Why shouldn't Barney Ross be judged on par with Benny Leonard?

Simply, because he was GREATER....Benny Leonard was a greater boxer
with a much better set of wheels, constantly on the move anticipating his
opponents next moves, like a chess game with boxing gloves on. He was a smaller and better edition of Gene Tunney in sheer boxing intelligence. But the thing that separated Benny Leonard from Barney Ross was Benny
Leonard was also a deadly two handed puncher when the situation demanded, whilst Barney Ross as brave a fighter that ever fought, was
an average puncher with a great set of whiskers...Both great fighters
died at a young age...

 

Because Benny was a dominant champion.

 

When Ross beat the odds again following McLarnin I opinion turned real sweet, but few put him above Leonard; an educated reserve had spoken.

From 1917-1923, from stopping Freddie Welsh to disarming Lew Tendler, Benny played a catchy tune over what may have been the most competitive of all lightweight eras. When you consider how dominant he was, against top competition, it's a little baffling.

Was there anyone quite as brilliant as Canzoneri? I'll offer a debatable "no", but then Ross only just edged out a nearly-prime version. There is another winning record against McLarnin (a statistic which firmly locks Ross in the top 20), but again it was rather close. A fourth fight was on the cards, never materialised.

Leonard did things to opponents that a Jim Driscoll (and later), a Willie Pep would do. There was something ineffable about him that pretty much all the top ten elite possess. He rematched and left no bickering. He was the complete master.

Ross was as good a fighter as you can get without being able to stick on those "genius" or "force of nature" appellations.

When McLarnin fought Leonard he recalled how the old dog shot out of his corner and demonstrated good legs...for a brief moment. To Jimmy's relief the great man slowed and took a beating.

Would Jimmy have been another 'body' in the early '20s? Quite possibly.

 

I think Ross is greater.

 

Nothing in it. I usually have Ross at #10 and Leonard at #12 or #13.

 

He was the greatest boxer of his time , an era distinguished by men like Dempsey, Greb, Tunney and kilbane . As he performed it boxing was indeed a science, filled with finesse, fast thinking, fleeting graceful action, and sharp destructive fist work.

- Ted Carroll, ring magazine


I'd go for leonard but Ross is a very close second

 

Ross was tougher, and a darn good fighter for sure but not greater. Leonard cleaned out a very good era of light weights and drew no color line.

 

Yep I go along with Ross being tougher

 

Ross, mainly because his resume is more impressive for me. I have Ross at # 10 and Leonard at # 12 on my P4P list.

 

Only on ESB, only on ESB...

 

Please elaborate burt


Ross for me tougher

But leonard I'd rate higher

Ross not as physically strong as leonard plus leonard has the bigger punch and leonard controlled distance better