Henry Armstrong - greatest puncher

Not the greatest puncher but a damn effective one. Henry's punches could hurt you. Throw in the nonstop aggression, Henry will kill you. To have a chance against him, you would need only the best defensive abilities and a punch of your own to get his attention. Not to mention a hell of a lot of stamina.

 

His natural size is a big part of this argument, I'd think.

 

I can see where your coming from, the objective of a puncher is to disable his opponent, however, I would argue that the method of a puncher is what classes him as that, and not his goal.

A punchers method is to disable you with a punch and KO you. Armstrong's method was to drown you in a torrent of leather with a few tidal waves thrown in.

I agree that his punching power is underlooked, but by that token, it also is not the quality of a great puncher, sure he was a solid hitter though.


I think Armstrong is just such a good all-rounder, that you could near argue him great in anything. I would class him as one of the best fighters we have ever seen in the sport, and a great swarmer but nothing else.

 

No way he was quantity over quality, and if he was fighting his career at 126lbs (which he probably struggled to make) he wouldn't be blowing out many opponents with 1 shot. And its not just about power his technique isn't top level aside from maybe his overhand right

 

Dunno what PP is talking about, Henry had a great uppers and hooks with both hands. a mediocre jabber, but with his head movement he adjusted well in that regard.

He also weighed in at 124 before he went up to get ross as well. I think with a proper regimen he might have managed to stay at FW for the majority of his career.

Armstrong is an underrated puncher, but not the best(that's Langford for me). He didn't create enough space for his punches to really get the 1punch kos over a range of weight you need for this 'title' imo. He did his work right in someone's face, and there's only so much mustard you can put on a punch at that range.

 

I see him as an accumulation puncher who wore you down, very low heart beat that gave him unlimited stamina ,so he could maintain incessant agression.
He had pop, but not top flight pop, imo.
Jeff Fenech scored 21 kos in 29 wins ,and he wasn't a puncher as such ,just wore you down with work rate.
Hank had more oomph ,than the Aussie, but he was not a concussive hitter imo.

 

I agree with whoever mentioned the film. If there were more knockouts on film, he'd be less underrated as a puncher.

 

Does it matter?
I suppose that depends on how you define "greatest puncher".
There have probably been harder one shot punchers than Joe Louis at heavyweight? Shavers- Baer probably.


Alexis Arguello at feather? Hamed probably - Saddler possibly , but no one denies the former were great punchers.
If you go by statistics you have a strong case.
ps. Armstrong stated Arizmendi had the best chin he met, the guy had a huge neck and head,often the sign of a durable man, do they absorb the punches better, because of their physiognomy? I don't know.
It's a good thread you' ve put up, food for thought.

 

Are we talking about Armstrong being the greatest puncher in terms of boxing style or the guy who throws the best punches?
If we are talking in terms of style than I agree that Aemstrong is the greatest puncher. Armstrong > Duran, Chavez and Pacquiao. However if we are talking about punching abillity and impact there are better boxers. Robinson and Hearns come to mind. Louis and Tyson deserve mention. I'm sure there are more.

 

armstrong claims to have carried ross as well btw