I once listed all the fighters Armstrong beat who were, at one time or another, rated in the top ten at featherweight, lightweight or welterweight, or were champions:
Fighters in bold are Hall of Famers:
Barney Ross
Lou Ambers
Benny Bass
Midget Wolgast
Chalky Wright
Fritzie Zivic
Lew Jenkins
Sammy Angott
Baby Arizmendi
Mike Belloise
Petey Sarron
Paul Junior
Lew Feldman
Frankie Klick
Willie Joyce
Aldo Spoldi
Lew Massey
Billy Beauhuld
Enrico Venturi
Ernie Roderick
Rodolfo Casanova
Ceferino Garcia
Pedro Montanez
Davey Day
Bobby Pacho
Joe Gnhouly
Ralph Zanelli
Sheik Rangel
Al Davis
Leo Rodak
Tippy Larkin
Saverio Turiello
Juan Zurita
John Thomas
That is some resume. Bear in mind he beat some of them more than once.
Light as A Feather
re
Actually there are quite a few more top ten ranked fighters that Armstrong beat that I will add in the morning. The IBHOF Boxing Register book is a fairly good source for boxing, but they only have around a quarter percent of the top ten ranked fighters marked in each fighters record in the book. They really should have just left it alone as people will often see it in that book and, rightly so, assume that all ranked fighters have been marked, but it only leads to incorrect information as a lot have been left off! Several members of the IBRO together compiled a list of all the ranked fighters from 1925 thru 1986, which totals 3,299 different fighters, which that is the list that the Boxing Register should have went by as it doesn't leave any one who was ranked out. It's a great and very helpful piece of research and I'll go through it and list all the top ten rated fighters that Armstrong really fought in his career!
re
Without looking, yeah I'm pretty sure, but I will find out for certain in a couple of hours, well actually...he beat Richie Fontaine, so I know that there are more, but I would bet, without looking of course, that there are several more!
What source were you going by...was I correct in stating the IBHOF Boxing Register?
What source were you going by...was I correct in stating the IBHOF Boxing Register?
re
Now below is an actual complete list of all the top ten ranked fighters that Henry Armstrong fought! A total of 75 different top ten ranked opponents, which aside from Ray Robinson, Beau Jack and Ruben Shank, Armstrong beat the 72 other, which is remarkable beyond words...to beat such a high number of top quality opposition and he fought many of these guys more than once!
Very, very few fighters in history can compare to Armstrong in any way, stats, competition, accomplishments, etc., etc. and his record at featherweight is absolutely outstanding. If there are any fighters at 126 that could compare it would be Pep and Saddler, but without going through they're careers I cannot say with certain the numbers of contenders that each man faced, but I would just about bet that it doesn't equal Armstrong!!!
Davey Abad W PTS 10
Joe Conde W KO 7
Midget Wolgast W PTS 10
Frankie Covelli W PTS 8
Ritchie Fontaine W PTS 10
Bobby (Pancho) Leyvas W TKO 4
Baby Arizmendi W PTS 10
Juan Zurita W KO 4
Dommy Ganzon W KO 1
Gene Espinosa W KO 1
Joey Alcanter W KO 6
Rodolfo 'Baby' Casanova W KO 3
Tony Chavez W KO 10
Moon Mullins W TKO 2
Varias Milling W KO 4
California Joe Rivers W TKO 4
Mike Belloise W TKO 4
Pete DeGrasse W KO 10
Frankie Klick W TKO 4
Lew Massey W TKO 4
Benny Bass W KO 4
Petey Sarron W KO 6
Billy Beauhuld W TKO 5
Enrico Venturi W KO 6
Frankie Castillo W TKO 3
Chalky Wright W KO 3
Everett Rightmire W TKO 4
Charley Burns W KO 2
Eddie Zivic W TKO 4
Lew Feldman W KO 5
Barney Ross W UD 15
Lou Ambers W SD 15
Ceferino Garcia W UD 15
Al Manfredo W TKO 3
Bobby Pacho W TKO 4
Davey Day W TKO 12
Ernie Roderick W PTS 15
Howard Scott W KO 2
Ritchie Fontaine W TKO 3
Jimmy Garrison W KO 7
Joe Ghnouly W KO 5
Pedro Montanez W TKO 9
Paul Junior W TKO 7
Ralph Zannelli W TKO 5
Paul Junior W TKO 3
Lew Jenkins W TKO 6
Phil Furr W KO 4
Sheik Rangel W PTS 10
Reuben Shank L UD 10
Aldo Spoldi W TKO 7
Rodolfo Ramirez W KO 8
Leo Rodak W TKO 8
Earl Turner W KO 4
Juan Zurita W KO 2
Fritzie Zivic W UD 10
Saverio Turiello W TKO 4
Jimmy McDaniels W UD 10
Tippy Larkin W KO 2
Al Tribuani W PTS 10
Beau Jack L UD 10
Tommy Jessup W KO 1
Maxie Shapiro W TKO 7
Sammy Angott W UD 10
Willie Joyce W UD 10
Joey Silva W PTS 10
Sugar Ray Robinson L UD 10
Jackie Byrd W KO 4
Frankie Wills W UD 10
Ralph Zannelli W UD 10
John Thomas W SD 10
Aaron Perry W TKO 6
Al 'Bummy' Davis W TKO 2
Slugger White D PTS 10
Mike Belloise W KO 4
Chester Slider D PTS 10
Very, very few fighters in history can compare to Armstrong in any way, stats, competition, accomplishments, etc., etc. and his record at featherweight is absolutely outstanding. If there are any fighters at 126 that could compare it would be Pep and Saddler, but without going through they're careers I cannot say with certain the numbers of contenders that each man faced, but I would just about bet that it doesn't equal Armstrong!!!
Davey Abad W PTS 10
Joe Conde W KO 7
Midget Wolgast W PTS 10
Frankie Covelli W PTS 8
Ritchie Fontaine W PTS 10
Bobby (Pancho) Leyvas W TKO 4
Baby Arizmendi W PTS 10
Juan Zurita W KO 4
Dommy Ganzon W KO 1
Gene Espinosa W KO 1
Joey Alcanter W KO 6
Rodolfo 'Baby' Casanova W KO 3
Tony Chavez W KO 10
Moon Mullins W TKO 2
Varias Milling W KO 4
California Joe Rivers W TKO 4
Mike Belloise W TKO 4
Pete DeGrasse W KO 10
Frankie Klick W TKO 4
Lew Massey W TKO 4
Benny Bass W KO 4
Petey Sarron W KO 6
Billy Beauhuld W TKO 5
Enrico Venturi W KO 6
Frankie Castillo W TKO 3
Chalky Wright W KO 3
Everett Rightmire W TKO 4
Charley Burns W KO 2
Eddie Zivic W TKO 4
Lew Feldman W KO 5
Barney Ross W UD 15
Lou Ambers W SD 15
Ceferino Garcia W UD 15
Al Manfredo W TKO 3
Bobby Pacho W TKO 4
Davey Day W TKO 12
Ernie Roderick W PTS 15
Howard Scott W KO 2
Ritchie Fontaine W TKO 3
Jimmy Garrison W KO 7
Joe Ghnouly W KO 5
Pedro Montanez W TKO 9
Paul Junior W TKO 7
Ralph Zannelli W TKO 5
Paul Junior W TKO 3
Lew Jenkins W TKO 6
Phil Furr W KO 4
Sheik Rangel W PTS 10
Reuben Shank L UD 10
Aldo Spoldi W TKO 7
Rodolfo Ramirez W KO 8
Leo Rodak W TKO 8
Earl Turner W KO 4
Juan Zurita W KO 2
Fritzie Zivic W UD 10
Saverio Turiello W TKO 4
Jimmy McDaniels W UD 10
Tippy Larkin W KO 2
Al Tribuani W PTS 10
Beau Jack L UD 10
Tommy Jessup W KO 1
Maxie Shapiro W TKO 7
Sammy Angott W UD 10
Willie Joyce W UD 10
Joey Silva W PTS 10
Sugar Ray Robinson L UD 10
Jackie Byrd W KO 4
Frankie Wills W UD 10
Ralph Zannelli W UD 10
John Thomas W SD 10
Aaron Perry W TKO 6
Al 'Bummy' Davis W TKO 2
Slugger White D PTS 10
Mike Belloise W KO 4
Chester Slider D PTS 10
re
Thank you! I have always considered Greb to have the absolute best resume in history, but in actuality...Armstrong is not far behind...if he is behind at all. P4P it is very, very hard to go with someone other than Armstrong. Personally, I have both Robinson and Armstrong tied for number one with Greb and Langford right behind.
I think the 1940s were quite possibly the very best era in boxing history. Could you imagine a fighter today fighting and beating 72 top ten ranked opponents? And something else that is very impressive is the fact that most of those 72 pretty much occured after 1935. Armstrong fought for 14 years, which averaging things out would mean that Armstrong averaged fighting 5+ top ten ranked fighters a year, but averaging out the years where he actually fought top ten opposition it would be more like through a span of ten years, which then would equal out to fighting 7.5 top ten ranked opponents a year...pretty fornicating incredible isn't it? That's the kind of shit that would be made up in a fictional boxing legend...it's just amazing that there is no fiction to it!
I think the 1940s were quite possibly the very best era in boxing history. Could you imagine a fighter today fighting and beating 72 top ten ranked opponents? And something else that is very impressive is the fact that most of those 72 pretty much occured after 1935. Armstrong fought for 14 years, which averaging things out would mean that Armstrong averaged fighting 5+ top ten ranked fighters a year, but averaging out the years where he actually fought top ten opposition it would be more like through a span of ten years, which then would equal out to fighting 7.5 top ten ranked opponents a year...pretty fornicating incredible isn't it? That's the kind of shit that would be made up in a fictional boxing legend...it's just amazing that there is no fiction to it!
re
>>>It's hard to call the 1940s the greatest era boxing ever had when Charley Burley and Lloyd Marshall never got title shots. Talent-wise and depthwise, of course it was great<<<
Well of course that is what I meant...talent-wise it would be hard to find an era with better fighters than the 40s, plus you can't throw out an era just because a couple of great fighters never got a title shot...hell, the exact same thing happend again and again in every era's prior to the 40s, it certainly wasn't something new to Burley, Marshall, Holman Williams, or any of the others who never got a shot.
Although Joe Louis was in the armed forces and the heavyweights were not as exciting as they were in previous times there were still fighters like Beau Jack who was selling out the Garden over time he fought, but probably most importantly, with the exception of a few men, the 40s was an era where colored fighters really began to get more notice than they had in previous years! Every era has very deep lists of great fighters...even today, but the 40s may have seen the overall quality of fighters take another step forward though one would have to do some heavy-duty research to seperate and compare decades, which it would be a great task for someone to take up.
Here's something off-topic, but I wanted to mention it before I forgot it. There was a question a couple of years ago on some forum, which actually got a bit of attention, but the question was simple as it asked..."What was the best year for rookie heavyweights?"
I answered 1934...what does others think? This actually might be a good thread to start on it's own!
Well of course that is what I meant...talent-wise it would be hard to find an era with better fighters than the 40s, plus you can't throw out an era just because a couple of great fighters never got a title shot...hell, the exact same thing happend again and again in every era's prior to the 40s, it certainly wasn't something new to Burley, Marshall, Holman Williams, or any of the others who never got a shot.
Although Joe Louis was in the armed forces and the heavyweights were not as exciting as they were in previous times there were still fighters like Beau Jack who was selling out the Garden over time he fought, but probably most importantly, with the exception of a few men, the 40s was an era where colored fighters really began to get more notice than they had in previous years! Every era has very deep lists of great fighters...even today, but the 40s may have seen the overall quality of fighters take another step forward though one would have to do some heavy-duty research to seperate and compare decades, which it would be a great task for someone to take up.
Here's something off-topic, but I wanted to mention it before I forgot it. There was a question a couple of years ago on some forum, which actually got a bit of attention, but the question was simple as it asked..."What was the best year for rookie heavyweights?"
I answered 1934...what does others think? This actually might be a good thread to start on it's own!
re
>>>See, but Armstrong's, Greb's and Langford's respective resumes are built upon fighters as big as they were, or bigger. Ali's resume is at heavyweight, which is the absolute championship division. McLarnin beat a bunch of smaller guys.<<<
McLarnin did beat up on some smaller guys! I'm going through the careers of Saddler, Pep and Saldivar listing the top ten ranked opponents that each man fought and see how it compares to Armstrong...I may do McLarnin afterward. Is there any other certain fighter that you guys might want to see me do they're record as I did Armstrong's? If so just list them!
Speaking of McLarnin though, he is a fine example of a fighter whose record is very misleading about his actual punching power!
I just remembered another fighter whose resume of quality opposition is right on par with Greb and Armstrong...which it's none other than Slapsie Maxie Rosenbloom! A feather-fisted fighter who fought absolutely everyone and beat most of them...he barred no one and drew no color lines!
McLarnin did beat up on some smaller guys! I'm going through the careers of Saddler, Pep and Saldivar listing the top ten ranked opponents that each man fought and see how it compares to Armstrong...I may do McLarnin afterward. Is there any other certain fighter that you guys might want to see me do they're record as I did Armstrong's? If so just list them!
Speaking of McLarnin though, he is a fine example of a fighter whose record is very misleading about his actual punching power!
I just remembered another fighter whose resume of quality opposition is right on par with Greb and Armstrong...which it's none other than Slapsie Maxie Rosenbloom! A feather-fisted fighter who fought absolutely everyone and beat most of them...he barred no one and drew no color lines!
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Re: re
First of all, I want to bring up a mistake that I myself just noticed. Fontaine was well over the featherweight limit when he beat Armstrong so that result should be thrown out. I dowant to ask Barry where he gets his information about Conde (or fontaine for that matter)being ranked from 1934-1937? I have looked at at Ring Magazines annual rankings on the Internet as well as Boxing Register and neither have either ranked.barry wrote:Aside from Harry Greb and maybe a couple others, no fighters resume can really compare to Armstrong...and as far as accomplishments...Armstrong is pretty much in a league all his own!
