Lou Ambers

Armstrong and Ambers were reluctant to fight each other and the commission put a definite halt to such a bout with a ruling that the champion has to vacate his crown in order to challenge for another belt, making it impossible for another fighter to repeat Henry Armstrong's feat of holding three titles at the same time.

 

Yeah, I think I said that.
And I agree with you. I don't think Armstrong was robbed at all.

 

What are people's thoughts on this today?

Is there a valid argument that aside from the foul rounds lou only took 2 rounds in the rest of the fight?

Did henry definitely win 8 rounds (based on the footage we have?)

 

Armstrong was clearly robbed in the second fight

 

I can't help but feel Armstrong gets unwarranted credit here.

A lot of people treat this fight as a default victory by Armstrong, myself included.

However when I watch the fight what I see now is a very closely contested bout. I don't have all 15 full rounds, and I'm not sure anyone does.

With that in mind how can anyone claim it an Armstrong victory?

I know there's the big thing about the deductions, but the question I would ask is, for every deduction was there a foul and it is ultimately the case.

The highlights show a very close fought in battle, with Ambers getting the better at range and Armstrong losing points for obvious low blows.

I think Ambers deserves more credit for this fight.

 

Ambers looks great on film.
All action smart tough fighter.
Underrated ATG in my book

 

http://senya13.blogspot.ru/2016/11/lou-ambers-1935.html