Roberto Duran vs. Henry Armstrong

[ShoulderRoll]

AgIn the pbc crew and there crazy notions.......nice to know that you didn’t mention it was lomas 2nd professional fight lol.
Salido would not win one round if that fight took place now you know and I know it.
Me coming from a background of following the greats of the sport in Louis , Ali , Leonard and so on and I can say loma is easily one of the most skilled boxers I have ever seen....it’s only your prejudice and pride that stops you admitting it also

You don't really follow the greats if you're ready to say that Lomachenko could beat Henry Armstrong after only 15 pro fights.

[DeeMoney]

You don't really follow the greats if you're ready to say that Lomachenko could beat Henry Armstrong after only 15 pro fights.

Here is the thing, Lomachenko isnt gonna really get much better, so if he is/was/will ever be capable of beating Armstrong then we should be able to see it now, and make an evaluation of it right now.

Whether or not he has fought just 15 pro fights is irrelevant, we are evaluating him as he is now.

This isn't writing that he would beat him or not, its more an indictment of how boxing fans view fighters; in that we wait until they have passed their prime (or often time retired) before we are willing to evaluate that prime. Its as if, for some reason, we are incapable of looking at someone as they are now assessing them with our eyes, but have to wait for their resume to be complete.

[billeau2]

You still haven't actually told me what Zivic can do better than Duran.

If that's got you stumped, then what could Freddie Miller do that Duran couldn't?

If Armstrong ducked Miller, why should we even believe he'd enter the ring against Duran?

I don't place the value you do on this comparison. There are many reasons why looking at a comparison as such is problematic. styles can make fights, is one such problem, and when men faced each other a lot in the ring some things changed...Maybe Zivic figured things out after a certain amount of outings, I don't claim to know.

You don't accept the proposition that 135 as a weight class has meaning, as I do not accept the proposition that one can look at any one fighter that beat armstrong and say, "if this guy beat him, then this other guy most certainly would."

Its not that I am evading your question, its kind of like you not mentioning the proposition put fourth that Duran would beat Armstrong IMO, just not at 135. I mean I know you understand the point about the weight at this junction... But its not relevant to you because you do not make that distinction in your understanding... Well... I do not distinguish the ability of Armstrong based on fighting against any one opponent.

Even if i did and brought up, Ray Robinson, you would qualify the performance of Armstrong. And by the way, thats not necessarily a critiscism with no caveats... I read a great little piece today about someone who compiled, frame by frame the punch stats from when Mayweather fought Pac and De La Hoya, with a group of other boxing pundits, and in both fights Mayweather threw and connected with less punches than his opponent, according to these men. furthermore they found out the punch stat numbers compilers were just kids of HBO employees...So does that simply pick at mayweather? NO... (i always thought he lost the Pac fight (ssshhhh!).

YOur analysis has its place no doubt.

[ShoulderRoll]

Here is the thing, Lomachenko isnt gonna really get much better, so if he is/was/will ever be capable of beating Armstrong then we should be able to see it now, and make an evaluation of it right now.

Whether or not he has fought just 15 pro fights is irrelevant, we are evaluating him as he is now.

This isn't writing that he would beat him or not, its more an indictment of how boxing fans view fighters; in that we wait until they have passed their prime (or often time retired) before we are willing to evaluate that prime. Its as if, for some reason, we are incapable of looking at someone as they are now assessing them with our eyes, but have to wait for their resume to be complete.

If you think you've seen enough to say he would beat Henry Armstrong then you're entitled to your opinion, of course.

But Henry Armstrong amassed 152 wins with 101 knockouts. To me it's disrespectful to that legacy to be in such a rush to elevate Lomachenko over him.

[The plunger man]

You don't really follow the greats if you're ready to say that Lomachenko could beat Henry Armstrong after only 15 pro fights.

