Henry Armstrong - Beyond compare

It seemed inevitable but unfortunate that given the current trend for division hopping and multiple belts in each of boxing’s 17 divisions that people would start to compare the modern crop of weight jumpers such as Manny Pacquaio, Floyd Mayweather and Oscar De La Hoya with boxing's original weight jumper Henry Armstrong. Whilst this article is not written to diminish the achievements of these guys which have been exceptional, in my humble opinion they do not compare with the feats achieved by Henry, which warrant outlining again, such is their truly remarkable nature.

Armstrong was a true freak of nature who apparently had a heart three times the normal size which allowed him to fight at a pace that was nothing short of staggering. His career really caught fire in 1937 in which he won a staggering 27 fights including him winning the featherweight championship from Petey Sarron in 6 rounds. The following year he moved to the welterweight division adding this belt to his ledger with a win over all time great Barney Ross before adding the lightweight championship when he beat Lou Ambers over 15. When one adds in Armstrong fought a draw against middleweight champion Ceferino Garcia in a decision most considered dubious at best we start to see we are dealing with a special kind of fighter here. What should also not be overlooked is he won his featherweight title in October 1937, the welterweight title in May 1938 and his lightweight title in August 1938, which is three world titles in different divisions in less than 10 months!

What needs to be always born in mind at this point is there were only 8 divisions and one champion in each weight class and so Armstrong held 3 of the eight titles and was within a whisker of holding half of the belts available, something that is beyond staggering. What also needs to be considered is in many cases the guys Armstrong were beating were no slouches. In Ross he was beating a guy the IBRO have as the 5th greatest welter of all time, whilst in Ambers he was beating a guy they have at 10 at lightweight. So not only was Armstrong winning titles in some instances he was beating truly all time great fighters to do so.

At his peak Armstrong was a phenomenon with a run that went 46-0 with 39 of those wins coming from KO. His final ledger read a more than impressive 151-21-10 with 100 coming by KO. Couple this with managing to rack up 19 defences of his welterweight title in a two year period and even those who are skeptical of how great the old timers really would probably have to concede that Armstrong’s achievements put the records of the modern weight jumpers in stark perspective because one can only speculate how many divisions Henry would have annexed belts in with junior divisions and multiple belts in each.

When assessing the greatness of fighters we often see opinions differ over some guys but Armstrong appears to occupy that exalted air reserved for the truly great in that almost all respectable sources and historians are universally agreed on his abilities with Callis rating Hank at one at featherweight, Cox’s corner having him top ten at welter, feather and lightweight and pretty much every source having him as a top ten P4P (Ring, Sugar, Cox etc).

As previously stated this is not to run down the achievements of modern weight hoppers but the modern phenomena of multiple belts and champions does tend to dilute the level of achievements and for me these things should leave the achievements as worthy of praise but not worthy of comparison with boxing’s greatest weight jumper, Henry Armstrong.

Being the man in three weight classes having beaten great fighters for the titles is almost unparalleled Jeff, could argue that only a vanquished foe of his in Ross can claim to be such a great multi weight champion. What Mayweather, Pacquiao, De La Hoya and Jones have done is mightily impressive but they weren't considered the best in the majority of the divisions they won titles in. Combine this with a reign at Welterweight beyond compare and you have won of the untouchables alongside Robinson, Greb, Charles and Ali for me.

Fitz is definitely worth a mention but even he has to defer to Armstrong for me because his reigns were nowhere near as long as Henry's and there is no getting round the light heavyweight title was pretty new and lightly regarded when Bob won it, even if he did beat a decent fighter in Gardner to win it.

That's why I didn't mention Fitz as there's no getting round the facts of what you've said, would be tempted to try and legitimise by mentioning O'brien but no real way of knowing if that win was truly on the level.

Ambers and Ross are the defining factors for me.

Good article mate & I agree with every word you say
Garcia was only holding alphabet crap at the time though, so it makes that bit sweeter in that Armstrong was the man at three weight divison at the same time, basically ruling virtually half of boxing at one time, I do not think we will his likes again.

But hey if we do, my god, I will even take the wife for dinner !

Lots of great fighters through history that have a shoulda, woulda, could've around then when it comes to weight jumping, however Hank doest have that problem.

