Reply With QuoteMcLarnin beat both those guys after losing two of three to Ross. By then Ross was in the final days of his career so I guess their paths{Ambers-Ross} never had to cross. Just a guess. Ringo
Ambers did beat him twice but that was towards the end of Tony's career. I think Canzoneri might have the edge because he was more consistent and had a better body of work. Thoughts?
BTW, does anyone know why Ambers never fought Barney Ross?
McLarnin beat both those guys after losing two of three to Ross. By then Ross was in the final days of his career so I guess their paths{Ambers-Ross} never had to cross. Just a guess. Ringo
I read about Mclarnin. He was good too but he wasn't as consistent as the other two. I think he also had about half the number of wins as Canzoneri.Originally posted by Ringside:
McLarnin beat both those guys after losing two of three to Ross. By then Ross was in the final days of his career so I guess their paths{Ambers-Ross} never had to cross. Just a guess. Ringo
Ross, McLarning, and Canzeroni were the Leonard, Hearns, and Hagler of the era.
With Ross been the Leonard.
Ross was the best of the three.
Also, what made that era interesting is that three ?social minorities? were fighting each other?a Jew, an Irish, and an American-Italian.
thats bullshitOriginally posted by Valentino:
Ross, McLarning, and Canzeroni were the Leonard, Hearns, and Hagler of the era.
With Ross been the Leonard.
Ross was the best of the three.
Also, what made that era interesting is that three ?social minorities? were fighting each other?a Jew, an Irish, and an American-Italian.
Canzoneri was the top dog for a long time before either one of them..he was considered best p4p in the world..he was 5ft 4 and began his career as a bantumweight and was in many wars and great fights as he moved his way up in weight..he had over 100 fights under his belt before he faced ross who was fresher and bigger....and with mclarin..that guy was a freaking weltweight..give me a break
canzoneri was the GREATER FIGHTER..he moved up in weight like great fighters do
Why is it bullshit? Many regard Ross as the greater fighter.Originally posted by Crocodillo:
thats bullshit
Canzoneri was the top dog for a long time before either one of them..he was considered best p4p in the world..he was 5ft 4 and began his career as a bantumweight and was in many wars and great fights as he moved his way up in weight..he had over 100 fights under his belt before he faced ross who was fresher and bigger....and with mclarin..that guy was a freaking weltweight..give me a break
canzoneri was the GREATER FIGHTER..he moved up in weight like great fighters do
Regarding that last comment, aren't you aware the Barney Ross was a 3 division champion also? [img]graemlins/headscratch.gif[/img]
[ November 04, 2003, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]
If Ross was the Leonard of that era - Canzoneri was the Duran.
Yep, Ross beat Canzoneri, but that was at 140 pounds. Canzoneri started as a friggin Banty. He was the small man coming up. Like Duran who lost more than he won against Leonard, Hearns, Hagler...Duran is still considered THE best of THAT bunch because he was the little man.
Plus, most reports say Tony was robbed in the 1st Ross fight (and he was already past prime)
[ November 11, 2003, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: BJ* ]
Ross was a greater fighter. There is no point arguing with you?you sound like Croc.Originally posted by BJ*:
If Ross was the Leonard of that era - Canzoneri was the Duran.
Yep, Ross beat Canzoneri, but that was at 140 pounds. Canzoneri started as a friggin Banty. He was the small man coming up. Like Duran who lost more than he won against Leonard, Hearns, Hagler...Duran is still considered THE best of THAT bunch because he was the little man.
Plus, most reports say Tony was robbed in the 1st Ross fight (and he was already past prime)
Are you Italian-American?
If Ross was such a greater fighter, why did he need a gift decision to get by a past prime, naturally MUCH smaller Canzoneri?Originally posted by Valentino:
Ross was a greater fighter. There is no point arguing with you?you sound like Croc.
Are you Italian-American?
[ November 12, 2003, 07:23 AM: Message edited by: BJ* ]
First of all they BOTH were two of the toughest grittiest fighters of their day. To argue who s better is fruitless..HOWEVER..
being that I and only I am THE GodFather..being that none other than the great manager of the day, SAMMY GOLDMAN managed Canzoneri{lol}..and being that my Italian brothers Croc and of course long time brother BJ were among the first to endorse Benny Leonard..lol..like those olden days..I will recipricate and say Canzoneri was thought of on the highest level by his Jewish competitors according to the book on Jewish boxers I have , and many think he could have beat Duran..I certainly can understand someone thinking that he is overall slightly better than Ross..although I must say..Ross would take him on the street!.I say vote them both in together to the HOF..the are both in the real one already for a while now......and do it soon..as they are two of the best ever. Both fought with grit and they had a lot of similarites. Without boxers like them in the Garden{Madison Square} back then..we would have NOTHING today in this country at least.....just remember that. They made boxing exciting and profitable in the New York area and beyond. this is silly to argue ..they would both agree to that I :cool: I'm sure..GodFather
Let's clear up a few things here.
Ross may have held three titles but let's stick to traditional weights please. He was world lightweight champion and two-time world welterweight champion.
Also BOTH the 135 and 140 lb titles were at stake in BOTH of his fights with Canzi.
Tony had fought twice for the bantamweight title AND then won the featherweight title in 1927, all before his 19th birthday. Ross didn't have a 10 round fight until 31 and Ambers didn't turn pro til 32.
Canzoneri was world featherweight champion and two-time world lightweight champion. He is one of only 13 fighters in boxing history to have fought for titles in three traditional weight divisions.
McLarnin is (slightly) over-rated IMO. He was only 2-3 in title fights. Granted, that a punch here and/or a point there in his three fights with Barney and it could have been 4-1 at the end of their trilogy. I also concede that his quality of foe and his chin were top shelf.
[ November 18, 2003, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: dmille ]
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions