Tony Canzoneri vs. Henry Armstrong

The funny thing here is that Price is arguing that Canzoneri wasnt past his prime when he lost to Ambers because he was 27 and yet Ambers was made to retire by Al Weill at the age of 27 because Weill said he was through as a fighter… with less fights than Tony had when Tony lost to Ambers. So much for that argument.

 

the way i view sports, numbers never work without context.

special guys, like canzioneiri, they can push those numbers past breaking point, but then the numbers are the context.

 

When Canzoneri was 23 he lost to the non-ATG Johnny Jadick 2 out of 2. That is fact.

In the 18-months/13-fights prior to losing to Lou Ambers, aged 26 and 27, Ambers beat the bigger ATG Jimmy McLarnin, the ATG Lou Ambers and Johnny Jadick. That is fact.

That Canzoneri was prime when losing to Jadick x 2 age 23, but way past prime when beating McLarnin, Ambers and Jadick, as part of 13 fight winning streak, is opinion.

 

You keep making this bizarre, arbitrary 13 fight winning streak argument to suggest that Canzoneri was in his prime when he fought Ambers when NONE of the experts at the time who saw him far more anyone today agrees with you. And that 13 fight unbeaten streak or losing to Jaadick is such a 21st century centric view of the sport. The sport didnt operate in the 1930s the way it operated under HBO. These guys fought all the time to earn a living and if they picked up a loss to a respected fighters like jaadick along the way it wasnt a career killer. Ill take SD losses and draws against all time greats sprinkled amid long winning streaks and titles over 13 fight winning streak against eight men coming off a loss and the majority of whom were losing more than they were winning when Canzoneri beat them. Again, Ill defer to the experts at the time and not try to bend my argument around what I can parse from Boxrec.

 

Oh Steve, it's not like you to be condescending. Are you ok?

You base your opinions on Tony's prime on comments of people around at that time and I'll, at least factor in to an extent, his results with the benefits of hindsight.

Again, I rank Canzoneri higher than Ambers based on their entire careers and have no problem if you do based on their respective bodies of work at LW, most do. I and don't believe there's much in it either way.

Ambers is an ATG LW though, no way is he a "much cheaper" version of anyone in that division.

 

This content is protected

very nice leads. completely out of his depth once armstrong got inside.

that shot at 3.65, that's world class. i talk about how dirty hank could be, nothing dirty there, floyd would have been proud of that.

 

Price, again, you were the one arguing Ambers beat Canzoneri in his prime and used his age as the reason why yet completely ignored that Ambers manager forcibly retired him because he was shot at the same age Canzoneri was when he lost to Ambers and with less fights and less years under his belt than Canzoneri at the same time. Dont cry foul now. You based your argument on meaningless boxrec stats and didnt even check to see if your previous 13 fight win streak that you cooked up as your argument to support your thesis had the context to back you up.

 

People love to claim that all the points taken away from Armstrong were an unjust reason why he lost this fight and yet he fouled constantly throughout and was warned numerous times. The referee had no recourse but to take points away because at the time, in New York, a fighter couldnt be DQd for fouling. Armstrong knew this and took advantage of it. Had the referee not taken points away Armstrong would have won the fight with relentless fouling. That is what would have been unjust, particularly when you consider that their first fight was notable for Armstrongs fouling as well.

 

I used a combination of factors to support the view he wasn't way past prime. Age, coming off his career best win, career best streak, including victories over fighters he lost to years previously and multiple wins over fighters better than those he lost to years previously. None of which you've contested.

And if you're going to address me, learn how to use the reply button, Steve.

 

Two close fights that could easily be scored draws. Basically, Canzoneri stalled too much, for one reason or another, relying on his punching power more than anything, he allowed himself to be outjabbed in too many rounds, instead of being the aggressor. Jadick didn't display anything special.

1st bout
John Webster, of Philadelphia Inquirer, picked Jadick to win in his pre-fight write-up, but said that "It was very close at the finish as this writer saw it... It seemed almost closer than a dead heat at the finish. Too close to take a fellow's championship from him, some thought."

Summing up the officials' votes, rounds 5 and 9 were even, Canzoneri took 1,2,4,10, the Ukrainian took 3,6,7,8

2nd bout
Perry Lewis of Philadelphia Inquirer: "Whether or not Jadick was entitled to the decision and the right to still call himself champion is a matter of opinion. ... It is the writer's opinion that the bout was too close to involve a championship changing hands. Undoubtedly, Canzoneri did the more effective punching and the most damage, but it is equally true that he was outboxed. My tabulation gives each fighter four rounds with two even."

Summing up the officials' votes, rounds 3, 4, 7, 9 for Jadick, 5, 8, 10 for Canzoneri, rounds 1, 2, 6 even

 

Thanks Senya, much appreciated.

Out of interest, how would you assess Canzoneri in 1936? Still in or around his prime years? Slightly past prime? Completely shot?

 

Ive disputed it all. As Ive said, age doesnt determine a fighters prime, it wasnt his career best streak or win, and beating fighters who beat him years before when they are also fading is absolutely the kind of thing a boxrec warrior with no understanding of the context would use to try to say Canzoneri was in his prime. But hey, lets ignore what everyone was saying about Tony BEFORE his first fight with Ambers because you looked at boxrec real quick before posting:

[url]https://flic.kr/p/2pj5rsC[/url]

[url]https://flic.kr/p/2piYPFb[/url]

[url]https://flic.kr/p/2pj5rss[/url]

[url]https://flic.kr/p/2piYPFG[/url]

[url]https://flic.kr/p/2pj6Kag[/url]

Clearly people far more familiar with Canzoneri than either you or I SAW something in him that lead them to think he was past his prime. And frankly, if you want to get right down to brass tacks we have a lot of footage of Canzoneri from 1929 through 1936 and you can see a marked difference in his fighting as the years progress. He throws less punches, clinches A LOT more, is much more flat footed, and looks to steal rounds more than to actually take them outright. Its the same things you see all of these men here talking about and putting on the doorstep not of his age but of his ringwear. Was he a bad fighter in 1936? No. I never said that. But he was clearly on the decline and hence why I think a PRIME Canzoneri was not only better than Ambers but also would have had a better shot against a guy Ambers split two fights with. And again, I dont even think Ambers would have ever said he was better than Canzoneri. Canzoneri was his idol, not the other way around, and for good reason.

 

You haven't disputed that McLarnin was a good shout as Canzoneri's best ever win.

You haven't cited a superior winning streak to that before the second Amber's fight.

You haven't reiterated your initial claim that Ambers was a "much cheaper version" of Tony. Frankly, the notion that a top 10 ATG LW being a "much cheaper" version of anyone at that weight, is absurd.