I think we both know I follow the greats shoulder and good try in turning this back on me , I think lomachenko can give any great in past history a run for there money because I see a very skilled and highly intelligent fighter who can adapt as he fights....most of lomachenko s early years was taken up by being an amateur and I hazard a guess homacide hank probably turned pro in his late teens...so I don’t see him making a huge pro record like hank
So I don’t think I’m being disrespectful in saying sugar ray leonard in my eyes was every bit as good as Ray Robinson even though he only boxed 40 odd pro fights
We have seen lomachenko take apart great fighters who before were never troubled , rigondeaux , Russell.
As I said it’s pride and prejudice that stops you actually giving loma his dues and I know that.
Me I am blown away by how skilled this kid is and I don’t mind saying it.....Louis , Ali , leonard , Duran , chavez , Lewis, arguello, Jones , Pacquiao , Mayweather.....for me they are great and they all have different promoters , different trainers , different styles and different colour skin.
Maybe you need to have a New Years resolution and stop pigeon holing fighters just because they don’t come under the banner of Al haymon, showtime , pbc ....or Mayweather and hate to say this colour.
Come on shoulder you can do it time to step up son

[Anthony342]

I don't place the value you do on this comparison. There are many reasons why looking at a comparison as such is problematic. styles can make fights, is one such problem, and when men faced each other a lot in the ring some things changed...Maybe Zivic figured things out after a certain amount of outings, I don't claim to know.

You don't accept the proposition that 135 as a weight class has meaning, as I do not accept the proposition that one can look at any one fighter that beat armstrong and say, "if this guy beat him, then this other guy most certainly would."

Its not that I am evading your question, its kind of like you not mentioning the proposition put fourth that Duran would beat Armstrong IMO, just not at 135. I mean I know you understand the point about the weight at this junction... But its not relevant to you because you do not make that distinction in your understanding... Well... I do not distinguish the ability of Armstrong based on fighting against any one opponent.

Even if i did and brought up, Ray Robinson, you would qualify the performance of Armstrong. And by the way, thats not necessarily a critiscism with no caveats... I read a great little piece today about someone who compiled, frame by frame the punch stats from when Mayweather fought Pac and De La Hoya, with a group of other boxing pundits, and in both fights Mayweather threw and connected with less punches than his opponent, according to these men. furthermore they found out the punch stat numbers compilers were just kids of HBO employees...So does that simply pick at mayweather? NO... (i always thought he lost the Pac fight (ssshhhh!).

YOur analysis has its place no doubt.

Is that less total punches for the entire fight or round by round? Because per round is all that should matter. Whoever landed more that round should win each round and whoever wins the most rounds should win the fight. That's why I never understand why they show you total punches landed, makes no sense unless it's overwhelming. I remember HBO would show you punchstats after each round, but then wouldn't do that for each round after the fight. They should give us a breakdown like that. Showtime should do if it doesn't.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I don't place the value you do on this comparison. There are many reasons why looking at a comparison as such is problematic. styles can make fights, is one such problem, and when men faced each other a lot in the ring some things changed...Maybe Zivic figured things out after a certain amount of outings, I don't claim to know.

You don't accept the proposition that 135 as a weight class has meaning, as I do not accept the proposition that one can look at any one fighter that beat armstrong and say, "if this guy beat him, then this other guy most certainly would."

Its not that I am evading your question, its kind of like you not mentioning the proposition put fourth that Duran would beat Armstrong IMO, just not at 135. I mean I know you understand the point about the weight at this junction... But its not relevant to you because you do not make that distinction in your understanding... Well... I do not distinguish the ability of Armstrong based on fighting against any one opponent.

Even if i did and brought up, Ray Robinson, you would qualify the performance of Armstrong. And by the way, thats not necessarily a critiscism with no caveats... I read a great little piece today about someone who compiled, frame by frame the punch stats from when Mayweather fought Pac and De La Hoya, with a group of other boxing pundits, and in both fights Mayweather threw and connected with less punches than his opponent, according to these men. furthermore they found out the punch stat numbers compilers were just kids of HBO employees...So does that simply pick at mayweather? NO... (i always thought he lost the Pac fight (ssshhhh!).

YOur analysis has its place no doubt.

That's pretty insightful.

The point I am making, though, is that lesser fighters beat Armstrong.

