BoxRec

HENRY ARMSTRONG

In the good times of only one World Champion and only eight weights, he win and holdest simultaneously three World Titles: Feather, Light and Welter, and was near of to obtain another: the Middle, when drew: ¡near of the 50% of all the World Titles in only one fighter!

THE BEST BOXER WAS WILLIE PEP. I SAW HIM WIN A ROUND WITHOUT BEING HIT. NOW FOR THE BEST FIGHTER I PICK YOUNG STRIBLING, AND MIKE TYSON. THAT ONE IS A TIE, BUT I LEAN TOWARDS STRIBLING.

Brich1930b wrote:THE BEST BOXER WAS WILLIE PEP. I SAW HIM WIN A ROUND WITHOUT BEING HIT. NOW FOR THE BEST FIGHTER I PICK YOUNG STRIBLING, AND MIKE TYSON. THAT ONE IS A TIE, BUT I LEAN TOWARDS STRIBLING.

When did you see Willie Pep win a round without being hit? Many people said Pep did it, but I've never met anyone who can say they actually saw it.

raylawpc wrote:

Brich1930b wrote:THE BEST BOXER WAS WILLIE PEP. I SAW HIM WIN A ROUND WITHOUT BEING HIT. NOW FOR THE BEST FIGHTER I PICK YOUNG STRIBLING, AND MIKE TYSON. THAT ONE IS A TIE, BUT I LEAN TOWARDS STRIBLING.

When did you see Willie Pep win a round without being hit? Many people said Pep did it, but I've never met anyone who can say they actually saw it.

A few years ago on this site a boxing researcher claimed to have disproved this claim...

As for the post... Would be nice if it was genuine... But the pick for best fighter between Stribling and Tyson sounds like someone making a cocktail with with Guiness and Grenadine...

Yeah, I know the story. He supposedly did it in the third round of his 1946 fight with Jackie Graves in Minneapolis. (At least, that's what Willie always claimed.) But I've never met or even heard of anyone who claims to have seen it.

I'll add that a friend of mine from the Twin Citiies pulled the newspaper articles of the fight from the Minneapolis and St. Paul newspapers. According to my friend (I have not personally seen the articles), no mention is made of Pep winning a round without throwing a punch. Pep reportedly claimed it happened in the third round. Yet, one of the papers reported that the third was the best action round of the right, with both fighters scoring.

Urban legend?

Truth be told, probably the only guy in 1946 to win a round without getting hit was Al Couture. (He knocked out Ralph Walton in 10.5 seconds of the first round. I doubt poor old Ralph had a chance to throw a punch. . .)

Rocky Marciano

Undefeated,Undisputed, Heavyweight Champion of the World.
With 49-0/43 ko/ record.

Brich1930b wrote:NOW FOR THE BEST FIGHTER I PICK YOUNG STRIBLING, AND MIKE TYSON. THAT ONE IS A TIE, BUT I LEAN TOWARDS STRIBLING.

bull wrote:Rocky Marciano

Undefeated,Undisputed, Heavyweight Champion of the World.
With 49-0/43 ko/ record.

I respect Rocky but does that mean we should put Pretty Boy Floyd in the pantheon of great fighters because he retired undefeated too?

We live through an era where undefeated records are protected it all costs and only once the big money arrives will fighters take any risks.

An article posted recently on the greatest thread ever, is testament to this. We've had a genration of fighters come through in this way and many fans see this as the norm. besides look at how posters here pick over defeats. Great fighters who fight the best opposition lose some. I always say it but you can tell more about a man's greatness by the manner of his defeat and how he responds to it than you ever can in victory.

You can't compare Floyd or Calzaghe to the old-timers... It's just not possible. These guys are the best of their day and for that reason will more than likely get in.

The problem is that many people will rate a guy higher for not losing than sharing a series or even losing a series of fights against another great. Once you start rating how good someone is on stats then why fight anyone who is a threat. We live in lazy times where stats are an easy option, a get out for people to prove their point, and a time where the best fighters fight once or twice a year...

