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

[Tom Cruise]

Good stuff!

Just goes to show titles being split have been a problem in the past, although it happened a lot less and when it did happen, the top guys more often than not would fight each other.

I dunno what Armstrongs claim would have been IF he had won.

I guess other than being recognised as California World Champ (basically like IBO or something) the main thing would have been a big push to make Armstrong vs Garcia over 15 rounds for the actual title. Whether HA would have taken that i dont know. In spite of it being a close fight that many thought he won, they never had a rematch so maybe Armstrong just knew he had gone a weight to far.

[john l]

I guess other than being recognised as California World Champ (basically like IBO or something) the main thing would have been a big push to make Armstrong vs Garcia over 15 rounds for the actual title. Whether HA would have taken that i dont know. In spite of it being a close fight that many thought he won, they never had a rematch so maybe Armstrong just knew he had gone a weight to far.

HA had already beat him at least once before

[Tom Cruise]

HA had already beat him at least once before

Yeah he beat him at WW

I should have said rematch at Mw

[KingHippo]

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 despicably 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?

I personally think this thread is ******ed. When compilating atg p4p rankings, fighters are judged relative to their era. Anybody knows that none of the pre 70s fighters could be anything else but cup holders in this era.

[Goldie]

Both Armstrong and SRR have fights available to watch on youtube.

There is quite an bit of footage of SRR and his technical brilliance is apparent. I think a lot of modern day fighters and trainers would peg him as the best in history. After all, the term "pound for pound" was coined for him.

I didn't say that no footage of the fighters exist, I said that most people haven't watched the footage. I've seen some of the YouTube vids on Armstrong and I don't think that there is any way that you can fully judge him as a fighter just on the strength of the videos available.

[Tom Cruise]

I personally think this thread is ******ed. When compilating atg p4p rankings, fighters are judged relative to their era. Anybody knows that none of the pre 70s fighters could be anything else but cup holders in this era.

Armstrong would be outweighed by 15lbs or so vs Thurman... But he would still beat that man to pulp.

Doesn't bare thinking about what he would do to fighters his own size.

[Tom Cruise]

I didn't say that no footage of the fighters exist, I said that most people haven't watched the footage. I've seen some of the YouTube vids on Armstrong and I don't think that there is any way that you can fully judge him as a fighter just on the strength of the videos available.

Well you can get a great idea of his style, his conditioning his chin etc. Then its pretty easy to asses his resume because his best opponents all have footage available.

You can also read testimony from contempories of the time. You can see where his opponents were ranked. You can see how many lineal champs he beat. How many hall of famers.

Better to have been there for sure, but not that difficult to get a handle on his career

[john l]

I personally think this thread is ******ed. When compilating atg p4p rankings, fighters are judged relative to their era. Anybody knows that none of the pre 70s fighters could be anything else but cup holders in this era.

yea srr would have been a bum now at 147-154 lmao

[soul_survivor]

I guess other than being recognised as California World Champ (basically like IBO or something) the main thing would have been a big push to make Armstrong vs Garcia over 15 rounds for the actual title. Whether HA would have taken that i dont know. In spite of it being a close fight that many thought he won, they never had a rematch so maybe Armstrong just knew he had gone a weight to far.

True. I think armstrong as long as the weight stipulations could be in place, would have gone for the title as his management made a concerted effort to bill him as the multiweight champion. Something to differentiate him from the heavies.

[Prince Madison]

overrated. the guy lost 21 times and 9 draws in an era when the sport wasnt even an international sport. how can you lose to that many domestic fighters yet be considered one of the best of all time?