Rank any 147 and below fighter over Henry Armstrong?

[i got the keys]

Are you talking about accomplishments and resume or who would beat who head to head?

I'm talking accomplishments and resume....

[soul_survivor]

I know he lost fair just like he won first fair ,just saying that talking that Roberto Heart was broken is bull**** .WW he was Small but ok but MW was horible ,he was a midget .But was Duran lw Run so good?that experts rank him so high?i watched most of his title fights but how much are this names worth beside (Dejesus )some was Good but not big names. He just quited cuse he get mad on Ray that he Run its just do Simple imo its true and not all this theoris, he quited and lose no excuses

He quit, that's exactly what I'm saying but a man only quits when he can no longer take a situation either psychologically or physically. He was fine physically which means there was an issue with his mentality. The real man, king of machismo was heart broken. That's all that means.

[soul_survivor]

I'm talking accomplishments and resume....

Even talking head to head, there's few if any feather to lightweight fighters I'd ever pick to beat Armstrong.

[BM dnobagaV]

It's me, but I don't get the fascination with OLD school boxers. Specifically old school heavy's, but that's a different story.
Was Hank really that impressive? Or is his resume littered with random guys in an era where everybody fought tens of times a year. Who here would take Armstrong over someone like Mosley, ODLH, Loma, or even Crawford? I sure as hell wouldn't..

[IronDanHamza]

It's me, but I don't get the fascination with OLD school boxers. Specifically old school heavy's, but that's a different story.
Was Hank really that impressive? Or is his resume littered with random guys in an era where everybody fought tens of times a year. Who here would take Armstrong over someone like Mosley, ODLH, Loma, or even Crawford? I sure as hell wouldn't..

Lomachenko couldn't handle Salido's roughhouse tactics and you think he'd be able to handle Armstrong?

[i got the keys]

It's me, but I don't get the fascination with OLD school boxers. Specifically old school heavy's, but that's a different story.
Was Hank really that impressive? Or is his resume littered with random guys in an era where everybody fought tens of times a year. Who here would take Armstrong over someone like Mosley, ODLH, Loma, or even Crawford? I sure as hell wouldn't..

Back in those days to be the champ you literally had to beat THE GUY...as in one champion. Many boxers spent years trying to get a title. In the HW division there were many very good black boxers who never got title shots.

They're viewed in high regards because they fought more often and had less of the advanced medicines we have today. Looking at it from face value you could say that he was fighting opponents that weren't good, but in actuality it was no different than some of the mandatory we get today that people haven't heard of. They deserved credit due to the amount of times they were fighting a year.

Picture fighting tough competition that is legitimately known in one month and then fighting another 2 or 3 opponents that are probably not the very elite, but damn good.

Think about Crawford fighting Postol, Lundy, Matthysse...ect...in one month. THat would be insane today.

f

[i got the keys]

Lomachenko couldn't handle Salido's roughhouse tactics and you think he'd be able to handle Armstrong?

Ha. Right.

I don't know how people can downplay Armstrong's skill when he had 3 different belts in different divisions at once in a time where you had to beat the top guy in the division to win the belt.

In order for the equivalent to happen today that would mean that a boxer had to hold the belt at 126,130,135,140, and 147.

[IronDanHamza]

Ha. Right.

I don't know how people can downplay Armstrong's skill when he had 3 different belts in different divisions at once in a time where you had to beat the top guy in the division to win the belt.

In order for the equivalent to happen today that would mean that a boxer had to hold the belt at 126,130,135,140, and 147.

Holding those 3 belts simuaitenously is ridiculously impressive. Easily one of the best accomplishments of all time.

Armstrong was a beast, an animal, you had no choice but to stand with him because you couldn't keep him off you.

[Humean]

I don't know how people can downplay Armstrong's skill when he had 3 different belts in different divisions at once in a time where you had to beat the top guy in the division to win the belt.

That certainly wasn't always the case although in Armstrong's case it most likely was.

Armstrong was either the #1 or #2 fighter of the 1930s so he is clearly one of the true greats. He defeated the best of his era, his opponents couldn't handle his relentlessness, you can see that in the Barney Ross fight where Ross, who was one of the #10 best of the 30s himself, just couldn't do anything to keep Armstrong from battering him. However Barney Ross really wasn't as good as more modern fighters even with a style that is more reminiscent of fighters of today that his peers. I doubt the 1936-1941 version of Armstrong would beat the very best between 126-147 of today although i'm sure he'd be more than competitive. That isn't a criticism of Armstrong as he was a product of his era and that era placed a lot more limitations on sporting excellence than today.

[Tom Cruise]

That certainly wasn't always the case although in Armstrong's case it most likely was.

Armstrong was either the #1 or #2 fighter of the 1930s so he is clearly one of the true greats. He defeated the best of his era, his opponents couldn't handle his relentlessness, you can see that in the Barney Ross fight where Ross, who was one of the #10 best of the 30s himself, just couldn't do anything to keep Armstrong from battering him. However Barney Ross really wasn't as good as more modern fighters even with a style that is more reminiscent of fighters of today that his peers. I doubt the 1936-1941 version of Armstrong would beat the very best between 126-147 of today although i'm sure he'd be more than competitive. That isn't a criticism of Armstrong as he was a product of his era and that era placed a lot more limitations on sporting excellence than today.

Far fewer limitations on boxing excellence though. Boxing wasnt divided into a million tiny slices for a start

For the record i think the BArney Ross win is slightly overrated. Ross looked completely done in that fight despite being the defending champion. A lot to do with HA's style but he retired after the fight which has to count for something.

Armstrong defending the title 19 times (a record that still stands) is what really solidified his credentials at WW rather than his win over Ross imo. His win over Lou Ambers is truly great. Sarron i dont know as much about but he was a legit champ with a good record.

Overall his record is astonishing and his achievements are unparalleled in certain areas.

To the thread, SRR's resume weighing 147 or below is pretty damn good

-Sammy Angott x3
-Fritzie Zivic x2
-Henry Armstrong
-Jake Lamotta (2-1 to SRR when ray was a WW)
-Tommy Bell x2
-Marty Servo x2
-Artie Levine
-Kid Gavilan (x1 at ww limit)