Lou Ambers

One of my fav lws. His biggest fights were probably the ones with Armstrong. He fell short to the very greatest of his era like Armstrong or Canzoneri but well, those are amongst the very greatest of all time. No shame in that. Just look at who he fought. That was just an amazingly deep era.

 

bodhi, was that ever a "deep era". Lou Ambers looked like the best infighter I have ever seen, with those uppercuts. Lou loved fighting. In 100 bouts against the toughest opponents Ambers was stopped only twice by
the murderous punching Lew Jenkins in Amber's last bouts... I saw him
playng cards in his sixties with my dad and cronies.My dad told me "don't ask for his autograph ", and I didn't...:good

 

:goodthats respect, well done burt.he always comes across as being a belter of a man too.

 

Don't leave out W 10 vs Cocoa Kid!

 

How did Ambers fall short against Armstrong? The first fight was close and competetive and the second, which Ambers won, Armstrong was lucky he didnt get DQd (in fact he was lucky not to get DQd in both). Its always pretended that Armstrong was somehow robbed in the second fight with Ambers due to all of the point deductions but IMO Armstrong fought extremely dirty and the ref did him a favor by not halting the fight and giving it to Ambers. Ambers was a heck of a fighter. He also won 2 of 3 against Canzoneri. So he hardly came up "short".

The only three defeats of his career that he was unable to avenge were to Eddie Cool, welterweight Jimmy Mclarnin, and Lew Jenkins.

 

Armstrong fought like Armstrong in my opinion. Ambers didn't "beat" Armstrong, but he did well to survive and all the point deductions ensured his win.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFKq520Raio[/ame]

 

Armstrong was a rough fighter. I don't know if all those rounds deserved to be deducted though.

Armstrong was a master of dirty tricks, like most of the greats. I guess the ref did appreciate that the night he faced Ambers.

 

Donovan wasn't so strict the night Armstrong fought Fritzie Zivic.

 

Thats kind of like the ref who refused to disqualify Fullmer for flagrant fouling because "thats the only way he knows how to fight."

If you cant win by fighting within the rules then you havent won. Period. Armstrong through countless low blows in both of their fights. You dont score low blows, he threw elbows, you dont score elbows, he butted, you dont score buts, he shoved and used his shoulder, you dont score those either. To say that Ambers "did well to survive the point deductions" is a pretty sad commentary. Ambers did well to fight a fouling Armstrong within the rules, tooth and nail, and win. Thats what Ambers did well to do. He could have taken the low road and resorted to the same tactics, he didnt and won.

 

It's not like Ambers was being a choirboy in there. He was holding & hitting, and Armstrong complained of being thumbed and elbowed.

Donovan sure let Fritzie Zivic do whatever he pleased against Armstrong.

Fullmer was outrageous, while Armstrong was more so the Frazier type. He bore in head first and went to the body with both hands.

 

And you're a Harry Greb man ?

 

What does Zivic-Armstrong have to do with this fight? It took place a year later. Is your contention that Arthur Donovan, one of the best referees of all time and a HOFer, was somehow biased?

 

He was most certainly inconsistent in handling the two bouts. Armstrong's fouls against Ambers, light blows below the belt, certainly do not seem very serious in comparison to Zivic's eye-gouging, lacing, elbowing, headbutting and every other trick he pulled off against Armstrong and later bragged about it, without so much as a warning from Donovan.

Had Zivic been the "victim" of similar judgment against Armstrong, he wouldn't have taken the title.

 

Yes, and its always been my contention that Greb's reputation for being a dirty fighter was greatly exaggerated by vocal minority of the New York press who had an axe to grind with him. The chief offense Greb utilized during the LATE stages of his career wasnt low blows, head butts, thumbs, elbows or anything like that, it was holding and hitting. Now if you are blind in one eye your depth perception is basically non-existant. You can figure out why he did what he did and that was, like I said, only in the latter stages of a career of 300 fights. Furthermore, if he had been such a dirty fighter why was he only disqualified ONCE (controversially I might add) in those 300 fights? Regardless of fighting from one end of the country to the other top to bottom? We dont have film of how dirty Greb was to judge for ourselves so we can only look to his record and the vast majority of people who saw him. I have film of Armstrong and in particular the fight in question and he fought dirty as hell. Rough doesnt even factor into it. Count all of the low blows and elbows he threw and tell me he was just being physical. Thats splitting hairs at best and turning a blind eye to overtly foul tactics at worst.