Henry Armstrong nuthugging thread - why he was the greatest fighter of all time

You're a wierdo.

 

You sure i'm not a weirdo?

 

Nah, you're a wieirdo.

 

I was just reading this thread now and it's quite funny. I understood the banter between you and Manassa/Sweet Pea, i'm with it:good

By the way you're a weieieireieido

 

I think the thing that truly indicates how great Armstrong really was the quality of fighter that he defeated after he lost the welterweight title in 1940. He defeated guys like Tippy Larkin, Willie Joyce, Sammy Angott, Fritzie Zivic, Lew Jenkins, Juan Zurita, Leo Rodack, etc. at a point when he was considered to be a shell of his former self. That's pretty damned impressive, if you ask me.

If he's not the greatest fighter of all time, he's certainly in the discussion, and deserves to be there.

 

Yep - Armstrong's post '40 career would be enough to get him into the Hall of Fame. But the '37 to '40 run turns him into something else. He beat a fair few good fighters before 1937 as well.

 

Just had to add a couple more onto Armstrong's list. It's surprising that you miss a couple, but I just went over it again and discovered two more rated opponents he beat.

 

Armstrong was pants he would have never beaten Foreman.

On a serious note Ernie Roderick was a good friend of the family and he lasted 15 against a peak Hank.

 

:goodroderick was a good fighter.no doubt

 

:rofl:rofl

Alot of people use n excuse for dismissing old timers accomplishments by saying they are crap on film, well theres not a cats chance in a dog rescue home you can say that about Armstrong. Whoe impresses me alot on film.

 

I'm pretty sure My dinner with Conteh is related to him.

 

If it wasn't for his draw against Garcia for the MW title Armstrong would,ve held 4 out of the 8 existing titles SIMULTANEOUSLY. That's absolutely incredible. There weren't 15 or so titles back then like there are today which gives a modern fighter more titles and lesser champions to choose from. No damn WBC/WBA/IBF/XYZ champions in each friggin' division like we have today. In order for Armstrong to win those titles he had to face THE one champion in each division...Not pick the lesser of 2 or 3 "Champions" in each division ala Jones vs Ruiz for example. Nor could he win a title and take 2 or 3 years off and make umpteen million for each defence. If Armstrong isn't the greatest fighter in history he's a close 2nd or 3rd....Or perhaps draws with whomever IS considered the best.

 

Imagine if we had the best footage of Armstrong back in his sub-130 days. The utter bombings of notable durables Petey Sarron and Benny Bass. The destruction of fellow featherweight force, Chalky Wright.

It'd be like the first time you saw Jose Napoles as a lightweight, but even more awe-inspiring. We're all massively impressed by Armstrong as it is, but, while we've got a decent amount of footage, they're all decision wins.

I genuinely believe Armstrong wasn't just the greatest of all time, he might have been the best of all time as well. Still thinking about it.

 

What's the difference?

 

Come on. That's a distinction with which I thought we were most familiar.

Harry Greb was undoubtedly greater than Carlos Monzon, but who would win in a fight is another matter.