You mention that Richie Fontaine and Joe Conde were not even contenders...for the record Richie Fontaine was not only a hell of a fighter, but he was also a top ten ranked featherweight...Fontaine was ranked 9th in the world in 1938 and also...Joe Conde was ranked number five in the world between 1934 and 1937, both would very likely be title-holders today, so sorry...they were highly ranked fighters that Armstrong lost to...and let me not forget...Baby Casanova was top ten ranked at three weights, 118, 126 and 135 and I'm not certain which weight it was, but he was the number one ranked contender at one of the three! You also failed to mention that Armstrong immediately avenged the very close Fontaine loss by beating Fontaine pretty solid the followng month after the loss and Armstrong also avenged the DQ loss to Casanova by beating him a couple of times including a pretty vicious knock out...Conde simply would not get back in the ring with Armstrong...good choice on his part!
Baby Manuel was the last unranked fighter that Armstrong ever lost to back in 1933, around Armstrong's 20th fight and the two, or three losses before that are the only other unranked fighters the he ever lost to, but from July 1933 until he retired, Armstrong never lost to a fighter that was not ranked in the top ten!
If I were to go through a comnpare Armstrongs resume to any other featherweight, Pep and Saddler included...very likely they will fall behind Armstrong...Saldivar, while a good in his era doesn't really compare resume-wise...though he was a strong fighter, but none of three could hang with Armstrong's work-rate, durability, strength and punching power at 126!
Both had mediocre records and it's hard to believe they were ranked.
Look at what Saldivar's resume and Armstrongs at featherweight. How can Armstrong's be judged better? Saldivar beat Sugar Ramos,Winstone 3 times, Legra and Laguna. He beat several other good fighters as well.
Yes Armstrong beat some great lightweights and welterweights, but he didn't do it when he himself was a featherweight.
The best featherweight that Armstrong beat was Arizmendi, who beat Armstrong twice.
Take a hard look at the other featherweights that I rated ahead of Armstrong. Kilbane, Attell,and Pedroza were all featherweight champions for a long time. Look at McGovern, Ramos, and Jofre did at this weight class also. These are great featherweights.
Armstrong was one of the greatest fighters of alltime, no question about it. I had him at #4 for lightweight and # 3 for welterweight. He has to be top 10 counting all weight classes.
However, at featherweight he shouldn't be rated as high.
re
>>>>First of all, I want to bring up a mistake that I myself just noticed. Fontaine was well over the featherweight limit when he beat Armstrong so that result should be thrown out. I dowant to ask Barry where he gets his information about Conde (or fontaine for that matter)being ranked from 1934-1937? I have looked at at Ring Magazines annual rankings on the Internet as well as Boxing Register and neither have either ranked. Both had mediocre records and it's hard to believe they were ranked.<<<
First and most importantly, you have to remember, that a large percentage of the records in the Boxrec database are incomplete!!!
I have the 2nd edition of The Boxing Register and as I mentioned earlier it is a pretty decent source for boxing, but there are a lot of holes in the records. They put a little symbol beside a fighter in Armstrong's (and other HOFer's) record to signal a ranked fighter, but the problem is that they leave out well over half of the actual ranked fighters pretty much in ever single record in the book and they actually just list a little over a 1/4 % of ranked fighters, I don't know if it was simply because they did not have all the information to list all ranked fighters, or if it was a half-ass job in that particular area, but they do seem to be getting better with each new edition, though they are still failing to list a ton of ranked fighters in each fighters record!
I got the information from "The Complete Ring Magazine Monthly Ratings: From 1925 thru 1986," which was published as IBRO Journal #39 in March 1990...which is an absolutely wonderful and handy reference tool, a piece of research that can settle and squash questions and debates about the topic!
As to Joe Conde and Richie Fontaine, well they were both rated in Ring magazine. Joe Conde was first ranked in the December 1934 Ring and he was last ranked in the Ring September 1937 issue. Richie Fontaine was rated in the Ring December 1938 issue!!!!
>>>Look at what Saldivar's resume and Armstrongs at featherweight. How can Armstrong's be judged better? Saldivar beat Sugar Ramos,Winstone 3 times, Legra and Laguna. He beat several other good fighters as well. Yes Armstrong beat some great lightweights and welterweights, but he didn't do it when he himself was a featherweight.<<<
How can Armstrong be judged better…simple!!! Because he just simply fought and beat better competition overall compared to Saldivar and to go along with what he did at featherweight he moved up much in weight!!! Hell, the obvious facts are there, Armstrong fought a total of 14 top ten ranked featherweights and beat every one of the fighters either the first go around, or in a rematch. I haven’t checked Saldivars record yet to see the total number of ranked featherweights that he fought, but without looking I’m guessing that it will fall short of 14! Plain and simple…Armstrong fought better competition overall!!!!
But what matters most of all is that in a head-to-head match-up, Armstrong takes Saldivar out most likely ten out of ten!!!
>>>The best featherweight that Armstrong beat was Arizmendi, who beat Armstrong twice.<<<
Beat Armstrong twice…I see that you fail to mention that Armstrong avenged those two losses by beating Arizmendi not two, but three times! Also, the best featherweight that Armstrong beat was Benny Bass, followed by Petey Sarron, Midget Wolgast, Baby Arizmendi, Juan Zurita, Mike Belloise, Baby Casanova and Frankie Klick…and sorry, but those guys alone stand up to anything Saldivar did…and there are still around seven, or eight top ten ranked featherweights that Armstrong beat who I did not even list!!!
>>>>Take a hard look at the other featherweights that I rated ahead of Armstrong. Kilbane, Attell,and Pedroza were all featherweight champions for a long time. Look at McGovern, Ramos, and Jofre did at this weight class also. These are great featherweights. Armstrong was one of the greatest fighters of alltime, no question about it. I had him at #4 for lightweight and # 3 for welterweight. He has to be top 10 counting all weight classes. However, at featherweight he shouldn't be rated as high.<<<<
Well, I have presented you with some pretty overwhelming facts to back Armstrong’s rating and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but Armstrong should be in any one’s top 3 at featherweight rating as he was simply one of the absolute best featherweights ever. Personally, I rank him number one all-time at featherweight, but some more pretty strong support for my behalf on Armstrong being very, very highly ranked is the all-time rankings put together by the IBRO, which just happens to be an org of, hands down, the absolute best boxing historians in the world today, actually, some the very best boxing historians ever to research boxing. At featherweight the tabulation of everyone’s votes, who voted which I think was around 40 members, ended up with Willie Pep #1, Saddler #2 and Henry Armstrong #3…Saldivar is #13 and rightly so! The whole list is as follows, which is about the best list you will ever see, though mine differs in placings:
1. Willie Pep
2. Sandy Saddler
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Abe Attell
5. Johnny Dundee
6. Alexis Arguello
7. Kid Chocolate
8. Johnny Kilbane
9. Jim Driscoll
10. Terry McGovern
11. Salvador Sanchez
12. George Dixon
13. Vincente Saldivar
14. Tony Canzoneri
15. Eder Jofre
16. Young Griffo
17. Azumah Nelson
18. Owen Moran
19. Freddie Miller
20. Eusebio Pedroza
First and most importantly, you have to remember, that a large percentage of the records in the Boxrec database are incomplete!!!
