Henry Armstrong

When you look at the mythical "P4P" lists...lots of folks put Armstrong right behind SRR...some think that he might be ahead of him...GREAT fighter...

 

Hatton was more of a mauler. Armstrong worked everybody over on the inside but he didn't resort to holding. Headbutts, elbows and shoulders were definitely a part of his arsenal though. A physical fighter, but also well-schooled in dealing with the master-boxers of his era.

 

What a legend. The man would **** up every lightweight or welterweight in history at his best. Total beast, and the #2 P4P of all time.

 

He is nothing like Ricky Hatton, I'm not sure what you mean by that.

 

Exactly! Hatton was a great body puncher with a lot of balls, but the only thing that the two have in common is that they're both swarmers of a sort. Armstrong would constantly look at his opponent's feet, and still manage to bob & weave his way inside to devastate somebody.

He had an ATG left hook, and had a huge arsenal and variety of weapons. Master at head movement, powerful punches, unbelievable stamina, very quick, poker like jab, very sharp and accurate straight right hand, combine this with a total bad ass persona and, well.... What can you say?

 

Armstrong is the GOAT as far as I am concerned and to compare him to Ricky Hatton is kind of insulting to his greatness.

The only fighter I believe is comparable to Henry Armstrong is Joe Frazier, who modeled his style after Henry.

Hatton had none of the attributes that Armstrong had, and even as a swarmer he was not very effective. Hatton was more of a mid range fighter with limited movement who threw a lot of punches, whereas Armstrong was a swarmer who was a master at slipping punches and making opponents miss and countering.

I have never heard Armstrong compared to Hatton until now and I probably never will again.

 

Good post. :good

 

Actually, I can kinda see the comparison. Hatton was a mauler, but he did have a high work-rate, a decent enough jab, and ability to close the distance more quickly than his opponent may have expected. Armstrong was considerably more polished, and was indeed much better defensively, and he wasn't as inclined to maul on the inside...And of course, he was in an entirely different stratosphere when at his best.

But RH does follow that kind of template, to some extant, and if the TS wants to use that as a point of reference, while implying that Armstrong was much, much much better, than I don't really have an issue with that.

 

aigh tfighter

 

weak sauce

 

Made Ambers look like a human punching bag? What fight were you watching? Ambers won the second fight and a lot of people thought he won the first also.

 

Armstrong dealt a beating though even in losing. For such a fast paced bout fought in close, Ambers did make Armstrong miss an impressive amount. He took some hard punches still, particularly those right hands over the top, one of Armstrong's best and most innovative punches.

 

I dont think Ambers gave or recieved any worse than Armstrong. Both guys fought their asses off. Ambers certainly wasnt made to look like a human punching bag. Thats utter bull****. Ambers was a hell of a fighter, gave Armstrong hell, and had it not been for the way the contract was written he would have been a simultaneous two division champ.

 

RJ, I beg to differ with you. I saw Henry Armstrong fight young Ray Robinson in 1943 at MSG. Ray Robinson toyed with the fading smaller
Armstrong,and never wanted to hurt his idol Armstrong.We fans in the crowd sensed that Ray not wanting to hurt Henry,held him easily at bay.
So P4P Armstrong accomplished more against bigger opponents ,but Ray Robinson, because of his great height, would have beat Armstrong anytime at 147 pounds...And Fritzie Zivic who stopped Henry Armstrong in 1941,had the perfect style to beat Armstrong,even though Armstrong was an all-time
immortal....