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

How about Ali's position in all this? Or Louis? How about a war weighing in and threatening to take their livelyhood? How about Ali in Norton 3, do we take into account that his hands were worthless and that he was already probably feeling the first effects of Parkinsons? Do we ignore that they both lost 3 years of their career?

 

We do ignore all of that because the only fighters that can be highly ranked are those that we gauge from contemporary newspaper accounts of their prowess.

 

Senya you're a great poster but it always bugs me when you write about little guys being more skilled than big guys. Of course they are more skilled than big guys; it's much easier to be coordinated and move your mass when you are smaller. There's a reason gymnasts are tiny guys. In basketball guards are small, and centers are big. Guards can shoot the ball better and pass better, they can dribble better and are faster. But centers despite a vast skill deficit are just as valuable as guards.

I mean wouldn't it be a little insulting to your intelligence to say that Ali fought guys who hit harder than Leonard did?

 

I already did, he's not buying it.

 

I thought it was you who have written a series of articles, ranking 100 fighters, some of whom we don't have any film of at all. But I guess I was wrong, or either you ranked them based on no evidence at all, just a random placement.

 

That really is a terrible argument Flea a 10lb difference for a 130lb man represents a significantly larger disadvantage than for a 210lb man giving up the same amount, diminishing returns exist.

 

You have to include both positive and negative arguments and argue your stance somewhere in between. But certainly not in the manner of "had Ali not been retired he would have easily beaten Frazier and Foreman the same night". You have to consider that his style changed and he looked more mature, tougher post-exile. The exile had done him some good too, not just all bad.
I'll list yet another example of what I'm talking about and why I am requesting what I do. We all heard that the decision in Jack Johnson-Marvin Hart was an outrageous robbery. Not until Adam Pollack provided both sides of the story have people started considering that it might have been not so obvious. If you going to just ignore the context, contemporary opinions, etc, you won't be able to evaluate either fighter fairly.

 

Once again, is it the lighter weights problem what's going on in the heavyweight division? If you want to rank heavyweights, rank Ali and Louis high, no problem. But P4P you have to provide better argument than that.

It was the smaller fighters that gave Louis the most problems, not the huge one-punch KO artists. Schmeling, Conn, Walcott, Charles. What about Ali, was it the bigger guys, and the hardest-hitting who were the most troubling for him?

 

Yipes, I have never seen a thread that has lost track of the subject comparing
Barney Ross to Benny Leonard, as this thread has ?. Am I wrong ?...

 

I feel your pain here, burt.

 

You'd think so (a larger percentage) but in actuality I don't think lightweight to welterweight is much of a jump considering so many have managed it.

 

Speaking of contemporary accounts, how about Welsh being completely derided as a champion yet managing to school Leonard? Sandwiched between a decision and stoppage loss to him no doubt but still, Welsh was seen as a poor champ.

 

Welsh just benefited fighting in a ND era, he wasn't a poor boxer per se, far from it. He wasn't alone who was doing that.

 

Of course not, but he was seen as a poor champ. The only way to beat him was to stop him, and it took Leonard three attempts, one of which he lost at a canter.

I don't see it as an issue, but if we're nitpicking then maybe it should be.

Anyway, footage of Welsh shows him to be....not exactly awe-inspiring.

 

I will say in Leonards defence that as he progressed he improved his power. He says this himself.