Pacquiao is Henry Armstrong in this era, who is PBF?

[madsweeney]

No it isn't. Armstrong never used or proposed catchweights. Armstrong never asked a champion to scale down 5 pounds under the limit in the way Paquiao's team asked Shane Mosley. Stop making this ridiculous comparison. And I don't care what Merchant said.

Times have changed. Your right, Pac's resume isn't nearly as ipressive as Armstrong's (a result of the era, not necessarily capability), however their ability to scale weight classes is unparalleled. How many other fighters have competed in as many classes irregardless of their era?

You don't care what professional historians and boxing personalities say? They don't give a **** ass what you say. History will recognize those historians and personalities and will never even have heard either of our words.

[flexxx145]

Armstrong has 19 WW title defenses.

At his peak he was 46-0. With 39 Knock outs dude.

Armstrong held 3 titles out of Boxings 8 classes at the SAME time. If not fop that draw he wouldve had a 4th.

Pac is no where near Hammering Henry.

Pac has a long way to go.

Good post you made a pretty persuasive argument!

[macthechamp]

Martinez is better at creating angles, moving in and out of range, slipping punches and counter punching. He's also tougher, quicker and has better footwork.

A lot of the things listed there involve defense and I would agree with you on that. Martinez has the better defensive abilities.

The counter punching topic is debatable. Martinez really only counters good with the right hand and Kessler uses both pretty good.

As for toughness, I wouldn give Kessler the edge on that. Martinez has been knocked out before and you can't say the same about Kessler.

The better footwork theory is also debatable. Although Martinez does move around a lot more than Kessler, he can be off balance a lot causing knockdowns. Kessler hasn't been knocked down before.

[Calilloyd]

Times have changed. Your right, Pac's resume isn't nearly as ipressive as Armstrong's (a result of the era, not necessarily capability), however their ability to scale weight classes is unparalleled. How many other fighters have competed in as many classes irregardless of their era?


Paquiao couldn't and can't do what Armstrong did.And he will never try to. Don't use the era excuse. Make no mistake about that. And stop using paquiao's weight when he was a teen ager as an example.



You don't care what professional historians and boxing personalities say? They don't give a **** ass what you say. History will recognize those historians and personalities and will never even have heard either of our words.

Paquiao couldn't and can't do what Armstrong did. And he will never try to. Don't use the era as an excuse. Make no mistake about that. And stop using paquiao's weight when he was a teenager as an example.I listen to what they have to say but I form my own opinions. I don't hang on to or believe everything they say as fact. They're just people with opinions and bias like anybody else.. Obviously you're incapable of doing the same thing. And if you want to talk about historians, I can show you plenty of so called "historians" including Bert Sugar, and Nate Fliescher, that have put out some of the most ridiculous all time top fighters list that you'll ever see. But you're probably dumb enough to agree with it because they're "historians.

[S.G.]

The counter punching topic is debatable. Martinez really only counters good with the right hand and Kessler uses both pretty good.

Yeah Mikkel's a pretty competant counter-puncher but I don't think his reflexes are quite as sharp as Martinez's and nor is his eye for the openings in my opinion.

As for toughness, I wouldn give Kessler the edge on that. Martinez has been knocked out before and you can't say the same about Kessler.

I kind of meant mental toughness more than physical durability. As a recent example I feel Kessler would've folded if placed in a fight of the intensity Sergio's fight with Williams was.

The better footwork theory is also debatable. Although Martinez does move around a lot more than Kessler, he can be off balance a lot causing knockdowns. Kessler hasn't been knocked down before.

Kessler mostly moves in straight lines though, and I find he's not very intuitive as to when and where to move.

[fcastro1]

I dont see any comparison to Hammering Henry I just dont see it. So winning a titles at Feather, Welter Wight and Lightweight make you Armstrtong?

you forgot flyweight douchbag. his career has spanned 10 divisions. he woun titles at superfeather,lightweight,lightwelter and welter in a space of a year and a half thats armstrong-esque.

[macthechamp]

Yeah Mikkel's a pretty competant counter-puncher but I don't think his reflexes are quite as sharp as Martinez's and nor is his eye for the openings in my opinion.

I think Martinez' counter punching ability is based on reflexes and Kessler's is based on technicality. It depends on which one you favor. That's why I said it's debatable.

I kind of meant mental toughness more than physical durability. As a recent example I feel Kessler would've folded if placed in a fight of the intensity Sergio's fight with Williams was.

I wouldn't agree with you on that.

If you saw Kessler's last fight against Ward, you can tell that he never wanted to quit. Even though he had some pretty bad cuts that affected his vision.

He also kept coming at Ward, despite being heavily behind on the scorecards.

Kessler mostly moves in straight lines though, and I find he's not very intuitive as to when and where to move.

The thing about his footwork that separates him from Martinez is his balance. Even when he's got hit with some hard shots, he's always managed to stay up and I credit that to his balance.

In the end, his footwork isn't as quick as Martinez' but it's more balanced and straight-lined.

[madsweeney]

Paquiao couldn't and can't do what Armstrong did. And he will never try to. Don't use the era as an excuse. Make no mistake about that. And stop using paquiao's weight when he was a teenager as an example.I listen to what they have to say but I form my own opinions. I don't hang on to or believe everything they say as fact. They're just people with opinions and bias like anybody else.. Obviously you're incapable of doing the same thing. And if you want to talk about historians, I can show you plenty of so called "historians" including Bert Sugar, and Nate Fliescher, that have put out some of the most ridiculous all time top fighters list that you'll ever see. But you're probably dumb enough to agree with it because they're "historians.

That's debatable and we'll never know. Likewise we don't know if Armstrong or the other ATG's would be like if they were fighting now.

And yes, I'll take a historian's word over an anonymous poster on the internet. I don't have the time to research the way they do. I don't have the resources they do. Do you take your buddies medical diagnosis or a webMD.com's recommendation over a doctors?

[pasawayako]

the history will remember pacquiao as a steroidjunky, who is scared to take tests.

sorry no matter how u try to put down pac, pacs name will be up there with the likes of robinson, ali and armstrong so u better get used to it.

[Schmerzen]

sorry no matter how u try to put down pac, pacs name will be up there with the likes of robinson, ali and armstrong so u better get used to it.

if a ******* says so