A fighter seriously in need of recognition here. By rights, he should be above Marvin Hagler. How many would rate him so? The first man in every ten, if that, and I really don't think that's right. Of course, Henry Armstrong's win(s) over Lou Ambers is one of the main factors in his greatness. Ambers was Armstrong's Kid Gavilan.
I have never really gotten a handle on Ambers ,and must confess I don't know where to rank him. Ambers is overlooked and that should be redressed ,where to put him in lists? Maybe this thread will stir up some interest and enable people like me to get a more detailed appreciation of him?
His record is very, very good for the era. It's something I first noticed when researching Henry Armstrong four or five years ago and I've delved into it a bit further since... And looking at Ambers' record you can uncover all kinds of contenders and champions and Hall of Famers that he holds wins over. Ambers beat Cocoa Kid, Fritzie Zivic, Tony Canzoneri, Pedro Montanez, Baby Arizmendi and whole list of contenders; Al Davis, Jimmy Leto, Sammy Fuller, Frankie Klick, Davey Day, Paul Junior, Steve Halaiko and many more. Ambers, being a genuine great himself, also aids in the standing of Armstrong and also Jimmy McLarnin, who actually managed to beat a prime Ambers in his last career bout.
I think the win over Armstrong is tainted by controversy over the amount of rounds Donovan deducted for low blows. An impressive win is a stoppage over Arizmendi he was very durable ,and Ambers was not really a hitter. Ambers was a sparring partner for Canzoneri but, as his time came, Canzi's was waning , Canzoneri won their first fight without argument ,but a year later Ambers emphatically decisioned him. Lew Jenkins dropping Ambers multiple times ,and stopping him twice, shows how hard Jenkins punched.
I couldn't ,Hagler is at least top 4 at 160.Lightweight is a very strong division ,but I don't have Ambers in my ten ,maybe the fault is mine.
See, I just think the lightweight division has always been deeper in talent than the middleweight division. The #15 lightweight would be greater than the #15 middleweight, for instance.
On principal alone it sounds wrong, but it may be right. Hagler, for me, could have gone 80-10-3 in another era but beaten thrice the level of competition he did in his actual career and sealed an ever greater legacy. I personally wouldn't rate Hagler below Ambers (despite generally weaker opposition, he did dominate) but it's something to think about.
Ambers has to rate below the ethnic trinity of the 30s -Ross, McLarnin, and Canzoneri, but not by much. The "second tier" there is better than almost any other era anywhere. A note on that first fight against Armstrong -he was easily the toughest title holder Armstrong faced at his peak. Easily. And Armstrong himself knew it. He was almost in shock in the dressing room after swallowing about a pint of his own blood and in the rematch, he closed Armstrong's eyes. He was one of those guys who absolutely loved to fight. And that made him greater than he otherwise would have been, that passion. Over Hagler? I got Hagler at 23 all-time in a rough draft ranking. Ambers wouldn't be far behind.
I have to question the high rating of Hagler. Most people seem to rate him around that area, but I don't think it's just. Is Hagler greater than Napoles? C. Ortiz? Olivares?