World boxing history challenge Week 6 - Henry Armstrong

[Chuck1052]

In his second bout with Ceferino Garcia, Henry Armstrong didn't appear to commit blatant fouls while fighting very aggressively and on the inside. Another thing to consider that Garcia and Armstrong rarely clinched, if at all, in that second bout. If Armstrong was committing a lot of blatant fouls in other bouts, it may be that he got away with it because he was known to be extremely aggressive and someone who came to fight, not to mention that he was a fine gate attraction at his peak.

If you want to see a fighter fouling blatantly throughout a bout and getting away with it, watch a tape of Eusebio Pedroza fighting Juan Laporte in a fifteen-round bout that went the distance with Pedroza getting a close unanimous decision to retain his WBA world featherweight title despite getting penalized twice during 1982. It is hard to believe that Pedroza could land so many low blows and not be disqualified.

Ask yourself if you would want to see someone like Armstrong or John Ruiz fight. As far I as I am concerned, Ruiz should have been disqualified every time that he employed his usual fighting style in a boxing ring. Ruiz's fighting style was simply to fall into a clinch after throwing one left jab throughout a bout. Allowing Ruiz to get away with such a fighting style wasn't fair to the boxing fans and his opponents. One also should not forget the referees of Ruiz's bouts because they were constantly trying to get Ruiz and his opponents to break after such clinches. Meanwhile, Armstrong was an exciting and aggressive fighter who gave the fans their money's worth time after time.

- Chuck Johnston

[Kalan]

In his second bout with Ceferino Garcia, Henry Armstrong didn't appear to commit blatant fouls while fighting very aggressively and on the inside. Another thing to consider that Garcia and Armstrong rarely clinched, if at all, in that second bout. If Armstrong was committing a lot of blatant fouls in other bouts, it may be that he got away with it because he was known to be extremely aggressive and someone who came to fight, not to mention that he was a fine gate attraction at his peak.

If you want to see a fighter fouling blatantly throughout a bout and getting away with it, watch a tape of Eusebio Pedroza fighting Juan Laporte in a fifteen-round bout that went the distance with Pedroza getting a close unanimous decision to retain his WBA world featherweight title despite getting penalized twice during 1982. It is hard to believe that Pedroza could land so many low blows and not be disqualified.

Ask yourself if you would want to see someone like Armstrong or John Ruiz fight. As far I as I am concerned, Ruiz should have been disqualified every time that he employed his usual fighting style in a boxing ring. Ruiz's fighting style was simply to fall into a clinch after throwing one left jab throughout a bout. Allowing Ruiz to get away with such a fighting style wasn't fair to the boxing fans and his opponents. One also should not forget the referees of Ruiz's bouts because they were constantly trying to get Ruiz and his opponents to break after such clinches. Meanwhile, Armstrong was an exciting and aggressive fighter who gave the fans their money's worth time after time.

- Chuck Johnston

I don't want to watch either Ruiz or Armstrong because I'm not into dirty fighters.. I would give 2 warnings.. next take 2 points.. and then DQ both of them. However Armstrong was much dirtier than Ruiz and was dirtier than Pedroza.. Pedroza fouled LaPorte maybe 3 to 5 times in a round, which was not accidental or careless.. He was fouling badly.. But Armstrong fouled Garcia more than 30 times in a round, all deliberate fouls.. The referee warns Armstrong several times---without stopping the action of course, he doesn't want to embarrass Armstrong---and Armstrong doesn't stop fouling for a second.. He goes right back to heading, pushing, shoving, butting and leveraging with his head, shoulders, forearms, and hands.. Those are all fouls.. No other boxer in Fistic History fouled to the extent of Armstrong.. Nigel Benn and Gene Fullmer don't even come close..

Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier, Duran, Monzon, Pacquiao, Greb, Hagler, Harada, Pryor, Dillon, Zarate, Olivares, Froch, Nelson, Carbajal, Corrales, Golovkin, Kovalev, Usyk, Beterbiev, Eubank, and Joshua all have or had extremely aggressive styles.. None of them fouled to half the extent Armstrong did

What's your definition of a blatant foul??? Shoving your head repeatedly into your opponents face -- in full view of the referee -- especially if you're repeatedly going under and up, while actually striking and butting with the top of your head while pushing like a billy goat -- that's pretty damned blatant when you're ignoring warnings.. Then to also use both shoulders, forearms, and hands to push and shove to gain openings.. It doesn't get more flagrant.

