BoxRec

I don't care what anybody says. As far as I'm concerned, the great Henry Armstrong was the greatest fighter in boxing history, of all times!

Duran started his pro career at 119 and won World Titles at 135, 147, 154, and 160... Armstrong couldn't match that... Duran would have pulverized Armstrong after boxing him to death... NOBODY could come in pushing, shoving, fouling, and head knocking like Armstrong did versus Duran... and no referee would even allow Armstrong to fight that way today... Duran won 72 of his first 73 fights... Armstrong won 56 of his first 73 fights (in his prime) and lost to many low caliber opponents you never heard of -- barnstorming all over the place and fighting riffraff.

Kalan wrote:Duran started his pro career at 119 and won World Titles at 135, 147, 154, and 160... Armstrong couldn't match that... Duran would have pulverized Armstrong after boxing him to death... NOBODY could come in pushing, shoving, fouling, and head knocking like Armstrong did versus Duran... and no referee would even allow Armstrong to fight that way today... Duran won 72 of his first 73 fights... Armstrong won 56 of his first 73 fights (in his prime) and lost to many low caliber opponents you never heard of -- barnstorming all over the place and fighting riffraff.

I could agree with you in some stuff here:
In a boxing match, I pick Duran.
In a pound per pound list, I pick Armstrong above Duran. His accomplishments were unbelievable! Out of this world. Especially in the 1936-40 time frame. I don't see anything better or like it.

Both, Armstrong and Duran, are top 5 definitely in my book.

You have to look at the opponents Armstrong accomplished his "fabulous feat" against... He fought these guys when they were done - or they weren't very good boxers to begin with.. He lost a lot of fights in his prime, at every weight, and never beat a boxer equivalent to a Sugar Ray Leonard.. Estaban De Jesus.. or Ken Buchanan.. and he never could have stayed with Roberto Duran using that head first, crowding style of his.

Fighters like Fritzie Zivic, Beau Jack, and Ray Robinson easily handled Armstrong's headlong pushing, shouldering, butting, and shoving maneuvers... They were rough fighters themselves and gave the dirty stuff back to Armstrong better than he dished it out... They shouldered and pushed him off and got him with ripping uppercuts, similar to the way Foreman dealt with Frazier...

Armstrong did beat Barney Ross, normally a skillful boxer. It was Ross's 79th and last pro fight after over 200 amateur fights.. Ross was done in by years of night life, drinking, and carousing.. Ross was a very light hitter who didn't have the punching power to keep Armstrong honest.. Arthur Donavan, who took 4 rounds from Armstrong for repeated fouling in an earlier fight---and was bitterly criticized for it---let Armstrong foul freely throughout the fight, and he won by a wide margin.. That type of thing could not happen with Duran, who could box and punch very skillfully inside and outside.

You dont know what the fornicate you are talking about Kalan. Trying to pretend Barney Ross was somehow shot when he fought Armstrong because he had Eighty fights... Armstrong was the same age as Ross (older by two weeks) and had more fights under his belt. Also acting like Donovan somehow gave Armstrong special treatment against Ambers because he didnt DQ him, again, get educated before you speak. In NY at the time you couldnt lose a fight on a foul. The only recourse was point deductions. The only NY fight in that era that ended on a foul was Zivic-Davis and that was a special circumstance because Davis went berserk and had to be tossed. Youve got all of these goofy ass ideas that have no logical basis. Ross was shot with 80 fights under his belt but Armstrong was in his prime with 130 against Zivic?? 160 against Robinson (who freely admitted his idol was shot) a mere ten months later?? God i cant stand armchair pinheads like you who take a quick look at boxrec and think they have all the answers. What the fornicate do you mean you have to take into account who he accomplished his fabulous feat against??? Every fighter he beat to win his trifecta was a hall of famer and a TREMENDOUS fighter to boot. Dont give me this bullshit that Ambers, Sarron, and Ross couldnt box. Every single one of those three earned their plaxe in the HOF the old fashioned hard way. All three were skilled at every facet of the game and could fight successfully at or against any style the sport had to offer. To denigrate them in order to try to denigrate Armstrong serves no other purpose than to make you look like a complete simpleton.

