Henry Armstrong nuthugging thread - why he was the greatest fighter of all time

I'm switching my avatar back just to spite yours. :hat

(R.I.P Manny)

 

:bbb

 

Many P4P polls over the years had either Armstrong or SRR at 1 or 2...he was a mini Marciano...a mini Joe Frazier...he just kept on coming...held 3 titles at one time...when they MEANT something...one of a handful of the best fighters who ever laced on a pair of gloves!

 

It's not nearly as firm as I make it out to be, It's fun to lead you on a little bit and get something substantial from your lazy ass these days, like with the 1991 Tyson v. Holyfield topic. If you saw posts from April or so, you'd see I actually had Ezzard above him - flip flopping actually - and it was for the #4/5 spots. What's more is I actually had Robinson third -- then I kind of changed my mind and went the Film over Faith route and moved Robbo and Henry back up top. For some reason, Ezzard got left behind on that and I don't really have an explanation for why...I know he's got the top wins and had a fetish for fighting really great fighters. What's more is that the guys he beat such as Moore (x3), Burley (x2), Louis, Walcott, et al. were rated extremely high at the weight(s) when he did beat them. I'm fairly certain Armstrong waxed more overall contenders - even more than Robinson if I remember correctly - and in an obscenely short amount of time.

If I had to put a finger on it, I'd say it's Henry's very unique achievements (most of them detailed in the OP) that edge it. That, and how highly I rate Barney Ross - and in turn, Henry's domination of him - for going 4-1 against Canzi and JMac in addition to everything else. People try and detract from it, but I'm not buying: Was 28, held a sizable weight advantage, had lost one time in the previous seven years going in and it was to fellow legend McLarnin, whom he defeated twice. Ambers is underrated and somewhat forgotten these days too.

 

Well played, sir.

He did beat more. I'm usually the kind of guy who rates top wins over depth though. I'll take a resume of 3 greats plus 10 good contenders over another with 1 great plus 20 good contenders (That's not Ezz-Hank specifics, obviously). As for the top line: you'll come back around. They all do. (No one has so far, but they all do...)

His win over Ross is one of the very best wins ever. Ross was in the twilight of his career, but he was still great and still Welterweight champ, and he got thrashed. I've got him top 15 all time, and stepping up in weight to batter a guy like that has to rate as one of the most impressive wins ever.

All the same, it's not exactly showing clear, undeniable superiority over a primed version of the most accomplished fighter in your division's history by besting him 3 separate times, is it?

Here's what makes that feat maybe the most impressive thing any boxer has ever done, ever:

In Moore's 218 fight, 28 year career, which spanned from Middle to Heavy and saw him step into the ring against THE absolute greatest list of opponents that any boxer has ever faced, every opponent who ever beat him can be placed into one of three categories:

1. They fought him only once.

2. They lost to him.

3. They were Ezzard Charles.


218 fights against the highest level of competition ever, and he beat everyone he ever fought more than once. Everyone else. He got 3 shots with Ezzard, each in his prime, and he failed in all 3 attempts. Hank's smashing of Ross is one thing, but that? That's stupid. That's ridiculous. That's how ****ing good Ezzard Charles was. :deal

 

Reminds me of this..

But, so, if Robinson didn't beat Kid Gavilan twice (who's arguably #2 at Welter), what would keep you from having Charles over Robinson?

 

Which, in turn, reminds me of perhaps my proudest moment on ESB (scroll down 'til you see my post, and then check out Boppa going ape**** on Sweet Pea for some reason)

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=156260&page=4

Well, I don't know that I would have Robinson higher if that were the case. Gavilan's his best scalp by some distance I think. Take it away, and suddenly he's not so far ahead. Honestly, while Gavilan may be the #2 Welter, it's probably less of a sure thing as Moore being #2 at LHW, Moore's greater than Gavilan anyway, and Moore was at his very best unlike Gavilan, who wasn't quite there yet (plus, 3 > 2).

I guess I would still rank Ray higher, all things considered. Superior dominance, far superior longevity, godliness on film being the key reasons. Yeah, I'd still rank him higher. Losing Gavilan would probably be enough to bump both Langford and Greb above him for good though.

 

Will check that out in a minute, bro.

It is his best scalp - although Armstrong was still formidable enough to call it a great win imo - and I think it may of folded his tent and GOAT flagpole if those fights didn't happen. It Always looks great when you beat your successor obviously, and it's only magnified here considering just how high up these guys are on the food chain, be it divisionally or P4P.

With the proliferation of boxing message boards and exposure Greb and Langford have attained over the last half-decade, I'm starting to think this may be the single primary reason, granted everyone is aware he's got a worthy record for it.

How can he NOT BE???

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60GuoYpmbJo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60GuoYpmbJo[/ame]

 

It's the main thing, yeah. I mean, you don't want to be unfair to Greb given that there's no footage of him, but you can't just ignore that.

Robinson looks closest to unbeatable on film. He didn't defeat quite the same level of competition as Greb or Langford, but he was staggeringly dominant and as such, his record also suggests he was probably closest to unbeatable. That means he's #1.

 

That particular clip is timeless. You can't set SRR with Layla, the "Goodfellas theme" , and not get perfection. :deal

Oh and sides the obvious Am footage, that is a predominantly MIDDLEWEIGHT Robinson, baby. Power. :deal

 

Holy **** that dude went off. :rofl I've talked to BZ before too, didn't know he had that vitriol in him.

 

He's top 3 lock IMO. Anytime I see Langford listed above Armstrong I get homicidal urges.

 

Yeah, he's an alright poster, actually. Guy just ****ing hated Sweet Pea though.

 

I missed being around for the Sweet Pea / Teeto days here for the most part. Some of the older threads incite some top notch hilarity though.

 

I don't even know what the hell happened to teeto.