Tony Canzoneri as a pound-for-pound great

I dontlike fighters from the 30's. they're inferior

 

And what about Joe Gans? Henry Armstrong?? Or Joe Fraizer? Or Joe Louis, Armstrong is in the top ten, Louis is number 1 rank heavyweights, These are my favor fighters on the black side, Just because I dont rank Jones Jr over Canzi, doesnt mean anything. Jones Jr doesnt even have HALF the record of Ross or Canzi.

 

I explained this in my post to Brownpimp already. Read that. I don't rank Jones above Canzoneri either.

 

I really liked Canzoneri.
Especially his fight with Al "BummY Davis.
K.O. by in 3.

 

Good insight. He does have a great resume. One of the most overlooked fighters of the lighter weights. Anyone who beats Ambers, Ross, and Chocolate aint no joke. A top 20 ATG, no question. I'd loved to have seen how he would fared against Whitaker or Duran. Pep at featherweight seems a real interesting one.

 

He Would Give Anyone A Tough Fight And A Run For There Money In The Top 10 In His Weight Class And Is Somewhere In Between

 

That's not a bad list, nothing glaringly ridiculous about it really, despite me disagreeing with quite a bit of it.

One thing I want to know is why, given that you are always pointing out to others who has the superior resume, who beat the most contenders, HOF'ers etc. you'd have the likes of Joe Louis ahead of Benny Leonard, Archie Moore and Tony Canzoneri etc.

Whilst I don't think it's a necessarily bad choice in and of itself, it seems somewhat inconsistent with YOUR general emphasis.

Just another quick question: what do you think of Jim Driscoll? And what do you think about him handing Attell his ass?

 

I'm gonna edit my p4p list and put sammy angott in it, hes a very underrated fighter.

 

to me its how someone ranks the top 15 that matters. After that its all really based on opinions. You can rank fighting harada at 31, others can say that outside his wins over jofre, he really doesnt have much of a depth to be that high.

Joe Louis beat 6 lineal heavyweight champs, 2 lineal light heavyweight champs and 20 other ranked contenders, he has to be that high.

As you can see i left out ketchell, nonpariel dempsey, jack dempsey, bob fitzsimmons and jimmy wilde. Why becuase i dont like thier resumes and since they are way old school, its expected that they are crude fighters, especially ketchel.

 

Agree he is very underrated. I don't think he's top 50 largely due to inconsistency, but as far as clocking up big names on a resume, there aren't 50 with superior ones.

 

Does he? Surely Moore, Canzoneri and Leonard have better accomplishments though.

 

moore lost to many big fights, including a loss to a blown up welterweight.

Oscar De La Hoya is actually quite underrated himself, hes been in alot of close decisions but anyone that can beat 18 belt holders has to have a great resume.

 

gavilan was just as inconsistent, but goining simply on wins resume him and jimmy mclarnin are up there.

 

Louis lost to a blown up light heavy as well. He was past his prime there, but Moore had not struck his prime when he lost to Burley imo.

DLH had many close career defining fights and I think where he's ranked comes down to how you see them going. Someone could potentially have him losing to Whitaker, Mosley twice, Trinidad and Quartey without it being too absurd. On the other hand someone could have him beating all those guys without it being absurd either.

 

Gavilan got shafted in many fights too though, and to an extent his inconsistency came at the tail end of his career.