[Ambling Alp II]

Where specifically are these supposed fouls? I didn't see anything all that even warranted a warning. The referee didn't think so either, and Garcia didn't complain at all. Just because a fighter puts his head down doesn't mean he is headbutting. There were no low blows, no punching after the bell. This was about as clean of a fight as you are going to see.

[Chuck1052]

Where specifically are these supposed fouls? I didn't see anything all that even warranted a warning. The referee didn't think so either, and Garcia didn't complain at all. Just because a fighter puts his head down doesn't mean he is headbutting. There were no low blows, no punching after the bell. This was about as clean of a fight as you are going to see.

Amen! There may have been some tugging and pushing, but that is to be expected when there is a lot of infighting throughout a bout. Besides not throwing low blows or trying to head-butt Garcia, Armstrong also was not resorting to throwing kidney and rabbit punches in the bout.

When fighting Gene Tunney for a second time, Jack Dempsey was throwing quite a number of rabbit and kidney punches in addition to trying to head-butt Tunney repeatedly. In his bout with Jack Sharkey, Dempsey was landing numerous low blows. Of course, Dempsey also got away with quite a bit in his bout with Jess Willard, including standing over Willard after the knockdowns and hitting him as he was trying to get up off the canvas. Dempsey also was allowed to get behind Willard after the latter was knocked down, ensuring that Willard was less able to see Dempsey's punches as he (Willard) was getting up off the canvas.

- Chuck Johnston

[Counter-puncher]

Kalan's bizarre hard-on for Chris Eubank jr is amongst his quainter quirks

[davie]

Where specifically are these supposed fouls? I didn't see anything all that even warranted a warning. The referee didn't think so either, and Garcia didn't complain at all. Just because a fighter puts his head down doesn't mean he is headbutting. There were no low blows, no punching after the bell. This was about as clean of a fight as you are going to see.

I don't think he intentionally butts as such but his head in approach leads to a lot of head contact which a ref still has to control.
I don't think he did it to any greater degree against Garcia, but in comparison to the other 2 fight I felt Garcias extra height meant when ever Armstrong moved across the front of him he often caught his face with his head.

Would I class him a dirty fighter? Not particularly.
But like Holyfield, Bradley, Hopkins etc... his style certainly lead to more head contact and whether that's intentional or a result of his aggressive head down style, the ref has to take control of that situation.
If a rival fighter is at increased risk of cuts and marking up from you coming in with the head, it has to be classed as a foul surely?

But comparing it to others, for Kalan to say it's 100% worse is exageration in the extreme, i've seen several fights in the last 20 years with more persisitent fouling than the 3 bouts I've posted here.

As for the pushing, use of shoulders, leveraging. Again it's possibly not 100% with in the queensbury rules but it's nothing you don't see in the modern game. And what is evident in these bouts, in my opinion, is nothing compared to the holding, wrestling, leaning on shorter opponents, holding and hotting and pushing opponents head down we see from the modern breed of defensive fighters

[BoxBuzz]

After viewing this, does anyone think that Armstrong would be an easy payday for Valero?

[Kalan]

Where specifically are these supposed fouls? I didn't see anything all that even warranted a warning. The referee didn't think so either, and Garcia didn't complain at all. Just because a fighter puts his head down doesn't mean he is headbutting. There were no low blows, no punching after the bell. This was about as clean of a fight as you are going to see.

Then you're blind in both eyes pal... I realize you'll say anything to back up Armstrong because you're a fan -- but there are none so blind as those who won't see.. It's a little like those who back up Margarito and say he never cheated.. This video clearly shows Armstrong repeatedly driving with his head -- and pushing, shoving, and ramming with his head -- which is flagrantly illegal.. And you also know well that use of shoulders, forearms, and hands to push, shove, and lever openings is illegal.. And that no other boxer in fistic history ever fouled their opponents as often as Armstrong fouled his opponents -- but you're sticking by him anyway. That's what I call a true partisan to the end...refusing to look at raw facts.

