amtrong overrated

The 1930's was a weak era for boxing. They say he accomplished more than pryor, ask ur self a question. Would he win the featherweight, lightweight and welterweight belts in a better era. Would armstrong do the same if he had to fight salvador sanchez, azumah nelson and wilfredo gomez at featherweight. How about fighting arguello, camacho, rosario, chavez and pryor at 135-140ish. Then go up to 147 and beat guys like hearns, leonard, benitez, duran, curry and honeygan. There was a huge difference in gap between the talent in the 80's and 30's, its not even a comparison. He beat 12 hall of famers. Guess what, most of them were just belt holders, they werent elite fighters. You know damn well that back then Hall Of Fame honours were given to fighters that arent exactly great. Who are you kidding pal, pryor would have a great chance at beating armstrong. I mean half of armstrong's losses are against c-level fighters. he defended the welterweight belt 18 times, lets see who he fought. phil furr, a nobody lew jenkins? ralph zannelli caferino garcia joe ghnouly jimmy garrisonx2 bobby pachox2 ritchie fontaine howard scott, a losing record folks al manfredo ernie roderick lew feldman Yeah i call that an extremely weak era, these guys are not elite fighters. Its quantity, not quality. The featherweight champ he beat was sarron, he is not one of the best. So in reality, he has 2 eilte wins over lou ambers and barney ross. Just like pryor has wins over arguello and cervantes. I respect armstrong, but he is overrated to a certain extent.

Comments (8)

GattiFan

Yea...but....the argument is flawed.... You can argue about ANYONES record if all your going to do is pick the best fighters of all time and say...."How would have have done against THAT line up..huh...tell me how good he is against the best fighters that ever lived" Yea Yea. Fact is...the man chewed up a LOT of good fighters, a lot of decent ones, and alot of crappy ones. But he STILL beat them all. If if was easy...even against limited opposition...we wouldnt still be talking about Armstrong today...there would be 20 other guys and it wouldnt be a big deal. But it IS a big deal, no matter what year you live in...and the man is a legend and in no way overrated.

19y ago

brownpimp88

Homicide Hank is one of the all time greats, it just pisses me off when people say, " O you cant compare this guy to armstrong, he's in another league."

19y ago

Hitman932

I'm not saying he sucks, all i'm saying is that guys like whitaker and pryor are probably better. Just think of the circumstances, would armstrong be welterweight champ in pryor's era, no he wouldnt. whitaker and pryor are definately more refined and skilled fighters... and naturally bigger in todays era armstong would be a 6 division champ especially with all the ABC's around to be fair to artstrong yuou shouldnt judge his by todays standard of a welterweight, which has changed as much as the standard heavyweight over the past 60 years. id give armstrong 50/50 against the best 135 pounders around today..

19y ago

wmute

19y ago

brownpimp88

well you can look at sugar ray robinsons career and criticize it in the same fashion.... the fact is that guys like armstrong and robinson very rarely fought other black fighters which kept their overall level of opposition down. when they did it was almost an exhibition as when armstrong and robinson fought well past the point where armstrong had a chance to win where armstrong deserves credit is for his welterweight accomplishments, he was a featherweight naturally but accomplished more in the welter div than in the feather and lightweight combined... he was defending his welter belt 8-10 times a year against guys outweighing him anywhere from 5-10 pounds... if he were not a great fighter he have slippped up to a lesser fighter than zivic at some point.... I'm not saying he sucks, all i'm saying is that guys like whitaker and pryor are probably better. Just think of the circumstances, would armstrong be welterweight champ in pryor's era, no he wouldnt.

19y ago

Antonio

I disagree, Armstrong was relentless.

19y ago

Hitman932

Come on, i want to see someone make a reply. You guys are all bitchy about who roy defends his belt against while armstrong was too busy giving shots to guys with 50 losses and others with losing records. well you can look at sugar ray robinsons career and criticize it in the same fashion.... the fact is that guys like armstrong and robinson very rarely fought other black fighters which kept their overall level of opposition down. when they did it was almost an exhibition as when armstrong and robinson fought well past the point where armstrong had a chance to win where armstrong deserves credit is for his welterweight accomplishments, he was a featherweight naturally but accomplished more in the welter div than in the feather and lightweight combined... he was defending his welter belt 8-10 times a year against guys outweighing him anywhere from 5-10 pounds... if he were not a great fighter he have slippped up to a lesser fighter than zivic at some point....

19y ago

brownpimp88

19y ago