I have the 2nd edition of The Boxing Register and as I mentioned earlier it is a pretty decent source for boxing, but there are a lot of holes in the records. They put a little symbol beside a fighter in Armstrong's (and other HOFer's) record to signal a ranked fighter, but the problem is that they leave out well over half of the actual ranked fighters pretty much in ever single record in the book and they actually just list a little over a 1/4 % of ranked fighters, I don't know if it was simply because they did not have all the information to list all ranked fighters, or if it was a half-ass job in that particular area, but they do seem to be getting better with each new edition, though they are still failing to list a ton of ranked fighters in each fighters record!
I got the information from "The Complete Ring Magazine Monthly Ratings: From 1925 thru 1986," which was published as IBRO Journal #39 in March 1990...which is an absolutely wonderful and handy reference tool, a piece of research that can settle and squash questions and debates about the topic!
As to Joe Conde and Richie Fontaine, well they were both rated in Ring magazine. Joe Conde was first ranked in the December 1934 Ring and he was last ranked in the Ring September 1937 issue. Richie Fontaine was rated in the Ring December 1938 issue!!!!
>>>Look at what Saldivar's resume and Armstrongs at featherweight. How can Armstrong's be judged better? Saldivar beat Sugar Ramos,Winstone 3 times, Legra and Laguna. He beat several other good fighters as well. Yes Armstrong beat some great lightweights and welterweights, but he didn't do it when he himself was a featherweight.<<<
How can Armstrong be judged better…simple!!! Because he just simply fought and beat better competition overall compared to Saldivar and to go along with what he did at featherweight he moved up much in weight!!! Hell, the obvious facts are there, Armstrong fought a total of 14 top ten ranked featherweights and beat every one of the fighters either the first go around, or in a rematch. I haven’t checked Saldivars record yet to see the total number of ranked featherweights that he fought, but without looking I’m guessing that it will fall short of 14! Plain and simple…Armstrong fought better competition overall!!!!
But what matters most of all is that in a head-to-head match-up, Armstrong takes Saldivar out most likely ten out of ten!!!
>>>The best featherweight that Armstrong beat was Arizmendi, who beat Armstrong twice.<<<
Beat Armstrong twice…I see that you fail to mention that Armstrong avenged those two losses by beating Arizmendi not two, but three times! Also, the best featherweight that Armstrong beat was Benny Bass, followed by Petey Sarron, Midget Wolgast, Baby Arizmendi, Juan Zurita, Mike Belloise, Baby Casanova and Frankie Klick…and sorry, but those guys alone stand up to anything Saldivar did…and there are still around seven, or eight top ten ranked featherweights that Armstrong beat who I did not even list!!!
>>>>Take a hard look at the other featherweights that I rated ahead of Armstrong. Kilbane, Attell,and Pedroza were all featherweight champions for a long time. Look at McGovern, Ramos, and Jofre did at this weight class also. These are great featherweights. Armstrong was one of the greatest fighters of alltime, no question about it. I had him at #4 for lightweight and # 3 for welterweight. He has to be top 10 counting all weight classes. However, at featherweight he shouldn't be rated as high.<<<<
Well, I have presented you with some pretty overwhelming facts to back Armstrong’s rating and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but Armstrong should be in any one’s top 3 at featherweight rating as he was simply one of the absolute best featherweights ever. Personally, I rank him number one all-time at featherweight, but some more pretty strong support for my behalf on Armstrong being very, very highly ranked is the all-time rankings put together by the IBRO, which just happens to be an org of, hands down, the absolute best boxing historians in the world today, actually, some the very best boxing historians ever to research boxing. At featherweight the tabulation of everyone’s votes, who voted which I think was around 40 members, ended up with Willie Pep #1, Saddler #2 and Henry Armstrong #3…Saldivar is #13 and rightly so! The whole list is as follows, which is about the best list you will ever see, though mine differs in placings:
1. Willie Pep
2. Sandy Saddler
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Abe Attell
5. Johnny Dundee
6. Alexis Arguello
7. Kid Chocolate
8. Johnny Kilbane
9. Jim Driscoll
10. Terry McGovern
11. Salvador Sanchez
12. George Dixon
13. Vincente Saldivar
14. Tony Canzoneri
15. Eder Jofre
16. Young Griffo
17. Azumah Nelson
18. Owen Moran
19. Freddie Miller
20. Eusebio Pedroza
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Barry,
First of all I realize that the boxrec data base isn't perfect, though it is very useful. I use other sources of looking things up as well. I also have the Boxing Register (I have the 3rd Edition. It's a little better than the 2nd Edition but far from perfet as well.) I also use other record books and websites as well.
I will take your word that Conde was ranked but it's hard to see why. His record certainly isn't that impressive.
The all time featherweight 10 list that you mentioned is obviously very biased toward fighters from long ago. Only featherweight who was champion in the last 50 years is in the top 10? Even Salvador Sanchez is # 11. Come on.
Armstrong was well over the featherweight limit in wins over some of the guys you mentioned. He wasn't a featherweight when he beat Bass, or Glick. He wasn't a featherweight in two of his wins over Arizmendi. He was 1-2 as a featherweight against Arizmendi.
You say that Armstong's victims stand up to anything that Saldivar did.
May be you should check Saldivar's record. Since you didn't bother to check it because you assumed it wasn't as good as Armstrongs, I will let you know that from the records that I could gather, that Saldivar beat at least 10 featherweights who were at least in the top 10 at the time that he fought him;Salazar, Laguna, Ramos,Rojas, Winstone, Robertson,Seki,Legra, Famechon, Crawford.
He beat Salazar twice, Legra twice,and Winstone three times.
Sugar Ramos was one of the greatest featherweights of all time and better than anyone that Armstrong beat while a featherweight.
Armstrong lost to Arizmendi twice at featherweight, Baby Casanova, and Conde. This isn't even including his losses and draws early in his career.
Only 1 of the 3 wins over Arizmendi were at featherweight. (Yet another indication that featherweight wasn't Armstrong's best weight)
Armstrong biggest wins were not at featherweight. He was at 133 when he beat Ross for the welterweight title. He also wasn't a featherweight when he beat Zivic,Ambers, Jenkins, Angott etc.
What I am trying to say is that at featherweight Armstrong was beatable and there are other featherweights (including Saldivar) who were better.
First of all I realize that the boxrec data base isn't perfect, though it is very useful. I use other sources of looking things up as well. I also have the Boxing Register (I have the 3rd Edition. It's a little better than the 2nd Edition but far from perfet as well.) I also use other record books and websites as well.
I will take your word that Conde was ranked but it's hard to see why. His record certainly isn't that impressive.
The all time featherweight 10 list that you mentioned is obviously very biased toward fighters from long ago. Only featherweight who was champion in the last 50 years is in the top 10? Even Salvador Sanchez is # 11. Come on.
Armstrong was well over the featherweight limit in wins over some of the guys you mentioned. He wasn't a featherweight when he beat Bass, or Glick. He wasn't a featherweight in two of his wins over Arizmendi. He was 1-2 as a featherweight against Arizmendi.
You say that Armstong's victims stand up to anything that Saldivar did.
