Henry Armstrong

[mrchallenge]

I'm wondering why the Welterweight Hank 14 has a higher rating than the featherweight Hank 11. Armstrong was at his best as a featherweight, even though Armstrong did make 19 title defenses as a welter. It was at featherweight where he stopped 26 of 27 opponents in one year. I think his power diminished at welterweight because he was very small. He didn't have the size disadvantage as a feather. He only weighed about 140 for most of his fights at welter and even dropped down to fight Lou Ambers twice at 135, proving he was not a natural welter. Despite not being a natural welter, he was still very dominant at that weight, I just think he was even better and the most effective at 126.

[PittPanther]

Many historians would argue that Armstrong is the second greatest welterweight ever, right behind Sugar Ray Robinson.

And as you pointed out, he made 19 defenses of his title in 2 years During that same reign he beat Lou Ambers, again as you mention, at lightweight as well as Baby Arizmendi and Lew Jenkins in non-title bouts.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just trying to point out some why the Trunzo's have rated him that way.

[erickdamac]

At Welterweight He had More Pop and he was Alot more freshier at the end of fights, I think Henry Is THEE best Welterweight of all time, and one of the greatest P4P fighters of all time as well.

[mrchallenge]

hmmm. You guys do bring up some good points. I just think though that Henry so great in all the divisions he competed in but he was facing bigger guys at welter so it would be harder to knock out those guys and he'd probably get hit more at that weight. He seemed to go the distance more as a welter (although he carried barney ross).

[erickdamac]

Going the distance do not mean, your a worst fighter, He may not have had more knockouts but overall, which is how the TBCB ratings work he was better at Welterweight then he was at FW, was it his natural division I dont know, but he was better IMO.

[jofre]

Henry was a great featherweight too. One can make a good argument that his prime was from 1937-1939 which encompases his last two years as a featherweight, a brief stay at lightweight and the remainder of his career at welterweight. The first Fritzie Zivic fight was the beginning of his decline from prime to post-prime IMO. His TBCB ratings may reflect his prime which overlaps the end of his campaign as a featherweight up to the first Zivic fight. His best overall fighting weight may have been as a light welterweight.

He was one amazing fighter, and worthy of being ranked among the best at featherweight and welterweight.

[djday45]

Jofre as usual old boy your posts are full of knowledge and boxing lore.

You are one of the prople on this sight boxing newbies should be forced to read lol.

rgds
Dean

[wildhawke11]

I of course have been following this thread but i was going to keep out of it, but your spot on Jofre. Armstrong was a hell of a fighter no matter what division he was in.
Armstrong to my mind was at his best as a featherweight he is probably
FW
1 Willie Pep -- was it at peak 135. 1. 1
2 Armstrong

LW
1 Benny Leonard. But you could just as easy have Duran or Gans in 1st place
2 Joe Gans
3 Roberto Duran
4 Armstrong

WW
1 Ray Robinson at prime 128. 2. 1
So many great fighters have passed through the WW division
Langford. Joe Wallcott. Barny Ross. Jimmy McClarnin. Kid Gavilan Burley etc etc and as Armstrong was never a full WW I feel Langford and Walcott would be a little to strong for Henry who might fit in about 4th or 5th place. But its sure a pick em one to sort out.

Just my Thoughts

[wildhawke11]

Below is an article wrote by a boxing historian who i have the greatest respect for Monte Cox.
In TBCB WW Joe Walcott has been given a Hitting Power of 1
Who ever gave this guy that rating must have been on the bottle at the time. He should be at the 8 mark for HP




It was Joe Walcott, the Barbados Demon, welterweight champion of the world from 1901-1904, who actually coined the phrase "the bigger they are the harder they fall." Bob Fitzsimmons certainly popularized the saying before he faced Jim Jeffries, but it was Walcott who first said it. The phrase belonged to Walcott, who despite his short stature was extremely successful against much larger and heavier opponents. He had fantastic stamina and durability as well as a proven punch. A natural welterweight, he was one of the greatest "pound for pound" fighters in boxing history and fought men weighing from lightweight to heavyweight during his career.

