Roberto Duran vs. Henry Armstrong

[The plunger man]

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.

so did I rusty , I had an old pair of boxing gloves given to me by ex British champion and they were kept in the meter cupboard under the stairs and my brother and me use to grab the gloves any chance we could....I was 7 and my brother was nearly 11..he use to lay into me that’s for sure , but I never gave in and gradually I became the boss that’s for sure..lol
Going back to this guy this is the same guy that lauds after Mayweather even though compared to Armstrong he has a short resume....but ask him if he thinks Mayweather rates higher than hank...then your hear the hypocrisy when he says Mayweather.
I’ve always ranked fighters in the eye test at the end of the day and loma looks just as good as anybody I have seen.
I’m not an old school fan and I’m not a new school fan I judge it as I see it and if I see greatness it matters not to me how many cans they have faced to pad 100 plus record.
80% of a 150 fight career are with facing complete cans who have no business being in the ring in the 1st place.
So bloated records no thanks

[ShoulderRoll]

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

Amateur fights are only 3 rounds. They don't test all the attributes of a fighter like professional fights do.

I need to see a lot more of him as a pro before I put him ahead of an all-time great like Armstrong.

The Gary Russell Jr win was a good one. Rigondeaux was as well to a lesser extent due to weight and age, but I still give him credit for it. He needs more names than that to unseat Hammerin' Hank though, surely?

As for your shots at me for being a Maywesther fan you'll never see me say he is TBE. I have too much respect for the old timers to put him above them all. Even though he actually brings a much deeper resume to the table than Lomachenko.

[The plunger man]

Amateur fights are only 3 rounds. They don't test all the attributes of a fighter like professional fights do.

I need to see a lot more of him as a pro before I put him ahead of an all-time great like Armstrong.

The Gary Russell Jr win was a good one. Rigondeaux was as well to a lesser extent due to weight and age, but I still give him credit for it. He needs more names than that to unseat Hammerin' Hank though, surely?

As for your shots at me for being a Maywesther fan you'll never see me say he is TBE. I have too much respect for the old timers to put him above them all. Even though he actually brings a much deeper resume to the table than Lomachenko.

I never once said he had a better resume as he really needs more career defining fights...skill wise he matches mayweather make no mistake about that...whether he retires on top like cloud remains to be seen....resume he lacks depth skill and boxing ability no

[ShoulderRoll]

I never once said he had a better resume as he really needs more career defining fights...skill wise he matches mayweather make no mistake about that...whether he retires on top like cloud remains to be seen....resume he lacks depth skill and boxing ability no

So we are in agreement then. He needs more career defining fights.

[billeau2]

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.

According to this group it must have been throughout because they contend that Mayweather lost both fights.

[billeau2]

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

Many agree with Shoulder of different colors, if this must be brought up. What is the harm in letting LOMA finish a career before judging him so quickly against a fighter who has been in the historical episteme for many years now?

Loma is indeed a great fighter. So was Ward, and Mayweather. History always takes the long game Plunger. Greatness will eventually come into play and show itself. There is nothing prejudicial in saying Loma is not yet mature enough for the long game.

Here is an example why this is relevant: How great was Ward? How great would Ward be if he came back and beat Canelo? How great is Kovalev? which affects Ward's legacy. Fine wine needs time to mature in the cellar.

[billeau2]

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.

I get the point and it matters. It is part of a calculus of many points.

[billeau2]

I never once said he had a better resume as he really needs more career defining fights...skill wise he matches mayweather make no mistake about that...whether he retires on top like cloud remains to be seen....resume he lacks depth skill and boxing ability no

I am noticing something, as you and Rusty relive brotherhood...I get it from the other side, as I have two sons lol...I had sisters to protect!

True story: So we are in central park with my dog..."Poochie" and for some reason I am with my sister (usually I walked the dog alone in the afternoon after school). We were the minority in the hood, being White, and I see this group of Black kids coming for us, so I give the leash to my sister and tell her to run home, she won't go, I am like telling her "get out of here dammit!" So the tussle wasn't too bad, but I never saw my parents so down... they were like "when your brother tells you something in that situation you listen!!!" Damnnnnn felt like we were a paramilitary unit lol. Of course when we went out looking for those kids the next day, most of my group was Black and Puerto Rican kids as well lol.

I envy you and the Trombone. I see it with my kids! you can't go toe to toe with your sister.

Anyway... You cannot judge a great fighter doing things and assume that fighter could do them to any other fighter. Mayweather could do lots of things... But against pressure fighters, he was sometimes curtailed tremendously. Loma looks great, and hopefully we get to see him against another great fighter. It makes a big difference. It is short sighted just to look at greatness and assume it occurs in a vacuum. and this is not to under estimate the value of tape, and looking carefully at what the great fighters do on tape.

[DeeMoney]

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.

I am not saying he would or wouldnt beat him, I am writing that we have enough of a sample size to evaluate whether or not he could or could not.

Lomachenko is on the plus end of 30, and has fought in over a dozen title fights. He is what he is and we as fans should be able to use our eyes to evaluate him. Then based on that evaluation determine how we think he would do against Henry Armstrong.

Problem is most fans refuse to analyze a fighter's prime while in it- they instead mostly look at a resume years after a fighter is done fighting as opposed to making a judgement on what is directly in front of them.

For the sake of fantasy fights we tend to compare fighters in their primes, so lets just assume Lomachenko was prime at ages 27-31, could that fighter beat Armstrong in his prime. He doesn't need 100+ more fights to figure it out because that is irrelevant to the sample size we are looking at. Whatever he does after doesn't matter, we are comparing the fighter we have seen.

So the point is, we shouldn't be dismissive of this argument (Loma could beat Armstrong) simply because Loma has fought less. We can argue Loma couldn't beat him because he wasn't good enough, but we do have the information and capability to make an evaluation.

[ShoulderRoll]

I am not saying he would or wouldnt beat him, I am writing that we have enough of a sample size to evaluate whether or not he could or could not.

Lomachenko is on the plus end of 30, and has fought in over a dozen title fights. He is what he is and we as fans should be able to use our eyes to evaluate him. Then based on that evaluation determine how we think he would do against Henry Armstrong.

Problem is most fans refuse to analyze a fighter's prime while in it- they instead mostly look at a resume years after a fighter is done fighting as opposed to making a judgement on what is directly in front of them.

For the sake of fantasy fights we tend to compare fighters in their primes, so lets just assume Lomachenko was prime at ages 27-31, could that fighter beat Armstrong in his prime. He doesn't need 100+ more fights to figure it out because that is irrelevant to the sample size we are looking at. Whatever he does after doesn't matter, we are comparing the fighter we have seen.

So the point is, we shouldn't be dismissive of this argument (Loma could beat Armstrong) simply because Loma has fought less. We can argue Loma couldn't beat him because he wasn't good enough, but we do have the information and capability to make an evaluation.

Like I said, if you think you've seen enough in 15 fights to make that call then you're entitled to your opinion.