like most great fighters when you study his methods there was a lot more than meets the eye initially. It wasn't that he was a heavyweight....A division that seems to get special treatment... No it was because there are three guys who stand out for their record, the sheer amount of great fighters they beat during prime years: and these men are:

Greb
Armstrong
Robinson

Dude, he's ranked on top because of two silly things.
1) The phony 3 Division Championship(4th Division Title)
2) He's darling of the nascent Internet Boxing fora

Take a closer look at his record. All that glitters is not gold. And to consider who he didn't fight. And who beat him/gave him fits. We can have a separate discussion on the topic. He's still top 10. But having lots of belts is like fykkyng fat chicks at the bar.

Do you really know that Armstrong was better than MacFarland? If you had to bet your house on it, would the 3 belts be sufficient justification?

[Rusty Tromboni]

For me, the GOAT should be the guys who travel through multiple div's and succeed. Simply fighting a guy isn't big enough of a compliment. It's all about winning.

Multiple divs
Successful/enviable resume
Longevity

(A person can't be blamed for a weak div/era)

you're a good sport. I really try your patience, and you are always a gentleman about it. I admire how you handle yourself here.

But here's why I disagree: while that all matters, every generation has a different canvas. obviously there's no forumla for figuring this thing out, and your criteria must be considered. It's incomplete, though, because it's easier to jump divisions today than it was in the past. There's less talent and better management. And not every career follows the same trajectory.

Conn, Leonard and Sanchez come to mind. Would you pick any Middleweight or Light Heavyweight to pick the man who fought Joe Louis? Did Chavez ever look as god as Sanchez? Did Archie Moore ever look as good as Ray Leonard?

[billeau2]

Dude, he's ranked on top because of two silly things.
1) The phony 3 Division Championship(4th Division Title)
2) He's darling of the nascent Internet Boxing fora

Take a closer look at his record. All that glitters is not gold. And to consider who he didn't fight. And who beat him/gave him fits. We can have a separate discussion on the topic. He's still top 10. But having lots of belts is like fykkyng fat chicks at the bar.

Do you really know that Armstrong was better than MacFarland? If you had to bet your house on it, would the 3 belts be sufficient justification?

Really know? thats not something that applies here. Also though it is a trivial point, we are talking about who faced the best comp, not who won against the best necessarily. I never mentioned belts either I mentioned divisions and I mentioned championship fights.

Its beneath a rational human being to chastise Armstrong for who he didn't fight, that is ridiculous.

I will grant you that there is the Hip factor of mentioning Jeffries, Grebb, Armstrong, etc... But there are many fine boxing historians who also speak of these comparisons. Men who have/had seen the fighters we speak of. I count their views and rational considerably as I look at the fighters we speak of.

I think this topic is one that speaks to divergent opinions. I have never wanted to do a list for threads for this reason. Naturally there are different opinions about what and who should be considered.

Rather than look at each fighter Armstrong fought one can look at the quality overall, the way the fighter was percieved at the time, and other such factors.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Really know? thats not something that applies here. Also though it is a trivial point, we are talking about who faced the best comp, not who won against the best necessarily. I never mentioned belts either I mentioned divisions and I mentioned championship fights.

Its beneath a rational human being to chastise Armstrong for who he didn't fight, that is ridiculous.

I will grant you that there is the Hip factor of mentioning Jeffries, Grebb, Armstrong, etc... But there are many fine boxing historians who also speak of these comparisons. Men who have/had seen the fighters we speak of. I count their views and rational considerably as I look at the fighters we speak of.

I think this topic is one that speaks to divergent opinions. I have never wanted to do a list for threads for this reason. Naturally there are different opinions about what and who should be considered.

Rather than look at each fighter Armstrong fought one can look at the quality overall, the way the fighter was percieved at the time, and other such factors.

You're trying to talk yourself out of this one.

Simply put, Armstrong has an inflated record. I am more impressed by the footage of him than I am by his record. Seriously he DODGED Burley. That DOES matter. It matters tremendously. You're not the best if you are avoiding someone you perceive as better than you.


People complain about him getting shafted by the referees in the Ambers fights. But Armstrong was dirty. Again, unfair, and beside the point. The real story is that Ambers gave him everything he could handle. Ambers was a tremendous fighter; a top 10 Lw. I wouldn't put him over guys like Williams or Whitaker, though. Definitely not Ortiz or Duran.

People talk about him winning a 4th title: a minor one, actually. It was against a man he'd already decisively defeated at Ww. And someone who was never a Middleweight of note - neither when Armstrong fought him, nor any time else.

You speak of quality overall or who faced the best competition... this is exactly what we see. The losses to Arizmendi. The life-and-death wars w/ Ambers. The loss to Zivic. Welterweight championship fights at the Lightweight limit.

That's not divergent opinions. That's fact.


Duran vs. Palomino schytz on all of Armstrong's work.

[billeau2]

You're trying to talk yourself out of this one.

Simply put, Armstrong has an inflated record. I am more impressed by the footage of him than I am by his record. Seriously he DODGED Burley. That DOES matter. It matters tremendously. You're not the best if you are avoiding someone you perceive as better than you.


People complain about him getting shafted by the referees in the Ambers fights. But Armstrong was dirty. Again, unfair, and beside the point. The real story is that Ambers gave him everything he could handle. Ambers was a tremendous fighter; a top 10 Lw. I wouldn't put him over guys like Williams or Whitaker, though. Definitely not Ortiz or Duran.

People talk about him winning a 4th title: a minor one, actually. It was against a man he'd already decisively defeated at Ww. And someone who was never a Middleweight of note - neither when Armstrong fought him, nor any time else.

You speak of quality overall or who faced the best competition... this is exactly what we see. The losses to Arizmendi. The life-and-death wars w/ Ambers. The loss to Zivic. Welterweight championship fights at the Lightweight limit.

That's not divergent opinions. That's fact.


Duran vs. Palomino schytz on all of Armstrong's work.

He ducked no one... Every great fighter around the time of Burley except Moore who fought him is accused of "ducking Burley" including Ray Robinson who came after him. Lol. There is no evidence of an inflated record either. Thats your take not a fact by any means.

Let me guess....there is no way to analyze Duran's record and pick away at particulars right? Every guy Duran fought was a better champion than the guy Armstrong fought... right?
Listen you have too high an opinion of yourself. me? its not my opinion you see? It has to do with what historians who have watched both guys ply their trade have to say.

Armstrong fought at a time when boxing had exceptional talent around. fighters were strong, well trained, had great fundamentals that could he derived from classical punching systems, or preclassical footwork based fundamentals for setting traps, angles, etc. Out of this era Armstrong distinguished himself... that in itself is quite a task as there are many that believe the champions of this time would wreck havoc in other boxing epoches.

No I am sorry Rusty, your just short sighted on this one...I am not going to particularize Duran and his foibles, victories either. Duran was an exceptional talent as well...its close actually. And its not even a contest about who is better, it is about the level of competition fought per capita by each guy.

I can respect an opinion for Duran, but tearing down Armstrong I can't fathom that point of view.