Henry Armstrong- Top 5 P4P or overrated due to romanticism?

I wanted to touch on old time boxers getting romanticized. I don't really need to watch him since the whole premise of the thread is you bashing him for his lack of skills being overshadowed by nostalgia. We're basically both saying the same thing. I wasn't bashing him, I was more or less just playing devils advocate. Fair enough though man we'll agree to disagree.

He was the lineal champion in 3 of the 8 original weight classes simultaneously. When there was only one belt!! People need to really try to understand just how difficult a feat that is. It would be like Errol Spence beating Thurman, moving up to 160 and beating GGG, and then moving up to 175 and beating Ward!!!

because they are both from pretty close to same era?? and both con top 5 or so by most boxing experts. but yes we can disagree that's ok Armstrong and Robinson are close to the same era? Armstrong started fighting in 1931, what the fock are you talking about? And again, most boxing experts are smart enough to rank boxers relatively to their era.

How the fock can you make that assumption? But yeah, I agree, this argument is clearly going nowhere. because they are both from pretty close to same era?? and both con top 5 or so by most boxing experts. but yes we can disagree that's ok

yes and if u aint seen Armstrong I don't think u have seen srr that much either. but man we can just disagree How the fock can you make that assumption? But yeah, I agree, this argument is clearly going nowhere.

My friend, you are making no sense at all. Bro, weren't we just talking about SRR? yes and if u aint seen Armstrong I don't think u have seen srr that much either. but man we can just disagree

boxing is diff from other sports there were many more fighters back then.all other sports have grown and they are bigger were in boxing u can still compare a 160 pounder from today and one from 40s My friend, you are making no sense at all. if you have not even watched them how do u even compare Bro, weren't we just talking about SRR?

I wanted to touch on old time boxers getting romanticized. I don't really need to watch him since the whole premise of the thread is you bashing him for his lack of skills being overshadowed by nostalgia. We're basically both saying the same thing. if you have not even watched them how do u even compare

I have no idea why you're discussing resume when we're talking about SKILLS. And as I said earlier, SRR's punch mechanics are horrible by today's standards. I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. Every sport evolves over time. boxing is diff from other sports there were many more fighters back then.all other sports have grown and they are bigger were in boxing u can still compare a 160 pounder from today and one from 40s

If your honestly not trolling why would you enter a thread based solely on Henry Armstrong, a fighter that you admit to have not watched much of in a previous comment. Fair enough though man your entitled to your opinion. I wanted to touch on old time boxers getting romanticized. I don't really need to watch him since the whole premise of the thread is you bashing him for his lack of skills being overshadowed by nostalgia. We're basically both saying the same thing.

watch the way he boxes when he had to with lamatto#6 and tell along with all other footage of him and tell he had dude was 128-1-2 with 5 wins over guy who beat him.also avenged both he won news paper dec in both those but still beat both once twice that's after 12 years cmon I have no idea why you're discussing resume when we're talking about SKILLS. And as I said earlier, SRR's punch mechanics are horrible by today's standards. I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. Every sport evolves over time.

No, I am not trolling. He was great relative to his era, but by today's standards, he had many holes in his game. If your honestly not trolling why would you enter a thread based solely on Henry Armstrong, a fighter that you admit to have not watched much of in a previous comment. Fair enough though man your entitled to your opinion.

look iT there were WAY more boxers then it peaked in the40-50s but there is less every decade sad but true very sad

He was the greatest of his day. I think a few more modern boxers his weight might beat him. The longer ago these legendary boxers fought the harder it is for any more recent boxers to beat them in fantasy fights. There is romanticism involved. Many like to believe boxers about the same age as themselves were the best. Boxing has improved in the last 80 years. Boxing is a much more world wide sport now than then. The population of the world is several times greater. More boxers means more chances of great boxers. Training methods and skills have probably improved. When I see film of the great old timers they usually don't look as sharp as the best modern boxers. My take on that is if he were fighting today he would have access to all those training methods. Given his relentless style and incredible stamina he would be a handfull in the present. Pitting two fighters from different generations doesnt prove anything if the playing field isn't level.

No, I am not trolling. He was great relative to his era, but by today's standards, he had many holes in his game. watch the way he boxes when he had to with lamatto#6 and tell along with all other footage of him and tell he had dude was 128-1-2 with 5 wins over guy who beat him.also avenged both he won news paper dec in both those but still beat both once twice that's after 12 years cmon

I honestly hope your trolling. SSR is the most phenomenal fighter to ever lace 'em up. No, I am not trolling. He was great relative to his era, but by today's standards, he had many holes in his game.

Your just typing what everyone knows...where are the NEW techniques you spoke about. As far as conditioning the fighters then were in far better "boxing shape" than the men today. "cryogenic chambers" seriously this isn't basketball where you need to recover quickly. When you fight these days you have six full months to recover. Robinson might have taken advantage of this because he fought MONTHLY! "your a nobody in boxing"......I was IN boxing, you on the other hand have never visited a gym. My gym name is still in existence today producing state, regional and national competitors and champions since 1969. World Champions have come to me for prep work prior to title fights how many country have you boxed in? What historical venues have you boxed in? Disney Land! Quoting old statements from BoxRec and making believe you actually knew what happened then is a joke. My mentors were outstanding men in the sport and they taught me well. If you want to actually talk Methods & Techniques then do it but don't BS about "new" techniques when you have no idea how to perform them and you damn sure can't teach them. Ray Type Ray Corso boxing into google and see what you find; I'll answer that for you f*ck all. Your full of sh*t kid go hold the spit bucket in your imaginary gym. Your no different than any of the other people on this forum. We're all just boxing fans with opinion's. Difference is the majority of us can have a debate without becoming a passive-aggressive, narrow minded, condescending A**hole.

The only time they had fought, on April 26, 1906, ended in a fifteen-round decision. Johnson was much taller and heavier than Langford, and though he knocked down Langford in the sixth round, many spectators felt Langford had won the bout. Johnson had been fighting top heavyweights. Langford had been fighting at welterweight and weighed 156 for this fight. Later Johnson avoided Langford. he avoided ALL black fighter after he won title but had winning rec with all of them lang,mcvey,ed martin,and I more wose name I forget

Please take the time to actually watch/study these guys before dismissing them. You should watch a guy like Armstrong and imagine how good he could've been in the modern day with benefits of modern technology, training etc.You're only looking at it 1-sided tho. If you're going to do the hypothetical thing and imagine how fighters from 70 years ago would be in present day then you can't just factor in the things that would possibly make them better. You also have to factor on the things that could possibly stop them from being as good. Imagine if srr had access to the type of money that Floyd has access to. Does it fight 200 times? Why would he? Does he take the same risks that he took in his career? Why would he? If srr had access to the kind of fortune and fame that mayweather has then he would've been a completely different fighter with a completely different mentality and he would've had a completely different career. It's the same thing for mayweather in reverse. If mayweather were born 60-70 years earlier and had to compete in srr's era, he would've been a completely different fighter with a completely different mentality and he would've had a completely different career. This is why it's silly to take these fantasy debates seriously. Fighters from eras that are a certain amount of time apart simply can't be compared accurately.

not sayin Langford not great just hard to place him with such little footage and the fact he fought all over the place in weight.ov because he was being ducked by many