Great article, Rowley. You may remember a while back on here I posted an article saying that, the more I thought about, the more I found myself believing that Armstrong is perhaps the man most worthy of being called the greatest of them all, pound for pound - shock horror, even ahead of a certain Mr. Robinson - and I have to say that rather than finding myself moving away from that belief, I'm endorsing it more and more. In my mind, at the very least, Armstrong shares the honour with Ray.

Certainly, nobody (and I mean nobody) achieved more than 'Hurricane Hank.' His Welterweight exploits make him a real contender for top spot in the all-time standings of that particular division, more so when you consider that he was but a Lightweight when he won the title (there's speculation that he was as much as 27 lb lighter than Ross by the time the first bell rang) and for several of his defences. And while he may have never defended the 'real' Featherweight championship after winning it from Sarron, he'd virtually cleaned out the division beforehand with wins over Arizmendi, Belloise and Bass, all 126 lb title claimants themselves.

If you couple his split series with Ambers (himself a top ten Lightweight, for me) with the aforementioned fact that he was often just a Lightweight himself posing as a Welterweight while holding the title there, there's a very real possibility that Armstrong could be the only man in history who maybe, just maybe, could have a real claim to be an all-time top ten man in three of the original eight weight classes. I think he falls just short of that myself (certainly in there at Featherweight and Welterweight), but if someone was to argue the case for him, it'd be a hard one to refute.

I'd add that his opposition beaten is at least on a par with Robinson's, and even if it does fall short, at least comparable to Greb's, too. Armstrong can't match either man for longevity at the truly highest level, but that aside the picture does seem to be getting ever-clearer to me; Armstrong was the greatest boxer the world has seen.

It's interesting that Fritzie Zivic, who fought both Hank and Ray, always maintained that Armstrong was "the greatest champ that ever walked." I think I agree. My compliments again for the article, Rowley.

Its easier to pick up alphabets now. And while fighters will call themselves multi weight champions I don think serious boxing fans acknoweldge them as bonafide ones unless they have been the actual man at the weight rather than just a titlist.

But in some ways the current confusion has made it more difficult for fighters in terms of trying to become the recognised man at the weight. Often its disputed or unclear. Take Mayweathers fight against Cotto. Its for a title. But does it mean hes the bonafide champ at the weight with Alvarez there? Im not sure who the lineal champ at the weight at the moment but generally I think the public would be split in recognising Cotto and Alvarez as the two best there at present.

If you take Pacquiao, I dont think he can realistically claim to have ever been the top guy at light middle or welter. So hes definately not a genuine 8 weight world champion. His claim there would be disputed. If you look at in the strictest sense he might only have been a bonafide champ in maybe 3 divisions? But that would actually be doing him an injustice I think. Between light welter and fly hes basically been the top guy. The multitude of weights, titles and politics there has made it easy in terms of him getting a title but confusing as to what his actual status is. If we had the original 8 weights I think its conceivable he holds fly, bantam, feather and lightweight titles (albeit not simaltaneously). I think this system would have actually benefitted him as oposed to the mess its in now. He would never have been an 8 weight champion but probably a genuine 4 weight one with an outside chance at 5. I dont think hed ever have held more than two simaltaneously but with only 8 weights the incentive to hang onto them would be greater.

Likewise if you put Armstrong around now he could easily be a 6/7 weight champion but the whole mess would muddy what ones counted, what ones didnt and generally act as more of a hinderance in that sense.

The titles were much harder to win back then but there was a much greater clarity about them which in the modern game the really top fighters often suffer with due to the confusing and fragmented nature of the sport.

88Chris05 wrote: there's a very real possibility that Armstrong could be the only man in history who maybe, just maybe, could have a real claim to be an all-time top ten man in three of the original eight weight classes.

Chris the idea is not without its support, have just had a quick look at the IBRO and they do indeed have him in the top ten for all three and pretty highly in all three, have only had a cursory glance but I believe I am right in saying the only other guy they have in three top 20's is Fitz and he is only 20 at heavy, given these lists were written some time ago and it is not beyond reasonable to argue Wlad has done enough to sneak into the top 20 does put Hank's acheivements in some sort of perspective.