Joe Walcott, the "original", had the power to beat heavyweights; in fact he scored a first round kayo over 180 pound Tom McCarthy fairly early in his career. Walcott fought a number of other light heavyweights and heavyweights. Walcott's manager, Tom O'Rourke, also handled heavyweight contender Sailor Tom Sharkey, whom some historians compare favorably to Rocky Marciano. Sharkey twice went the distance with heavyweight champion Jim Jeffries. O'Rourke once stated, (Fleischer, p. 198-199), "I had to stop Walcott from sparring with the sailor because Joe dumped him on his ear one afternoon in the gym." Walcott hit hard enough to knock out heavyweights. Can one picture modern welterweights such as Delahoya, Trinidad or even Ray Robinson ko'ing a 180 plus pounder? Robinson ventured up to light heavyweight once, running out of gas against Joey Maxim. He never again moved beyond the middleweight limit.

Walcott often gave weight to opponents and came out victorious. For one of his fight against Dick O'Brien, considered one of the best fighters of his weight, The Aug. 28, 1895 Boston Herald reported "Walcott, according to Tom O'Rourke, weighed 138 pounds, against O'Brien's 150 pounds. This ordinarily would be considered a great handicap. Few fighters would care to give away a dozen pounds. But so certain was O'Rourke that his man would wn that he waived the weight." Walcott knocked out O'Brien in 2 minutes and 25 seconds of the first round.

The Aug, 28, 1895 Police News stated, "Walcott now surpasses any of our welterweights, unless it be (Mysterious) Billy Smith, in the telling execution of a single blow. I do not see how he is to be beaten by any foeman who will give him hit for hit. Any man except a very big man whom he gets his right hand on to fairly and squarely isn't coming up for much more. Walcott in his dumpy, dwarf monitor build, his hardness of flesh, his power of punching and the small surface he offers for return hits, is in a class by himself-different form anything else in the field." McCallum wrote (p. 194), “Walcott was something of a physical freak. Despite his size, he had the stamina of a bull.” The National Police Gazette Oct 27, 1894, supports this view “His neck is 18 inches and his chest expanded is 41 inches, which is remarkable for a man of his weight”

The April 20, 1895 Gazette described Walcott’s power thusly, “His delivery was terrific having the force of a pile driver.” One blow from Walcott was said to be equal “to five” of his opponent’s. Nat Fleischer called Walcott, (Black Dynamite Vol 3. p 196), "a sawed off Hercules, an abnormally powerful puncher." He also said, "Men who fought him were sorely handicapped...for all his opponents were taller, and their blows usually landed on his shoulders or on top of his granite skull. Probably more men ruined their hands on Walcott than on any other scrapper of that day."

Walcott was widely recognized as the best welterweight in the world long before he won the title. The Jan. 11, 1902 Police Gazette stated, "From a techincal standpoint three or four fighters have been recognized as welterweight champion, but it was apparent to men who have knowledge of prize ring affairs that they only held that tile on sufferance because of an obvious desire to avoid meeting with a black man who was conceded to be their superior." Walcott won the championship on a fifth round stoppage of Rube Fern in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The Gazette reported that Walcott turned "Fern into a jelly in five rounds."

Such was Walcott's reputation as a fierce puncher that he claimed in newspaper reports that "Since no welterweight or middleweight will fight me I am compelled to go to the next class. Will any heavyweights fight me?" (See Police Gazette Oct 13, 1900.) Walcott issued challenges to Tom Sharkey, Gus Ruhlin and even champion Jim Jeffies, though they all declined to meet him in the ring.

Some claim Walcott's record is spotty. Research by Tracy Callis puts his record at 96-24-24 (62 Ko's) with 22 ND and 3 NC. Most however fail to realize that the many of his losses came after Walcott severaly injured his right hand in a gun accident in late 1904. Initial news reports, such as the Oct 18, 1904 Philadelphia Record indicated that his hand might have to be amputated, although his hand was saved Walcott wasn't same fighter after this, and in fact he did not fight again for two years. In his 15 round fight against Jack Bonner the Gazette reported that "Barbados Demon shows his ability to fight faster than ever." He fought at a fast pace throwing many punches and only the final bell saved Bonner from certain knockout defeat.

