Lightweights: Henry Armstrong vs Roberto Duran

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I don't eat your shit, you SOB! If you don't like what I am saying, then don't read my posts. You don't know more boxing than I do. I can tell. You are a retarded scumbag. That is what you are. If you cannot understand boxing styles that is your problem not mine, MF. Only you believe that a ONE DIMENSIONAL FIGHTER WOULD BEAT ROBERTO DURAN.

If you think you got the truth, you are sadly mistaken, sir. The truth is not absolute. To me, you are also a moron and a self arrogant bum. And if you don't like me, Fuuuuckkkk yooooouuu!!!!

Your posts are hilarious, I read them because they make me laugh. You're the one saying it's a waste of time, so stop wasting it. But if you're going to insist on quoting me, try your best to understand my words. Show me where I picked Armstrong? Are you able to read?

I like it that you're angry now, it makes you even funnier. Poor little Elmer, fists balled up in rage while he struggles to spit out the words to convey his fury. Keep it coming tough guy, and keep eating my shit.

Then, why are you picking on me, then? What is your problem? You have to have more respect for others. You called me a moron and I call you a retarded scumbag. If you don't like what I am saying, do not read my posts. You are irrelevant and insignificant to me. You don't know more than me, certainly, I don't feel that way.

You respect me and I will respect you. So far, I have lost all the respect for you for the name calling you did first.

And keep with your folly and call me more names...I got some more for you.

Awww, I'm picking on you? Poor little thing, suck your thumb until you feel better. You are a moron, Elmer, but I like reading your posts. I love how I'm irrelevant and insignificant yet you're all in a huff over every post I make. I'm not upset, I'm laughing at you.

[BoxBuzz]

Make your statements, make your points.express your opinions.

Lay off the personal barbs.

Only you can prevent flame wars.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Yeah Elmer, no need to get personal! Come mierda jeje

[Tomasino]

I think the personal stuff really ruins some of these threads.

Elmer, you surely don't really believe that Laguna was better, in any way, than Armstrong? As much as I am a Ken Buchanan fan, I cant imagine him outboxing Hank.

[keithmoonhangover]

I think the personal stuff really ruins some of these threads.

Elmer, you surely don't really believe that Laguna was better, in any way, than Armstrong? As much as I am a Ken Buchanan fan, I cant imagine him outboxing Hank.

I couldn't agree more.

[dempseyfire]

I get it. The media made observers 'picture' SRR being better all round than Duran but in reality he couldn't hit a bull on the arse with a banjo, due to the primitive era he was born in.

SRR was looked as the best at that time, the 1940s. Boxing has evolved very much since then. If Sugar Ray Leonard or Roberto Duran fights in the 40s, they would say he (duran or leonard) is the greatest boxer with the greatest technique. He was fighting some guys that were slow to begin with. No class, just pure brute power and stamina. I did not see in his opponents no jabbing, no uppercuts, no ring cutting, nothing.

.

So Bobo Olson didn't jab? Kid Gavilan didn't jab? Gene Fullmer didnt jab . . or throw uppercuts You can't write posts as stupid as the above and not expect to get ridiculed.

Boxing has evolved since then? Who trained Duran? Oh yeah, Ray Arcel, who learned the craft in the 19teens! And who thought that the "primitive" Benny Leonard was the greatest boxer of all time.

The irony is that boxing skill was never MORE developed than it was in the 20s-40s. That was the sport's true Golden Age when skill was at its peak due to the sport's incredible worldwide popularity and participation rates.

[scallum]

I get it. The media made observers 'picture' SRR being better all round than Duran but in reality he couldn't hit a bull on the arse with a banjo, due to the primitive era he was born in.

SRR was looked as the best at that time, the 1940s. Boxing has evolved very much since then. If Sugar Ray Leonard or Roberto Duran fights in the 40s, they would say he (duran or leonard) is the greatest boxer with the greatest technique. He was fighting some guys that were slow to begin with. No class, just pure brute power and stamina. I did not see in his opponents no jabbing, no uppercuts, no ring cutting, nothing.