May be you should check Saldivar's record. Since you didn't bother to check it because you assumed it wasn't as good as Armstrongs, I will let you know that from the records that I could gather, that Saldivar beat at least 10 featherweights who were at least in the top 10 at the time that he fought him;Salazar, Laguna, Ramos,Rojas, Winstone, Robertson,Seki,Legra, Famechon, Crawford.
He beat Salazar twice, Legra twice,and Winstone three times.
Sugar Ramos was one of the greatest featherweights of all time and better than anyone that Armstrong beat while a featherweight.
Armstrong lost to Arizmendi twice at featherweight, Baby Casanova, and Conde. This isn't even including his losses and draws early in his career.
Only 1 of the 3 wins over Arizmendi were at featherweight. (Yet another indication that featherweight wasn't Armstrong's best weight)
Armstrong biggest wins were not at featherweight. He was at 133 when he beat Ross for the welterweight title. He also wasn't a featherweight when he beat Zivic,Ambers, Jenkins, Angott etc.
What I am trying to say is that at featherweight Armstrong was beatable and there are other featherweights (including Saldivar) who were better.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
The list that Barry mentioned (he didn't write it, but apparently thinks it's accurrate) is both biased toward fighters who fougt long ago and it unfortunately also is counting fights that were well outside the featherweight class.
Saldivar was only #13, Sanchez was only # 11, Pedroza was only # 20 and somehow they didn't even have Ramos in the top 20. It's obvious that list is biased against fighters that are more modern.
It seems like that the people making the list threw us a bone and made Arguello #6. they probably didn't even check that he was better at lightweight and Jr Lightweight.
I did find one aspect of the list that Barry mentioed to be interesting. Even this list that greatly favored fighters from yesteryear, didn't have one of Armstrong's opponents on it. Not one. Not that this by itself automatically means that he shouldn't be #3, but it's one more indication that he shouldn't be.
It seems that many people think of Armstrong as a great fighter (which he obviously was) and figure that since he was a featherweight champion that he must be one of the very best or even the very best featherweight of all time.
I didn't realize until recently that people actually include what a fighter does in all weights that he fought in when rating him in one specific weight. This simply shouldn't be done.
Does Floyd Patterson deserve to be ranked as one of the very best lightheavweights of all time? He fought as a lightheavyweight before movinmg up to heavyweight. After all, he did beat Archie Moore (both were heavyweights) and several good heavyweights.
Is Jimmy ellis one of the greatest middleweights? He was a middleweight at one time. He beat several good heavyweights.Monzon and Hagler never did that.
Willie Pastrano must have been a great welterweight. He started out as a welterweight and he beat lightheavyweights, including Harold Johnson. Sugar Ray Robinson and Kid Gavilan didn't do that.
Fighters who fight in more than one weight class are often better in one weight class than another.
It's simply wrong to count wins in the lightweight and welterweight divisions when rating a featherweight.
Saldivar was only #13, Sanchez was only # 11, Pedroza was only # 20 and somehow they didn't even have Ramos in the top 20. It's obvious that list is biased against fighters that are more modern.
It seems like that the people making the list threw us a bone and made Arguello #6. they probably didn't even check that he was better at lightweight and Jr Lightweight.
I did find one aspect of the list that Barry mentioed to be interesting. Even this list that greatly favored fighters from yesteryear, didn't have one of Armstrong's opponents on it. Not one. Not that this by itself automatically means that he shouldn't be #3, but it's one more indication that he shouldn't be.
It seems that many people think of Armstrong as a great fighter (which he obviously was) and figure that since he was a featherweight champion that he must be one of the very best or even the very best featherweight of all time.
I didn't realize until recently that people actually include what a fighter does in all weights that he fought in when rating him in one specific weight. This simply shouldn't be done.
Does Floyd Patterson deserve to be ranked as one of the very best lightheavweights of all time? He fought as a lightheavyweight before movinmg up to heavyweight. After all, he did beat Archie Moore (both were heavyweights) and several good heavyweights.
Is Jimmy ellis one of the greatest middleweights? He was a middleweight at one time. He beat several good heavyweights.Monzon and Hagler never did that.
Willie Pastrano must have been a great welterweight. He started out as a welterweight and he beat lightheavyweights, including Harold Johnson. Sugar Ray Robinson and Kid Gavilan didn't do that.
Fighters who fight in more than one weight class are often better in one weight class than another.
It's simply wrong to count wins in the lightweight and welterweight divisions when rating a featherweight.
re
>>>The list that Barry mentioned (he didn't write it, but apparently thinks it's accurrate) is both biased toward fighters who fougt long ago and it unfortunately also is counting fights that were well outside the featherweight class.<<<
The list that I mentioned was compiled by 30 to 40 members of the IBRO....it's not my list...it's the compiled/averaged out list of some of the worlds top historians...several guys that have been doing this kind of thing for 30 to 50 years longer than you, or I have and some even more! The list is more accurately correct than any other list that you will see any where in the world due to the quality of the researchers who made the list...a good percentage of these guys not only know about fighters like Armstrong, but they know the guys like Joe Conde just as well!
As to Conde...don't take my word for it...look it up yourself...I told you exactly where you can find it!
You mention that his record is not impressive and yet again I must remind you...a lot of the records in the database are incomplete, but impressive records don't really mean shit! A favorite that I always love to mention is Lamar Clark...sparkling, outstanding looking record, yet he was not even a journeyman caliber fighter! Buck "Tombstone" Smith...another sparkling record...why, simple...he never fought anyone! It's not what your record looks like...it's who you fought and who you beat that makes a fighters great!
But aside from Conde, Armstrong still fought, what was it, 14 other top ten ranked featherweights...now compare that to today's fighters who often don't even fight ranked opponents after they win a trinket! Accomplishment-wise, very, very few can compare to Armstrong and when it comes down to head-to-head, well, again...Armstrong is in a league all by himself!
You stated that you use a variety of sources...I'm curious...can you present a little bibliography of the sources that you have used to sum up Armstrongs worth at 126? And please be accurate in listing the source!
The list that I mentioned was compiled by 30 to 40 members of the IBRO....it's not my list...it's the compiled/averaged out list of some of the worlds top historians...several guys that have been doing this kind of thing for 30 to 50 years longer than you, or I have and some even more! The list is more accurately correct than any other list that you will see any where in the world due to the quality of the researchers who made the list...a good percentage of these guys not only know about fighters like Armstrong, but they know the guys like Joe Conde just as well!
As to Conde...don't take my word for it...look it up yourself...I told you exactly where you can find it!
You mention that his record is not impressive and yet again I must remind you...a lot of the records in the database are incomplete, but impressive records don't really mean shit! A favorite that I always love to mention is Lamar Clark...sparkling, outstanding looking record, yet he was not even a journeyman caliber fighter! Buck "Tombstone" Smith...another sparkling record...why, simple...he never fought anyone! It's not what your record looks like...it's who you fought and who you beat that makes a fighters great!
But aside from Conde, Armstrong still fought, what was it, 14 other top ten ranked featherweights...now compare that to today's fighters who often don't even fight ranked opponents after they win a trinket! Accomplishment-wise, very, very few can compare to Armstrong and when it comes down to head-to-head, well, again...Armstrong is in a league all by himself!
