Henry Armstrong - greatest puncher

I see your point Manassa. You're really knocking the door on conventional wisdom. I really just think it depends on your definition of a puncher. A lot of people have their ideas of a puncher as a mixture of speed, accuracy, and power. I would question your assessment that Henry was banging all this guys around so what difference does it make if he didn't have 1 punch power. I would distinguish that Armstrong was the greatest offense force we've ever seen, which is what I believe you're saying. Not that he was the greatest puncher ever, though.

You say what's the difference because of the result, but I'd then say I don't think Larry Holmes had better durability than Mike Tyson because he was only stopped/Koed once in his career, while Tyson was stopped by Douglas and Holyfield (A common opposition). Then again, my counter example might not be very good. I'm not even sure if David Tua has better durability than Mike Tyson simply because Tyson is far more aggressive in his attack, while Tua shells up under any real fire. But the results say differently. But maybe your thinking is good. What's it matter, if Armstrong was effective anyway. I just think that's too simple.

 

One hell of a carryjob then because Armstrong laid it on him. It's just that Ross was bigger and tough as old boots, not to mention the fight would've been stopped in most situations.

Unfortunately the film we have of Armstrong is of him against tough as nails opposition. Knocking out a Barney Ross or a Ceferino Garcia would've been a monumental task.

 

copied from in this corner:

I don't know how reliable hammering hank is, but it might be worth watching those last four rounds.

 

I really, really love Armstrong. But I think Moore was a better puncher. His reaume isn´t that far from Armstrong´s and he was doing it over more range of pounds - yeahm I know diminishing returns and such. Still ...

 

He beat Ross to a pulp in those rounds, and seemed to have him going a few times.

 

I wouldn't regard Frazier as a flat out better puncher than Foster, and anyway Frazier is of the highest calibre of Heavyweights, Foster is not. In Armstrong's case he is one of the top boxers of all time, so he is going to be great in most areas, compared to lesser fighters.

I just feel you are overrating him slightly to prove a point here. In terms of all-round fighting machine: call him 'The Greatest', but as a puncher? I just don't think it can be substantiated in my book.

Agree about the footage. I think he was a pretty strong puncher and obviously had power but to say he is one of the greatest I find a stretch. I think it depends on your definition of a puncher.

I'd say a puncher is someone who has honed the craft of delivering very hard punches designed to KO you in the fewest blows possible. I think you are mixing up the goal and the method of the puncher, but its all semantics. I see your point.

But was it because he was a puncher? Or was because he was an all-round great war machine?

I favour the latter.

Colonel Gaddaffi is an odd looking bloke aint he?

Agreed.

Where would Alexis Arguello fit in here?

 

I'm not sure how volume makes you a great puncher, who else is in your top10 Margarito and Paul Williams?

 

That is because we can't fault his knockout record, we can just fault his methods.

 

Gaddaffi looks a bit like Mickey Rourke these days.

 

Power, speed, accuracy, timing combine to make a great puncher. Accumulation is just that accumulative effect, although I would argue it was quanity over quality to an extent.

Armstrong is great because of his accumulation of power shots and thats what made him so hard to deal with, but that doesn't make him a great puncher