Henry Armstrong question mark

**JAB5239** · 04-17-2021, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by cfang

So when im pondering a list of all time p4p fighters, Armstrong makes the top ten but... I always hesitate to put his name in there. Greb, langford, srr, Charles straight in but Henry, there are doubts.

He has an odd career. Some incredible highs. Winning the undisputed title at 3 weights and holding at the same time and should have been a 4th people say as he drew with garcia and could have got that decision. Then there's the 19 title defences. Incredible

So why the hesitation? Well he lost twice to zivic and then to reuben shank. He beat ross but ross was at the end of his career. He beat ambers but then lost to him too. His 19 defences and indeed most of his achievements all happened so fast too. Its like he hit 30 and then was on the way down.

Also, he's not that impressive when you watch him. He's clever and uses his head to position his opponents but he's not exactly spectacular.

Anyone else share this view? He's clearly great but also a little hard to establish how great despite his unsurpassed achievements.

Losing to Zivic is nothing to look down upon. Fritzie had wins over a lot of great fighters and is very underappreciated in my opinion. Armstrong also had a win over Zivic and gave up nearly 5 inches in height. Given his resume and his 3 titles in 3 divisions at one time I find it very difficult not to rank him highly. But we all have our different criteria.

**billeau2** · 04-17-2021, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by cfang

So when im pondering a list of all time p4p fighters, Armstrong makes the top ten but... I always hesitate to put his name in there. Greb, langford, srr, Charles straight in but Henry, there are doubts.

He has an odd career. Some incredible highs. Winning the undisputed title at 3 weights and holding at the same time and should have been a 4th people say as he drew with garcia and could have got that decision. Then there's the 19 title defences. Incredible

So why the hesitation? Well he lost twice to zivic and then to reuben shank. He beat ross but ross was at the end of his career. He beat ambers but then lost to him too. His 19 defences and indeed most of his achievements all happened so fast too. Its like he hit 30 and then was on the way down.

Also, he's not that impressive when you watch him. He's clever and uses his head to position his opponents but he's not exactly spectacular.

Anyone else share this view? He's clearly great but also a little hard to establish how great despite his unsurpassed achievements.

I applaud your skepticism. It is always good to reevaluate, question assertions made. Sometimes a fighting method is chaotic... It makes no sense initially. Unless one knows what to look for it makes no sense. Armstrong's method IMO is like the Gracie methods. You see a few guys rolling around... So what? lol. But what the Gracies did was find a way to use JuJitsu in a ring, to set up a few positions and control the person from the fewer options these positions entail: For example, if I know I can armbar anyone, then I practice getting the person in that position everytime, when we get there I will know all the options from training. Even the early fights which look quite crude, you can see how opponents in a ring must close distance, and can be leveraged into a top and bottom position where the action can then be controlled through leverage. You can see how this is done, if you know what to look for. If not it looks chaotic.

Armstrong's style is hard to master, it takes a lot of physical endurance. But Armstrong moves his head at angles that deflect force, and allow him to continue his pursuit. He enters his opponent at an angle as well, meaning he is always attacking a weak side, and never in the wheel house. His footwork is limited, as all he needs/wants to do is go forwards. Like the Gracies, he wants one positional variable controlled: the gracies want guard/mount position, Armstrong wants forward momentum. His footwork makes it so his opponent can never properly set, meaning the shots are weak, and when they do hit, he is deflecting with head movement and angle of entry.

Try to see if you can spot these things with Homicidal Hank... I think they are there, but I could be wrong. But from what I can see, Armstrong's methods are as technically sound as Robinsons just different.

**GhostofDempsey** · 04-17-2021, 01:04 PM

Zivic is highly underrated. He fought everyone from lightweights to light heavyweight. Gave them all a tough fight. Beat some top names and was known for taking a lot of dives for the money. No shame in losing to him.

Ambers is another underrated great fighter. A loss to Abrams isn’t a legacy killer.

Most fighters of Armstrong’s era and beyond agree he was one of the all time greats. He wasn’t a graceful fighter, more gritty and bullish, but very effective.

**cfang** · 04-17-2021, 01:19 PM

I think with zivic though Armstrongs issue was style. He fought inside and so did zivic who bust him up with uppercuts. Guess zivic had more issues with guys at range?

**billeau2** · 04-17-2021, 01:22 PM

Here is a decent technical analysis on Hank. I think he captures a lot of tricks used... To me the devil is in the angles of approach, angles cut a circle... always.

**billeau2** · 04-17-2021, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by GhostofDempsey

Zivic is highly underrated. He fought everyone from lightweights to light heavyweight. Gave them all a tough fight. Beat some top names and was known for taking a lot of dives for the money. No shame in losing to him.

Ambers is another underrated great fighter. A loss to Abrams isn’t a legacy killer.

Most fighters of Armstrong’s era and beyond agree he was one of the all time greats. He wasn’t a graceful fighter, more gritty and bullish, but very effective.

My Polish cousin... I tell ya! that guy!! Used to tell me Armstrong was the most cerebral fighter! I say to him "come on Kowalsky! really? Armstrong?" He tells me "Yeah Hank always used his head in there!"

**billeau2** · 04-17-2021, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by cfang

I think with zivic though Armstrongs issue was style. He fought inside and so did zivic who bust him up with uppercuts. Guess zivic had more issues with guys at range?

You also have to consider how much those guys fought... They all probably fought with injuries, after eating bad clams, etc... You were fighting in a pool of fantastic fighters... A rising tide raises all boats, and Armstrong, as good as he was, fought against men who were competative.

**billeau2** · 04-17-2021, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by GhostofDempsey

Zivic is highly underrated. He fought everyone from lightweights to light heavyweight. Gave them all a tough fight. Beat some top names and was known for taking a lot of dives for the money. No shame in losing to him.

Ambers is another underrated great fighter. A loss to Abrams isn’t a legacy killer.

Most fighters of Armstrong’s era and beyond agree he was one of the all time greats. He wasn’t a graceful fighter, more gritty and bullish, but very effective.

Ambers, one of my favorites.

**QueensburyRules** · 04-17-2021, 08:12 PM

- -The 10 rd Cali middle title was never a world title ...Duh!!!

Henry Armstrong question mark