im sorry but pacquiao would wipe the floor with henry armstrong...

[*2TOUGH*]

when did i big up ali?

ok well forgive me, im sorry, ill good karma you next time

[DonTaseMeBrah]

Is there some kind of a magical line in between the 1960's and the 1970's? Boxers just suddenly got better during that time period?

The 1970's were 30 years ago, shouldn't the boxers today be far better than they were then? Just compare 100m records from the 1970's to today.

Fighting 200 times with 10% of those fights being against top competition is better than fighting 30 times with 50% of those fights being against top competition.

isnt the golden age 50s,60s & below? harry grebs, benny leonards, jack dempseys.. give me a break.

[TheGreatA]

isnt the golden age 50s,60s & below? harry grebs, benny leonards, jack dempseys.. give me a break.

I wouldn't disagree if you said that the 1920's were somewhat primitive compared to the modern era of boxing, since the fighters at the time had only began to adapt to the modern ruleset of boxing which had previously been a form of boxing/wrestling with fights scheduled to go more than 40 rounds or until the finish.

Even then you can look at some boxers from the 1900's, a century ago, who look fairly modern on boxing terms:







This was 100 years ago.

There were no real golden eras of boxing in my opinion. In every decade in boxing's long history, its critics would say that the sport was dying much like they do now. Only later would revisionist historians claim that "back in the day" everything was great and nothing was bad about boxing.

Many of the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's boxers were among the best I've ever seen. It would be silly to count out such men as Ray Robinson, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Joe Louis, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, Archie Moore, only because they fought in black & white.

[dans]

youtube some armstrong fights, do yall seriously think he beats manpac? or are you saying he cleaned up divisions unlike manny.....thats a fair point, but no way in hell he would beat manny....all he does is the same thing moves forward and never jabs and bends down and pushes you rinse and repeat....it would be a tough fight but pac would drop him in the 8th....plus no one mentions armstrong lost 2 times at 126 to a guy named arizmandi he beat later one time.....

"Same move every time"

Sound familiar?

[Bushidō]

I think Pacquiao would beat muhammad Ali

[DonTaseMeBrah]

I wouldn't disagree if you said that the 1920's were somewhat primitive compared to the modern era of boxing, since the fighters at the time had only began to adapt to the modern ruleset of boxing which had previously been a form of boxing/wrestling with fights scheduled to go more than 40 rounds or until the finish.

Even then you can look at some boxers from the 1900's, a century ago, who look fairly modern on boxing terms:







This was 100 years ago.

There were no real golden eras of boxing in my opinion. In every decade in boxing's long history, its critics would say that the sport was dying much like they do now. Only later would revisionist historians claim that "back in the day" everything was great and nothing was bad about boxing.

Many of the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's boxers were among the best I've ever seen. It would be silly to count out such men as Ray Robinson, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Joe Louis, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, Archie Moore, only because they fought in black & white.

im not saying modern to present greats are head & above shoulders better than old school greats, but at least im fair & balanced in my assumption that they can compete if not beat some old school greats, as oppose to the old shcool experts saying "old school greats will always be better than modern & present greats/ they are invincible crap they alway hurl."

Just look at how henry armstrong fights, nobody does that anymore, rocky marciano, forget about modern conditioning advantage, just look at how they fight. He would get outboxed by today's boxers. hell paulie malignaggi would give him fits. Look at his style. Nobody fights like that anymore.

[JAB5239]

pleaseeeeeeeeee, Moorer has no chin .. Id like to see a fatt Foreman do that to Lennox Lewis. Or Tyson

It seems you like to find an excuse for every example.

[TheGreatA]

im not saying modern to present greats are head & above shoulders better than old school greats, but at least im fair & balanced in my assumption that they can compete if not beat some old school greats, as oppose to the old shcool experts saying "old school greats will always be better than modern & present greats/ they are invincible crap they alway hurl."

Just look at how henry armstrong fights, nobody does that anymore, rocky marciano, forget about modern conditioning advantage, just look at how they fight. He would get outboxed by today's boxers. hell paulie malignaggi would give him fits. Look at his style. Nobody fights like that anymore.

I agree with the first statement. Anyone who thinks Pacquiao couldn't compete with the all-time greats has to be either blind or biased.

As for the second statement, don't forget what Joe Frazier was able to do to Muhammad Ali. Frazier was essentially the heavyweight version of Henry Armstrong. Few use that style anymore because it's physically very taxing. Only a few fighters throughout history have been able to keep up the pace that Armstrong did.

The 80's version of Armstrong would have been Aaron Pryor although he used less bobbing & weaving. Today Juan Diaz is like a poor man's version of Armstrong.

I can't see anyone outboxing Henry Armstrong with ease. He destroyed several good boxers, swarming them at every opportunity.

Watch from 3 minutes onwards:



Barney Ross certainly had boxing skill but he found no success against Armstrong:

[BEEHOP]

I think Pacquiao would beat muhammad Ali

Well of course, Ali has been suffering from Parkinson's disease for the last 30 years. It would be cruel.

[thebowtod]

IF you gave Henry Armstrong training that manny has right now, it would be a very close fight, and an SD for Armstrong.