You're full of crap... Ross was done when he fought Armstrong... I don't care how old he was or how many fights he had. He was a heavy drinker and that took a toll on him and he was done early. People are different. Night life and drinking did him in and Armstrong caught him on his last legs in his last fight

When Armstrong fought tougher prime guys like Beau Jack, Ray Robinson, and Fritzie Zivic, they beat the living bejabbers out of him.

Kalan wrote:You're full of crap... Ross was done when he fought Armstrong... I don't care how old he was or how many fights he had. He was a heavy drinker and that took a toll on him and he was done early. People are different. Night life and drinking did him in and Armstrong caught him on his last legs in his last fight

When Armstrong fought tougher prime guys like Beau Jack, Ray Robinson, and Fritzie Zivic, they beat the living bejabbers out of him.

Homicide Henry was already outta prime when he fought those 3, Kalan.

Kalan wrote:You're full of crap... Ross was done when he fought Armstrong... I don't care how old he was or how many fights he had. He was a heavy drinker and that took a toll on him and he was done early. People are different. Night life and drinking did him in and Armstrong caught him on his last legs in his last fight

When Armstrong fought tougher prime guys like Beau Jack, Ray Robinson, and Fritzie Zivic, they beat the living bejabbers out of him.

So to get this straight, its your contention thay Ross was totally shot at 29 and just months after one of the biggest wins of his career simply because Armstrong beat him. Nice try clown.

Age has nothing to do with it idiot... Ross had a ton of amateur fights and he was worn out.. He knew he was slipping badly and he quit the ring cold because of that.. He refused to perform at a lower level, unlike many boxers who continue fighting until they can barely talk.

Wilfredo Benitez looked fine in a MD loss to Tommy Hearns... a few months later he was beaten badly by Mustafa Hamsho in a fight he should have won easily. Two fights later he was knocked out by a novice. He was done as an elite fighter in his mid 20's... The difference is he didn't quit when he should've.

elmersalsa wrote:

Kalan wrote:You're full of crap... Ross was done when he fought Armstrong... I don't care how old he was or how many fights he had. He was a heavy drinker and that took a toll on him and he was done early. People are different. Night life and drinking did him in and Armstrong caught him on his last legs in his last fight

When Armstrong fought tougher prime guys like Beau Jack, Ray Robinson, and Fritzie Zivic, they beat the living bejabbers out of him.

Homicide Henry was already outta prime when he fought those 3, Kalan.

WRONG!!! ... Armstrong got beaten at the start of his career... in mid-career... and at the end of his career... He was very strong and tough but lacked skills.

Keep talking, it only serves to reinforce your ignorance.

golden oldie wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

Kalan wrote:Duran started his pro career at 119 and won World Titles at 135, 147, 154, and 160... Armstrong couldn't match that... Duran would have pulverized Armstrong after boxing him to death... NOBODY could come in pushing, shoving, fouling, and head knocking like Armstrong did versus Duran... and no referee would even allow Armstrong to fight that way today... Duran won 72 of his first 73 fights... Armstrong won 56 of his first 73 fights (in his prime) and lost to many low caliber opponents you never heard of -- barnstorming all over the place and fighting riffraff.

I could agree with you in some stuff here:
In a boxing match, I pick Duran.
In a pound per pound list, I pick Armstrong above Duran. His accomplishments were unbelievable! Out of this world. Especially in the 1936-40 time frame. I don't see anything better or like it.

Both, Armstrong and Duran, are top 5 definitely in my book.

With respect I would pick Duran, over Henry in BOTH a h2h, and an AT p4p list, but I don't think it needs the brains of a rocket scientist to place BOTH men in the top 5 of the Greatest Fighters Who Ever Lived.

You're right! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to place BOTH MEN in the top 5 greatest boxers ever. I agree with you 100%. Both boxers were the very best fighters of their generations, bar none.

golden oldie wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

Kalan wrote:Duran started his pro career at 119 and won World Titles at 135, 147, 154, and 160... Armstrong couldn't match that... Duran would have pulverized Armstrong after boxing him to death... NOBODY could come in pushing, shoving, fouling, and head knocking like Armstrong did versus Duran... and no referee would even allow Armstrong to fight that way today... Duran won 72 of his first 73 fights... Armstrong won 56 of his first 73 fights (in his prime) and lost to many low caliber opponents you never heard of -- barnstorming all over the place and fighting riffraff.