Walcott also had a good number of unrecorded fights. The Police Gazette reported, “While on the road he knocked out at least 100 men. Among the high-class men he has beaten are Dick O’Brien, Mike Walsh, Mike Harris, and Tom Tracy of Australia.” Some of his losses were actually wins where he was the victim of bad decisions because he was a black fighter. A number of his draws are rather dubious too. SEE BELOW for an example Apr 20 Jim Watts New York, NY D 4 "Walcott pounded Watts and floored him repeatedly during the first three rounds; In round four Watts went down to avoid being knocked out; While he was on the floor, Walcott struck him lightly on the jaw; Watts was down for at least twenty seconds; The crowd called for a foul; Referee Richard Roche knew Walcott was clearly winning and Watts was going down deliberately; He ordered the men to continue; Watts would not; So, he called it a draw." --Research by Tracy Callis. Welterweight Walcott actually had a remarkable record:

One of Walcott's greatest victories was against Joe Choynski. Choyinski had gone 28 rounds against Jim Corbett, and drew with the likes of Bob Fitzsimmons and Al "Kid" MCcoy and would knock out a young Jack Johnson the following year. Choyinski outweighed Walcott 173 to 137 pounds and was a 5-1 favorite to beat the game little Walcott. The "Barbados Demon" demonstrated his impressive punching power by flooring Choyinski several times in the first round and gave the latter a terrific beating before stopping him in the 7th round. Tommy West was a pretty good middleweight who had fought 17 rounds with Tommy Ryan for the middleweight title, and Walcott clearly dominated him, winning three times, once by ko, with 1 decision loss, 1 draw, and 1 ND.

Walcott also fought a draw with middleweight (and future light heavyweight champion) Philadelphia Jack O'Brien over 10 rounds. Walcott beat a number of other top middleweights including Jack Bonner, Kid Carter, George Cole, and the ever-durable Joe Grim. Walcott fought light-heavyweight champ George Gardner twice, winning once by 20 round decision and losing by the same. He also defeated light-heavyweight Young Peter Jackson. One wonders whether modern era welterweight champions would have success against the reigning light-heavyweight champion if their opponents weighed in at 175?

Mysterious Billy Smith was a very dirty fighter. In fact he lost 10 times on fouls. Smith was good enough to win the welterweight championship, and once beat Tommy Ryan, flooring him three times in the process, (it was ruled a NC because the police intervened when they saw Ryan was about to be ko'd). Smith also had a knockout over Kid Lavigne. Walcott and Smith fought numerous times with Walcott proving to be the much better fighter, winning 3 times, twice by Ko, with 2 draws, and one loss by decision. Walcott's only significant losses were to George "Kid" Lavigne, and Dixie Kid. His fights against Lavigne were "handicap" bouts where, because of contractual agreements, Walcott was forced to come in greatly under his normal weight. Walcott, a natural welter because of his brawny build, trained down to 136 for the first fight which he lost on a 15 round decision. He had to "kill himself" to make the weight and was physically drained before the fight started. The second fight was for Lavigne's World Lightweight title, which means Walcott had to weigh 133 pounds (then the lightweight limit) on the day of the fight. Walcott had no strength and faded badly in losing by 12th round Tko. The loss to Dixie Kid is significant because Walcott lost the title, though by foul in the 20th round.

Sam Langford was already a great fighter by the time Walcott fought him to a draw. It was only two years later that Langford was able to go 15 rounds with future heavyweight champion Jack Johnson, and went on to become the most feared fighter in the world, knocking out nearly all the top heavyweights. Three weeks after fighting Langford, Walcott fought lightweight champ Joe Gans to a draw. That is the equivalent of Delahoya fighting Felix Trinidad and the winner facing Shane Mosley within a month. Two weeks later Walcott badly injured his right hand in the aforementioned gun accident, yet he still was able to defeat many top fighters. Walcott was just under 5' 2", and never weighed more than 148 pounds. His long reach and Herculean physique gave him tremendous power. He had great durability that allowed him to absorb the kind of punishment that would have finished most fighters. He was also an accomplished boxer who studied and learned from the likes of George Dixon and Bob Fitzsimmons. His success against men of much higher weights leads one to believe that no modern welterweight could have gone the 20 round distance with him.

Perhaps the Chicago Herald-Examiner wrote a fitting epitaph on Aug 22, 1932 when Joe was hospitalized with a heart attack, "Some veteran boxing experts rate Walcott as the greatest fighter of his weight the ring ever knew. Only a "heavy" lightweight, Walcott earned the sobriquet "Giant Killer" by the easy manner in which he topped light heavyweights and heavyweights." Joe died on Oct. 4, 1935 after being struck by a car in Manssillon, Ohio. Both Nat Fleischer and Charley Rose rated Joe Walcott the # 1 all time welterweight. Cox's Corner considers him to be the # 3 all time welterweight.

