Joe Gans vs Benny Leonard
Joe Gans vs Benny Leonard
Which of these legends who triumph in a 15 rounder at 135?
Great matchup, both were one of the hardest punchers ever at 135 lbs, both had great skills, very slick and tricky styles, great stamina. The difference would be the chin, Benny Leonard could take a hell of a punch whether Gans couldn´t (very good chin, but not iron), so I would favour Leonard a bit, he also would have the edge in speed...
Benny Leonard TKO 10 Joe Gans (on points, they were even)
Benny Leonard TKO 10 Joe Gans (on points, they were even)
Senya13 wrote:Gans had a better chin than Leonard. And he was a harder hitter. So Leonard is winning on points early, but Gans' punching power gets into play by mid-rounds, close decision, but Gans takes it due to a couple of knockdowns he scores on Leonard.
Gans, although not prime anymore, was KTFO vs. Battling Nelson, who wasn´t a hard puncher like Benny Leonard for example, IMO he didn´t have a better chin...
Harry Carpenter "Masters of Boxing" (1964), p. 79 (chapter about Benny Leonard)
He was so little thought of by his own local supporters at the start that they dubbed him the East Side Powder Puff Kid; his first manager, Buck Areton, overmatched him with Joe Shugrue in 1912 and got him knocked out. His second manager, Tom McArdle, made a similar mistake in 1913 and Leonard was knocked out by a rugged Canadian, Frankie Fleming. ... The defeat by Fleming and the tie-up with Gibson proved the turning-point in Leonard's life. The knockout, the last he would ever suffer, although his career stretched to 1932, convinced Gibson that Leonard not only needed additional strength, but technique which would steer him clear of dangerous punches. Leonard had one of those long, willowy necks which frequently betray a man who cannot absorb a heavy punch.
He was so little thought of by his own local supporters at the start that they dubbed him the East Side Powder Puff Kid; his first manager, Buck Areton, overmatched him with Joe Shugrue in 1912 and got him knocked out. His second manager, Tom McArdle, made a similar mistake in 1913 and Leonard was knocked out by a rugged Canadian, Frankie Fleming. ... The defeat by Fleming and the tie-up with Gibson proved the turning-point in Leonard's life. The knockout, the last he would ever suffer, although his career stretched to 1932, convinced Gibson that Leonard not only needed additional strength, but technique which would steer him clear of dangerous punches. Leonard had one of those long, willowy necks which frequently betray a man who cannot absorb a heavy punch.
Senya13 wrote:Harry Carpenter "Masters of Boxing" (1964), p. 79 (chapter about Benny Leonard)
He was so little thought of by his own local supporters at the start that they dubbed him the East Side Powder Puff Kid; his first manager, Buck Areton, overmatched him with Joe Shugrue in 1912 and got him knocked out. His second manager, Tom McArdle, made a similar mistake in 1913 and Leonard was knocked out by a rugged Canadian, Frankie Fleming. ... The defeat by Fleming and the tie-up with Gibson proved the turning-point in Leonard's life. The knockout, the last he would ever suffer, although his career stretched to 1932, convinced Gibson that Leonard not only needed additional strength, but technique which would steer him clear of dangerous punches. Leonard had one of those long, willowy necks which frequently betray a man who cannot absorb a heavy punch.
But how can you explain yourself that he fought (and beat) heavyhanded fighters like White, Hammer, Angelo, etc.? I know, that Gans was a league above them, but even though, Leonard showed that he had a great chin...
Despite all that George Engel did for him, Leonard remained a vulnerable fighter, if hit squarely on the chin. In 1920 Charley (Left Hook) White, of Chicago, sent him tumbling out of the ring with his favourite punch in the fifth at Benton Harbour, Michigan. Somehow, leonard scrambled back to win in the ninth, putting White down five times to score the knockout.
The night Leonard fought Richie Mitchell, ... Three times in the first round Leonard, bent on dismissing a dangerous rival as quickly as possible so as to save trouble later, put Mitchell on the floor and gashed him alongside one eye. The elite audience became hushed in an expression of elegant distaste that Mitchell should be so apparently outclassed. The disapproval vanished in the cigar smoke when Mitchell began to fight back. Suddenly, a left hook to the stomach put lead in Leonard's legs. Instantly, Mitchell slammed over a right to the jaw, and Leonard fell. He was very late getting up, and well-nigh defenceless. But the brain that always served him well came to his rescue, in an historic piece of ringcraft. Mitchell waited in the neutral corner, trying to gouge what damage he had done. Leonard's mind worked coolly through the pain. if he tried to walk towards Mitchell, his legs might give way. Certainly, Mitchell would bound at him and finish him off. So Leonard stood still and then motioned with both hands to Mitchell to come to him. The effect was to set Mitchell's mind spinning with doubt. Was this a trap? The two or three seconds that elapsed while Mitchell hesitated were all Leonard needed to get a grip on himself. When Mitchell finally moved to him, the champion was ready to defend himself. He saved his title; in the sixth he sent Mitchell sprawling four more times for the K.O.
