Henry Armstrong - greatest puncher

I think that you're on to a good idea here if you divided up the punchers into categories based on form.

However, a "puncher" is typically identified as a fighter who finishes or debilitates his opponent ...with one shot. You seem to be redefining it. I wouldn't call Armstrong the 'greatest puncher' per se -but his attack, or his offense, during his prime may well have been the greatest in history. And that, perhaps, is a greater complement.

 

Its semantics.

I'm saying he was a great fighter and this caused him, by a secondary nature, to have the KO's. And you are saying he was a great puncher and using the KO's as evidence. I understand you I just disagree, I don;t regard him as a great puncher just a near-perfect fighting machine.

 

It makes sense to me, its basically what SH said anyway.

 

I am agreeing with SH, basically and have said similar things throughout the whole thread.

I have been saying since the start I don't consider him a great puncher as he lacked the one big punch, that generally punchers use to get the stoppage. And that his results are that of a puncher but his methods are not.

In bold are the similar bits.

I'll sum it up as best as I can.

Armstrong, for me, is not a puncher because he lacks the one-big punch that a great puncher should have IMO. His results are that of a puncher because he is such a good fighting machine. Like SH says his offence is one of the best in history.

 

Not necessarily, the two are very similar though. I'd say a requisite for a great puncher is the ability to knock great, or durable, fighters out with one punch. I don't think Armstrong has this aspect, but his offence is superb.

Yes boxer's punch as part of their offence. But some punch harder, and better than others, whereas some use these hands and punches in better ways.

Again, I say its more his offensive skills than his actual punching.

So would I. But Louis consistently showed he could badly hurt and KO durable and great fighters with one punch or a combination.

Either do I really, I think we are just categorizing things differently.

Yes, and I don't consider Saddler to be that great of a puncher.

 

Fair enough, pal.

I understand you completely. I just don't think you get what I'm saying.

I'll leave it at that, got no more to say.

 

Gpater, i think manassa's got a point here in that the definition of puncher really varies in application. if the end definition of being a puncher is ability to finish inside the distance, then armstrong would have to rate super high even if his individual concussive power or accuracy isn't tops- he brings enough of a combination of speed, power, and volume to hospitalize atg fighters of a size much bigger than his own.

Certainly going against convention here i guess. we tend not to think of swarmers like armstrong in that sense. But maybe we are wrong?

 

I have thought for a while that Armstrong at his best was perhaps less of an attrition based puncher than the type who'd simply overwhelm your defenses early and often, or perhaps the type to soften you up for the KO blow (or both). His vast number of early rounds KO's (and they were full-fledged KO's, not TKO's) against top flight opposition are a testament to this. We've seen him throw the looping overhand against uber-durable (pardon the gayness of that phrase) opponents, but apparently it was quite the weapon in and of its own. It was called the black-out punch because he threw it when the opponent had no idea what was coming to them. That was one of the points behind his high volume, in my opinion. He'd beat you up, soften you up and stupefy your senses before delivering the KO blow/barrage before you even had a chance to gauge what was happening. How else do you explain the results?

 

Manassa is forcing a reconsideration of what Armstrong was -to call him simply a swarmer is incomplete. Most swarmers use their superior stamina against their opponents to flood the field. The great swarmers -can and have and do- neutralize punchers, boxers, counterpunchers, and even boxer-punchers.

Armstrong was indeed a swarmer, but he was a great puncher as well, his record suggests that he was a puncher first and foremost. From January 1937 through October 1940 he had 51 KOs in 59 wins. There was one loss that was heavily disputed and a draw that was also laughed at. Remember Petey Sarron -the featherweight champion Armstrong toppled -he was never stopped in 151 professional bouts -except once.

Armstrong hit him a left, I think a hook, to the body, and then shot over an overhand right -the "blackout." Sarron ended the fight on his hands and knees, looking for his legs. That happened to many guys just as durable.

Was Armstrong a puncher with swarming tendencies or a swarmer who could black you out with one shot? I'd say the latter.

Armstrong wasn't the greatest "puncher" ever -strictly speaking. But was he the greatest offensive machine/"wrecking machine" in ring history?

Well, who's better? If we really examine the stats -the durability of his victims, size differentials, the numbers, etc., (perhaps Manassa has done this, or will) Armstrong is awfully hard to top...