You remind me a little of Maury Wills when he as a baseball manager. He didn't do well because he could not be objective. Wills ran out to the mound to dispute an umpires' call to throw his pitcher out of the game. The umpire showed him a piece of sandpaper that fell out of his pitcher's pocket. Then he showed him scuffs on several baseballs. Wills wanted to back up his player so he vehemently stated, "I don't see a damned thing" ... The umpire took a hard look at Wills and said, "Then you're a damned liar ... your boy is out of the game."

Armstrong fans booed like crazy when he was thrown out by referees. Overly officious referees DQ'd him I guess ... how dare they enforce the rules???

[Ambling Alp II]

I'm not a "fan of his. I have argued before on other threads that other fighters should be rated higher. I just think you are as usual full of crap.

[Ambling Alp II]

Where specifically are these supposed fouls? I didn't see anything all that even warranted a warning. The referee didn't think so either, and Garcia didn't complain at all. Just because a fighter puts his head down doesn't mean he is headbutting. There were no low blows, no punching after the bell. This was about as clean of a fight as you are going to see.

I don't think he intentionally butts as such but his head in approach leads to a lot of head contact which a ref still has to control.
I don't think he did it to any greater degree against Garcia, but in comparison to the other 2 fight I felt Garcias extra height meant when ever Armstrong moved across the front of him he often caught his face with his head.

Would I class him a dirty fighter? Not particularly.
But like Holyfield, Bradley, Hopkins etc... his style certainly lead to more head contact and whether that's intentional or a result of his aggressive head down style, the ref has to take control of that situation.
If a rival fighter is at increased risk of cuts and marking up from you coming in with the head, it has to be classed as a foul surely?

But comparing it to others, for Kalan to say it's 100% worse is exageration in the extreme, i've seen several fights in the last 20 years with more persisitent fouling than the 3 bouts I've posted here.

As for the pushing, use of shoulders, leveraging. Again it's possibly not 100% with in the queensbury rules but it's nothing you don't see in the modern game. And what is evident in these bouts, in my opinion, is nothing compared to the holding, wrestling, leaning on shorter opponents, holding and hotting and pushing opponents head down we see from the modern breed of defensive fighters

Is there anytime when you (if you were the ref) would have given him a warning? If so in what round and for what?
The ref (at least in the film we saw) didn't even warn him once. Was he biased? Well if he was, then why did he judge the fight a draw and not give it to Armstrong?

This wasn't a dirty fight at all.

[Kalan]

After viewing this, does anyone think that Armstrong would be an easy payday for Valero?

I suspect so Buzz... As you can plainly see, Henry A. fouled Garcia hundreds of times and only secured a draw on this occasion.. Garcia lost to some very dubious boxers after all.. In his 19th fight he lost to Kid Moro who was 1-7-1. He lost to him again in his 28th fight when Moro was 2-7-1.. He lost to Jimmy Hill in his 32nd fight. Hill was 2-3-1.. Garcia was a good ham-n-egger but his record was spotted with many losses.. He lacked the superb skills of an Edwin Valero -- who was a 2-Division World Champion who knocked out all of his opponents and could box and punch extremely well..

As an example of his skills -- in his 27th fight Valero was fouled early with a terrific elbow to the forehead by Antonio DeMarco---who had 1 loss in 25 previous fights.. The elbow opened a very deep and long cut that flowed blood like crazy.. At one point EV's corner suggested they stop it and claim a TD win.. Valero rejected that.. He wanted to keep his 100% KO ratio intact.. He was able to box carefully... protect the wound well... and inflict the first stoppage of DeMarco's career.

In contrast to Valero's perfect record, Armstrong lost or drew 30 times. Fritzie Zivic was one who didn't appreciate Armstrong's fouling in their first fight... In their rematch and rubber match Zivic pounded the defenseless Armstrong mercilessly, giving him damned good beatings and a stoppage. Zivic had a KO ratio of 35% so he didn't stop a lot of top performers---or beat them down like he was able to do to the less than masterful Armstrong.

[Kalan]

""Is there anytime when you (if you were the ref) would have given him a warning?"

How about the very first round??? As Armstrong committed extensive illegal pushing, shoving, and leveraging with his left shoulder, forearm and head???