In my view, I could name at least 7 fighters that were more technically sound and had were more complete than Robinson:
Ezzard Charles
Sugar Ray Leonard
Roberto Duran
Eder Jofre
Salvador Sanchez
Eusebio Pedroza
Marvin Hagler

That is my view.....It is the truth for me...For you it might be another truth.

so I guess boxing has also evolved since Duran was in his prime? So which guys today can beat Duran since boxing is evolving?

[elmersalsa]

I think the personal stuff really ruins some of these threads.

Elmer, you surely don't really believe that Laguna was better, in any way, than Armstrong? As much as I am a Ken Buchanan fan, I cant imagine him outboxing Hank.

I am saying that Laguna would have beaten Armstrong. He was slick and quick, and a complete fighter. Very fast hands and great jab at his very best. To me, Laguna was more complete than Robinson. Watch him fight with Ortiz I and Mando Ramos.

Armstrong had a better career, by far, than Laguna. He is the greatest fighter of all-time in my view, but in another time, probably he would have not win those 3 titles at one time. Not in the 50s nor 60s nor 70s nor in the 80s...I cannot see him win 3 titles the way he did in 1937. Boxing was not as skilled at what it was from the 50s to 80s.

Armstrong with that style, he would have get killed by the likes of Duran, Leonard or Hearns. And if he tried Hagler for the middleweight title? yikes!

How come you cannot see Buchanan outboxing Henry? What is wrong with that? Buchanan had one of the best fast jabs I have ever seen in boxing. A very talented fellow, that Buchanan. Lots of class. I could see him beating Armstrong, too.

[elmersalsa]

I get it. The media made observers 'picture' SRR being better all round than Duran but in reality he couldn't hit a bull on the arse with a banjo, due to the primitive era he was born in.

SRR was looked as the best at that time, the 1940s. Boxing has evolved very much since then. If Sugar Ray Leonard or Roberto Duran fights in the 40s, they would say he (duran or leonard) is the greatest boxer with the greatest technique. He was fighting some guys that were slow to begin with. No class, just pure brute power and stamina. I did not see in his opponents no jabbing, no uppercuts, no ring cutting, nothing.

In my view, I could name at least 7 fighters that were more technically sound and had were more complete than Robinson:
Ezzard Charles
Sugar Ray Leonard
Roberto Duran
Eder Jofre
Salvador Sanchez
Eusebio Pedroza
Marvin Hagler

That is my view.....It is the truth for me...For you it might be another truth.

so I guess boxing has also evolved since Duran was in his prime? So which guys today can beat Duran since boxing is evolving?

I have never said that boxing has evolved since Duran's days. Boxing and fighters had developed throught the years new techniques and technologies. Since the late 1940s to 1980s, it was the most deep talented time in boxing. I could put pound per pound, let's say, the class of 1937 vs the class of 1956, 1982 or 1965, or 1974, or 1978 and the class of 1937 would lose most of the matches.

Now days, boxing stinks. Fighters do not fight as much as 60, 50, 40 or 30 years ago because of these hyped up billed "super fights" and shortened 12 round fights and too many multiple alphabet organizations that we have something like 5 champions per division? Where is the talent? I don't even care about a fight anymore. If I miss a fight nowadays, I really did not miss nothing. These are not the days of Ali vs Frazier or Tyson vs Holyfield anymore...It's really sad.

Now, guys that could beat Duran today at 135lbs to 147lbs?....Nobody. They would not even beat Robinson, Leonard, Hearns nor even Ismael Laguna....That is my view.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Im still hoping you'd shed light on which techniques were around in the 70's but not the 40's?

Thanks.

[elmersalsa]

I get it. The media made observers 'picture' SRR being better all round than Duran but in reality he couldn't hit a bull on the arse with a banjo, due to the primitive era he was born in.