I could agree with you in some stuff here:
In a boxing match, I pick Duran.
In a pound per pound list, I pick Armstrong above Duran. His accomplishments were unbelievable! Out of this world. Especially in the 1936-40 time frame. I don't see anything better or like it.

Both, Armstrong and Duran, are top 5 definitely in my book.

With respect I would pick Duran, over Henry in BOTH a h2h, and an AT p4p list, but I don't think it needs the brains of a rocket scientist to place BOTH men in the top 5 of the Greatest Fighters Who Ever Lived.

It seems to take brains to realize how limited Armstrong was... Anyone who studies his fights knows he was allowed to flagrantly push and shove with his head, shoulders, forearms... He lost by DQ twice and lost 21 times... He was penalized 4 and 5 rounds in some fights, but he never stopped fouling or even tried to box in an orthodox fashion.. So as a head knocker??? Yeah, he was pretty good at knocking heads.. But as a boxer??? Not so much.. Beau Jack, Ray Robinson, and Fritzie Zivic beat the Hell out of Armstrong.. Fritzie Zivic clobbered him twice.. They knew how to fight fire with fire and combat his head-butting style, but you had to get dirty to do it... Some 21st Century boxers have had winning streaks that lasted 11 to 19 years... Armstrong's longest winning streak lasted 2 years 8 months -- and some of those opponents had 20, 30, 40, and 50 losses when they fought him.

re: armstrong vs. robinson......armstrong was totally washed up by that time. he was one of sugar ray's idols.. he fought armstrong so henry could have a decent purse. he carried him so blatantly that it was obvious....the referee told srr a few times to start fighting, but the sugar man just kept sticking away with his jab and moving around. (kalan...this is called stick and run) armstrong's gratitude? he said all ray did was run all the time and wouldn't fight.

golden oldie wrote:
As for your comment about 21st century fighters having winning streaks that lasted 19 years, whoopee doo. Armstrong probably had more fights in the 30's alone, than they had in their entire careers. I don't see many modern day fighters giving away the weight Armstrong did on occasions and getting on with it. For gawds sake Mayweather wouldn't even take on Canelo without demanding a Catch weight. And don't even get me started on Pacman and his weight stips for opponents. Complete frauds when compared to the greats of the past like Armstrong, SRR, and Duran.

Yep. What is often forgotten is losses were not such a big deal in those times. Often guys were literally fighting to feed themselves or families, fighting numerous times a year, sometimes under aliases to get more bouts in. Corruption was more rife and often the decent black fighters were avoided. Now fighters are carefully steered and managed, its all about keeping the 0 so they get a title shot. As you say when do fighters today give huge amounts of weight away (HWs excluded obviously). Different times.

golden oldie wrote:

Kalan wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
With respect I would pick Duran, over Henry in BOTH a h2h, and an AT p4p list, but I don't think it needs the brains of a rocket scientist to place BOTH men in the top 5 of the Greatest Fighters Who Ever Lived.

It seems to take brains to realize how limited Armstrong was... Anyone who studies his fights knows he was allowed to flagrantly push and shove with his head, shoulders, forearms... He lost by DQ twice and lost 21 times... He was penalized 4 and 5 rounds in some fights, but he never stopped fouling or even tried to box in an orthodox fashion.. So as a head knocker??? Yeah, he was pretty good at knocking heads.. But as a boxer??? Not so much.. Beau Jack, Ray Robinson, and Fritzie Zivic beat the Hell out of Armstrong.. Fritzie Zivic clobbered him twice.. They knew how to fight fire with fire and combat his head-butting style, but you had to get dirty to do it... Some 21st Century boxers have had winning streaks that lasted 11 to 19 years... Armstrong's longest winning streak lasted 2 years 8 months -- and some of those opponents had 20, 30, 40, and 50 losses when they fought him.

This will be one of the instances you refer to.

This bout "was crowded with thrills from the first bell to the last" but, "applying the law more severely than ever before and certainly more painful than it ever has been applied in a championship bout," Referee Donovan penalized Armstrong five rounds (2nd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th) for low blows. "The title was not won on competition alone but on fighting rules and ethics. Four of these rounds Armstrong won on competition alone without a doubt.... On this observer's score sheet Armstrong was the victim of an injustice." James P. Dawson, New York Times.

