BoxRec

Kalan wrote:

Tomasino wrote:Would you say Edwin was top 10, all time Kalan? Where does the mediocre Armstrong figure?

Did I say Armstrong was mediocre???? He is certainly an ATG and was good for his day.. He's a bit of a myth though.. If you don't think Edwin Valero would beat Armstrong do me a favor... Watch their fights on youtube and watch how Armstrong came in with his head and pushed and butted illegally with his head for leverage... HA was a crude boxer to say the least.. Then watch a few of Valero's fights and do you see how much more powerfully and accurately he punches with much greater speed... and come back and tell me you don't think somebody who walks in head first without a jab like that wouldn't be a setup for a great puncher -- the way Joe Frazier was for George Foreman... And also tell me if you don't believe styles make fights.

Frazier could absorb most of his opponents punches and beat them down -- For Foreman he was like shooting fish in a barrel.

Kalan wrote:You're not a serious man...

Counter-puncher wrote:Kalan, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.

come on guys, FFS, stop feeding.

BoxBuzz wrote:I'm Back already Kala, And your imagined depth of your understanding does impress!

But I digress....

So....Henry Armstrong vs Valero plays out pretty much like the Frazier Foreman fights.

I like the cut of your jib!

What's your opinion on caring and concerned bystanders offering up top flight boxing talent, a refreshing O.J. as a post fight thirst quencher?

Just curious.

Tomasino wrote:Sorry Kalan but I asked you two direct questions, just answer them please. I've watched both men many times. After you do that I'd be happy to address your points.

Kalan wrote:

Tomasino wrote:Sorry Kalan but I asked you two direct questions, just answer them please. I've watched both men many times. After you do that I'd be happy to address your points.

Armstrong was an ATG. He's not in the top 10. Neither is Valero, but Valero wins between these 2... Valero was a lot better than Armstrong because he didn't push in and butt illegally with his head at all times... Valero was a great southpaw and had a very tricky style... Name one great southpaw who Armstrong every faced... Valero was also a much better, more accurate, faster, and harder puncher than Armstrong ... and he was a relentless finisher. With all of that I don't see any possible way for Armstrong to win a Time Tunnel contest.

Kalan wrote:

Tomasino wrote:Sorry Kalan but I asked you two direct questions, just answer them please. I've watched both men many times. After you do that I'd be happy to address your points.

Armstrong was an ATG. He's not in the top 10. Neither is Valero, but Valero wins between these 2... Valero was a lot better than Armstrong because he didn't push in and butt illegally with his head at all times... Valero was a great southpaw and had a very tricky style... Name one great southpaw who Armstrong every faced... Valero was also a much better, more accurate, faster, and harder puncher than Armstrong ... and he was a relentless finisher. With all of that I don't see any possible way for Armstrong to win a Time Tunnel contest.

Kalan wrote:That's not addressing the points.

gilgamesh wrote:No knowledgeable Boxing fan in the world picks Edwin Valero to beat any great fighter. Let alone one of the very best to ever have laced up a pair of gloves.

Kalan wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:No knowledgeable Boxing fan in the world picks Edwin Valero to beat any great fighter. Let alone one of the very best to ever have laced up a pair of gloves.

No "world class expert" such as you claim to be would say Edwin Valero couldn't beat Henry Armstrong. Edwin Valero had 27 professional fights and won them all by KO.. Nobody else in the history of Boxing ever did that. Velaro had very good skills... Valero didn't walk into punches like Joe Frazier, Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano, and Henry Armstrong.. Do you EVER go against popular opinion Gilgamesh???? Who did you pick for Frazier-Foreman??? Who did you pick for Tyson-Douglas??? Who did you pick for Mosley-Forrest 1??? Who did you pick for Donaire-Darchinyan 1??? Who did you pick for Klitschko-Fury??? Who did you pick for ANY major upsets, even though that would mean going against popular opinion??? .... or do you just go along and let pubic opinion and "experts" tell you what's coming down???

The reason Valero would easily beat Armstrong.. (I can never prove you wrong, you have to think) is Armstrong walked straight in and loaded his punches.. Armstrong got ripped like crazy but he never fought a puncher except Robinson.. He took a bad beating from Robinson losing all 10 rounds. Robinson didn't have to knock him out but I'm sure if Armstrong tried harder to win SRR would have. Edwin Valero could not only box well, but he could punch your lights out.. Armstrong was a fair puncher but a lousy boxer.

Kalan wrote:That's not addressing the points.

Othro wrote:

Kalan wrote:That's not addressing the points.

So you used to bring Harold Johnson orange juice after fights?

Kalan wrote:

Othro wrote:

Kalan wrote:That's not addressing the points.

So you used to bring Harold Johnson orange juice after fights?

So you're an idiot and like to advertise the fact???

Kalan wrote:You guys have never objectively watched one or more of Armstrong's losing fights to Lou Ambers, Beau Jack, Fritzie Zivic, Chester Slider and a lot of guys you never heard of... Armstrong was mainly matched with tomato cans to pad up his record... That's the way they did it in those days... They wanted a long string of wins so they lined up weak opponents one after another like easy sparring sessions.

