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

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Manassa, Nov 8, 2009.


Page 7 of 11
  1. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    I used to think that, but not anymore.

    We can start off by establishing that Saddler wasn't ever as good as Armstrong was. While a genuine bruiser, he was not a tornado and was also never considered unbeatable.

    Now before, I said it was 50/50, Armstrong being a bit better but Saddler having the style - the balance of strength and range, the painful hooks, dirty tactics and durability to last.

    But then Armstrong's chin was probably better. He was arguably a better puncher, maybe not as sharp with a single punch, but as damaging as anyone with a volley of shots. He had a higher workrate. He was quicker than Saddler, who I've always found to be one of the slowest featherweight greats - is Armstrong going have that much trouble avoiding his long range punches? Saddler was primarily an infighter who could box to an extent on the outside. At that range, he has nothing up his sleeve that is unfamiliar to Armstrong, and inside, his opponent has the shortness, stoutness and torque advantage up close.

    Armstrong 65/35.
     
    Manassa, Nov 11, 2009
    Manassa, Nov 11, 2009
    #91
  2. teeto

    teeto Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,075
    54
    Oct 15, 2007
    See, it's the 'better'/better debate again. Armstrong one might say is a better fighter, but i'd still pick Saddler.

    Just my opinion, i respect yours btw.
     
    teeto, Nov 11, 2009
    teeto, Nov 11, 2009
    #92
  3. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    Oh yeah, same. Well nobody's right on any of these old subjects.
     
    Manassa, Nov 11, 2009
    Manassa, Nov 11, 2009
    #93
  4. Robbi

    Robbi Marvelous Full Member

    15,217
    169
    Jul 23, 2004
    Good stuff, champion.
     
    Robbi, Nov 11, 2009
    Robbi, Nov 11, 2009
    #94
  5. teeto

    teeto Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,075
    54
    Oct 15, 2007
    Yeah i agree, that was a quality post btw, stop swaying my opinion!!!!!
     
    teeto, Nov 11, 2009
    teeto, Nov 11, 2009
    #95
  6. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    :d
     
    Manassa, Nov 11, 2009
    Manassa, Nov 11, 2009
    #96
  7. Sweet Pea

    Sweet Pea Obsessed with Boxing banned

    27,199
    91
    Dec 26, 2007
    I just think Saddler's brutal clinch-work and physical dimensions would foil Armstrong's swarming, all punching, non-clinching style.
     
    Sweet Pea, Nov 11, 2009
    Sweet Pea, Nov 11, 2009
    #97
  8. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    As it happens, it's one of my dream fights.
     
    Manassa, Nov 11, 2009
    Manassa, Nov 11, 2009
    #98
  9. teeto

    teeto Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,075
    54
    Oct 15, 2007
    Then you're a sadist!
     
    teeto, Nov 11, 2009
    teeto, Nov 11, 2009
    #99
  10. Robbi

    Robbi Marvelous Full Member

    15,217
    169
    Jul 23, 2004
    Armstrong's left hand, underneath, to the body and his overhand right to the head behind it may well his best combo. He wasn't quite as left hand happy as he looked. His right hand was extremely potent, trust me.
     
    Robbi, Nov 11, 2009
    Robbi, Nov 11, 2009
    #100
  11. GPater11093

    GPater11093 Barry Full Member

    38,034
    90
    Nov 10, 2008

    i agree there. Also Henry wasnt too hard to hit and Saddler could and would hit him especially inside and he has the type of punching to keep Henry in check and gain lot of respect from him.
     
    GPater11093, Nov 11, 2009
    GPater11093, Nov 11, 2009
    #101
  12. TheGreatA

    TheGreatA Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,241
    150
    Mar 4, 2009
    No doubt about it.

    I believe his "money punch" was the "blackout" as he called it, a looping right hand which was responsible for most of his KO's.

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzA68zatfaQ[/ame]
     
    TheGreatA, Nov 11, 2009
    TheGreatA, Nov 11, 2009
    #102
  13. My2Sense

    My2Sense Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,935
    91
    Aug 21, 2008
    Actually, I think it would be the other way around.

    Saddler wasn't exactly invulnerable on the inside; in fact, he tended to stand upright and leave himself open. For example, Charley Riley worked him over fairly well on the inside early in their fight, until Saddler basically changed his style and began boxing from a distance. Pep was also able to go inside of him from time to time and outfight him there too, albeit for intermittent stretches.

    Most fighters simply didn't have the inside skill to thwart Saddler's clinching or the sturdiness to withstand his brutal left uppercuts. But then, most fighters weren't Armstrong.
     
    My2Sense, Nov 11, 2009
    My2Sense, Nov 11, 2009
    #103
  14. zarman

    zarman Guest

    acknowledged :thumbsup
     
    zarman, Nov 11, 2009
    zarman, Nov 11, 2009
    #104
  15. Drew101

    Drew101 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    29,695
    8,185
    Feb 11, 2005
    Armstrong wasn't as elusive as a Pep or even a Duran, but that was because he was always moving forward. Still, the film that I've seen of him suggests that he was tough to catch with a clean, flush shot due to his ridiculous ability to close the distance on an opponent, and the impressive head movement on the way in.

    He was better defensively than the likes of Aaron Pryor, and even when caught, he still held up nicely even when getting clocked with punches thrown by the likes of Chalky Wright and Lew Jenkins and Cerefino Garcia.

    So, I think I'm with Manassa on this. Armstrong to win vs. Saddler.
     
    Drew101, Nov 11, 2009
    Drew101, Nov 11, 2009
    #105
Page 7 of 11