You will forgive me I would rather take the word of someone who was at ringside than someone on the internet 77 years later.

As for your comment about 21st century fighters having winning streaks that lasted 19 years, whoopee doo. Armstrong probably had more fights in the 30's alone, than they had in their entire careers. I don't see many modern day fighters giving away the weight Armstrong did on occasions and getting on with it. For gawds sake Mayweather wouldn't even take on Canelo without demanding a Catch weight. And don't even get me started on Pacman and his weight stips for opponents. Complete frauds when compared to the greats of the past like Armstrong, SRR, and Duran.

You're fulla baloney... You're biased against modern boxers like many old timers are ... You had to foul somebody pretty consistently and badly for Arthur Donavan to take points... and for him to take points in 5 rounds and not DQ Armstrong???? Who could survive fouling that much today???? If you watch some of Armstrong's fights he was fouling 10 times a minute.. It was habitual with him.. David Haye gave up more than 100 pounds to Nicolai Valuev and beat him in hostile territory for a World Heavyweight Title to go with his World Cruiserweight Title... and Valuev's record was 50-1... Armstrong sometimes fought guys with 50 losses... The great majority of Armstrong's fights were with versus creampuffs -- and he still had 8 losses in his 1st 45 fights with 5 draws.. Mayweather went 49-0 and beat more 3 guys who were undefeated in 33 or more fights... Floyd's opponents also had better aggregate winning ratios and he didn't pad his record up with easy fights like Armstrong did -- although I think the Andre Berto fight was an exception to that.. That was a flagrant cherry-pick because undefeated Welterweight Champs were calling Floyd out, and were available to fight... However Berto only had 3 losses and he's far from finished.

Kalan wrote:

golden oldie wrote:

Kalan wrote:
It seems to take brains to realize how limited Armstrong was... Anyone who studies his fights knows he was allowed to flagrantly push and shove with his head, shoulders, forearms... He lost by DQ twice and lost 21 times... He was penalized 4 and 5 rounds in some fights, but he never stopped fouling or even tried to box in an orthodox fashion.. So as a head knocker??? Yeah, he was pretty good at knocking heads.. But as a boxer??? Not so much.. Beau Jack, Ray Robinson, and Fritzie Zivic beat the Hell out of Armstrong.. Fritzie Zivic clobbered him twice.. They knew how to fight fire with fire and combat his head-butting style, but you had to get dirty to do it... Some 21st Century boxers have had winning streaks that lasted 11 to 19 years... Armstrong's longest winning streak lasted 2 years 8 months -- and some of those opponents had 20, 30, 40, and 50 losses when they fought him.

This will be one of the instances you refer to.

This bout "was crowded with thrills from the first bell to the last" but, "applying the law more severely than ever before and certainly more painful than it ever has been applied in a championship bout," Referee Donovan penalized Armstrong five rounds (2nd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th) for low blows. "The title was not won on competition alone but on fighting rules and ethics. Four of these rounds Armstrong won on competition alone without a doubt.... On this observer's score sheet Armstrong was the victim of an injustice." James P. Dawson, New York Times.

You will forgive me I would rather take the word of someone who was at ringside than someone on the internet 77 years later.

As for your comment about 21st century fighters having winning streaks that lasted 19 years, whoopee doo. Armstrong probably had more fights in the 30's alone, than they had in their entire careers. I don't see many modern day fighters giving away the weight Armstrong did on occasions and getting on with it. For gawds sake Mayweather wouldn't even take on Canelo without demanding a Catch weight. And don't even get me started on Pacman and his weight stips for opponents. Complete frauds when compared to the greats of the past like Armstrong, SRR, and Duran.

You're fulla baloney... You're biased against modern boxers like many old timers are ... You had to foul somebody pretty consistently and badly for Arthur Donavan to take points... and for him to take points in 5 rounds and not DQ Armstrong???? Who could survive fouling that much today???? If you watch some of Armstrong's fights he was fouling 10 times a minute.. It was habitual with him.. David Haye gave up more than 100 pounds to Nicolai Valuev and beat him in hostile territory for a World Heavyweight Title to go with his World Cruiserweight Title... and Valuev's record was 50-1... Armstrong sometimes fought guys with 50 losses... The great majority of Armstrong's fights were with versus creampuffs -- and he still had 8 losses in his 1st 45 fights with 5 draws.. Mayweather went 49-0 and beat more 3 guys who were undefeated in 33 or more fights... Floyd's opponents also had better aggregate winning ratios and he didn't pad his record up with easy fights like Armstrong did -- although I think the Andre Berto fight was an exception to that.. That was a flagrant cherry-pick because undefeated Welterweight Champs were calling Floyd out, and were available to fight... However Berto only had 3 losses and he's far from finished.