Ezzard wrote:We live through an era where undefeated records are protected it all costs and only once the big money arrives will fighters take any risks.

An article posted recently on the greatest thread ever, is testament to this. We've had a genration of fighters come through in this way and many fans see this as the norm. besides look at how posters here pick over defeats. Great fighters who fight the best opposition lose some. I always say it but you can tell more about a man's greatness by the manner of his defeat and how he responds to it than you ever can in victory.

You can't compare Floyd or Calzaghe to the old-timers... It's just not possible. These guys are the best of their day and for that reason will more than likely get in.

The problem is that many people will rate a guy higher for not losing than sharing a series or even losing a series of fights against another great. Once you start rating how good someone is on stats then why fight anyone who is a threat. We live in lazy times where stats are an easy option, a get out for people to prove their point, and a time where the best fighters fight once or twice a year...

Rocky retired at 32... Holyfield was 34 when he knocked out a prime or near prime Mike Tyson and burnished his legend...Muhammad Ali was 32 when he dropped the 24 year old monster, George Foreman...George Foreman dropped Michael Moorer at 45...

I will take nothing away from Rocky...No fighter made more of what he had than him but if he would have fought into his mid or late thirties would he have remained undefeated? with Sonny Liston on the horizon whom he might have met in 57 or 58 if he doesn't manage to avoid him?

Larry Holmes would have been 49-0 if he beat Spinks...What a strange confluence of circumstances to lose that fight and I did think he lost it but if one was predisposed to give him the benefit of the doubt they could have given him that victory...

Would Larry have been the GOAT?

Even if he went on to box and lose as he surely would have because there are precious few Floys Mayweathers or Rocky Marcianos who have the discipline to retire after a win...Boxers fight until they lose....

As an aside I think we see the Pretty Boy in the ring again...

He'll definitely be back in the ring.

This way he can just pick lucrative overmatched opponents. He doesn't have to worry about defending titles against lesser fighters (and perhaps take his eye off the ball). He can just dip in and out to suit himself.

I've ranked Mayweather among the top 10 lightweights and the top 50 pound-for-pound for years now. Arguably top 20 welterweight, to boot.

Ezzard wrote:We live through an era where undefeated records are protected it all costs and only once the big money arrives will fighters take any risks.

An article posted recently on the greatest thread ever, is testament to this. We've had a genration of fighters come through in this way and many fans see this as the norm. besides look at how posters here pick over defeats. Great fighters who fight the best opposition lose some. I always say it but you can tell more about a man's greatness by the manner of his defeat and how he responds to it than you ever can in victory.

You can't compare Floyd or Calzaghe to the old-timers... It's just not possible. These guys are the best of their day and for that reason will more than likely get in.

The problem is that many people will rate a guy higher for not losing than sharing a series or even losing a series of fights against another great. Once you start rating how good someone is on stats then why fight anyone who is a threat. We live in lazy times where stats are an easy option, a get out for people to prove their point, and a time where the best fighters fight once or twice a year...

Well said Ez.

I think that people are too hard on Mayweather. He beat the best fighters in every weight class he fought at, besides Welterweight, though he beat some good fighters there and was the legitimate champion. Either way, I do expect Mayweather to come back if Cotto can beat Margarito and De La Hoya, though obviously I'm just assuming that.

Anyway; I think most would agree with Robinson as the best fighter of all time. He beat ten Hall of Famers. Jack Johnson is the only fighter who I am aware of to beat more Hall of Famers than Robinson, but a lot of the HOF'ers Johnson beat were older and smaller, while probably most of the HOF'ers Robinson beat were bigger or younger. He also beat a top five Welterweigtht in Gavilan (I won't mention Armstrong even though he is as well) and a top ten Welterweight in Basilio, though that was at Middleweight. And he beat two fighters in Fullmer and LaMotta who I would imagine most people would rank as top ten Middleweights.

