BoxRec

Who do you believe would have won this fight at 135lbs. Gans his great foot speed, counter punching ability and had serious power. Armstrong was amazing in his prime he had great power, chin and punch output. Both guys had incredible stamina Gans went 42 rounds and Armstrong never stopped punching. So who you picking?

Armstrong in a very easy fight. Gans looked sorta like a modern type fighter in days; Armstrong would have looked like a monster in that era.

theone wrote:Armstrong in a very easy fight. Gans looked sorta like a modern type fighter in days; Armstrong would have looked like a monster in that era.

Battling Nelson was the greatest of all endurance fighters.

But nobody here knows that he ever existed.

LOL.


theone looks like a typical clueless poster on a "boxing" site, regurgitating the very tired talking points made up by his fellow clueless.

theone looks like a typical clueless poster on a "boxing" site, regurgitating the very tired talking points made up by his fellow clueless.

Then why do you bother posting here? You offer nothing but negativity whenever you post and have never given any insightful views on anything.
All you ever do is wait for someone to post something you disagree with (that never takes long) and then you cut into them with stupid insults like you're some authority on the sport. Again, if everyone is so clueless on this site why do you post here? Are you that lonely and joyless you get your kicks out of being a Troll on a boxing web site?

theone, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you. Yep the negativity is valid but granberry has a lot of knowledge. I have followed up on some of his stuff and his history is generally accurate. So he is informed historically and he teaches a lot of accurate stuff when he simply reports to us like a camera and/or a tape recorder. I don't think I've caught him on inaccurate history. HOWEVER his opinions are maniacal....and I mean this in almost every sense of the word. He is grumpy about something to do with certain fighters careers and he carries it to extreme.

So...you simply take the history which is typically straight up...and just let the editorial stuff roll off. However I'm starting to try to "listen without predjudice to his opineing ON THE OFF CHANCE he's got something worthwhile in it to take a second look at.

All in all I think he's a good contributor save the attack dog stuff.

Generally speaking it's hard to get in to the "conspiratorial" stuff. It just don't hold up well under scrutiny.

its funny, as soon as I posted that I read something Granberry wrote on another topic that was indeed insightful and helpful to another poster. And he came off like a normal person as well! I didn't have time to edit that part of my post before you replied.

However he's still a Troll...and an asshole.

theone wrote:its funny, as soon as I posted that I read something Granberry wrote on another topic that was indeed insightful and helpful to another poster. And he came off like a normal person as well! I didn't have time to edit that part of my post before you replied.

However he's still a Troll...and an asshole.

theone is a typical clueless clown compelled to post on "boxing" sites.

What is it that compels clowns like theone to post compulsively on a topic they are totally clueless on?

theone, does it make you feel more "manly" to post on the rough, tough subject of "boxing" ?

Do you know that if you said the things you feel so free to post here to a normal male face to face you would be splattered all over the sidewalk in a few seconds?

The internet and sites like this are a haven for the clueless like the one and their aspirations of "manliness."

What a pathetic exhibition.

And of course I note that purported "monitor" of this site leaves the trash attempts at insults that assholes like theone post sitting here untouched.

buzz, how many of the "posters" here such a Collins, etc. are actually your aliases?

I have no pseudo's.

As for your statement of getting into an altercation....your own communication and people skills here are not quite the inspirational light and hallmark of good citizenry you seem to imagine.

BoxBuzz wrote:I have no pseudo's.

As for your statement of getting into an altercation....your own communication and people skills here are not quite the inspirational light and hallmark of good citizenry you seem to imagine.

I am sure Collins is an alias of yours, buzz.

Collins shows up like clockwork every time you need reinforcement in your noodlings.

granberry wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:I have no pseudo's.

As for your statement of getting into an altercation....your own communication and people skills here are not quite the inspirational light and hallmark of good citizenry you seem to imagine.

I am sure Collins is an alias of yours, buzz.

Collins shows up like clockwork every time you need reinforcement in your noodlings.

There are quite a few regulars here, Collins is one...he sees, he reads, he opines...just like yourself no reason for any healthy mind to think there is any dark drama involved.

Though you see yourself as the arbiter of truth, the fact is that in the diplomatic world a personality such as yourself could probably unite the Isreali's and the Palestinians because they could both see a reason to take you equally to task for your zanyness in spite of there own obvious differences.

Do you know that if you said the things you feel so free to post here to a normal male face to face you would be splattered all over the sidewalk in a few seconds?
The internet and sites like this are a haven for the clueless like the one and their aspirations of "manliness."
What a pathetic exhibition.

If you ever saw me face to face I would be more than happy to repeat verbatim anything i have posted on this site. Believe me, the thought of trying to splatter me all over the sidewalk would instantly cease to be feasible
to you.
But such arguments on this site is nonsense. I'm not an internet tough guy like you who says stupid sit like you posted above knowing full well the chances of an actually encounter are far flung.
But if splattering me all over the sidewalk in seconds is an itch you really need to scratch, let me know whenever you're in the NY area.

I actually believe that Gans would win he was very sound defensively and I believe with Armstrong coming forward so much Gans would be able to counter often. He’d probably win via a decision due to Armstrong’s stamina and durability. Gans was one of the smartest fighters ever as well as having tremendous power and I believe that would be the key difference, these comments support that.

"Gans is the cleverest fighter, big or little that ever put on the gloves. He is also a hard hitter. He uses one hand as equally well as the other and can score a knockout with either” Bob Fitzsimmons.

"I never liked a Negro as a fighting man…but Gans is the greatest lightweight the ring ever saw. He could lick them all on their best day. Gans is easily the fastest and cleverest man of his weight in the world. He can hit like a mule kicking with either hand.” John L. Sullivan.

Anyone else got an opinon on who would win this?

I give the edge to Gans, but it'd he a helluva fight.

Armstrong was a whirl-wind but his defense was not airtight and Gans' ability to throw 2-3 punches then pivot out was unmatched.

One important thing is to say the distance of the fight? 12, 15, 20 rounds? Over 20?

dempseyfire wrote:I give the edge to Gans, but it'd he a helluva fight.

Armstrong was a whirl-wind but his defense was not airtight and Gans' ability to throw 2-3 punches then pivot out was unmatched.

One important thing is to say the distance of the fight? 12, 15, 20 rounds? Over 20?

15 rounds but you can give your predictions for 12 and 20 if they differ.