Barney Ross, Toni Canzoneri and Jimmy McLarnin

Armstong did NOT take it easy. The 15 round, Armstrong thown well over a 100 punchings.

Armstrong didnt slow down, Armstrong was punching and Ross was taking it. Its pretty amazing.

 

Canzi wasn't fully developed at Bantamweight though, no more than Robinson at LW, Duran at Bantamweight, or Pacquiao at Flyweight. He was a youngster who'd yet to finish his growth cycle. His natural fighting weight was in the 130-135 range, not too disimilar to Ross or Ambers, who excelled in between 135-140. I don't think the Olivares/Pryor parallel holds water.

 

Canzoneri was at his best as a lightweight but I don't think he would have had any trouble making 130 lbs had the division been more relevant during his time. Ross and McLarnin did not seem to have any trouble fighting at welterweight while Canzoneri would have looked tiny at that weight.

 

And he agreed with you, a fact he openly acknowledged in print.

And the fact that he was "a book reading dude" who hung out with the literati and could frequently be found in the pages of magazines like Vanity Fair.

Given the choice between Irish cutie Tunney or half breed killer Louis, I wonder who "mainstream America" would have preferred? (Of course Dempsey was a half breed himself, and considered a draft dodging slacker while champion. He seems to have been far more well liked in retirement.)

And it seems my comment about casual fans wanting to see knockouts and a killer may have opened the floodgates.

Personally, I think I'd feel a little ripped off if I paid good money to see 90 seconds of action. With Ross, McLarnin or Canzi, I could feel a lot more confident of seeing a good show.

 

The Berg fight is absoloutly amazing, no one ever did that to Berg but Tony flattens up.

I just think he was the better rounded fighter and would beat more ATG's and compete more profoundly than Canzoneri, who at times was amazing lacked that all around consistency to his game liek Ross.

I got you now.

Holy Jesus, one of the rings I admire about Ross was his completeness as a text book fighter, nothing spectacular just a well rounded technician. But that is some harsh judgement on him.

 

"Barney Ross is one of those skilled workmen who have the next best thing to genius, who are polished and competent and effective without being actually great. Barney does not rank in my catalogue with Leonard or Wolgast or Ketchel or Mysterious Billy Smith."

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courant...+McLarnin+Winning+Over+Canzoneri&pqatl=google

 

I can see where the critisism can come from, as I said before I thought Canzoneri really had some magical moments in the ring yet Ross lacked this spontaniety but what he did he did excellant and got the job done, I suppose similar to Emile Griffith.

I think he is one of them fighters us real boxing fans and historians appreciate for what he was and how effective his style was.

 

And this was a hindrance Canzi apparently did not suffer from during his heyday, having received plaudits for his knockout of Berg and 15 round decision over Petrolle. The P4P best designation was applied to Tony while SRR was still in grade school. Because his reputation did not suffer in his time, I sometimes wonder if it suffers in ours (especially after Hank came along).

 

I rank him over all those guys except maybe Leonard.

 

I have Ross ranked over all thsos guys myself.

 

Benny Leonard is the only question for me but I guess this shows how highly the likes of Ketchel and surprisingly Billy Smith and Ad Wolgast were thought of at the time. Atleast by this particular writer.

 

Currently, and it's not set in stone because I haven't been working on my ranking for very long (haven't had time to critically think over all the placements), I have Ross literally just above Canzoneri, both in my top twenty. McClarnin, I haven't come to a real conclusion on him yet.

 

Canzoneri won the first fight. The judges took it from him. Not Ross' fault though. The Holy Fistic Trinity are what they are because they were really that competitive. Any one of them could beat any of the others at any time.

 

a case could be made for any order, but i'd say ross was the greatest.

canzoneri's ranking can fluctuate a lot depending on how you view the first ross fight, and the fact he was naturally smaller than the other two. i give him a lot of credit for the first ross fight, but i'm not sure his relative lack of size is that much of a big deal. the ross fights both took place at a good weight for canzoneri.

a lot also depends on how much importance you place on quantity of wins. canzoneri just has so many more, against good to great opponents too. but i'm of the opinion that while a lack of quantity can hurt you if you have had a seriously low number of fights, beyond a certain number it becomes less relevant. ross and mclarnin are far beyond this point.

ross>canzoneri>mclarnin