If Henry Armstrong had won the Middleweight Title, would you consider him the greatest fighter ever?

Question

If Armstrong had beaten Ceferino Garcia in 1940, he would've held almost half of the world titles in existence. I think in most boxing circles, Armstrong makes a strong case for the second greatest fighter ever, right behind Robinson. If he had won this fourth title, (as many people already argue he should have won that fight) and actually defended it a few times, would you consider him the greatest fighter ever? (i.e. greater than Ray Robinson, if you don't already think so)

Answer 1

There are valid cases for all five champions.

The same could be said about Sam Langford if he had fought for the title from Lightweight to Heavyweight and considering he either beat these champions or was denied the opportunity to fight for the title he would be considered the greatest fighter of all time. He could have been the first five time divisional champion. A remarkable performance.

Mickey Walker beat the former Light Heavyweight Champion Maxie Rosenbloom when was no longer champion at that time and Heavyweight Champion Jack Sharkey. An an amazing statistic.

Sugar Ray Robinson beat Marty Servo, Fritzie Zivic and Lightweight Champion Sammy Angott before he won the Welterweight Championship. What if he did fight and capture the Light Heavyweight Championship what would have happened then.

Roberto Duran beat Ernesto Marcel the Featherweight Champion who beat Alexis Arguello when he was fighting as a Featherweight.
What if Roy Jones competed at welterweight and won that division. Wouldn't that be amazing.

Its things like that, that make you wonder what if this happened, and yes it does get you wondering about how things could have turned out.

I definitely consider him to be one of the greatest fighters of all time and his record and achievements especially winning and holding three titles simultaneously and defending the Welterweight title a record 19 times as an amazing performance.

Answer 2

Armstrong was a helluva fighter. But even if he had one his fourth title, the argument for the title of "greatest ever"would soon lose steam if you based it on pure skill and the fact that both Ray Robinson and Ali did not lose any fights early in thier careers! But you can definately argue for one of the "greatest" achievements in boxing, as no other fighter has held 3 titles at the same time! Unfortunately Henry Armstrong is an overlooked fighter when conversation includes the greatest fighters of all time! At 5 foot one inch tall, I would never argue against Armstrong having the biggest heart ever in boxing!
Nice Q!

Answer 3

Homicide Hank is already one of the greatest fighters ever and what he done will never be matched again in boxing history. He already makes a strong argument for the greatest ever especially pound for pound right up there with Sugar Ray Robinson who many consider the greatest ever. Had he won the middleweight title which he almost did, it would have made his case that much stronger indeed.

Answer 4

Hank's one of the greatest fighters ever anyway, but a middleweight title wouldn't have hurt. There are a lot of great fighters who make the case of being better than both Ray Robinsons and Henry Armstrong. Langford, Gans, Burly, Marciano, Pep and Ali to name a few. Even Moorer and Tunney have their supporters.

The blogbaba considers Ray Robinson as the best ever, but it's a judgement call.

Answer 5

The problem I have with the Margarito-Pacquiao fight and also the Cotto-Pacquiao fight is that they have no say about the weight. You think that Margarito or Cotto could have said they don't want to fight at a catchweight? No, because they are Top Rank fighters but Top Rank could give a s**t about them when they are fighting their poster child Manny. If you want a fight with Manny you have to give up every right you have because he is the big draw and you are just an opponent. Whatever Manny says he get's and if you don't want to do one little thing you don't get to fight him because you are a nobody with no rights, even if you are part of the same promotion. Manny can have the biggest chunk of the money, but him getting to decide everything else is just Top Rank kissing his asss and it is very annoying and unfair to the other fighters in my opinion. @Jon, no I do not think we should insult them because they were doing what they had to in order to make those fights happen. When considering the situation with Pacquiao the catchweight is not necessary, it is only there to satisfy Manny and his camp by giving them an advantage that is not needed. The weight is not necessary, whereas the fights you mentioned were at catchweights because that is the only conceivable way the fighters were able to meet. Manny is choosing to move up in weight to win another title. Not because people are demanding a fight between him and Margarito, so they choice a specified catchweight because it was the only way it could happen and also satisfy both parties involved like back in the day. Nobody cares if Margarito is inconvenienced because his opinion doesn't matter when he is fighting Pacquiao.

Answer 6

henry armstrongs place in boxing history can never be denied, as far as being ranked the greatest fighter, yes any boxing historian can make an arguement, remember he held the featherweight, lightweight, and welterweight world championships at the same time, no other fighter in history has yet to perform that feat, remember undisputed / linear world titles, not fragmented like today.

Answer 7

It would be hard to argue against Armstrong even without the 160 title. Of course, that could also be said about 10 other guys as well.

Answer 8

Arguably, yes, that would've been a helluva accomplishment.