You stated that you use a variety of sources...I'm curious...can you present a little bibliography of the sources that you have used to sum up Armstrongs worth at 126? And please be accurate in listing the source!
All this 'controversy' over Armstrongs record as a featherweight seems very silly to me!. 8) .. anyone with decent boxing knowledge can see that Henry had a very outstanding record as a feather, to say otherwise is pure foolishness!... now if we are to compare him to Pep we have to decide whether staying at 126 all through your career makes you a better featherweight than having the ability to move up and win titles in two other divisions??. Was Pep a better Feather because he held the title longer while Armstrong moved up??... personally I dont think he was, I think the fact that Armstrong was able to beat Lightweights, Welters and Middleweights while being little more than a 126pounder shows an awesome amount of ability... and at the end of the day thats what we should judge him on.. 
8) 
.
In short, to rate Armstrong at 14 at featherweight is ludicrous!...
8) .In short, to rate Armstrong at 14 at featherweight is ludicrous!...
-
dr_devious
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5348
- Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 09:19
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Of course Armstrong has an outstanding record at featherweight. However there are others who had records that are more outstanding at featherweight. Take the time to look at the other featherweights records. .silkov wrote:All this 'controversy' over Armstrongs record as a featherweight seems very silly to me!. 8) .. anyone with decent boxing knowledge can see that Henry had a very outstanding record as a feather, to say otherwise is pure foolishness!... now if we are to compare him to Pep we have to decide whether staying at 126 all through your career makes you a better featherweight than having the ability to move up and win titles in two other divisions??. Was Pep a better Feather because he held the title longer while Armstrong moved up??... personally I dont think he was, I think the fact that Armstrong was able to beat Lightweights, Welters and Middleweights while being little more than a 126pounder shows an awesome amount of ability... and at the end of the day thats what we should judge him on..
In short, to rate Armstrong at 14 at featherweight is ludicrous!...
As mentioned before, Armstrong lost some fights at featherweight and almost all of his beiggest wins in his career were when he was well over the featherweight limit.
That Pep didn't move up to a higher weight class is completely irrelevant to this topic.
Armstrong was better when he was a lightweight and a welterweight. To count what he did at other weight classes when rating him at featherweight is what is ludicrous.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Re: re
The top 20 list that you brought up is their opinion and they arentitled toit. I'm just say that it is obvious that there are 2 obvious flaws with it.barry wrote:>>>The list that Barry mentioned (he didn't write it, but apparently thinks it's accurrate) is both biased toward fighters who fougt long ago and it unfortunately also is counting fights that were well outside the featherweight class.<<<
The list that I mentioned was compiled by 30 to 40 members of the IBRO....it's not my list...it's the compiled/averaged out list of some of the worlds top historians...several guys that have been doing this kind of thing for 30 to 50 years longer than you, or I have and some even more! The list is more accurately correct than any other list that you will see any where in the world due to the quality of the researchers who made the list...a good percentage of these guys not only know about fighters like Armstrong, but they know the guys like Joe Conde just as well!
As to Conde...don't take my word for it...look it up yourself...I told you exactly where you can find it!
You mention that his record is not impressive and yet again I must remind you...a lot of the records in the database are incomplete, but impressive records don't really mean shit! A favorite that I always love to mention is Lamar Clark...sparkling, outstanding looking record, yet he was not even a journeyman caliber fighter! Buck "Tombstone" Smith...another sparkling record...why, simple...he never fought anyone! It's not what your record looks like...it's who you fought and who you beat that makes a fighters great!
But aside from Conde, Armstrong still fought, what was it, 14 other top ten ranked featherweights...now compare that to today's fighters who often don't even fight ranked opponents after they win a trinket! Accomplishment-wise, very, very few can compare to Armstrong and when it comes down to head-to-head, well, again...Armstrong is in a league all by himself!
You stated that you use a variety of sources...I'm curious...can you present a little bibliography of the sources that you have used to sum up Armstrongs worth at 126? And please be accurate in listing the source!
1. Obviously they are very biased toward fighters that fought many many years ago. Only having one champion in the last 50 years in the top 10 is ridiculaus.
2. They are obvioulsy including what a fighter does at other weight class which is simply wrong.
As for for your point that win loss records can decieving and that Lamar Clark is a good example. I copuldn't agree with you more.
I'm not just looking at the total win/loss record when I look at a fighter. As I have said before I look at the quality of opponents, taking into consideration if the opponent (or the fighter in question) was green or past this prime.
There are simply other featherweights who beat better featherweights than Armstrong.
Armstrong isn't in aleague all by himself when it comes head to head. If Conde, Arizmendi (twice) and Casanova can beat him, so can Pep, Saddler, Saldivar, Sanchez, Kilbane, Attell, Pedroza, McGovern, Ramos, Jofre and Canzoneri.
You have mentioned that Armstrong beat 14 different Top 10 featherweights. Please name them.
Remember that Armstrong and his opponent can't be wellover the featherweights when the fight occurred. Also the opponent has to be in the top 10 at the time that they fought.
I am not coming up with anything close to 14 So please name them.
You asked that I present a bibliography of the sources that I used to sum up Armstrong at 126?
Well, I was making a list that rated the top 50 featherweights. I wasn't just looking at Armstrong.
The resources that I have found to be the most useful when I rate fighters are (in no particular order) as follows:
- The Encyclopedia of Boxing by Gilbert Odd. Chatwell Books.
- Boxing An Illustrated History by Harry Carpenter. Crescent Books.
- The Boxing Register International Boxing Hall of Fame Official Record Book by James Roberts and Alexander Skrutt.McBooks Press.
- An Illustrated History of Boxing by Nat Fleischer and Sam Andre. Updated by Dan Rafael. Citadel Press.
-The Boxrec Database.
All of these have their limitations, but all are useful.
An Illustrated History of Boxing
Wheres your evidence that Armstrong was a better Lightweight or Welter??... Armstrong used to drink quarts of milk and beer to push his weight up to get closer to 135... he was still a natural feather when he was beating lightweights and Welterweights... the fact that he was beating bigger fighters shouldnt devalue his ability as a featherweight!... thats just plain absurd... I think you need to study Armtrongs life and career more closely Alp as you seem to be missing the point!...Ambling Alp wrote:Of course Armstrong has an outstanding record at featherweight. However there are others who had records that are more outstanding at featherweight. Take the time to look at the other featherweights records. .silkov wrote:All this 'controversy' over Armstrongs record as a featherweight seems very silly to me!. 8) .. anyone with decent boxing knowledge can see that Henry had a very outstanding record as a feather, to say otherwise is pure foolishness!... now if we are to compare him to Pep we have to decide whether staying at 126 all through your career makes you a better featherweight than having the ability to move up and win titles in two other divisions??. Was Pep a better Feather because he held the title longer while Armstrong moved up??... personally I dont think he was, I think the fact that Armstrong was able to beat Lightweights, Welters and Middleweights while being little more than a 126pounder shows an awesome amount of ability... and at the end of the day thats what we should judge him on..
In short, to rate Armstrong at 14 at featherweight is ludicrous!...
As mentioned before, Armstrong lost some fights at featherweight and almost all of his beiggest wins in his career were when he was well over the featherweight limit.