[djday45]

yep Danny Monte Cox is a great boxing historian and I have been using his sight greatly in helping me rate and re-rate fighters within the game.

Totally agree regarding Walcott's power but you will find the further back you go the more commanly fighters HP is woefully underated.

This does not seem to occur with the heavies but the lighter divisions can sometimes be very wide of the mark.

rgds
Dean

[jofre]

Originally Posted by djday45

yep Danny Monte Cox is a great boxing historian and I have been using his sight greatly in helping me rate and re-rate fighters within the game.

Totally agree regarding Walcott's power but you will find the further back you go the more commanly fighters HP is woefully underated.

This does not seem to occur with the heavies but the lighter divisions can sometimes be very wide of the mark.

rgds
Dean

I concur with both you and Danny.

With respect to hitting power, if we use the Trunzo formula Walcott's HP should be at least at a minimum "3". I'm not sure why it's "1". Then when you look at the fighters he stopped its hard to argue against a range of "7" or "8". From there its good old fashion playtesting to see if the results mirror historical events.

[jofre]

Here is another way you can play around with hitting power using the Trunzo formula.

Example:

Barbados Joe Walcott
Total fights: 134
Won by KO: 44
TBCB HP Formula Rating: "3"

Fights won: 77
Won by KO: 44
TBCB HP Formula Rating: "8"

Of course this doesn't work in every situation, but its one way of determining HP ratings.

[djday45]

Jofre I agree and usually use the percentage based on fights won rather than total fights. This is the danger with all strict formulas they are always in the end lacking in some way.

I prefer to base my adjustments on what is actually known and written about a fighter rather than pure stats.

Older fighters HPS if you go purely by stats are always going to suffer in comparison to modern fighters as there are so many factors in the modern fighters favour when you purely go by stats.

1. Modern fights are stopped FAR FAR quicker than fights from the golden age.
2. Many excellent fighters of color had to "carry" their opponents in order to get bouts.
3. During the no decision era it was widely accepted that most fighters did not go for the stoppage as a sort of gentelmans agreement.
4. Fighters were generally tougher more hardy individials growing up in an very hard age.

All this adds up to a not very impressive KO percentage for many hard punchers if you purely go by their career stats.

Look deeper than that and research the fighters and you will find that many many good hard punchers and big hitters the game woefully under rates in this catergory.

rgds
Dean

[jofre]

Good point Dean. Unfortunately, to try and get the game ratings as close as possible to real life scenarios one has to even include bad decisions in the equation (bad decisions ,unfortunately, are not exclusive to modern times and go back 100 years). Some things never change.

[wildhawke11]

Title Bout -- The board game
Joe Walcott v Henry Armstrong at WW both fighters are rated 11

Walcott B/S
CF 11/11
HP 9
KI 8
Take Punch 3
Recovery 1
Knock Out 2
Tko 2
Endurance 95
Aggression 9
Defence 0
Punches Landed 41

Armstrong S
CF 10/11
HP 9
KI 9
Take Punch 3
Recovery 1
Knock Out 1
Tko 2
Endurance 100
Aggression 10
Defence 0
Punches Landed 39

At 3 pt punches Armstrong 12% better.

So Walcott has a 1 better CF
Also his Punches Landed is better.
Of course Armstrong will gain more with his better 3pt punches. Plus his knockout rating is better.

To sum up without me running the board game fight its no walk over for Armstrong -- he might win it by 54% to 46% at a guess. I would have no quarrel with that result


Of course as it is, in TBCB Walcott is not really in with a chance because of the ratings he has been given in the game.

To be honest at WW
both Walcott and Langford are so strong i would fancy there chances against Armstrong.
Then again we cant even get today's fights right in a lot of cases

[mrchallenge]

I agree with all of your posts. At welter, Henry had to really more on energy and smarts to win fights since he was a smaller guy. At Feather, Armstrong was a human steamroller. Think Mike Tyson and Harry Greb all rolled into one explosive 5 foot 5 package. In 1937, Henry KO'd 26 of 27 opponents all in 4 rounds or less against good opposition. All fights were at featherweight.

I also agree about Walcott's ridiculus HP rating. I mentioned this in another post. Ring Magazine named him among the greatest punchers of all time recently, with a KO win over the great Joe CHoynski.