He had great longevity. He was a great fighter very early in his career, beating several great opponents in only his second and third years as pro, winning the Fighter of the Year award at 21, and he was still Middleweight champion at 38. There aren't many other fighters who were that good that early and that good that late in their careers. And he was very consistent for most of his career; he went 40-0 before losing his first fight, then went undefeated in 90 fights after that. Most of his losses came in old age and he avenged many of those losses, he was never beaten twice until he was 40.

There's also the little things that didn't go his way. Angott wouldn't give him a shot at the Lightweight title, so instead they fought at 136, where Robinson beat him. He unfairly had to wait several years to get a shot at the Welterweight title, so he only had five defenses of that belt, but if he had gotten it earlier he could have had many more defenses of that title. And he was two rounds away from winning the Light Heavyweight title. He came as close as anyone, besides Armstrong, to winning four titles in an era were there were only eight belts. Also, most thought he should have won the third fight with Fullmer, which would have made him six time champion at Middleweight. And of course he should have retired much sooner than he did, but had financial problems.

And I think we all appreciate Robinson's abilities as a fighter. He had great handpseed, he had power in both hands, he could box on the outside or trade on the inside, he had a nice jab and was a great combination puncher, he had great mobility, a great chin, heart, great stamina, was a great body puncher, he was tall for a fighter in his weight classes etc. He had a lot of versatility as a boxer. Most recognize him as the best Welterweight of all time, many rank him as the best Middleweight. He thoroughly cleaned out the Welterweight division and was able to win the Middleweight title several times, fighting Hall of Famers in nearly every title fight he had at that weight class.

I do think that Armstrong and Greb are close, but I would side with Robinson. And in terms of head to head fights I can't think of any Welterweights who I would favor to beat him, and I would at worst give him a 50-50 chance with the other great Middleweight champions like Greb and Monzon and Hagler.

TO ALL.....I WAS 17. PEP FOUGHT HUMBERTO SIERRA, 7/23/1947 AT THE AUDITITORIUM OUTDOOR ARENA, IN HARTFORD, CT. SORRY I DO NOT REMEMBER THE ROUND. IF I REMEMBER IT RIGHT, IT WAS THE FIRST FIGHT PEP HAD AFTER HE BROKE HIS BACK IN A PLANE CRASH. BY THE WAY WHEN MY BUDDY AND I GOT TO THE TICKET WINDOW THEY TOLD US ALL SEATS WERE SOLD. WE CLIMBED OVER THE FENCE AND WATCHED IT FROM THE ISLE RINGSIDE. THAT FIGHT WAS SOMETHING I WILL NOT FORGET. RICHARD B. BARTMAN "[email protected]"

Brich1930b wrote:TO ALL.....I WAS 17. PEP FOUGHT HUMBERTO SIERRA, 7/23/1947 AT THE AUDITITORIUM OUTDOOR ARENA, IN HARTFORD, CT. SORRY I DO NOT REMEMBER THE ROUND. IF I REMEMBER IT RIGHT, IT WAS THE FIRST FIGHT PEP HAD AFTER HE BROKE HIS BACK IN A PLANE CRASH. BY THE WAY WHEN MY BUDDY AND I GOT TO THE TICKET WINDOW THEY TOLD US ALL SEATS WERE SOLD. WE CLIMBED OVER THE FENCE AND WATCHED IT FROM THE ISLE RINGSIDE. THAT FIGHT WAS SOMETHING I WILL NOT FORGET. RICHARD B. BARTMAN "[email protected]"

Thanks for your message Mr. Bartman. Willie always maintained it happened in the Jackie Graves fight in 1946. But he had over 200 fights, so maybe he was confused. I'm sure all of the Willie Pep researchers will now be pulling the old Hartford newspapers looking for accounts of the Sierra fight. Perhaps you have cleared up a mystery.

Big Bad John wrote:I've ranked Mayweather among the top 10 lightweights and the top 50 pound-for-pound for years now. Arguably top 20 welterweight, to boot.