That Pep didn't move up to a higher weight class is completely irrelevant to this topic.
Armstrong was better when he was a lightweight and a welterweight. To count what he did at other weight classes when rating him at featherweight is what is ludicrous.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Or someone who actaully looks at what Armstrong actaully did at featherweight and look at what other fighters did at feather weight and compare them.Decagon wrote:I agree. Not listing Armstrong as one of the 10 greatest featherweights of all time is similar to not listing Muhammad Ali as one of the 10 greatest heavyweights of all time; people doing it are either poorly-versed in boxing, or are just looking for attention.
Ali beat fighters that were much, much better than the guys Armstrong beat at featherweight.
Whats your point?... were the fighters Pep beat at 126 better than Armstrongs opposition???... does the fact that Armstrong a natural 126 beat Lightweights, Welterweights and Middleweights make him a poor featherweight???!!... how many featherweights have won the Lightweight and Welterweight titles as well???.... holding it against Armstrong that he was able to beat such bigger fighters is rather bizarre!... I suppose if he'd stayed at 126 and fought just Featherweights and Bantams you'd have rated him higher eh??!....Ambling Alp wrote:Or someone who actaully looks at what Armstrong actaully did at featherweight and look at what other fighters did at feather weight and compare them.Decagon wrote:I agree. Not listing Armstrong as one of the 10 greatest featherweights of all time is similar to not listing Muhammad Ali as one of the 10 greatest heavyweights of all time; people doing it are either poorly-versed in boxing, or are just looking for attention.
Ali beat fighters that were much, much better than the guys Armstrong beat at featherweight.
8) 
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
What's my point? I don't know if I can make it any more clear, but I will try. When rating featherweights, fights in which a fighter is in another weight class shouldn't be considered. Neither losses or wins.
Why? He isn't the same fighter when he is at another weight class. Quite often when a fighter fightes in more than one weight class he will be better in one than another. Some times he does better at a higher weight class and sometimes he does worse. Why in the world would you assume that fighters are at the same level at every weight class?
You have to actually look at what he did at each class.
Previously I gave a few examples of how silly this, but you must not have read that. I will do this one more time.
If you count wins in other weight classes than you must think Willie Pastrano was a great welterweight. after all, he started his career at welterweight and later beat Harold Johnson for the lightheavyweight title. Not even Ray Robinson could do that.
You would have to think that Jimmy Ellis was one of the great middleweights. He started his career off at middleweight and later as a heavyweight beat some very good heavyweights. Hagler and Monzon never beat top heavyweights.
You would have rank Floyd Patterson as one of the top light heavyweights. He fought at lightheavyweight early in his career. However he beat Archie Moore (when both were heavyweights) and some good heavyweights.
If De La hoya would beat Winky Wright should that be taken into account when rating De La hoya as a lightweight? After all De La Hoya was once a lightweight.
Of course no one makes these kind of claims with Pastrano, Ellis or Patterson or De La Hoya. They should with Armstrong either.
Just think about this for a few minutes. This isn't brain surgery.
You asked how many featherweights have won the lightweight and welterweight titles as well? Well the answer is no one. Armstrong outgrew the featherweight limit when he won the lightweight and welterweight class.
So Armstrong putting on weight and beating a lightweight does not pertain to him as a featherweight. He himself was no longer a lightweight. He outgrew the class. If he beat the lightweight and welter champion when he was only a featherweight, than by all means you could argue that he was the best featherweight of all time But that isn't what happened.
Winning the featherweight, lightweight,and welterweight titles was a tremendous achievement. If rating fighters from flyweight to heavyweight you certainly could argue that he was one of the very best of all time. I personally have him in the top 5, higher than Pep.
I don't have anything against Armstrong. When I made this list I was just trying to rate the best featherweights. Amost all of Armstrong's biggest wins weren't when he was still a featherweight. As mentioned he had some losses at featherweight that have to be factored in (just as anyone else). Now think what some of these other guys accomplished:
Pep was once 125-1, beating some very good featherweights.
Saddler beat Pep 3 times.
Sanchez beat Lopez,Gomez,Neslon, LaPorte and never lost as a featherweight.
Saldivar beat 10 different opponents who were at least in the top 10, including Sugar Ramos.
Attell was champion for more than 8 years.
Kilbane was champion for more than 11 years.
McGovern had an outstanding record including beating George Dixon.
Pedroza was the champion for more than 7 years.
Ramos only lost one fight at featherweight in his career and that was to Saldivar.
Of course you can poke holes in all of these guy's records as well. However, they at least deserved to be considered. It doesn't seem like they are being considered.
Why? He isn't the same fighter when he is at another weight class. Quite often when a fighter fightes in more than one weight class he will be better in one than another. Some times he does better at a higher weight class and sometimes he does worse. Why in the world would you assume that fighters are at the same level at every weight class?
You have to actually look at what he did at each class.
Previously I gave a few examples of how silly this, but you must not have read that. I will do this one more time.
If you count wins in other weight classes than you must think Willie Pastrano was a great welterweight. after all, he started his career at welterweight and later beat Harold Johnson for the lightheavyweight title. Not even Ray Robinson could do that.
You would have to think that Jimmy Ellis was one of the great middleweights. He started his career off at middleweight and later as a heavyweight beat some very good heavyweights. Hagler and Monzon never beat top heavyweights.
You would have rank Floyd Patterson as one of the top light heavyweights. He fought at lightheavyweight early in his career. However he beat Archie Moore (when both were heavyweights) and some good heavyweights.
If De La hoya would beat Winky Wright should that be taken into account when rating De La hoya as a lightweight? After all De La Hoya was once a lightweight.
Of course no one makes these kind of claims with Pastrano, Ellis or Patterson or De La Hoya. They should with Armstrong either.
Just think about this for a few minutes. This isn't brain surgery.
You asked how many featherweights have won the lightweight and welterweight titles as well? Well the answer is no one. Armstrong outgrew the featherweight limit when he won the lightweight and welterweight class.
So Armstrong putting on weight and beating a lightweight does not pertain to him as a featherweight. He himself was no longer a lightweight. He outgrew the class. If he beat the lightweight and welter champion when he was only a featherweight, than by all means you could argue that he was the best featherweight of all time But that isn't what happened.
Winning the featherweight, lightweight,and welterweight titles was a tremendous achievement. If rating fighters from flyweight to heavyweight you certainly could argue that he was one of the very best of all time. I personally have him in the top 5, higher than Pep.
I don't have anything against Armstrong. When I made this list I was just trying to rate the best featherweights. Amost all of Armstrong's biggest wins weren't when he was still a featherweight. As mentioned he had some losses at featherweight that have to be factored in (just as anyone else). Now think what some of these other guys accomplished:
Pep was once 125-1, beating some very good featherweights.
Saddler beat Pep 3 times.
Sanchez beat Lopez,Gomez,Neslon, LaPorte and never lost as a featherweight.
Saldivar beat 10 different opponents who were at least in the top 10, including Sugar Ramos.
Attell was champion for more than 8 years.
Kilbane was champion for more than 11 years.
McGovern had an outstanding record including beating George Dixon.
Pedroza was the champion for more than 7 years.
