Arcel and Steward said Ray Robinson was protected

[elmersalsa]

Charley Burley was on top of the welterweight and middleweight rankings for almost ten years. Lou Ambers was a good fighter, and a top lightweight ATG. Burley was all time great in two weight classes.

And Burley was much more skilled.

[Chuck1052]

It may be that boxing in a conventional way wasn't Henry Armstrong's strong suit, but he sure knew how to fight and employed a fighting style that was so effective for him. As a result, he is an all-time pound-for-pound great, which is most important factor in the long run.

- Chuck Johnston

[Ambling Alp II]

Armstrong was a all-time great, one of the very best of all time. Certainly in the Top 10. He had a list of victims that is very impressive.
Lou Ambers not only beat him, but beat several other great fighters. His career was not as impressive as Armstrong or Ray Robinson's career, but it was more impressive than Charlie Burley's career. He was not as skilled as Robinson but was at least as skilled as Burley.

I wish elmer would have just said that it was an oversight that he didn't include Ambers. That happens. Obviously he knows little about him and is coming up with nonsense explaining why he was not included.
First it was the ridiculous notion Canzoneri and Arizmendi weren't in their prime when Ambers beat them. Now he was great in only one weight class; meanwhile he has Monzon, Hagler, Moore, Pep etc. rated very highly.

Who considers Burley an all time great welterweight anyway? Very little to back up that claim.

[Controversial]

Armstrong was a all-time great, one of the very best of all time. Certainly in the Top 10. He had a list of victims that is very impressive.

Lou Ambers not only beat him, but beat several other great fighters. His career was not as impressive as Armstrong or Ray Robinson's career, but it was more impressive than Charlie Burley's career. He was not as skilled as Robinson but was at least as skilled as Burley.

From what I've read of the Amber and Armstrong fights it seems to suggest Armstrong was penalised for fouling so much that it swayed it in Ambers favour, not because Ambers was the better fighter.

[Ambling Alp II]

Losing by fouling is not a legitimate excuse.

A fighter who fouls can an advantage, which is why fighters get penalized for it. It can take the other fighter out of his games. If Armstrong didn't need to foul to to try win, he wouldn't have done it. The fight was close enough that the penalties made a difference. Ambers was the better man that night.

[Kalan]

Yes, that's a factual analysis on all counts Ambler... Low blows damage your opponent so they help you win... Constantly pushing and leveraging with your head, shoulders, forearms, and hands illegally compels openings that brilliant boxing finesses with a greater skill, focus, and mental effort...

The only reason a dirt-bag commits fouls is because fouling gives him a big advantage. Fouling makes it easier for him to win -- and winning means bigger fights and more money for you and your financial backers.. It's ridiculous to claim a dirty fighter lost unfairly ... since he as the option of fighting clean.