Henry Armstrong vs. Baby Arizmendi IV (Longest Version Now on Rareboxing)

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by William Walker, Mar 2, 2021.



  1. William Walker

    William Walker Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,900
    9,055
    Apr 9, 2020
    I can't stress enough how great it is to get back to Henry Armstrong fights again. Hell, it's probably been over a year since I last watched an Armstrong fight. Let's get to it!:

    This content is protected


    1. Armstrong came out to fight from the moment the bell rang. There was no let up as Armstrong was constantly moving, punching to both head and body, using his arms and elbows to maneuver his way in and deflect any of Arizmendi's inside work. But Armstrong was a commanding fighter on the outside too. He showed a good jab. Arizmendi showed good defense, though not enough of it, and he fought in quick flurries, but those were also not thrown enough. He kept it competitive though. Armstrong.
    2. Just two short, stalky guys in there slugging it, especially near the end, a good exchange took place. Both showed really good evasive tactics here. Armstrong moved his head out of the way of a lot of Baby's punches, and used his head well when they were in close. Arizmendi was able to reduce his beating a bit by ducking out from under some of Hammerin' Hank's wilder punches. Armstrong.
    4. This was really the only round I recall that Arizmendi did particularly well in, but I still gave it to Armstrong. Arizmendi struck with supreme accuracy when he flurried. Armstrong.
    6. Another non-stop round provided for us by Hammerin' Hank. Arizmendi didn't get as bad of beating in this round as in others. Armstrong.
    8. I LOVE how Armstrong leaps in towards Arizmendi when he jabs. LOVE LOVE LOVE. It's insanely brilliant. I can't think of a fighter before or since who did it. Arizmendi's eyes were very noticeably bad off here. Puffy, black, and bleeding. Here, Arizmendi had no answer whatsoever for Armstrong's punches. Armstrong.
    10. Armstrong came out for the 10th just like he could go another 10. He was bustling with energy. With his movement here he reminded me more of Frazier than ever. Arizmendi was just a touch tired imo, and he was absorbing one hook right after another. Armstrong just wouldn't stop. The best action came near the end with Arizmendi trapped on the ropes for a nearly a full minute it seemed as the two just teed of with no quarter; Arizmendi bore the brunt of the punishment though.

    My final score for this fight, with 6 of the 10 rounds on film, was 6-0 for Armstrong. Even if Arizmendi won the other four rounds, which I doubt he did, we can still safely say from the film we do have, that Armstrong won, and rightfully so.

    Before I give my verdict, I would like to go over some of my observations made in the fight: 1) my reaction to Armstrong, 2) the comparison of Frazier to Armstrong, 3) my reaction to Arizmendi, and 4) their entire series together.

    1) Armstrong is one of those fighters that is so good that it's impossible to criticize him. He looked breathtakingly relentless and good. The man was a freaking machine. I noted many of his great traits when I scored the rounds, but one thing that I did not mention that I found very interesting was that when Armstrong jabbed and would duck down to a crouch, or jump back, he would fall back on a stance akin to Archie Moore, Henry Hank, and Muhammad Ali (at times).
    2) I've often heard that Frazier "got his style from Armstrong". While I don't know if that's true or not, it certainly seems viable. The two were very similar in most of the aspects of their style, but not entirely. The bobbing and weaving, the left hooking, the nervous head and arm movement, all of it is very reminiscent of the other. I think Armstrong was slightly better, having the better jab of the two, and being more two-handed than Frazier (of course, Joe couldn't see out of his right eye). Also, Frazier is a fighter that I think spent more time in a crouch, bobbing, ducking, and weaving (boy Frazier must have had a strong back!), but Armstrong was a lot more upright than Frazier. He did his own bobbing and weaving plenty, but not near as much as Frazier. The "Moore/Hank" stance that Armstrong used as a fallback was the breaker for me though. That was the thing that really separated the two for me.
    3) Arizmendi took quite a whupping here. Since he was smothered for the full 10 rounds by Armstrong, it is really impossible to say how good he was, since we never even saw a good round by him, just flashes. However, in those flashes, I was able to make out that he had sufficient defense, he was a quick, accurate puncher, and carried decent power in both hands. And he was a tough guy on top of all that. Gotta give him credit for the beating he took. The one knock on Arizmendi is that he chose to fight Armstrong this way. I read about the third fight, which Armstrong won, while writing this post, and it sounds like a carbon copy of this one. Arizmendi fought h2h with Armstrong, lost every round, and finished cut and bleeding. And I'll add he would do the exact same thing in their fifth and final fight. That's just not smart.
    4) The series. We have IV and V. It's a shame we don't have I through III. Arizmendi won the first two, really outboxing Armstrong. My main regret is cuz IV and V are all we have of to see Arizmendi (and one other clip I think). The first fight really sounded like something, with Arizmendi fighting from round 2 on with a broken wrist.