Ramos only lost one fight at featherweight in his career and that was to Saldivar.
Of course you can poke holes in all of these guy's records as well. However, they at least deserved to be considered. It doesn't seem like they are being considered.
In Armstrong's case didn't he beat a lot of welterweights whilst still only weighing around 135 himself?
I don't know how strict this divisional rule should be applied. Putting on weight isn't going to effect how good a fighter's chin is but it will mean that they are fighting naturally bigger men who in general are going to hit them harder. This is just one example.
I believe that there are some factors to be taken into consideration. I've never formally put down what these should be but I can't compartmentalise quite as strictly as some.
I don't know how strict this divisional rule should be applied. Putting on weight isn't going to effect how good a fighter's chin is but it will mean that they are fighting naturally bigger men who in general are going to hit them harder. This is just one example.
I believe that there are some factors to be taken into consideration. I've never formally put down what these should be but I can't compartmentalise quite as strictly as some.
re
Alp---I have all the books you mentioned, and though they are all fairly good reading the problem with them is that they say the exact same thing that 100 other books before them already said. They regurgitate the same mini-statements that everyone else states in boxing books, which it's not just them...pretty much all boxing books to date of that sort are the same and none...I repeat none go into Armstrong, or any other fighters career with any kind of thorough detail...they just state the same little paragraph saying the same thing over and over. At best those kinds of books very briefly talk about four, maybe five total fights of a fighters career, but even those, they do not go into any kind of detail in!
I really like Odd's Encyclopedia of Boxing as is has brief sketches about several British fighters that books written in the states don't...and vice versa with the Boxing Register. But there are really no books that I know of that go into any kind of detail about various fighters career's and when speaking of Armstrong they usually just speak very, very briefly about his one title fight at 126, but that's it about his featherweight career and no one...I don't care who you are, is going to learn much about fighters from books like Fleischer's, or Carpenters as they are just too brief, not to mention that Fleischer was just full of hot air a big percentage a lot of the time…Carpenter and Odd were a lot better writers than Fleischer ever was. Fleischer is one of the most valuable people to ever speak for boxing, he did a hell of a lot for the sport, but as a writer he was total hack and what he didn’t know, he sure never thought twice about just making something up to takes it’s place!
Now to really learn about Armstrong's years and fights at 126 a person will have to go to the newspapers and publications of the day...that's the only way that a person can truly learn about Armstrong's career at 126, unless someone writes a really good biography on Armstrong, but that has not happened yet. His autobiography is pretty good, but that has limitations as well and all these boxing history books, well as I said, they only give the reader a small glimpse into a fighter’s career and it is usually the exact same thing that 50 authors before them already said.
I don't mean this as an insult, but I can see why you don't rate Armstrong higher...plain and simply you are not really going to learn anything about his featherweight career in the kinds of books that you mention, or any others like it…you will get a brief overview of his career, but nothing in-depth. As I said the best way to go about learning of Armstrong's days at 126 are to go through everything you can find from 1931 thru 1940...best of which would be the Los Angeles Times, Oakland Tribune, or any other primary source papers, but the two mentioned are probably the two best sources a person can use in my opinion and then there is Ring magazine, The Boxing News (US), The Knockout (weekly out San Francisco), The Fighter, The Illustrated Boxing Record, Bang boxing weekly, Boxing and Wrestling News, Redhead Sporting Weekly, The Referee and Announcer and whatever other publications that you can find from the 30s, but these supposed boxing history books, up to date, have just wrote down the same thing that others have said, except maybe they worded it different, but a person just simply cannot learn about fighters from reading 500 to 1000 words that is always stating the exact same thing!
As I said, I really enjoy Odd’s Encyclopedia of Boxing and I really enjoy the Boxing Register, the two by Carpenter and Fleischer are fair reading, but they really are not going to tell anyone, with a fair amount of knowledge, anything that they don’t already know. There is just not enough room in books of that style/format to really go into depth about a fighter’s career, so they just write a couple of paragraphs summing up a fighters career and from that a person just simply can get enough information to compare fighters with.
Someone could do a really good biography of Armstrong now. The only book out on Armstrong is his autobiography, Gloves, Glory and God that was first published in 1956, or 1957 and which I’ve got and which is a pretty good read, but with all the sources we have today, someone, if they really put forth the time and effort, they could write an outstanding biography on Armstrong, maybe in time someone will!
I really like Odd's Encyclopedia of Boxing as is has brief sketches about several British fighters that books written in the states don't...and vice versa with the Boxing Register. But there are really no books that I know of that go into any kind of detail about various fighters career's and when speaking of Armstrong they usually just speak very, very briefly about his one title fight at 126, but that's it about his featherweight career and no one...I don't care who you are, is going to learn much about fighters from books like Fleischer's, or Carpenters as they are just too brief, not to mention that Fleischer was just full of hot air a big percentage a lot of the time…Carpenter and Odd were a lot better writers than Fleischer ever was. Fleischer is one of the most valuable people to ever speak for boxing, he did a hell of a lot for the sport, but as a writer he was total hack and what he didn’t know, he sure never thought twice about just making something up to takes it’s place!
Now to really learn about Armstrong's years and fights at 126 a person will have to go to the newspapers and publications of the day...that's the only way that a person can truly learn about Armstrong's career at 126, unless someone writes a really good biography on Armstrong, but that has not happened yet. His autobiography is pretty good, but that has limitations as well and all these boxing history books, well as I said, they only give the reader a small glimpse into a fighter’s career and it is usually the exact same thing that 50 authors before them already said.
I don't mean this as an insult, but I can see why you don't rate Armstrong higher...plain and simply you are not really going to learn anything about his featherweight career in the kinds of books that you mention, or any others like it…you will get a brief overview of his career, but nothing in-depth. As I said the best way to go about learning of Armstrong's days at 126 are to go through everything you can find from 1931 thru 1940...best of which would be the Los Angeles Times, Oakland Tribune, or any other primary source papers, but the two mentioned are probably the two best sources a person can use in my opinion and then there is Ring magazine, The Boxing News (US), The Knockout (weekly out San Francisco), The Fighter, The Illustrated Boxing Record, Bang boxing weekly, Boxing and Wrestling News, Redhead Sporting Weekly, The Referee and Announcer and whatever other publications that you can find from the 30s, but these supposed boxing history books, up to date, have just wrote down the same thing that others have said, except maybe they worded it different, but a person just simply cannot learn about fighters from reading 500 to 1000 words that is always stating the exact same thing!
As I said, I really enjoy Odd’s Encyclopedia of Boxing and I really enjoy the Boxing Register, the two by Carpenter and Fleischer are fair reading, but they really are not going to tell anyone, with a fair amount of knowledge, anything that they don’t already know. There is just not enough room in books of that style/format to really go into depth about a fighter’s career, so they just write a couple of paragraphs summing up a fighters career and from that a person just simply can get enough information to compare fighters with.
Someone could do a really good biography of Armstrong now. The only book out on Armstrong is his autobiography, Gloves, Glory and God that was first published in 1956, or 1957 and which I’ve got and which is a pretty good read, but with all the sources we have today, someone, if they really put forth the time and effort, they could write an outstanding biography on Armstrong, maybe in time someone will!