Just like any of the other threads. Who was the more skilled boxer? The Cincinnati Cobra or the Man with No Nickname? Thoughts, comments, remarks, limericks, whatever.
Charles. Tbh I don´t think it´s close. I rate Ross pretty high but it´s mostly because of his record, when I look at it I´m always amazed, he was obviously very skilled but I think Charles was a more complete fighter, he had a better variety of great attributes.
I believe it is a foregone conclusion that Ezzard should win this fight....He was a little to big for Ross and I imagine after 2-3 scintilating rounds Ezzard drops Ross and stops him mid-way through the 4th. I do give Ross a punchers chance but not much more!
I've forgotten what more skilled means on this board. Or I'm too stupid to know. I agree with Philly anyway, Charles should win this. Too big for Ross.
Please! Charles lost to kid tunero, who was.whooped twice by Holman Williams, who couldn't solve the cocoa kid, who was decisioned by Izzy Jannazzo, who was beaten by Barney Ross. Transitive property gives the little guy the edge! It means everything. And nothing. Maybe whatever is the right word. See shove.response in regards to Ross v Charles. And I guess right now its one to one. Unless those head to head picks count... I should have added a poll.
I find it amazing the connection of Barney Ross to Jack Ruby, the man who shot Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963. They were close friends from Chicago and they died without 2 weeks of each other in 1967. There was no connection of Barney Ross to the Kennedy assassination, I am just mentioning how he was friend with Ruby and kept loyal to him after the shooting, even going to Dallas and testifying as a character witness for Ruby.
Ross didn't seem to have any stylistic vulnerabilities. Charles did. Ross lost to Armstrong but that's not so much a weakness as being beaten by the better man.