Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
Armstrong-Whitaker
Ross-Duran
Ortiz-Arguello
Ross-Duran
Ortiz-Arguello
-
King Carlos
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1123
- Joined: 11 May 2010, 19:10
Re: Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
Armstrong/Whitaker makes for the most interesting styles clash, and Whitaker is my favourite fighter, so that'd be my choice. However, I think Ortiz/Arguello would make for the best fight.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
Re: Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
Whitaker's my favourite too, but I voted for Ross-Duran. Best spectacle, IMO.
Re: Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
Goodnight, Irene wrote:Armstrong-Whitaker
Ross-Duran
Ortiz-Arguello
Ross v Duran but I can't pick a winner. Good choices. I pick Armstrong over Whittaker in a frustrating bout for Hank. Can't pick as I've not seen or read enough about Ortiz.
Re: Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
Armstrong vs Whitaker for me.

-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 15690
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
Re: Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
Ortiz vs Arguello
-
King Carlos
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1123
- Joined: 11 May 2010, 19:10
Re: Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
I honestly think Ross/Duran is the least interesting, yet it's winning the poll.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
Re: Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
I was right and you were wrongKing Carlos wrote:I honestly think Ross/Duran is the least interesting, yet it's winning the poll.
Re: Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
I went with Armstrong-Whittaker as it would be good to see Pernell lose.
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
You might need a different fight for that.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
Re: Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
Love Sweet Pea and he was an even-bet or better against virtually any 135er who drew breath, but Homicide Hank is the Everest of tall orders 
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
They would both have tall orders in front of them. Pea was so utterly dominant in his prime it's difficult to pinpoint what style would be his undoing. I just don't think full blown aggression is that answer. Not to say I'm overly confident, but I have a suspicion that Whitaker would find him easy to hit and he was a far more capable in fighter than people give him credit for.Goodnight, Irene wrote:Love Sweet Pea and he was an even-bet or better against virtually any 135er who drew breath, but Homicide Hank is the Everest of tall orders
Sold on this as a vote.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
Re: Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
I thought this maybe inferred a vote for Armstrong.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:You might need a different fight for that.
-
SaadOffTheDeck
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 19602
- Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38
Re: Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
I meant to see Pernell lose. I just happened to be too lazy to quote Ezzard and I can certainly see where the random nature could be confusing. It's a fascinating fight.Goodnight, Irene wrote:I thought this maybe inferred a vote for Armstrong.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:You might need a different fight for that.
Re: Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
I think there are 3 ways to beat Whittaker…
1) Be a defensive master like him… A Joe Gans perhaps
In this situation an opponent might edge Pea out, or be edged out by him.
2) An accurate, fast boxer-puncher, with a dynamite punch… A lightweight Tommy Hearns
You have to make every punch count when you fight Whittaker so a really skilled electrifying puncher could do the job
3) A super swarmer… Armstrong, Duran
The idea is to just empty your tank over 15 and throw something like two thousand punches in the fight making Pea too defensive to win
None of these styles is guaranteed to bring victory against him but I think they make the most sense.
1) Be a defensive master like him… A Joe Gans perhaps
In this situation an opponent might edge Pea out, or be edged out by him.
2) An accurate, fast boxer-puncher, with a dynamite punch… A lightweight Tommy Hearns
You have to make every punch count when you fight Whittaker so a really skilled electrifying puncher could do the job
3) A super swarmer… Armstrong, Duran
The idea is to just empty your tank over 15 and throw something like two thousand punches in the fight making Pea too defensive to win
None of these styles is guaranteed to bring victory against him but I think they make the most sense.
Re: Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
Ezzard, You just described Benny Leonard, who ruled the LW division for SEVEN YEARS. Good show !Ezzard wrote:I think there are 3 ways to beat Whittaker…
1) Be a defensive master like him… A Joe Gans perhaps
In this situation an opponent might edge Pea out, or be edged out by him.
2) An accurate, fast boxer-puncher, with a dynamite punch… A lightweight Tommy Hearns
You have to make every punch count when you fight Whittaker so a really skilled electrifying puncher could do the job
3) A super swarmer… Armstrong, Duran
The idea is to just empty your tank over 15 and throw something like two thousand punches in the fight making Pea too defensive to win
None of these styles is guaranteed to bring victory against him but I think they make the most sense.
-
King Carlos
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1123
- Joined: 11 May 2010, 19:10
Re: Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
#'s 2 & 3 I agree with, but who really fits the bill for #2 at Lightweight? Maybe Napoles before he was forced to move up? In the scant footage available, he certainly looks quicker and more explosive there. I think that would be an amazing match-up.Ezzard wrote:I think there are 3 ways to beat Whittaker…
1) Be a defensive master like him… A Joe Gans perhaps
In this situation an opponent might edge Pea out, or be edged out by him.
2) An accurate, fast boxer-puncher, with a dynamite punch… A lightweight Tommy Hearns
You have to make every punch count when you fight Whittaker so a really skilled electrifying puncher could do the job
3) A super swarmer… Armstrong, Duran
The idea is to just empty your tank over 15 and throw something like two thousand punches in the fight making Pea too defensive to win
None of these styles is guaranteed to bring victory against him but I think they make the most sense.
Re: Which Would You Pay More To Be Ringside For (LW)?
Armstrong vs Whitaker