But Leonard's greatest fight came in 1922 when Tex Rickard put him in with the superb Jewish southpaw from Philadelphia, Lew Tendler. ... Sure enough, in the eighth, the left snapped out to catch Leonard squarely on the chin. The long neck seemed to snap on its stalk and the champion's chin dropped forward on his chest. Leonard was almost out on his feet and the thin body began to droop, very, very slowly, towards the floor. The din of 80,000 people screaming for Tendler to finish him must have been incredible.
But as Leonard sagged, his hands, guided by some still-ticking portion of his brain, groped and found Tendler's sides, and the southpaw fighter suddenly realized he couldn't get rid of him. He writhed angrily, but Leonard, hung half-way between upright and horizontal, between consciousness and oblivion, clung firmly. Finally, Harry Ertle, the referee, briskly commanded Leonard to loosen his grip. Tendler stepped back and surveyed the figure in front of him, to pick the spot for the next hammer blow.
At this moment, Leonard lifted his head, wrung a wry smile from his lips, stepped close in and grabbed Tendler in another clinch. And he spoke. What were the words? Many people have given their version. But Leonard himself didn't remember afterwards what he had said: 'The punch froze me. I couldn't block another, or move away, or even duck. I had to distract him somehow.'
It was, it must have been, some naive remark. It was enough to cloud Tendler's immediate aim. One moment he had the man at his mercy. Now the same man was talking to him. Like Mitchell the year before, Tendler paused, and thought to himself: a trap? Is Benny really hurt, or is he foxing? It was only momentary hesitation. But the moment between haziness and clarity for a stricken fighter is often very short. Leonard got his precious second or two's respite. When Tendler came in, he was ready.
The night Leonard fought Richie Mitchell, ... Three times in the first round Leonard, bent on dismissing a dangerous rival as quickly as possible so as to save trouble later, put Mitchell on the floor and gashed him alongside one eye. The elite audience became hushed in an expression of elegant distaste that Mitchell should be so apparently outclassed. The disapproval vanished in the cigar smoke when Mitchell began to fight back. Suddenly, a left hook to the stomach put lead in Leonard's legs. Instantly, Mitchell slammed over a right to the jaw, and Leonard fell. He was very late getting up, and well-nigh defenceless. But the brain that always served him well came to his rescue, in an historic piece of ringcraft. Mitchell waited in the neutral corner, trying to gouge what damage he had done. Leonard's mind worked coolly through the pain. if he tried to walk towards Mitchell, his legs might give way. Certainly, Mitchell would bound at him and finish him off. So Leonard stood still and then motioned with both hands to Mitchell to come to him. The effect was to set Mitchell's mind spinning with doubt. Was this a trap? The two or three seconds that elapsed while Mitchell hesitated were all Leonard needed to get a grip on himself. When Mitchell finally moved to him, the champion was ready to defend himself. He saved his title; in the sixth he sent Mitchell sprawling four more times for the K.O.
But Leonard's greatest fight came in 1922 when Tex Rickard put him in with the superb Jewish southpaw from Philadelphia, Lew Tendler. ... Sure enough, in the eighth, the left snapped out to catch Leonard squarely on the chin. The long neck seemed to snap on its stalk and the champion's chin dropped forward on his chest. Leonard was almost out on his feet and the thin body began to droop, very, very slowly, towards the floor. The din of 80,000 people screaming for Tendler to finish him must have been incredible.
But as Leonard sagged, his hands, guided by some still-ticking portion of his brain, groped and found Tendler's sides, and the southpaw fighter suddenly realized he couldn't get rid of him. He writhed angrily, but Leonard, hung half-way between upright and horizontal, between consciousness and oblivion, clung firmly. Finally, Harry Ertle, the referee, briskly commanded Leonard to loosen his grip. Tendler stepped back and surveyed the figure in front of him, to pick the spot for the next hammer blow.
