Should Henry Armstrong be ranked higher than Ray Robinson?

Good question :good I'll have to think about this one. Tough........very tough one to call.

 

I wouldn't rank him higher to be honest. Robinson spent about a decade as the best fighter in the world and that was before he retired. After retirement he was clearly past his best and inconsistent but he could still pull off great victories.

Robinson's resume is stacked also plus I think he's the best actual boxer in history.

I'd rank armstrong number 4.

 

I rate 1946-52 as Ray's most signifigant years.

 

It depends on your criteria, Armstrong did it in more divisions, but he wasn't as dominant as Robinson, picking up losses around his prime years

 

This is pretty signifigant. It's helped me make up my own mind.

 

Was it 52 when he fought maxim and retired?

For me it's 42 until then. When he stopped zivic in the rematch he put himself above the rest of the field imo.

 

I can't tbh, it's undergoing some changes with regards to louis, ali, duran and b leonard.

My top 5 however is:

Greb/Fitz/Robinson
Armstrong
Langford

I'm undecided on my rankings after then.

 

Robinson did actually fight at 3 weights, 135, 147 and 160 and should have been lightweight champion. Both had fights in a 4th division too, Armstrong maybe should have got that 4th title

Armstrong has his losses at 126 and 135 and he didn't fight some of the best at 147, ie Burley, Cocoa Kid, Holman Williams

 

What do you mean by 'actual boxer'? Style wise?