[davie]

Is there anytime when you (if you were the ref) would have given him a warning? If so in what round and for what?
The ref (at least in the film we saw) didn't even warn him once. Was he biased? Well if he was, then why did he judge the fight a draw and not give it to Armstrong?

This wasn't a dirty fight at all.

You know, I don't know what's worse, your inability to see a foul, in a fight where there were clear clashes of heads caused primarily by one of the protagonists styles.
Or Kalan claiming Armstrong was an MMA fighter.
Why does every opinion have to be so polarised? The truth clearly lies somewhere in the middle.

I don't have to provide evidence, there are clear fouls commited, which you refuse to acknowledge. There is also some very good boxing and or fighting taking place on, which Kalan can't see beyond his clear dislike of Armstrong.

[davie]

""Is there anytime when you (if you were the ref) would have given him a warning?"

How about the very first round??? As Armstrong committed extensive illegal pushing, shoving, and leveraging with his left shoulder, forearm and head???

Kalan, can i ask, where do you rank Armstrong all time?

You must still rate his accomplishments, even in spite of his style, you must still recognise the talent required to have achieved what he did in the game.

For arguments sake let's say I accept he's the dirtiest fighter that ever lived, lets park that issue for now, where have you got him?
Where is he in your ATG top 100

[Kalan]

I don't rank a top 100... I don't think any man alive can accurately rank the 100 best boxers of all time... Let's just settle on the fact that everyone on the planet would come up with a different list and in a different order. Would he appear on my list??? Probably not. But I'll give you his pluses and minuses.

Armstrong was a very tough and strong man for his size...He was a tremendous absorber with a unbelievably hard noggin... He was a good athlete... He was also very popular with the blood and guts fans of his day---who enjoyed slugfests where both boxers absorbed tremendous punishment.. Extremely durable, Armstrong had a great fighting heart and was reluctant to concede defeat---even when he was beaten to trash.. That's the pluses.

One the minus side he was the worst fouler I've ever seen.. He ignored the rules and believed they didn't apply to him because so many referees gave him a pass.. No matter how many warnings and points were taken from Armstrong he never boxed cleanly -- because he was incapable of doing so and winning against the better boxers.. When he faced a superior boxer like Ray Robinson or Beau Jack, he pulled his horns in went survival mode..

Armstrong would not be allowed to fight in that fashion were he active today---because there's fewer house referees today and the rules are taken more seriously.. Social media and instant slo-mo replay has changed things and settled arguments.. Fans didn't like Tunney in his day. He was considered a prima donna while Dempsey was the blood and guts brawler. Today Tunney would go over better I believe.

[davie]

I don't have a top 100 either, I don't think I could.

But I able to use the idea as a rough guide. For instance I can say I would have Armstrong in my top 10, probably near the middle of it. Mayweather is probably towards the high teens or early 20s, George Foremam would rank somewhere in the 40-50 region etc. If I sat down and managed to get the 100 written on paper, I might find someone getting pushed up or down the list by 10-15 marks or so but I could make approximations.
Unless you're Elmersalsa you don't have the list written out but you could take a guess at where someone may rank on such a list.

The reason I asked was to get you to say what you did say, that Armstrong would not register anywhere on such a top 100 list. It demonstrates your inability to judge fairly and undermines everything you say on the topic.

[Tomasino]

After viewing this, does anyone think that Armstrong would be an easy payday for Valero?

I suspect so Buzz... As you can plainly see, Henry A. fouled Garcia hundreds of times and only secured a draw on this occasion.. Garcia lost to some very dubious boxers after all.. In his 19th fight he lost to Kid Moro who was 1-7-1. He lost to him again in his 28th fight when Moro was 2-7-1.. He lost to Jimmy Hill in his 32nd fight. Hill was 2-3-1.. Garcia was a good ham-n-egger but his record was spotted with many losses.. He lacked the superb skills of an Edwin Valero -- who was a 2-Division World Champion who knocked out all of his opponents and could box and punch extremely well..

As an example of his skills -- in his 27th fight Valero was fouled early with a terrific elbow to the forehead by Antonio DeMarco---who had 1 loss in 25 previous fights.. The elbow opened a very deep and long cut that flowed blood like crazy.. At one point EV's corner suggested they stop it and claim a TD win.. Valero rejected that.. He wanted to keep his 100% KO ratio intact.. He was able to box carefully... protect the wound well... and inflict the first stoppage of DeMarco's career.