Valuevs record was amazing wasn't it. One of the greats of boxing, with Ibeabuchi, Valero and Luis Ortiz. Oh, have you heard of Henry Brussells? Or Phillip Ndou?

I will repeat for the several people on this thread who clearly dont know what they are talking about: When Armstrong fought Ambers the second time you could not win/lose a fight on a DQ in New York. Hence, Donovans ONLY recourse to counter Armstrong's blatant fouling was to take points away. Dawson was completely wrong, there was unfairness in this fight. Anyone who watches that fight can see that Armstrong was blatantly fouling. Armstrong was taking advantage of the rule preventing a DQ in an attempt to wear Ambers down and stop him. Had that rule not been in place that fight would have looked a lot different and likely a lot more favorable to Ambers who fought such a tremendous fight in their first fight that many thought he actually won it, put Armstrong in the hospital, and put enough worry into Armstrong that Armstrong had it written into the contract that if he lost to Ambers his WW title would not be on the line. With that being said it still doesnt mean Armstrong was an overrated fraud like this pinhead Kalan wants to insinuate.

klompton wrote:I will repeat for the several people on this thread who clearly dont know what they are talking about: When Armstrong fought Ambers the second time you could not win/lose a fight on a DQ in New York. Hence, Donovans ONLY recourse to counter Armstrong's blatant fouling was to take points away. Dawson was completely wrong, there was unfairness in this fight. Anyone who watches that fight can see that Armstrong was blatantly fouling. Armstrong was taking advantage of the rule preventing a DQ in an attempt to wear Ambers down and stop him. Had that rule not been in place that fight would have looked a lot different and likely a lot more favorable to Ambers who fought such a tremendous fight in their first fight that many thought he actually won it, put Armstrong in the hospital, and put enough worry into Armstrong that Armstrong had it written into the contract that if he lost to Ambers his WW title would not be on the line. With that being said it still doesnt mean Armstrong was an overrated fraud like this pinhead Kalan wants to insinuate.

klompton your words are like poetry here. And the concept your attempting to express is deliciously subtle, nuanced and complex...as it is simple. Nearly paradoxical. One can assemble all the facts one can gather, and in insidious fashion, use those facts to completely undermine a truth. You and I are in agreement that this is exactly what Kalan is attempting to do in the case of Henry Armstrong.

In fact the Ambers fight is a good reason to simply want to tear Armstrong record down not for the loss, but just for the ethics of it. Your right about Donovan's rulings...and Armstrong questionable fight plan is equally dubious. But to use such facts even for a moment to effect or affect a transparent assessment of Henry's (or any fighters) genuine skill level, is a con mans game. Whether Kalan knows he's a con man or not I don't know. His passion probably runs away with his ability to fairly assess in this case.

I don't like Monzon, but I don't let it get in my way of accurately attempting to convey what my eyes have witnessed.

It's important when assessing, to be sure you don't have a dog in the race, and if you do, you need to reassess and let that dog go.

I try to do the same thing with fighters I like, or dislike...styles I like or dislike, and matchups where my hopes are/were pinned to certain outcomes.

I also know how challenging that can be for anyone. Sometimes it takes really listening to other opinions deeply, and taking a second, third and fourth look at the event being assessed.

Which is why it's so difficult for me to put a lot of faith in those things that have never, been reviewed other than in real time, and may never be seen again. You and I have had this conversation. And I've tried to evolve somewhat on that limitation that I have developed. lol.

golden oldie wrote:

Kalan wrote:

golden oldie wrote:
This will be one of the instances you refer to.



You will forgive me I would rather take the word of someone who was at ringside than someone on the internet 77 years later.

