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

This is a very fair comment. Hence why I rate McFarland very highly indeed.

My counter argument to 'older fighters looking sloppy has always been that there are sloppy fighters still being successful today, and in any stage of history.

Certainly McFarland shows awareness in the Welsh fight. That is enough for me, I am not discounting his ability completely due to being archaic.

 

Packey stood out among his contemporaries. Sure, Joe Gans, Jim Driscoll, Abe Attell, Mike Gibbons and others were getting a lot of praise as master boxers, but Packey was praised far more often regarding his skills and cleverness. More often than Benny Leonard, too, from my impressions after reading tens of thousands of write-ups from the first quarter of 20th century. Basically, the only thing he was ever criticized for was lacking a punch.

 

Thanks for the insight.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the first statement? If I were to say it's not the heavyweight fault that the smaller guys can't punch hard and aren't durable am I saying the exact opposite of what you are or do you mean something different?

And certainly the little guys gave Louis trouble. But Louis also fought little guys and blew them out. There are diminishing marginal returns between skill otherwise a lightweight would have challenged the heavyweights (since they get the most money). Certainly there are point's where size can make up for skill, but most times it can't.

 

A little anecdote pertaining to this thread :
Many years ago I attended a boxing seminar in New England where Ruby Goldstein
who was once considered when young to be the "next Benny Leonard",[not to be,
glass jaw] and then became a famous referee, answered questions from the audience.
One man arose and asked this question." Ruby how so you think a Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross, Jimmy Mclarnin, Lou Ambers, and yourself would do against Benny
Leonard ?...I recall Goldstein taking his stogie out of his mouth and barking " please
do not COMPARE any of us to Benny Leonard, we don't belong in the same sentence with him" ?...I and the crowd were greatly impressed with Ruby Goldstein's assessment of
the great Benny Leonard....Everyone of note who saw him in his prime considered
Bennah as he was known, along with Joe Gans, the greatest lightweights of all-time...
A few who Leonard kod were Johnny Kilbane, Freddie Welsh, Charley White, Ever Hammer, Rocky Kansas, Richie Mitchell, Joe Welling etc, and 62 other victims. He
defeated Johnny Dundee, WW Jack Britton, Soldier Bartfield, the great southpaw Lew Tendler and in one of his talked about bouts against a terrific black lightweight from
Harlem Leo Johnson, Leonard's hair was mussed up when Johnson stroked his glove
on Leonard's brilliantine hair to rile Leonard. Bad Idea. Leonard promptly flattened
Johnson in the first round. One week later Leonard ko'd Eddie Dorsey a friend of
Leo Johnson in short order...So addressing this thread. By no standards should
Barney Ross ,a great fighter also, should be considered on a par with Benny Leonard.
Two different birds...

 

Yeah I like Ross. He's top 25.

But Leonard is more top 10 like. He beat Jack Britton and Johnny Dundee and Johnny Kilbane and every lightweight worth a tinkers damn. That's pretty impressive.

 

And the great British lightweight Freddie Welsh, probably the best left-hook artist ever Charley White, the powerful bulldog Rocky Kansas, Ever Hammer, etc. To say Barney Ross was better than Benny Leonard is ridiculous...In all my years I have never heard or read any experienced
boxing authority saying Barney Ross was the best lightweight ever. Never..
But anyone who saw Benny Leonard fight and after years later, called him the greatest LW ever, along with Joe Gans for good reason...He was that great...Were all these boxing authorities wrong and a poster or two
70-80 years later correct.? Logic and history says NO...:good

 

No one is saying Ross is the greatest lightweight ever! No one, not one bloody poster has said that!

 

Flea Woman bore off.

 

Shut it, you've added nothing to this thread, just 'cause I slagged you off in another for being a '**** you're following me. Do one.

 

******s like you should be put down at birth.

 

A deciding factor here is dominance. If Joe Louis continually edged out well-regarded opposition over 25 defences he would not be as highly rated. If Harry Greb didn't win so many rounds on average we would have the same problem.

Boxing isn't binary. You do not solely weigh outcomes. It is a theatre to perform, to appease, and Leonard left everyone in the smokes of resin that his feet produced. Each move spoke of an overall brilliance.

Some of Ross' greatest moments were followed by boos and months of squabble. It does not rob him of victory, but it's in stark contrast to, say, leaving Rocky Kansas and Lew Tendler clueless.

*The distinction speaks more of my appreciation for Leonard. Ross should never be outside the top 20.

 

Shut it you yokel.

 

How much prime footage do we have of Ross?

He seems a very textbook boxer to me whereas Leonard was more of a brilliant athlete who was also technically gifted.

Leonard has probably the best championship reign in history though.