SRR was looked as the best at that time, the 1940s. Boxing has evolved very much since then. If Sugar Ray Leonard or Roberto Duran fights in the 40s, they would say he (duran or leonard) is the greatest boxer with the greatest technique. He was fighting some guys that were slow to begin with. No class, just pure brute power and stamina. I did not see in his opponents no jabbing, no uppercuts, no ring cutting, nothing.

.

So Bobo Olson didn't jab? Kid Gavilan didn't jab? Gene Fullmer didnt jab . . or throw uppercuts You can't write posts as stupid as the above and not expect to get ridiculed.

Boxing has evolved since then? Who trained Duran? Oh yeah, Ray Arcel, who learned the craft in the 19teens! And who thought that the "primitive" Benny Leonard was the greatest boxer of all time.

The irony is that boxing skill was never MORE developed than it was in the 20s-40s. That was the sport's true Golden Age when skill was at its peak due to the sport's incredible worldwide popularity and participation rates.

Bobo Olson was a complete brute, no class, just pure strenght. Rocky Graziano? the same thing. Gene Fullmer? another on-rushing bull of pure strength and stamina. No jab, slow of foot, no coordination in combination punching. Watch those guys again. Robinson beat Olson 4 times. What a waste!

Ray Arcel did not teach Duran how to fight. He trained him. Duran was a gifted and natural talented fighter just like Sugar Ray Leonard. Even Arcel said that nobody taught Duran how to fight. He knew how to fight. He learned to fight in the slums and barrios of the ghettos of Panama City, Panama my friend. Where he used to fight for nickels and dimes in his youth days.

And you are LYING TO YOURSELF that boxing was peaking in the 20s through the 40s. Boxing was more developing IN SKILL in the late 40s through the 80s...That was THE TRUE GOLDEN AGE.

[elmersalsa]

Im still hoping you'd shed light on which techniques were around in the 70's but not the 40's?

Thanks.

Now you want to bring the 40s, than 1937? The modern era of boxing started in 1943. From the late 40s to the 80s, there was a deep talented group of fighters that were high in skill never to yet seen again. I could name, as I said, 8 fighters that were more complete and more equipped in skill than Robinson.

Boxing has been slowly upgrading and evolving since 1937, sir. Every one here knows that. There are more methods of modern science of strenght and conditioning ever before than 1937. And like I said before, Robinson in 1943, was not the same fighting machine of the 1946-51 time frame. Those were his best years. He looked too fast and equipped for those guys in those times. But that Robinson in the 60s and 70s or 80s, would have not win nor have as much success like in his heyday. Can you picture him fighting the Fabulous 4 of Duran, Leonard, Hearns and Hagler, (each of them at their respective weight classes) and then fighting the great Michael Spinks or Bob Foster at 175lbs? I am not saying he would not win, but would have much, much trouble than in the 40s and 50s

[Goodnight, Irene]

Yes, we've established you believe techniques and skills were available in the 70's which werent in Armstrongs day.

Im still not clear which skills those are?

[Tomasino]

I think you must be best pals with Ken Buchanan, Elmer. I do agree his jab was one of the best though.

Why do you think so little of Armstrong? To say he was unskilled when he beat so many all time greats is perplexing...

[Goodnight, Irene]

I think you must be best pals with Ken Buchanan, Elmer. I do agree his jab was one of the best though.

Why do you think so little of Armstrong? To say he was unskilled when he beat so many all time greats is perplexing...

The best part is he ranks Armstrong #1 pound for pound ever

[dempseyfire]

SRR was looked as the best at that time, the 1940s. Boxing has evolved very much since then. If Sugar Ray Leonard or Roberto Duran fights in the 40s, they would say he (duran or leonard) is the greatest boxer with the greatest technique. He was fighting some guys that were slow to begin with. No class, just pure brute power and stamina. I did not see in his opponents no jabbing, no uppercuts, no ring cutting, nothing.

.

