Greatest Ever Henry Armstrong!

http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00014077.html

Recently I've been doing a bit of reading on boxing and came across the name Henry Armstrong a few times as the ATG, now people mention Sugar Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, Ali etc. I know its mainly opinions but from the achievement perspective its hard to see how anyone ranks above Henry Armstrong.

What are the thoughts of you guys?

Thanks for the link, PPV.

Have stated before that, personally, I find it very, very hard to rank anyone ahead of Armstrong as well, and have put him at the top of my pound for pound lists a few times, usually switching with Robinson or sometimes sharing the spot with him.

The only gripe you could really have with Hank's record is that his longevity, at least when compared to some of his other rivals historically, isn't of the very, very elite bracket in terms of time elapsed as a 'great' fighter in the proper sense. It was around 1936/7 that Armstrong really started to shine and show everyone that he was something special, and by 1941 he'd been beaten pretty badly twice over by Zivic.

You can put a different slant on it by arguing that a relentless, all-action, pressure-style fighter like Armstrong was never going to have the longest peak as they seldom do well in that respect, and of course those five years included just about as many fights as someone like Hopkins has managed in a quarter of a century.

No matter really, though, because as far as I'm concerned that four or five year peak of Armstrong's was, without a shadow of a doubt, the greatest peak in boxing history.

I've probably bored everyone countless times trying to drill this point home, but what Hank did is totally beyond compare and it's basically impossible to see if being replicated. Azumah Nelson, for instance, was something very, very special indeed and a great Featherweight, but to be on a par with Armstrong and his triple crown achievement he'd have had to clear out Featherweight by '88 (and in fairness to Zoomy, there's no doubt that he was the world's best at 126 by then), jumped up to Welter the following year to usurp Marlon Starling, trimmed back down to Lightweight almost immediately after to beat Pernell Whitaker and then, by around 1991, box a draw with someone like Julian Jackson for a portion of the Middleweight title.

Can't speak for everyone, but I for one wouldn't fancy Zoomy's chances of that, particular if he seldom scaled more than the 140 lb Light-Welterweight limit for most of those fights at the higher weights.

There was nothing shoddy about who he was taking those titles from, either. Sarron's not from the top plate at Feather, but lest we forget Armstrong had already knocked out other former 126 lb champions in Bass and Belloise as well as splitting fights with Baby Arizmendi, so by the end of 1937 had effectively taken care of every major challenge at the weight.

At Lightweight, Ambers would at least be in contention for an all-time top ten spot, methinks, and as for Ross at Welter, well he's one of the cornerstones of that division but is also a genuine, pound for pound great whose record still looks jaw-dropping today.

As a side note, most reports and accounts of the fights suggest that Armstrong was royally shafted in the rematch with Ambers, and it's worth noting that Armstrong was only able to fight Ross thanks to a load of 'artificial' weight he packed on via water retention. Their fight was delayed due to heavy rain and several additional trips to the bathroom saw Armstrong lose a lot of that extra weight in a hurry; he was over a half a stone lighter at the weigh in in any case, but there's speculation that, by the time the first bell rang, he was as much as a full stone or maybe even nudging towards 20 lb lighter than Ross.

Even then, referee Arthur Donovan wanted to pull Barney out after ten, so bad was the beating he was taking. The fight is available online to watch and Armstrong's body hooks, workrate and toughness are amazing to behold.

Armstrong really was a freak of nature (his abnormally slow pulse rate was the secret of the incredible pace he was able to maintain when fighting, he always said) and, though ranking fighters historically is always tough, I personally don't feel comfortable if he's outside the top two, and as I've already said there are many times when I have him ahead of absolutely everyone.

Amazing, outstanding fighter with a scary record. Not enough superlatives in the world yet to do him justice!

Good post Chris.

I'll just add that Armstrong also holds the record for most welterweight title defences at 18.

I have always considered him as one of the very few who can challenge Ray Robinson's claim to be the greatest fighter of all time. Great post Chris.

Chris has already done a sterling job of championing Hank’s claims for top spot and as others have said he is one of the guys along with Greb who a persuasive argument for him usurping Robinson. Funnily enough I have just finished Henry’s autobiography Gloves Glory and God and when reading that it provides a timely reminder just how good Hank was during his peak. His consistency is impressive enough but more so when one considers the sheer volume of fights he was taking.

Should also be added that his record before that peak is a little misleading, believe he fought something like 8 times in Mexico and the only result in his favour was one he won by stoppage, suggesting Mexico was the Germany of its era because it is hard to believe a fighter of Henry’s quality did not do enough at least once to pick up a win.

The only other guy who can claim his three titles is Fitzsimmons and given the light heavy weight class was very much in it’s infancy when he did it not sure it can really be put on the same level particularly as there was a good ten year gap between Ruby Rob’s wins, Armstrong cleared them out in little more than a year, truly remarkable achievement and the likes of which we will not see again.

As others have said, if you're going to challenge Robinson's right to the number 1 spot then Armstong and Greb are probably the two men that it's easiest to make a convincing argument for.

Have a look at Armstrong's record in 1938. Easily the best calendar year that any boxer in history has ever had.

Skill is a criteria too...........

Robinson was a lot more versatile and skilled as an operator..............

Not as dirty either............

Longevity wise Armstrong suffers also...............

Any fighters on his record Mayweather doesn't beat...........Nope!.....

Hank being ever so slightly overrated on this thread in your book then, Truss?

Any fighters on his record Mayweather doesn't beat...........Nope!.....

Agreed - difference of course is that Armstrong did beat them.

Whilst it may be the case Floyd could beat any name on Armstrong’s record a more relevant question is could he move up whilst as a super feather and turn over a guy of the quality of Barney Ross, which is what Armstrong achieved.

Wearing 4oz gloves and made to fight more often than Hayley's comet is seen, I'm not to sure Floyd would.

Cheers rodders