For Edwin Valero's 27th fight he fought a World Title defense against Tony DeMarco, who beat some good fighters. DeMarco had only 1 previous MD loss in 25 fights. It was Valero's 27th straight KO in 27 fights so his KO ratio was 100%. He had no losses and no draws. He was taller, longer, and a southpaw. He was a very clever boxer and devastating puncher. Armstrong faced few if any southpaws ... maybe cuz the style tough to deal with.

For Hank Armstrong's 27th fight his opponent had 1 win in his previous 7 fights - and won less than half of his fights. It was Armstrong's 19th win against 4 losses and 4 draws.. He had 9 KOs in 27 fights, a KO ratio of 33%. He was a crude swinger who walked in head first and butted like Hell.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Kalan wrote:You guys have never objectively watched one or more of Armstrong's losing fights to Lou Ambers, Beau Jack, Fritzie Zivic, Chester Slider and a lot of guys you never heard of... Armstrong was mainly matched with tomato cans to pad up his record... That's the way they did it in those days... They wanted a long string of wins so they lined up weak opponents one after another like easy sparring sessions.

For Edwin Valero's 27th fight he fought a World Title defense against Tony DeMarco, who beat some good fighters. DeMarco had only 1 previous MD loss in 25 fights. It was Valero's 27th straight KO in 27 fights so his KO ratio was 100%. He had no losses and no draws. He was taller, longer, and a southpaw. He was a very clever boxer and devastating puncher. Armstrong faced few if any southpaws ... maybe cuz the style tough to deal with.

For Hank Armstrong's 27th fight his opponent had 1 win in his previous 7 fights - and won less than half of his fights. It was Armstrong's 19th win against 4 losses and 4 draws.. He had 9 KOs in 27 fights, a KO ratio of 33%. He was a crude swinger who walked in head first and butted like Hell.

Yeah those guys like Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe, Maxie Rosenbloom, Henry Armstrong, And that Greb fella (who never faced a basketball player in his life!!!) ran their numbers up on purely pugilists. Those OLD fighters were always paddin' their records by fighting other boxers!

Valero.....now his record is sound and beyond reproach. Every fight he had were either champions or near champions. Every one a winner! Don't bother to look it up....just trust me on this. Lucky for him he fought in a weight class that kept him safe from facing ever having to face even smaller type basketball hobbyists.

Come to think of it, they rarely (if ever) faced any baseball players, football players, gymnists, hockey players, horse jockeys....not to mention b-ballers. Talk about the easy life!

Othro wrote:

Kalan wrote:

Othro wrote: So you used to bring Harold Johnson orange juice after fights?

So you're an idiot and like to advertise the fact???

Sorry if I hurt your little feelings by asking a question .

Kalan wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:

Kalan wrote:You guys have never objectively watched one or more of Armstrong's losing fights to Lou Ambers, Beau Jack, Fritzie Zivic, Chester Slider and a lot of guys you never heard of... Armstrong was mainly matched with tomato cans to pad up his record... That's the way they did it in those days... They wanted a long string of wins so they lined up weak opponents one after another like easy sparring sessions.

For Edwin Valero's 27th fight he fought a World Title defense against Tony DeMarco, who beat some good fighters. DeMarco had only 1 previous MD loss in 25 fights. It was Valero's 27th straight KO in 27 fights so his KO ratio was 100%. He had no losses and no draws. He was taller, longer, and a southpaw. He was a very clever boxer and devastating puncher. Armstrong faced few if any southpaws ... maybe cuz the style tough to deal with.

For Hank Armstrong's 27th fight his opponent had 1 win in his previous 7 fights - and won less than half of his fights. It was Armstrong's 19th win against 4 losses and 4 draws.. He had 9 KOs in 27 fights, a KO ratio of 33%. He was a crude swinger who walked in head first and butted like Hell.

Yeah those guys like Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe, Maxie Rosenbloom, Henry Armstrong, And that Greb fella (who never faced a basketball player in his life!!!) ran their numbers up on purely pugilists. Those OLD fighters were always paddin' their records by fighting other boxers!

Valero.....now his record is sound and beyond reproach. Every fight he had were either champions or near champions. Every one a winner! Don't bother to look it up....just trust me on this. Lucky for him he fought in a weight class that kept him safe from facing ever having to face even smaller type basketball hobbyists.

Come to think of it, they rarely (if ever) faced any baseball players, football players, gymnists, hockey players, horse jockeys....not to mention b-ballers. Talk about the easy life!

You're being extremely ridiculous again. Instead of relying on what "experts" tell you, why don't you think for yourself??? ... I have very high regard for Charles, Moore, and Greb... Are Rosenbloom, Walcott, and Armstrong in the same category as technicians or fighters???? Certainly NOT!!! Charles was unfortunate that he was suffering from the early inroads of ALS, the slowly creeping nerve disease that eventually killed him, when Walcott knocked him out... Charles had bested 40 straight top opponents in a row up to that point (including Elmer Ray who got a robbery decision) In that stretch he beat Walcott twice and Archie Moore 3 times without a loss... It was a different Charles after 1951. He was hot and cold from that night on - but mostly cold. Charles slowly got worse and worse. When he was finally diagnosed with ALS he found out the mystery problem, but he was helpless to do anything about it. ALS is incurable.