As for your comment about 21st century fighters having winning streaks that lasted 19 years, whoopee doo. Armstrong probably had more fights in the 30's alone, than they had in their entire careers. I don't see many modern day fighters giving away the weight Armstrong did on occasions and getting on with it. For gawds sake Mayweather wouldn't even take on Canelo without demanding a Catch weight. And don't even get me started on Pacman and his weight stips for opponents. Complete frauds when compared to the greats of the past like Armstrong, SRR, and Duran.

You're fulla baloney... You're biased against modern boxers like many old timers are ... You had to foul somebody pretty consistently and badly for Arthur Donavan to take points... and for him to take points in 5 rounds and not DQ Armstrong???? Who could survive fouling that much today???? If you watch some of Armstrong's fights he was fouling 10 times a minute.. It was habitual with him.. David Haye gave up more than 100 pounds to Nicolai Valuev and beat him in hostile territory for a World Heavyweight Title to go with his World Cruiserweight Title... and Valuev's record was 50-1... Armstrong sometimes fought guys with 50 losses... The great majority of Armstrong's fights were with versus creampuffs -- and he still had 8 losses in his 1st 45 fights with 5 draws.. Mayweather went 49-0 and beat more 3 guys who were undefeated in 33 or more fights... Floyd's opponents also had better aggregate winning ratios and he didn't pad his record up with easy fights like Armstrong did -- although I think the Andre Berto fight was an exception to that.. That was a flagrant cherry-pick because undefeated Welterweight Champs were calling Floyd out, and were available to fight... However Berto only had 3 losses and he's far from finished.

Do you run a creche for a living? Show me a fighter who isn't prepared to foul to gain an advantage, and I'll show you a perennial LOSER. It is not croquet, it is fighting for gawds sake. Even Mayweather fouls with his forearm in the throat tactic.

There are many clean fighters.. Boxers who rarely if ever fouled include: Tunney.. Louis.. Burley.. Charles.. Patterson.. Griffith.. Jofre.. Bob Foster.. Sergio Martinez.. Barney Ross.. Schmeling.. Loughran.. Harold Johnson.. Mike Gibbons.. and for active fighters, I'd go with Joshua, Thurman, and Russell -- Those guys were all winners.. They may have committed the odd foul, but they wouldn't foul deliberately or habitually.

Habitual and deliberate foulers include: Hmmm...there's not too many I can think of ... Henry Armstrong and Andrew Golota for sure

You always mention Mike Gibbons, his brother may have been even better....and another guy who abided by the rules.

Kalan wrote:

golden oldie wrote:

Kalan wrote:
You're fulla baloney... You're biased against modern boxers like many old timers are ... You had to foul somebody pretty consistently and badly for Arthur Donavan to take points... and for him to take points in 5 rounds and not DQ Armstrong???? Who could survive fouling that much today???? If you watch some of Armstrong's fights he was fouling 10 times a minute.. It was habitual with him.. David Haye gave up more than 100 pounds to Nicolai Valuev and beat him in hostile territory for a World Heavyweight Title to go with his World Cruiserweight Title... and Valuev's record was 50-1... Armstrong sometimes fought guys with 50 losses... The great majority of Armstrong's fights were with versus creampuffs -- and he still had 8 losses in his 1st 45 fights with 5 draws.. Mayweather went 49-0 and beat more 3 guys who were undefeated in 33 or more fights... Floyd's opponents also had better aggregate winning ratios and he didn't pad his record up with easy fights like Armstrong did -- although I think the Andre Berto fight was an exception to that.. That was a flagrant cherry-pick because undefeated Welterweight Champs were calling Floyd out, and were available to fight... However Berto only had 3 losses and he's far from finished.

Do you run a creche for a living? Show me a fighter who isn't prepared to foul to gain an advantage, and I'll show you a perennial LOSER. It is not croquet, it is fighting for gawds sake. Even Mayweather fouls with his forearm in the throat tactic.

There are many clean fighters.. Boxers who rarely if ever fouled include: Tunney.. Louis.. Burley.. Charles.. Patterson.. Griffith.. Jofre.. Bob Foster.. Sergio Martinez.. Barney Ross.. Schmeling.. Loughran.. Harold Johnson.. Mike Gibbons.. and for active fighters, I'd go with Joshua, Thurman, and Russell -- Those guys were all winners.. They may have committed the odd foul, but they wouldn't foul deliberately or habitually.

