Tony Canzoneri vs. Henry Armstrong

Armstrong in a close fight. UD

 

At comparable weights (126-133) and in their primes, I go with Canzie. 135 and 140 would put Canzoneri either out-of-shape or past his prime and would therefore be unfair to him if what you are trying to achieve is the best matchup, IMO.

Looking at the trajectories of their careers without regard to the fairness of the contest from an all-time matchup perspective as most of these discussions are usually framed, the bout would have been possible, but only at a time when Tony was well past his prime.

 

Im with John here. I favor Tony. Ambers, who was Tonys sparring partner and a much cheaper version of him gave Armstrong ten kinds of hell in their two fights, putting him in the hospital after the first and beating him in the second. The only way Armstrong could compete with Ambers was to foul incessantly in both fights. without fouling I think Tony does a better job on Armstrong than Ambers did.

 

Lou Ambers was a "much cheaper" version of Tony Canzeroni, yet won 2 of their 3 contests

 

depends on the ref.

if hank's allowed to bull in hands up, the chance to land something is very low. there is a chance that tony lands a perfect punch, 90% hank walks through it and keeps scoring. canzonieri's defence was good, but the upwards right from in close was deadly.

head head head right left right, then tony lands, head head right.

canzonieri isn't gonna ko him with one shot, he's gonna take 4 for every one he gives.

 

NO

 

Obviously 2 atgs, but I give the edge to Hank, personally.

 

Canzoneri was 141 wins 24 losses and 10 draws with 44 ko's. Stood 5'4' with a 65 inch reach.
Armstrong was 151 wins 21 losses and 9 draws with 101 ko's. stood 5'5' and a half with a 67 inch reach

Looking at who they beat I lean towards Henry Armstrong. Tony wasn't a big puncher and holds no physical advantages over a guy who'll be coming at him all night. Armstrong by close but clear UD.

 

Yes when Tony was 140 fights into his career and past his prime. I guess Leon Spinks was better than Ali…

 

Canzoneri was 27 when Ambers 1st beat him. In his previous fight, less than 4-months earlier, he scored arguably he greatest ever victory, beating the much bigger ATG Jimmy McLarnin.

Ali was 36 when Spinks beat him & I consider it safe to say it's clear he wasn't coming off arguably a career best performance & win.

I agree Canzoneri ranks above Ambers on ATG p4p lists based their entire careers, all fights in all weight divisions.

However, this is a H2H thread at LW. In fights contested at LW (allowing for a lbs over in non-title contests), Canzoneri went around 61-11-1, whilst Ambers was about 75-5-6.

Canzoneri's overall opposition at LW was better than Ambers's, but I don't see a huge difference in the quality of their win resumes, unlike the big difference in their win/loss ratio:

Canzoneri - Ambers (1-2), Jack Kid Berg (2-1), Kid Chocolate x 2, Billy Petrolle, Al Singer, Benny Bass, Lew Massey, Frankie Klick x 4 & Baby Arizmendi

Ambers - Canzoneri (2-1), Henry Armstrong (1-1), Baby Arizmendi (2-0-1), Cocoa Kid, Johnny Jadick, Fritzi Zivic, Frankie Klick, Sammy Fuller & Davey Day

I rank Ambers #8 all time at LW & Canzoneri #10. Admittedly there is nothing in it & I don't think I've ever seen another LW list where Ambers is ahead of Canzoneri, so I have no problem with you ranking Tony higher there, but can't agree that, from a H2H perspective at LW, Ambers was a "much cheaper" version of Tony.

 

Its not the age of a fighter that matters its the mileage. Again, Canzoneri was a decade into hos career and had 140 fights. Ali had less than half that. Ive never met anyone who ranked Ambers over Canzoneri either at LW, P4P, or just based on comparing how they look. So congrats there, you are a true oddity. As for Tony beating McLarnin, are you saying great fighters cant notch big wins past their prime? Of course they can. If you want to argue that Ambers had a better shot at Armstrong fair play, I just dont agree. But dont sit here and try to argue with me that Ambers was better than Tony. I dont think even Ambers would have made that argument. And yes, Ambers often tried to emulate Canzoneri’s style and simply wasnt as good at it. I dont think he did anything as well as Canzoneri so yes he was a cheaper version. And Im not denigrating Ambers, i love the guy and i think he was a terrific fighter, i just dont think he was as good as Canzoneri. Yes, he won two out of three against a fading Canzoneri but Norton arguably won two out of three against Ali and I think the gap between Norton and Ali was MUCH wider than the gap between Ambers and Canzoneri.

 

I am not, and have not, said great fighters can't get big wins past their prime. If you disagree, kindly point me in the direction of where I made that claim. Otherwise, this is a strawman argument. i.e. the weakest kind.

What I am suggesting, is that a fighter is unlikely to be way past prime 1-fight & 4-months after arguably their best win in a c.170-fight career. Canzoneri was a great, great fighter and he certainly had plenty of fights, losing a good few, many against tremendous opposition, he had huge opportunities to score a greatest win and I'd argue of them all, his win vs the 6.5lbs bigger McLarnin, was his best.

I have no problem with you ranking Canzoneri above Ambers (I do, clearly, p4p, based on their entire careers), either p4p or based on their LW work. I just disagree, in the context of a speculative fight at LW, that Ambers was a "much cheaper" version of Canzoneri.

75-5-6 vs 61-11-1 at LW, with comparable win resumes and a series victory for Ambers, may not be definitive proof Ambers is the greater LW, and I'm not positioning it as such, but I think it hints that Ambers wasn't the "much cheaper" LW.

So if you have any further arguments, please limit them to what I have said, not things I have not said. Specifically, you'll have to justify why despite the above details, Ambers was a "much cheaper" LW than Tony.

 

Ill tell you what, Ill defer to the experts at the time who KNEW Tony and knew these events better than you or I if youll agree to. Fair? Because the first time Tony fought Ambers he was the underdog. Why? Because they said he was old, shopworn, and flatfooted. Thats how the experts at the time viewed him. And that was the fight Canzoneri actually won and coming off a victory over McLarnin. Clearly they knew something you dont. They didnt make Ambers a favorite because he was so much better but because Tony had slipped. In fact Canzoneri publicly stated that he was going for the early KO because he didnt think he could win past four rounds. When Tony beat Ambers it was an upset and for their rematch a year and a half later Tony was made the favorite specifically because it was thought that despite having slipped he might have Ambers number. Even so, several experts picked Ambers to win specifically because Canzoneri was past his prime. And when Tony lost clearly the experts pointed out that it was because of how much he had slipped and that it was the result expected from their first fight. You can go straight to the sources and read all of this for yourself. Id recommend it because it tells a story that a lazy look at boxrec doesnt.

 

once a guy is past 100 fights he's prob past his best.

 

Fair enough. I respect your opinion.

Ambers won more & lost less (less than half) fights at LW than Canzoneri and has roughly an equally as quality win resume in that division, imo.

Going into their 2nd fight, the 1st that Ambers won, Canzoneri had won all of his previous 13 fights, one of the best winning runs in his career. And the opposition in that run was most certainly not weak, the bigger McLarnin in the very previous fight is a good argument for the best win of his career, with his victory over Ambers in this run being not too far behind. Wins over Frankie Klick x 2, Joe Gnouly & Johnny Jadick comprised part of this 13-fight winning streak too, and whilst certainly not contenders for his best ever wins, complete an exceptional 13 fight winning strike.

If you think Canzoneri had a better 13-fight streak than that which immediately preceded his first defeat to Ambers, and I'm not saying he didn't, then I'd genuinely be interested to read about.