    Verdict: Good fight. Fought at a brisk pace all the way. For how fast it was, I should have enjoyed it more for its action, but the one-sided nature of the fight took away from that. Arizmendi didn't throw back too often, and when he did, it was not for very long. I deem this a classic moreso cuz of the performance Armstrong gave us. A beautiful 12 mins. of complex, stylistic boxing from Armstrong.
    My verdict is not unanimous within my own brain. It may just not be for some of you. But for those of you who enjoy boxing for the art and science of it, this is for you.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2021
  2. William Walker

    William Walker Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,900
    9,055
    Apr 9, 2020
    This was awfully close. I had this open for over two hours, and I almost forgot to cut it before I clicked "Create Thread". Whew.
     
  3. 70sFan865

    70sFan865 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,547
    9,451
    May 30, 2019
    You can watch the greatest pressure fighter in history in action, so better appreciate greatness!
     
  4. shza

    shza Active Member Full Member

    684
    766
    Dec 15, 2018
    Thanks for sharing this... And you ain't lying. Armstrong's WILL is unlike that of any fighter I've ever seen. Don’t see how anybody in boxing history beats that version of Armstrong.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2021
    70sFan865 and William Walker like this.
  5. The Senator

    The Senator Active Member Full Member

    565
    832
    Dec 10, 2017
    A great watch. One common aspect of reading old fight reports and descriptions of the best of ages past is that you learn to filter some of the most exaggurated hyperbole. Generally, when you read some of the language that paints the best in glowing near mythological terms, you figure there's something there, but it's not quite as described.

    And yet, with Armstrong, the classical hype may actually almost be understated. One thing I love about watching his fights is that yes, he is a never ceasing dynamo who breaks opponents down with unrelenting pressure and punches from all angles. What that doesn't really describe properly, is the intelligence behind his constant movement and how well he sets up his punches, punching with the momentum of his great upper body movement, using his footwork not just to stalk forward, but to also maximize his angles in doing so, and as you mentioned, fighting very well on the outside, too, with a versatile, unique jab, able to repeat it in rapid flurries, lunge in forward with it and mask a shift with it. The rhythm on the inside in the later rounds is a sight to behold, constantly alternating either a short uppercut or a chopping left hook, and having broken things down well enough, those crashing overhands were landing over and over again after either left hand punch.

    To add a bit of high handed comparison here, I would say that Arizmendi was in a John Henry(not Lewis) role here against the steam driver, you just can't compete against something like that, no matter how tough or good you may be.
     
    70sFan865, shza and William Walker like this.
  6. Jason Thomas

    Jason Thomas Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,085
    3,546
    Feb 18, 2019
    Armstrong had tremendous stamina. He won because he threw more punches. On the downside, Armstrong's punching power doesn't seem top flight off what I am seeing against top men. Arizmendi was there to be hit and was hit a lot but never seemed in trouble. He went the distance with Armstrong five times. Another possible flaw with Armstrong is that he relies on bobbing straight up and down. I wonder what happens when someone goes with uppercuts against him.

    Armstrong does look like a machine and I don't think a guy without power is likely to hold him off. I wonder how he would do with bigger punchers such as Ike Williams or Roberto Duran or Carlos Ortiz. Arizmendi, whatever else, did not have much power. He KO'd 20 men in 138 fights.

    "Armstrong is one of those fighters who is so good it is impossible to criticize him"

    He was an ATG with a relentless attack and amazing stamina, but no fighter has lived who didn't have flaws. I am more impressed with Louis.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2021
    shza and William Walker like this.