HBO announcers compare Fanny Pac to Armstrong all the time.
Not directly. Once again, you're blowing **** out of proportion, just like you did with that Calzaghe thing. What was it? Oh yeah... "Calzaghe fought the LOSER of an eliminator!! Bahahahaha LOL PWN!!!1!!!", yet you never considered that the winner of that eliminator pulled out from a fight with Calzaghe, therefore the loser (Charles Brewer) got the fight instead.
You seem to specialize in taking small pieces of semi-meaningless information, then making a big deal out of them. Kinda like a gossiping old lady.
Not directly. Once again, you're blowing **** out of proportion, just like you did with that Calzaghe thing. What was it? Oh yeah... "Calzaghe fought the LOSER of an eliminator!! Bahahahaha LOL PWN!!!1!!!", yet you never considered that the winner of that eliminator pulled out from a fight with Calzaghe, therefore the loser (Charles Brewer) got the fight instead.
You seem to specialize in taking small pieces of semi-meaningless information, then making a big deal out of them. Kinda like a gossiping old lady.
Larry Merchant did compare Fanny Pac to Armstrong...why even deny it??
Damn..it's there on videotape.
It's always somebody else's fault when it comes to your precious Calzhage.
He more than likely low-balled the **** outta' Echols so he could fight Brewer.
Armstrong going up two divisions to beat Barney Ross for the welterweight title is possibly the single greatest accomplishment in boxing history.
Originally posted by K-Nan
I personally think it is.. Considering the ATG that he beat, alone. To put ON TOP of it the fact that it was an unheard of leap in weight... I can't think of a a bigger single accomplishment in the sport's history.
With all due respect Im curious why you guys think this? This was Barney's last fight and according to him his legs were totally shot after the 3rd round. Im not saying it isn't, though I rank Foreman winning back the title highest myself, Im just wondering why. Peace.
Larry Merchant did compare Fanny Pac to Armstrong...why even deny it??
Damn..it's there on videotape.
It's always somebody else's fault when it comes to your precious Calzhage.
He more than likely low-balled the **** outta' Echols so he could fight Brewer.
He's saying "today's Henry Armstrong" not the "next Henry Armstrong" theres a big difference. There will never be another boxer that can achieve what Hank did
While we're on the topic of Armstrong, let's discuss his comparisons to Manny Pacquiao.
Armstrong fought in a time when there was 8 divisions, and he moved from 126 to 147 when he went from his lightweight championship to his welterweight one. He then went another 12 pounds down to conquer the 135 pound division. Now this is not a knock on Manny, it's more of a praise to Armstrong's greatness- but we all know DAMN well that what Henry did is considerably more difficult and extraordinary than Manny Pacquiao who went up in weight through a more natural process, and in a time when there is 15 weight divisions instead of 8.
Thanks for the info. Do you know what is the major motivation he had in jumping those division? As a pac fan, I think that a good reason pac did it ... is because of the money that can be made in higher weights ( considering he fought DLH and HATTON )
He's saying "today's Henry Armstrong" not the "next Henry Armstrong" theres a big difference. There will never be another boxer that can achieve what Hank did
Exactly. But you're wasting your time trying to get through to the miserable old lady Deja_Vous.
to be even compared to what armstrong did in the day is a compliment in itself. no one's saying pacquiao did exactly what armstrong did, but it is the closest thing that anyone got. pretty big compliment there. not to mention that it is a different era.
another thing, a lot of people who compare old time fighters to current fighters always ***** about how much more active the fighters were back in the day. if armstrong was alive today do you think he'll fight 100+ like he did? or if pacquiao was lived in armstrong's era he'd only have been fighting 2-3 times a year? seriously, there were great fighters in the past, but they are sometimes put in a pedestal so high it takes credit away from modern fighters, which is wrong cause it was a different era, with different rules, different conditions.
pac haters are really quite desperate nowadays. they take the smallest things and go with it. pacquiao would be remembered as a great fighter, even if he loses all his next fights.
to be even compared to what armstrong did in the day is a compliment in itself. no one's saying pacquiao did exactly what armstrong did, but it is the closest thing that anyone got. pretty big compliment there. not to mention that it is a different era.
another thing, a lot of people who compare old time fighters to current fighters always ***** about how much more active the fighters were back in the day. if armstrong was alive today do you think he'll fight 100+ like he did? or if pacquiao was lived in armstrong's era he'd only have been fighting 2-3 times a year? seriously, there were great fighters in the past, but they are sometimes put in a pedestal so high it takes credit away from modern fighters, which is wrong cause it was a different era, with different rules, different conditions.
pac haters are really quite desperate nowadays. they take the smallest things and go with it. pacquiao would be remembered as a great fighter, even if he loses all his next fights.
Comment