So Bobo Olson didn't jab? Kid Gavilan didn't jab? Gene Fullmer didnt jab . . or throw uppercuts You can't write posts as stupid as the above and not expect to get ridiculed.

Boxing has evolved since then? Who trained Duran? Oh yeah, Ray Arcel, who learned the craft in the 19teens! And who thought that the "primitive" Benny Leonard was the greatest boxer of all time.

The irony is that boxing skill was never MORE developed than it was in the 20s-40s. That was the sport's true Golden Age when skill was at its peak due to the sport's incredible worldwide popularity and participation rates.

Bobo Olson was a complete brute, no class, just pure strenght. Rocky Graziano? the same thing. Gene Fullmer? another on-rushing bull of pure strength and stamina. No jab, slow of foot, no coordination in combination punching. Watch those guys again. Robinson beat Olson 4 times. What a waste!

Ray Arcel did not teach Duran how to fight. He trained him. Duran was a gifted and natural talented fighter just like Sugar Ray Leonard. Even Arcel said that nobody taught Duran how to fight. He knew how to fight. He learned to fight in the slums and barrios of the ghettos of Panama City, Panama my friend. Where he used to fight for nickels and dimes in his youth days.

And you are LYING TO YOURSELF that boxing was peaking in the 20s through the 40s. Boxing was more developing IN SKILL in the late 40s through the 80s...That was THE TRUE GOLDEN AGE.

OK, let's see. Duran was somehow much more skilled than all of the greats of the 30s and 40s. He had an all-time great trainer who learned boxing in the 19teens and 20s in Ray Arcel . . but Arcel didn't teach him anything. Duran actually learned to be more skilled than the likes of Barney Ross and Henry Armstrong through streetfighting local tough guys in Panama City. Ahhh, it all makes sense now. Thanks for clearing that up

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Armstrong couldn't win 3 titles in the 80's? Elmer is the gift that keeps on giving. No doubt the four extra weight divisions and extra alphabet straps would have inhibited his ability to collect straps.

[Goodnight, Irene]

The evolution of Man...from Neolithic bum-rusher to modern impresario.



Darwin knew what was coming.

[Goodnight, Irene]

That is presumably Armstrong at the rear, rushing the bum of...Robinson, perhaps?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Sounds about right, the end must be the pinnacle...Laguna!

[Goodnight, Irene]

Sounds about right, the end must be the pinnacle...Laguna!

Buchanan looks good with that spear, mind.

[JDC]

Eras shouldn't really be compared like this. Technique will inevitably be marginally improved from generation to generation. Coaches will continue to learn and pass much of what they know onto their prodigies. Diet and conditioning have seen huge developments, psychology too. Take two guys attributes (physical and mental), use their fights as a gage and consider how they'd do on a level playing field. Comparisons in any other way are unfair to either the ''Golden Era'' guy, or the ''modern, evolved'' guy.

However, between Duran and now the progress has slowed considerably. Duran may well be able to beat most of today's fighters in any case, but if he was of this era he'd have the potential to be even better.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Eras shouldn't really be compared like this. Technique will inevitably be marginally improved from generation to generation. Coaches will continue to learn and pass much of what they know onto their prodigies. Diet and conditioning have seen huge developments, psychology too. Take two guys attributes (physical and mental), use their fights as a gage and consider how they'd do on a level playing field. Comparisons in any other way are unfair to either the ''Golden Era'' guy, or the ''modern, evolved'' guy.

However, between Duran and now the progress has slowed considerably. Duran may well be able to beat most of today's fighters in any case, but if he was of this era he'd have the potential to be even better.

Technique doesnt improve with each new generation for infinity. There is a levelling off point and that was reached before Duran ever laced a glove. Why cant Elmer answer which skills and techniques were around in the 70's, but not the 40's? Can you ID which skills and techniques are being taught now, which werent in Duran's day which would make him, as you say, maybe even better?

