Henry Armstrong at Welterweight

I think so
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/top-10-welterweights.626458/

 

McGrain gives some solid reasoning for rating him 6 at WW. I have not broken it down personally, even though I have been in the process for 2 years now....my list is not fleshed out just yet as I have been focusing in on the 135 and below divisions for much of the past year.

Off the top of my head I like
SRR
SRL
Napoles
Gavilan
5 Griffith

As a top 5....so for me 6-10 seems a solid ballpark to place him in. Not sure I see top 5 nor do I understand outside of the top 10....so it seems you have a solid framework.

Link to McGrains article:
http://tss.ib.tv/boxing/featured-ar...test-welterweights-of-all-time-part-five-10-1

 

Does Kid Gavilan actually have better resume ?

 

If it were just his title run at welterweight, you could say it was a little overrated (even though he did fight some highly ranked guys like Garcia and Roderick during his reign). But following his run as champion, when he was considered a "shot" fighter, he still managed wins over the likes of Zurita, Joyce, Angott, Larkin, and former conqueror Zivic. That's enough for him to warrant consideration for a Top 5 ATG slot at WW, imo.

 

Good lord

 

That's an excellent point.

 

Ring magazine had him at number 1 in their May 94 edition. I think that is too high, for sure. But I think it depends on what your criteria as to where he places outside of that.

Numbers-wise, 19 title defenses (17 by ko) in less than 3 years is persuasive, irrespective of quality of opposition - a brutal consistency. I can't off the top of my head think of another fighter who made that many defenses in that short a time span and won spectacularly too, not even Joe Louis. For that achievement alone, he merits consideration. Then you add in his title winning effort against another great welterweight and all-time great pound-for-pounder in Barney Ross and top 5 seems pretty fair to me.

I currently have him at number 4 in my list. The guys I have above him (Robinson, Leonard, Napoles) fought a better level of opposition overall during their reigns. Napoles at no. 3 strikes a very nice balance between quality opposition (Cokes, Griffith and quality contenders like Hedgemon Lewis and Ernie Lopez), consistency (during his first reign particularly) and longevity (2 reigns over 6 1/2 years). Leonard at no. 2 didn't reign for that long or make a huge number of defenses but beat some incredible talent in Benitez, Duran and Hearns to unify the title so deserves immense credit for that. And Robinson covers all bases in terms of opposition, consistency and longevity and is a pretty clear no. 1 in my view.

But between 2 and 4 there's not a huge gap and I'd be comfortable with them in any order to be honest so top 3 for Armstrong is fine by me.

Personally, and I stress personally, I think 6-10 for Armstrong is a little low.

 

Bottom line is that people who saw them both fight(Armstrong and Leonard) all picked Hank to win by knockout. I think prime Armstrong beats Sugar Ray Robinson by dec in both prime.

 

No, the bottom line is, that such opinions mean nothing. Hardened old-timers who had seen Armstrong in action would not, in their old age, have been impressed by the flashy, young Leonard.. and would of course have picked Armstrong to grind him down for a stoppage win. That's how it has always been.

 

Thanks man. These things go in cycles and right now it seems Armstrong's stock is not as high historically as it has been in the past. Whether it will go back up or it has now settled in the right place, I guess time will tell.

 

By the same token, everyone here between age of 40 and 65 who reckons Leonard is top 2 welterweight and/or would defeat all subsequent welterweights has an opinion that "means nothing" .... ?