To me, he should not be ranked in none of those classifications. He is not a top 10 lightweight. He is not a top 50 pound per pound all time neither a top 20 welterweight. He does not have the CREDENTIALS.

I could say he is a top 10 jr lightweight all-time, though.

I Feel Fine wrote:I think that people are too hard on Mayweather. He beat the best fighters in every weight class he fought at, besides Welterweight, though he beat some good fighters there and was the legitimate champion. Either way, I do expect Mayweather to come back if Cotto can beat Margarito and De La Hoya, though obviously I'm just assuming that.

Anyway; I think most would agree with Robinson as the best fighter of all time. He beat ten Hall of Famers. Jack Johnson is the only fighter who I am aware of to beat more Hall of Famers than Robinson, but a lot of the HOF'ers Johnson beat were older and smaller, while probably most of the HOF'ers Robinson beat were bigger or younger. He also beat a top five Welterweigtht in Gavilan (I won't mention Armstrong even though he is as well) and a top ten Welterweight in Basilio, though that was at Middleweight. And he beat two fighters in Fullmer and LaMotta who I would imagine most people would rank as top ten Middleweights.

He had great longevity. He was a great fighter very early in his career, beating several great opponents in only his second and third years as pro, winning the Fighter of the Year award at 21, and he was still Middleweight champion at 38. There aren't many other fighters who were that good that early and that good that late in their careers. And he was very consistent for most of his career; he went 40-0 before losing his first fight, then went undefeated in 90 fights after that. Most of his losses came in old age and he avenged many of those losses, he was never beaten twice until he was 40.

There's also the little things that didn't go his way. Angott wouldn't give him a shot at the Lightweight title, so instead they fought at 136, where Robinson beat him. He unfairly had to wait several years to get a shot at the Welterweight title, so he only had five defenses of that belt, but if he had gotten it earlier he could have had many more defenses of that title. And he was two rounds away from winning the Light Heavyweight title. He came as close as anyone, besides Armstrong, to winning four titles in an era were there were only eight belts. Also, most thought he should have won the third fight with Fullmer, which would have made him six time champion at Middleweight. And of course he should have retired much sooner than he did, but had financial problems.

And I think we all appreciate Robinson's abilities as a fighter. He had great handpseed, he had power in both hands, he could box on the outside or trade on the inside, he had a nice jab and was a great combination puncher, he had great mobility, a great chin, heart, great stamina, was a great body puncher, he was tall for a fighter in his weight classes etc. He had a lot of versatility as a boxer. Most recognize him as the best Welterweight of all time, many rank him as the best Middleweight. He thoroughly cleaned out the Welterweight division and was able to win the Middleweight title several times, fighting Hall of Famers in nearly every title fight he had at that weight class.

I do think that Armstrong and Greb are close, but I would side with Robinson. And in terms of head to head fights I can't think of any Welterweights who I would favor to beat him, and I would at worst give him a 50-50 chance with the other great Middleweight champions like Greb and Monzon and Hagler.

I agree with most of what you have said.

I do not think he beat the great Kid Gavilan, though.

Sugar Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Marvin Hagler or Carlos Monzon would have beaten the original Sugar Ray....I could see that.

Ezzard Charles, at 160 lbs., may have been the finest fighter pound-for-pound, of any age, as he fought and defeated fighters whom no one wanted any part of, such as Archie Moore, Charley Burley, Jimmy Bivens, and the much-feared Lloyd Marshall, whom Charles defeated in two of their three bouts.

Burley was so good that he couldn't get fights, and quit boxing to take a job on a garbage truck in Pittsburgh so that he could make a living. Moore was a great middleweight, but never got a title shot until he was far past his prime, and had put on weight. He took the lightheavy crown from Joey Maxim.

Charles defeated Joey Maxim five times with ease, while Ray Robinson lost to Maxim the only time they met. Robinson's defeat was blamed on the heat, but Maxim had to fight that night in Yankee Stadium under the same miserable conditions.

Ezzard Charles weighed 180 lbs. when he won the heavyweight crown, and later gave Rocky Marciano his two toughest fights before losing by decision, and by 8th round k.o.