Conditioning is another long-stalled point. Does Mayweather strike you as fitter than, say, Robinson? Is his physique any more impressive? Does he ever exhibit better endurance? We know more about nutrition, yes...yet it CLEARLY hasnt translated to fitter boxers. If anything, that part of the sport has regressed, and not just at HW.

This whole quixotic concept some people have that Boxing is an unflinching example of the Red Queen Phenomenon, and like clockwork it improves in all areas from era-to-era is just absurd when viewing the real, and apparent, facts. Boxing is not football, or track, or swimming. I laugh when I hear people say things like, "Jesse Owens couldnt compete today cos sport evolves!" Yet when you ask them why so many have a distant relic like Robinson down as the greatest boxer ever, and one who would lay absolute waste to every WW out there in the past twenty years...crickets chirping.

[Ezzard]

Techniques and training change for the rules and equipment of the era. Shorter fights, more padded gloves, fewer fights, more “stuff” to help with numbing damaged hands, putting on weight etc… have changed boxing techniques and training… not better just better suited to the day.

I think you can go much further in the game today by just being a great athlete now than you could in DempseyFire’s golden era. I think that’s happened in most sports.

[dempseyfire]

Eras shouldn't really be compared like this. Technique will inevitably be marginally improved from generation to generation. Coaches will continue to learn and pass much of what they know onto their prodigies. Diet and conditioning have seen huge developments, psychology too. Take two guys attributes (physical and mental), use their fights as a gage and consider how they'd do on a level playing field. Comparisons in any other way are unfair to either the ''Golden Era'' guy, or the ''modern, evolved'' guy.

However, between Duran and now the progress has slowed considerably. Duran may well be able to beat most of today's fighters in any case, but if he was of this era he'd have the potential to be even better.

Technique doesnt improve with each new generation for infinity. There is a levelling off point and that was reached before Duran ever laced a glove. Why cant Elmer answer which skills and techniques were around in the 70's, but not the 40's? Can you ID which skills and techniques are being taught now, which werent in Duran's day which would make him, as you say, maybe even better?

Conditioning is another long-stalled point. Does Mayweather strike you as fitter than, say, Robinson? Is his physique any more impressive? Does he ever exhibit better endurance? We know more about nutrition, yes...yet it CLEARLY hasnt translated to fitter boxers. If anything, that part of the sport has regressed, and not just at HW.

This whole quixotic concept some people have that Boxing is an unflinching example of the Red Queen Phenomenon, and like clockwork it improves in all areas from era-to-era is just absurd when viewing the real, and apparent, facts. Boxing is not football, or track, or swimming. I laugh when I hear people say things like, "Jesse Owens couldnt compete today cos sport evolves!" Yet when you ask them why so many have a distant relic like Robinson down as the greatest boxer ever, and one who would lay absolute waste to every WW out there in the past twenty years...crickets chirping.

Exacto. The idea that everything humans are involved in continually progresses is bullsh%^ plain and simple. The fact that we now have the Internet doesn't mean we now have a composer who has surpassed Beethoven. Different things go through different periods of advancement and decline depending.

As GI said, advancements do level off, and with sports progress only occurs with increased participation rates and thus increased pools of knowledge and talent. This is the major reason why Olympic records are continually broken . . not because we are now suddenly more athletic than 20 years ago (a ridiculous notion), but b/c we have such larger pools competing in those sports. Was there anyone training year round 24/7 in state of the art pools for swimming like Michael Phelps does in the 1920s? Johnny Weissmuller was simply a natural athlete who dived in the water and swam in between takes of playing Tarzan in the movies for pete's sake. But since participation in boxing peaked in the 40s, you've had the opposite occur, with a precitious decline that has sped up rapidly the last 30 years.

And I always hear about advancements in conditioning, yet the stamina of today's boxers has never been worse. Nothing builds stamina better than constant activity and fighting, as being relaxed in the ring counts far more towards conditioning than sleeping in a frikken Oxygen Chamber. Constant fighting also ensures that fighters don't have massive downtime in which they can indulge in fast foot and get lazy/fat in between fights.