[wildhawke11]

Try these and change as you see fit. I have only tested them out against each other and Robinson himself. Let me know what changes you would make to these. Even with me dropping Armstrong a little he still beats Barney Ross a great great welter 9 times out of 10. Yes he did beat Ross but by then Ross was not the fighter he once had been. I think Ross might have won 3 at least at his peak. One of the problems i feel at times in the game the CF is wrong to go above 12.

I have dropped Armstrongs CF and HP by 1 and given Walcott a few 3 pt punches. With a few other changes.


Also so you wont muck up your own Armstrong and Walcott i have added a little to there names. Of course you can soon change that. Its just for testing.

Am i right of course not, but there a little better then those in the game i feel.

[wildhawke11]

Barney Ross v Armstrong

Ross’ most courageous prize fight was his last, in 1938, against Henry Armstrong, the only man to hold the featherweight, lightweight and welterweight crowns. By the time he fought Armstrong, Ross although only 28 years old had fought almost 300 times. Although he started strong, Ross fired after the fourth round and Armstrong pummeled him at will. After the tenth round, the referee asked Ross if he wanted to stop, but the champion said no. After the twelfth, the referee approached Ross’ managers, asking them to throw in the towel, but, Ross told them, "You do that and I’ll never talk to you again. I want to go out like a champion." To Ross that meant standing on his feet when the final bell sounded, Through rounds thirteen, fourteen and fifteen, Armstrong pounded away at the exhausted Ross, who would not go down.

Voices in the crowd pleaded with the referee to stop the fight, but he respected Ross’ wish to end his career never having failed to go the distance. In the last minute of the fight, Ross rallied and stood toe to toe with Armstrong, exchanging blows. The crowd was on its feet many with tears in their eyes, cheering for Ross, knowing they had seen the heart of a true champion.

[mrchallenge]

Originally Posted by wildhawke11

Barney Ross v Armstrong

Ross’ most courageous prize fight was his last, in 1938, against Henry Armstrong, the only man to hold the featherweight, lightweight and welterweight crowns. By the time he fought Armstrong, Ross although only 28 years old had fought almost 300 times. Although he started strong, Ross fired after the fourth round and Armstrong pummeled him at will. After the tenth round, the referee asked Ross if he wanted to stop, but the champion said no. After the twelfth, the referee approached Ross’ managers, asking them to throw in the towel, but, Ross told them, "You do that and I’ll never talk to you again. I want to go out like a champion." To Ross that meant standing on his feet when the final bell sounded, Through rounds thirteen, fourteen and fifteen, Armstrong pounded away at the exhausted Ross, who would not go down.

Voices in the crowd pleaded with the referee to stop the fight, but he respected Ross’ wish to end his career never having failed to go the distance. In the last minute of the fight, Ross rallied and stood toe to toe with Armstrong, exchanging blows. The crowd was on its feet many with tears in their eyes, cheering for Ross, knowing they had seen the heart of a true champion.

Thats a beautiful description of the fight Hawke. I've read that Armstrong claimed that he carried Ross over the last few a rounds. Don't know for sure. But Ross was a great fighter in his prime. Dazzling combinations, lightning handspeed, busy hands, granite chin, very hard to tag clean.

[mrchallenge]

Originally Posted by wildhawke11

Try these and change as you see fit. I have only tested them out against each other and Robinson himself. Let me know what changes you would make to these. Even with me dropping Armstrong a little he still beats Barney Ross a great great welter 9 times out of 10. Yes he did beat Ross but by then Ross was not the fighter he once had been. I think Ross might have won 3 at least at his peak. One of the problems i feel at times in the game the CF is wrong to go above 12.

I have dropped Armstrongs CF and HP by 1 and given Walcott a few 3 pt punches. With a few other changes.


Also so you wont muck up your own Armstrong and Walcott i have added a little to there names. Of course you can soon change that. Its just for testing.

Am i right of course not, but there a little better then those in the game i feel.

Yep, your revised ratings for Walcott are right on the money. Good job. Even the 3 point punches look right. Walcott was all hooks and overhand rights.
I totally agree with how you say the CF is wrong when its above 12. The fighters seem to be invincible once the're CF is 13 and over. I would only reserve 13 and over ratings for truly elite, cream of the crop hall of famers.