Habitual and deliberate foulers include: Hmmm...there's not too many I can think of ... Henry Armstrong and Andrew Golota for sure

fouling is part and parcel of the game, you do what you can get away with at the appropiate time, everybody does it and most boxers just accept it when it happens to them

golden oldie wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

Valuevs record was amazing wasn't it. One of the greats of boxing, with Ibeabuchi, Valero and Luis Ortiz. Oh, have you heard of Henry Brussells? Or Phillip Ndou?

Perhaps our friend Kalan can give us an example of Homicide Hank biting someone's ear,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, twice in one fight, when he gets oh so righteous about modern day fighters being so gentlemanly.

Armstrong was only DQ'd twice for a million fouls.. Mike Tyson had 2-points taken or biting -- then he was immediately DQ'd for biting twice... It was outrageous that he wasn't DQ'd immediately, since it was obvious he was trying to foul out...BUT it was a big fight and maybe Mills Lane thought he did that in a fit of temper instead of cold blooded calculation.. He gave Mike a chance.. Holyfield was butting Mike in the eyes a lot and he wasn't responding in kind -- which is what one usually does.

NOBODY ever heard of Henry Brussells or your man Phil... Ike Ibeabuchi, Luis Ortiz, and Edwin Valero are well known to Boxing fans because they never suffered a single defeat in 72 fights while scoring 64 KO wins, and winning 3 World Titles ... Armstrong won 55 of his first 72 fights... Not bad, but far from fabulous.

BoxBuzz wrote:

klompton wrote:I will repeat for the several people on this thread who clearly dont know what they are talking about: When Armstrong fought Ambers the second time you could not win/lose a fight on a DQ in New York. Hence, Donovans ONLY recourse to counter Armstrong's blatant fouling was to take points away. Dawson was completely wrong, there was unfairness in this fight. Anyone who watches that fight can see that Armstrong was blatantly fouling. Armstrong was taking advantage of the rule preventing a DQ in an attempt to wear Ambers down and stop him. Had that rule not been in place that fight would have looked a lot different and likely a lot more favorable to Ambers who fought such a tremendous fight in their first fight that many thought he actually won it, put Armstrong in the hospital, and put enough worry into Armstrong that Armstrong had it written into the contract that if he lost to Ambers his WW title would not be on the line. With that being said it still doesnt mean Armstrong was an overrated fraud like this pinhead Kalan wants to insinuate.

klompton your words are like poetry here. And the concept your attempting to express is deliciously subtle, nuanced and complex...as it is simple. Nearly paradoxical. One can assemble all the facts one can gather, and in insidious fashion, use those facts to completely undermine a truth. You and I are in agreement that this is exactly what Kalan is attempting to do in the case of Henry Armstrong.

In fact the Ambers fight is a good reason to simply want to tear Armstrong record down not for the loss, but just for the ethics of it. Your right about Donovan's rulings...and Armstrong questionable fight plan is equally dubious. But to use such facts even for a moment to effect or affect a transparent assessment of Henry's (or any fighters) genuine skill level, is a con mans game. Whether Kalan knows he's a con man or not I don't know. His passion probably runs away with his ability to fairly assess in this case.

I don't like Monzon, but I don't let it get in my way of accurately attempting to convey what my eyes have witnessed.

It's important when assessing, to be sure you don't have a dog in the race, and if you do, you need to reassess and let that dog go.

I try to do the same thing with fighters I like, or dislike...styles I like or dislike, and matchups where my hopes are/were pinned to certain outcomes.

I also know how challenging that can be for anyone. Sometimes it takes really listening to other opinions deeply, and taking a second, third and fourth look at the event being assessed.

Which is why it's so difficult for me to put a lot of faith in those things that have never, been reviewed other than in real time, and may never be seen again. You and I have had this conversation. And I've tried to evolve somewhat on that limitation that I have developed. lol.

BuzzBox... You're trying to hard to sound educated but you're falling flat. You're the guy who refuses to study Armstrong's fights on YouTube or admit to his flagrant fouling. He was a dirty fighter, in a crooked and manipulated sport during his heyday -- and he would not be allowed to fight that way today.

Listen Kolon, I done got me a lotta learnin.....and I'll have wurds boarderin' on violins with the first person who sez it aint sew!