Homicide Hank for me. Armstrong was actually extremely hard to nail cleanly - defense extremely underrated. He was just a more sophisticated operator than Saddler.
These guys would hate it in there with eachother. Both bangers, both made of iron, both with endless stamina, and both with horrible styles for one another. The only fighter on film who Saddler fought who resembles Armstrong is Charley Riley. Saddler massively struggled with the moving target, and low centre of gravity. Riley was a good contender, but it goes without saying that he was no Armstrong. Saddler beat Riley by turning off, pinning one hand and working the lead uppercut. These were things which Lou Ambers had massive success doing, and Ambers wasn't quite as good as Saddler. He lacked the power, strength and stamina that Saddler had, and I don't think he was quite as skilled. And Armstrong fought a tall, teak tough, highly dirty and highly skilled fighter in Fritzie Zivic. He went 2-1 and suffered one of his two stoppage defeats. Both were awful for one another. In those sorts of fights, I tend to go with the fighter who I view as better. The ones who's more likely to get theirs and get it done. And that, IMO, is Armstrong.
