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

Mr. Butt ,I love Barney Ross as a great fighter,a great war hero and patriot
but in all the years I have been reading and watching fights [from the early 1940s] ,and perusing boxing Mags from the 1920s on, I never read
anyone choosing Barney Ross as a lightweight on the same level as Benny Leonard....So it is frustrating to me to read on this thread some posters
choosing Barney Ross as a greater fighter than Benny Leonard...Akin to
50 years from now some posters spouting that Lady Ga Ga was a better singer than Judy Garland...Does anyone today think that Barney Ross was a better WW than Ray Robinson?. Of course not, but we must remember
Benny Leonard who reigned over a great LW division for 7 years, ducking no one, was considered at least the lightweight equal of the welterweight
Ray Robinson by multitudes who saw both these two great fighters...
Mr. B, I hope I revealed my frustration to yee...

 

Thanks for a great reply burt ,I think I can with certainty say the likes of ray arcel would whole heartedly agree with you

 

Another strange post from you!

Why do you find it "frustrating" to see there are some posters who rate Ross over Leonard? Apparently you believe it is a fact that Leonard is the better fighter... and it irritates you that you have to explain this "fact" to those who dont agree with you. But that is just your opinion... dont you get that?

 

Burt's opinions are invaluable to me because of his advanced age and willingness to share -- instead of a young boxing fan looking back, Burt was alive and enthused about boxing during the time many of our heroes were fighting.

He has lost none of his passion, and in my view that is a blessing.

 

I got Ross, Moore, Leonard, Walker, Louis, Canzoneri and Fitzsimmons all in the same tier: 9-15.

 

sir, if my posts "are STRANGE to you", I have the solution, don't read them! :hi:

 

Ross was tough as nails and a great boxer. Leonard was craftier but also tough himself. I'm not sure who's greater but Leonard was the better boxer from what I've read he could well be the cleverest boxer in history. I dont think there's any footage of him in his prime or not much.

 

It is revisionism, that's why it sounds strange I think, it would be like 60 years from now people start to say that Marco Antonio Barrera should be ranked above Floyd Mayweather Jr.

 

From someone who thought Ali and Louis rank above Leonard and Ross that ain't funny.

 

He may very well be IN Leonard's class - but better, as some are alleging here? This doesn't seem to have been the consensus among those who actually saw both men fight, nor does it accord with the secondary accounts I have read over the years.

As an academic, I understand the need to revise interpretations based on new evidence. But that evidence has to be significant to justify such a shift in perspective, and I am not aware that there is any justifiable case to be made that overturns the judgement of history rating Leonard above Ross.

 

You have to take into account that smaller guys have more scope to beat larger fighters.

Ali and Louis beat fighters heavier then themselves as well. They're as worthy of P4P consideration as the hipsters favourites.

 

Yeah, I'm not saying it's bad, revisionism is often a good thing tbf. I give Leonard the edge though when I see that he was a dominant champion beating a rich division, in a way Ross wasn't.

 

Yes, they do. They face a tougher opposition than the heavyweights, in skills, ring generalship, accomplishments and variety of styles. It's not the lighter weights' problem what's going on in the heavyweight division.
Should David Haye be ranked as an all-time great P4P boxer because he beat several men much heavier than himself? I mean, Valuev weighed 100 pounds heavier than him. The biggest weight disadvantage Louis had had was 52 pounds vs Abe Simon, and Ali had a disadvantage of only 30 pounds vs Duke Sabedong.