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

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Henry Armstrong -151 W, 21 L, 9 D- considered by many to be one of the greatest fighters to ever lace up the gloves. His list of accomplishments are incredible: he held the the lineal world featherweight, lightweight and welterweight titles during his career, and amazingly held them simultaneously between 1938-39. He was also de****ably robbed when challenging for the lineal middleweight title against Ceferino Garcia in 1940 when the referee scored the contest a draw. Despite these unmatched accomplishments, when watching footage of "Homicide Hank" there appears to be many holes and technical flaws in his game. Armstrong would essentially walk straight ahead look to get close to his opponent and unload his powerful, windmill like punches. His style wasn't pretty but extremely effective in his era. But when comparing him to fighters many experts rank below him would that style be effective? Would he stand any chance against a skilled technician like Willie Pep at featherweight? Could he hang with Duran at 135? I for one am doubtful. So I'd like to ask the other boxing enthusiasts out there what our their thoughts on Henry Armstrong? Where does he rank in boxing history? And where does he rank amongst his peers? And do his accomplishments outweigh his technical deficiences?

[john l]

he could hang with anyone 140 under .cant claim to have seen all his fights but as many as there is. look at 1937 I think he fought like 36 times wiothout loss stort carear but great imho

[john l]

Henry Armstrong -151 W, 21 L, 9 D- considered by many to be one of the greatest fighters to ever lace up the gloves. His list of accomplishments are incredible: he held the the lineal world featherweight, lightweight and welterweight titles during his career, and amazingly held them simultaneously between 1938-39. He was also de****ably robbed when challenging for the lineal middleweight title against Cerefino Rodriguez in 1940 when the referee scored the contest a draw. Despite these unmatched accomplishments, when watching footage of "Homicide Hank" there appears to be many holes and technical flaws in his game. Armstrong would essentially walk straight ahead look to get close to his opponent and unload his powerful, windmill like punches. His style wasn't pretty but extremely effective in his era. But when comparing him to fighters many experts rank below him would that style be effective? Would he stand any chance against a skilled technician like Willie Pep at featherweight? Could he hang with Duran at 135? I for one am doubtful. So I'd like to ask the other boxing enthusiasts out there what our their thoughts on Henry Armstrong? Where does he rank in boxing history? And where does he rank amongst his peers? And do his accomplishments outweigh his technical deficiences?

his streng stamina made up for holes in defence and great chin

[IFightDirty]

His chin, awkwardness, stamina, hand speed, solid power and relentless work rate made up for his defensive holes.

"He was also a strong puncher and defensively his bob and weave style kept him from receiving the full impact of his opponent’s blows. The truth of Henry Armstrong is that he had much better boxing skills than some give him credit for." ... "They called Armstrong’s most chilling punch “blackout” – a peculiar looping right which was neither hook nor jab nor swing but a high flickering fast blow to the chin. “It moved about 10 inches,” Henry said, “a terrible thing to do to anybody. Most of them never saw it coming.”

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/armstrong.html

With all of these attributes, he would be a tough night for anyone 140 and under and would hold his own against top 147ers. He was truly a unique fighter. After his death it was noted his heart was about a third larger than a normal one, which probably attributed to his stamina.

[boliodogs]

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.

[_original_]

You mean Ceferino Garcia, not Rodriguez.



Anyways, you can't compare fighters of that era today in a fantasy match to today's, boxing/the world has evolved a lot and it's not a fair comparison. Throw Floyd Mayweather in the 1930's and he would fight like guys from that era. Picture a Henry Armstrong today with the evolved form of boxing, training methods, gyms, diets, ect. It's a rather silly discussion, Henry Armstrong was great for the era that he lived and certainly accomplished feats that have yet to be topped.

[Pigeons]

He was the lineal champion in 3 of the 8 original weight classes simultaneously.

[juandabomb]

miguel cotto is greater than henry...goat baby

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

A lot of good insight on here. I'm currently trying to assemble my top 10 all time p4p list so I appreciate the input. My bad for confusing Ceferino Garcia with the guy Sam Eggington iced.
������

[DeadLikeMe]

We do have footage on him. Not the best of his career, but enough. It kills me to say it but I'd vote romanticism. The speed of film then doesnt accurately reflect movement either though.