Collins2000 wrote:

Big Bad John wrote:You kill movement with combinations. If the first two miss, the last three hit. Sugar Ray Robinson was one of the greatest combination punchers of all time, along with Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey.

Zac, please don't talk about boxing technique.

Anyone who has seen your youtube videos is aware that, as a sweaty, balding middle-aged woman, you have nothing you could possibly tell us about 5 punch combinations.

Stick to rants about race. You are good at that.

Link please. I haven't seen this.

David Marks wrote:Ezzard Charles . . . later gave Rocky Marciano his two toughest fights before losing by decision, and by 8th round k.o.

What is the basis for your statement that Charles gave Marciano his two toughest fights?

Well, how's this? I was there for the second Charles-Marciano fight at Yankee Stadium in September of 1954, and Charles gave Marciano the fight of his life, splitting Marciano's nose almost in two. Only Marciano's desperate effort in the 8th round saved his title.

The first fight between these two, in June of 1954, was a very tough fight for both, and it set up the rematch by popular demand.

You may argue that Archie Moore and Roland LaStarza gave Marciano tougher fights, and you are certainly entitled to your view, but Charles had subtle skills, both on the inside, and at a distance, that neither Moore nor LaStarza possessed. Charles was also the only fighter to go 15 rounds with Marciano.

Charles was also far past his prime when he fought Marciano.

When both Charles and Moore were in their primes, Charles was 3-0 vs. Moore, winning their last fight by knockout. In one of its 2002 issues, Ring Magazine named Ezzard Charles the greatest light-heavyweight of all time.

Guys like Ezzard Charles, Charley Burley, Archie Moore, Lloyd Marshal and Jimmie Bivins fought each other repeatedly because the top fighters of the day wouldn't go near them.

As a 160-lber, Ezzard Charles was ducked by Tony Zale, Rocky Graziano, Jake LaMotta, and other notables of that era.

Charley Burley was known in the trade as Jake LaMotta's "policeman", meaning that any prospective opponent of LaMotta's, whom the LaMotta camp felt might be a problem, had to get past Charley Burley first. When Burley finished with them, they were done.

LaMotta handed Ray Robinson his first defeat as a pro, but LaMotta wouldn't fight Charles, Burley or Moore. And Ezzard Charles "owned" Burley and Moore.

Are there any old-timers left who remember Ezzard Charles at 160 lbs.? For my part, I only saw him when he was a hollow shell of his former self, and he still gave Rocky Marciano the fights of his life.

raylawpc wrote:

David Marks wrote:Ezzard Charles . . . later gave Rocky Marciano his two toughest fights before losing by decision, and by 8th round k.o.

What is the basis for your statement that Charles gave Marciano his two toughest fights?

Fair enough. But the press accounts of the fight, and the judges' scorecards, have Marciano winning all but one round in fight number two. As far as the cut to the nose, the ringside doctor was quoted as saying that he did not give any consideration to stopping the fight because of that cut, as it seemed to effect neither Marciano's breathing nor vision. Rocky was in complete command in fight II. I respect your opinion as one who was there - but your opinion does not jive with other ringside accounts and the films I've seen of the fight.

Regarding fight I, the press accounts and film I've seen show Ezzard giving Rocky a spirited fight over the first ten rounds - pretty even in my judgment, but fading over the stretch.

I was actually thinking of neither LaStarza nor Moore as Marciano's toughest fight. I personally felt that Walcott gave him an exceedingly tough battle in their first fight. Walcott knocked him down, cut him up, worked well to the body, and seemed to be picking up strength when Rocky suddenly and spectacularly stopped him with a one-punch KO.

The fact that I don't believe Charles gave Rocky his toughest fight does not diminish the respect that I have for Ezzard Charles, who was a wonderfully talented boxer-puncher in his prime.

At the press conference where Marciano announced his retirement he said in answer to a question that his toughest fight was the first fight with Walcott.