I'd add that his opposition beaten is at least on a par with Robinson's, and even if it does fall short, at least comparable to Greb's, too. Armstrong can't match either man for longevity at the truly highest level, but that aside the picture does seem to be getting ever-clearer to me; Armstrong was the greatest boxer the world has seen.
—--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's very close isn't it Chris to pick between the resume of Robinson thought about this before when compiling the topical P4P greatest.
Armstrong has a ridiculously extensive resume but there is an argument for Robinson having fought in a better era. Had Armstrong come around a few year earlier he would have had to compete with the likes of Tony Canzoneri, Jimmy McLarnin and Kid Chocolate, among others. Lou Ambers and Barney Ross were still going strong though.

Like I mentioned earlier, definitely a case for Henry to ranked and rated as the greatest, as there is for Robinson, Langford and Greb the other front runners.

IMO the greatest to ever step in the ring, his opponents would try running but he stuck to his opponents like super glue.

I heard upon his death it was discovered that Armstrong’s heart was a 3rd larger than that of the average person. This allowed him to fight at a ferocious pace for 15 rounds without loss of breath. It seems certain that he could have done the same thing in a 20 round bout.

To me, Armstrong is indeed beyond compare and ranks, almost as a freak of nature, right up there with the very best and most prolific champions the sport, no, ANY sport, has witnessed.

I'm not so sure we can really class Pacquiao as either the lightweight or bantamweight champion, the problems being a certain Juan Manuel Marquez and not ever fighting at bantamweight. He was undeniably the man at super featherweight and in beating Hatton he was the lineal light welterweight champion much like Barrera at featherweight. Aside from the original eight classes 130lbs and 140lbs are the most historically significant so have to give him massive credit for that.

Featherweight, Super featherweight and Light Welterweight is a mightily impressive feat although not on the level of either Ross, Fitzsimmons, Canzoneri or Armstrong.

Don't get me started on Mayweather, Jones or De La Hoya where it becomes even more confusing. Between them two fully fledged lineal titles as well as two contentious titles as far as I can see.

tcribb wrote:It's very close isn't it Chris to pick between the resume of Robinson thought about this before when compiling the topical P4P greatest.
Armstrong has a ridiculously extensive resume but there is an argument for Robinson having fought in a better era. Had Armstrong come around a few year earlier he would have had to compete with the likes of Tony Canzoneri, Jimmy McLarnin and Kid Chocolate, among others. Lou Ambers and Barney Ross were still going strong though.

Like I mentioned earlier, definitely a case for Henry to ranked and rated as the greatest, as there is for Robinson, Langford and Greb the other front runners.

Pretty much on the money throughout with that paragraph, Cribb. Ranking fighters is a very personal and subjective thing; if you look at pure technical ability and who was the best all-rounder, then Robinson is perhaps the natural choice, though not without some fierce competition. If you look at achievements, it's Armstrong. If you take who has the most eye-catching list of wins, it's Greb. If you go on who influenced the sport to a great degree, names such as Gans, Tunney and Ali also have to be thrown in to the mix.

Now, I am willing to accept that if you mixed all those factors together, the first Sugar Ray is perhaps the natural pick, but I just can't shake the feeling that Armstrong really was the ultimate 'one off.' I think Gamboa is a fabulous fighter, but in my wildest dreams I can't see him cleaning out Featherweight, jumping up to Welterweight to dethrone Mayweather, returning to Lightweight to upset Marquez and then boxing a draw with Sturm for a portion of the Middleweight title, all within two-and-a-half years of each other and while seldom weighing more than 140 lb or so. Nor could I see even a Featherweight as great as Azumah Nelson doing the same against Don Curry, Hector Camacho and Kalambay, for example.

I think Jeff's IBRO research above helps put it all in to even scarier context. Armstrong really was a freak of nature.

Wouldn't quite compare Chris but this is why I want to see Mayweather take on Martinez, were he to win the middleweight title against the recognised number one then we wont be mentioning the fights he hasn't had.

Being Super Feather, Lightweight, Welterweight and Middleweight champion would almost be on a par with Armstrong albeit not simultaneously.

Anything I would have said has already been done and dusted, so I'll satisfy myself in congratulating jeff for a very fine article and everybody else for fascinating contributions.

It's stuff like this which keeps me logging in, day after day.