Armstrong had 3 legit titles at one time, and barely missed out on a 4th (MW). Plus he never pursued the Jr. Welterweight Title, which was a on/off legit division at that time.
It might have been enhanced by his level of competition. It works both ways, he might not have had all of those achievements with better competition. In fact, he only rematched Ambers if Ambers agreed not to challenge for the WW title. Ambers won that fight and if he hadnt been forced to agree to that stipulation Armstrongs WW title defense string ends right there and suddenly isnt the glitzy 20 or so that he had but instead 6 or 7. If he had to fight a Sandy Saddler for the FW title, a Roberto Duran for the LW title, a Burley for the WW, and a Robinson or Greb for the MW you might never have heard of Armstrong. Ambers and Sarron were great fighters but both were beatable and at the lower end of greatness imo. Ross likewise was a great fighter but Ross was a natural LW and some say he was fading when Armstrong got him (a more learned Ross expert than me would have to chime in on that) but substitute Ross who comfortably weigh in the low 140s for a guy like Robinson, Leonard, Hearns, or Gavilan who could sweat down to 147 and still be both big and devestating at that weight and I think you might see history changed. A lot os made of Armstrongs MW fight with Garcia but keep in mind a few things: 1. That fight was only 10 rounds, 2. Garcia was a very small MW himself, a natural WW, 3. Armstrong, despite the draw, could have easily been DQd for the same dirty tactics that lost him the Ambers fight. Throw in a natural 160 pounder and make it real 15 round title fight and suspect nobody talks about how close Armstrong came to winning four titles. This isnt to slander Armstrong. He was an awsome fighter but he seems to get a lot of passes when his story is told. Its like theres a soft spot for him because of all he tried to accomplish.
Armstrong fought some amazing fighters (Ross, Ambers, Garcia, Arizmendi, Robinson, Zivic just to name a few) and is widely regarded as one of the best P4P fighters in boxing history, just because Floyd doesn't have him among his greatest fighters doesn't mean he isn't one of them. People don't talk about him? Who are you referring to casual fans or people that don't watch fighters of the past? I don't understand. You do realize that there are many more fights available of GGG/Kovalev to watch than Armstrong's fights right? We're talking about a guy who fought in the 30's and 40's. That's one of the reasons there are more highlights.
His opposition was stellar and his activity and accomplishments were insane. Regardless of what mayweather or anyone else thinks, I struggle to see how anyone can have him outside of their top 5 p4p ATG's. And I can't see anyone ever surpassing him as I don't think any modern fighter will ever accumulate enough fights to break that barrier.
Floyd is the premier BOXER of this era, yes he's got more titles than I do and more than you as well. But that doesn't make him a boxing historian. Burt Sugar has him at 2. ESPN has him at 3. McGrain has him at 4. The reason nobody talks about him now is because only a small portion of his fights at the tail-end of his career were filmed. GGG and Kovalev have more highlights because they are 2 of the premier fighters in the HD era. Of course they have more highlights because you have more film. Nobody talks about Henry Armstrong because he was a little man who fought 60+ years ago and for the most part what we saw of him was on the downside of his career. Even there he shows amazing technique as a consummate swarmer. Mayweather might know more than me but I doubt he knows more than Burt Sugar.
Yeah I don't what Floyd Mayweather uses as criteria for rating fighters, but something tells me he's basing his assessment on what he sees in the rare films when Armstrong was long past it and had hundreds of fights of mileage.
I respect what you're saying and you don't sound like a troll to me. But touching base upon what you said before about Armstong's opponents and their skills. You have to remember that some of the only films of his work weren't against his better opponents and nor was HE at his best by that point either. Its valid to point out there were definitely some guys back then who had less than impressive skills, but we shouldn't make blanket statements about all of them, especially given that some of them had very little available footage. With that said, I'm not necessarily rating Henry on his head to head ability. But his "legacy" is pretty damn hard for about 98% of anyone to touch. In 1939 alone he fought in 12 world title fights.. No one has ever done something as insane as that before and likely never will again.
Pretending that because Floyd boxed hes some kind of boxing history guru is pretty laughable. I get your point: "Floyd boxed so he knows what hes looking at when he watches these guys" but do we know how much of these guys Floyd has seen? Floyds dad fought Leonard, his uncle fought Chavez, he boxed. I get it but that doesnt make them experts on boxing history. Hell, most of the boxers and champions Ive had the pleasure of talking to couldnt tell you who Marciano won the title from, how many times Robinson won the MW title, or who the first gloved champion was. How much has Floyd read about these guys? He can barely ****ing read. Beyond that hes a complete moron. Having a boxing IQ doesnt mean you can pull together tons of different sources over different media and clarify it all into a concise and logical representation of that fighters achievements and abilities. There are a handfull of Armstrong fights on film, none of which are complete. Im not even sure Floyd has watched ANY of them much less all of them and if he had watched all he still doesnt have a complete picture of those fights much less the mans entire career. I would be quite comfortable betting my entire years pay that Floyd hasnt read much if anything contemporary or otherwise on Armstrong so why should I take his limited understanding of that fighter as gospel? McGrain may just be a mod here and Ive had my differences with him but Id be a lot more comfortable listening to his opinions on Armstrong than Floyd Mayweathers. In fact most of the regular posters on this forum probably have a better understanding to some degree or another of Armstongs career and abilities than Floyd Mayweather.
I don't think he's trolling and and raises some decent points, although in a moderately clumsy and confrontational way. But to hell with it, we came here to argue boxing and that's what we're doing.