Does that oversimplify things? Probably. Is it a good device for demystifying Armstrong? Yeah.

When was the last time you saw Duran-DejEsus II? I know you just made reference to their series. Do you really see ANY Lightweight handling Duran's offense that night? Sure, enough would make it to the final bell (Whitaker, Leonard, Lomachenko), but almost certainly envious of those who were put away a few rounds earlier.

That night Duran showed he could take heavy fire with disdain, always responding with more of his own. I just don't know how a guy with Armstrong's style survives that.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I think we both know I follow the greats shoulder and good try in turning this back on me , I think lomachenko can give any great in past history a run for there money because I see a very skilled and highly intelligent fighter who can adapt as he fights....most of lomachenko s early years was taken up by being an amateur and I hazard a guess homacide hank probably turned pro in his late teens...so I don’t see him making a huge pro record like hank
So I don’t think I’m being disrespectful in saying sugar ray leonard in my eyes was every bit as good as Ray Robinson even though he only boxed 40 odd pro fights
We have seen lomachenko take apart great fighters who before were never troubled , rigondeaux , Russell.
As I said it’s pride and prejudice that stops you actually giving loma his dues and I know that.
Me I am blown away by how skilled this kid is and I don’t mind saying it.....Louis , Ali , leonard , Duran , chavez , Lewis, arguello, Jones , Pacquiao , Mayweather.....for me they are great and they all have different promoters , different trainers , different styles and different colour skin.
Maybe you need to have a New Years resolution and stop pigeon holing fighters just because they don’t come under the banner of Al haymon, showtime , pbc ....or Mayweather and hate to say this colour.
Come on shoulder you can do it time to step up son

Don't worry about Safe Spaces. He says crazy sh.it all the time to get attention. Then gets butt-hurt when he's called out.
Typical of kids you remember stuffing in lockers.

But I do appreciate your post, and you taking him on. I love the old timers, but the infatuation with careers fluffed up with countless bums needs to end. Definitely more recent fighters can't be dismissed for having fewer fights.


Anyway, I think it shows that people haven't fought or competed in any sports if they think having a record with a ridiculous number of fights means anything.

I got my ass kicked by my brothers all the time. Sometimes I won, though. We all kept tally, but everyone's was different. But we fought a lot.

Guess how many of those fights over SEGA and fishing tackle actually showed up on our record when Wrestling season came around?

It's too bad I didn't have a guy like Safe Spaces around when I was in High School. I could have been declared State Champion in my weight class and my brothers' without even stepping on to the mat.



I look at those old gaudy records a lot like Rickson Gracie's 400-0 claim. Obviously Rickson never had that many fights, but even if he had 100 wins, who was it against? Clearly not anyone anywhere as good as anyone competing in today's MMA.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Is that less total punches for the entire fight or round by round? Because per round is all that should matter. Whoever landed more that round should win each round and whoever wins the most rounds should win the fight. That's why I never understand why they show you total punches landed, makes no sense unless it's overwhelming. I remember HBO would show you punchstats after each round, but then wouldn't do that for each round after the fight. They should give us a breakdown like that. Showtime should do if it doesn't.

The point is, the people doing the punch-count were unqualified, and Mayweather's notorious inaccuracy was patently exposed.

I like Mayweather a lot. But the dude is the poster-boy for everything wrong with modern Boxing - his point-karate/tae kwon do routine being on display here. Mayweather basically exemplifies how Boxing (at its worst) has become pillow-fighting for grown men.

[Rusty Tromboni]

If you think you've seen enough to say he would beat Henry Armstrong then you're entitled to your opinion, of course.

But Henry Armstrong amassed 152 wins with 101 knockouts. To me it's disrespectful to that legacy to be in such a rush to elevate Lomachenko over him.

Against guys who couldn't get a spot across the ring from Lomachenko today.

Seriously, who among those 100+ men would you consider on par with Russel Jr, or Campbell?

Can you provide the footage supporting it?

With 7 BILLION people in this world, I bet I could find 200 people Lomachenko could KO.