In contrast to Valero's perfect record, Armstrong lost or drew 30 times. Fritzie Zivic was one who didn't appreciate Armstrong's fouling in their first fight... In their rematch and rubber match Zivic pounded the defenseless Armstrong mercilessly, giving him damned good beatings and a stoppage. Zivic had a KO ratio of 35% so he didn't stop a lot of top performers---or beat them down like he was able to do to the less than masterful Armstrong.

DeMarco could have went on to become an ATG if he hadn't tangled with the Mighty Valero.

[BoxBuzz]

After viewing this, does anyone think that Armstrong would be an easy payday for Valero?

I suspect so Buzz... As you can plainly see, Henry A. fouled Garcia hundreds of times and only secured a draw on this occasion.. Garcia lost to some very dubious boxers after all.. In his 19th fight he lost to Kid Moro who was 1-7-1. He lost to him again in his 28th fight when Moro was 2-7-1.. He lost to Jimmy Hill in his 32nd fight. Hill was 2-3-1.. Garcia was a good ham-n-egger but his record was spotted with many losses.. He lacked the superb skills of an Edwin Valero -- who was a 2-Division World Champion who knocked out all of his opponents and could box and punch extremely well..

As an example of his skills -- in his 27th fight Valero was fouled early with a terrific elbow to the forehead by Antonio DeMarco---who had 1 loss in 25 previous fights.. The elbow opened a very deep and long cut that flowed blood like crazy.. At one point EV's corner suggested they stop it and claim a TD win.. Valero rejected that.. He wanted to keep his 100% KO ratio intact.. He was able to box carefully... protect the wound well... and inflict the first stoppage of DeMarco's career.

In contrast to Valero's perfect record, Armstrong lost or drew 30 times. Fritzie Zivic was one who didn't appreciate Armstrong's fouling in their first fight... In their rematch and rubber match Zivic pounded the defenseless Armstrong mercilessly, giving him damned good beatings and a stoppage. Zivic had a KO ratio of 35% so he didn't stop a lot of top performers---or beat them down like he was able to do to the less than masterful Armstrong.

DeMarco could have went on to become an ATG if he hadn't tangled with the Mighty Valero.

Troo Fax!

[Kalan]

I don't have a top 100 either, I don't think I could.

But I able to use the idea as a rough guide. For instance I can say I would have Armstrong in my top 10, probably near the middle of it. Mayweather is probably towards the high teens or early 20s, George Foremam would rank somewhere in the 40-50 region etc. If I sat down and managed to get the 100 written on paper, I might find someone getting pushed up or down the list by 10-15 marks or so but I could make approximations.
Unless you're Elmersalsa you don't have the list written out but you could take a guess at where someone may rank on such a list.

The reason I asked was to get you to say what you did say, that Armstrong would not register anywhere on such a top 100 list. It demonstrates your inability to judge fairly and undermines everything you say on the topic.

You're misquoting me again. I DIDN'T say he wouldn't appear on my list. I haven't made such a list. I said he probably wouldn't. Armstrong was a good fighter but 100 isn't a whole lot of boxers when you're going back many decades and there's so many divisions to choose from. You're putting Mayweather as low as the 20's and that makes little sense.. I would have Mayweather in the top 3 or 4 at least because he never lost, won World Titles in 5 weight divisions, and was one of the best defenders ever... He offered to fight Featherweight Champion Nasim Hamed at one point -- and considered fighting Jermain Taylor for the Middleweight Title. Both fights I believe he could have won.

You see Armstrong completely different than I do, even though you admit he was "a dirty fighter indeed" ... I don't see some of his wins as legitimate because he should have had points deducted for relentless fouling, making him the loser.. And he lost his share.. I don't know where you rank Fritzie Zivic but he wasn't an exceptionally skilled fighter.. He just knew how to give it back to Armstrong with his own illegal tactics -- and so did Beau Jack, Ray Robinson, and many others.. Many of the boxers Armstrong fought were not skilled in dirty fighting.. That put them at a severe disadvantage when the referee agreed to "Let Hank fight."