At this moment, Leonard lifted his head, wrung a wry smile from his lips, stepped close in and grabbed Tendler in another clinch. And he spoke. What were the words? Many people have given their version. But Leonard himself didn't remember afterwards what he had said: 'The punch froze me. I couldn't block another, or move away, or even duck. I had to distract him somehow.'
It was, it must have been, some naive remark. It was enough to cloud Tendler's immediate aim. One moment he had the man at his mercy. Now the same man was talking to him. Like Mitchell the year before, Tendler paused, and thought to himself: a trap? Is Benny really hurt, or is he foxing? It was only momentary hesitation. But the moment between haziness and clarity for a stricken fighter is often very short. Leonard got his precious second or two's respite. When Tendler came in, he was ready.
If somebody disagrees and tries to provide facts and serious reasoning, then I might bother to dig up something. Other than that I do that only if the info that's being debated doesn't require many efforts. If you want to know more about Leonard and Gans and their chins, you'll have to look it up on your own, I've spent plenty of time researching these two fighters to just share it for free.
re
>>>If somebody disagrees and tries to provide facts and serious reasoning, then I might bother to dig up something.<<<
The Harry Carpenter book...well it's not a good source to back a debate with as inaccuracies can be found all though books of that nature, myths which were passed down from one writer to the next, but they are good to collect and good to have in a person's personal library to read, but contemporary accounts from primary sources is the "king-ding-a-ling" when it comes to providing a source! As far as books that are the along the line of "Matsers of Boxing," well there are 100s of books like that which all repeat the same thing over and over whether it is accurate, or not!
As to Gans-Leonard...I'd choose Gans to win a close fight, but Leonard was on the same level as Gans, but most boxing historians pick Benny Leonard to be the best lightweight of all-time!
The Harry Carpenter book...well it's not a good source to back a debate with as inaccuracies can be found all though books of that nature, myths which were passed down from one writer to the next, but they are good to collect and good to have in a person's personal library to read, but contemporary accounts from primary sources is the "king-ding-a-ling" when it comes to providing a source! As far as books that are the along the line of "Matsers of Boxing," well there are 100s of books like that which all repeat the same thing over and over whether it is accurate, or not!
As to Gans-Leonard...I'd choose Gans to win a close fight, but Leonard was on the same level as Gans, but most boxing historians pick Benny Leonard to be the best lightweight of all-time!
Carpenter's book gives hints on where to look for the answer to question about Leonard's chin. I'm not using it for anything else.
For this kind of argument such source is good enough, if somebody tries to raise the level of debate then I might come up with more serious and detailed sources as well.
For this kind of argument such source is good enough, if somebody tries to raise the level of debate then I might come up with more serious and detailed sources as well.
I have literally thousands of PDF's (my estimate is between 3 and 5 thousand pages) with fight reports or other kind of info about Gans and Leonard, but it's not sorted out, and to dig up something as vague as the point of this debate, would take more time that I can allow to spend right now, with no reward in the end for the efforts (after all any such matchup will stay subjective thing in the end). I'm a lazy guy, sorry.Decagon wrote:So, you basically have nothing.
re
Couldn't have said it better Buzz...in fact in two years a person can write two books on both Leonard and Gans.
But that's nothing...on any given night either fighter could beat the other and be number one...same thing pretty much goes for all of the top ten lightweights of all-time...on any given night any one of the ten could beat number one...serious historians understand and realize this while others waste hours with nonsense.
Hell, two years from now I might pick Duran over Leonard and Gans and then two years later it might be Leonard again! Now if I had listed someone like, oh I don't know, Phillip Holliday at number one then you might have something, but everyone knows that Leonard, Gans and Duran are pretty much in a tie for number one.
What I'm wondering is who has such a sad life that they spend all day seaching back and forth through years of threads thinking that he can bust someone on something...talk about a waste of time...is life that bad Grimm!!!
But that's nothing...on any given night either fighter could beat the other and be number one...same thing pretty much goes for all of the top ten lightweights of all-time...on any given night any one of the ten could beat number one...serious historians understand and realize this while others waste hours with nonsense.
Hell, two years from now I might pick Duran over Leonard and Gans and then two years later it might be Leonard again! Now if I had listed someone like, oh I don't know, Phillip Holliday at number one then you might have something, but everyone knows that Leonard, Gans and Duran are pretty much in a tie for number one.
What I'm wondering is who has such a sad life that they spend all day seaching back and forth through years of threads thinking that he can bust someone on something...talk about a waste of time...is life that bad Grimm!!!
A waste of time is you and boxbuzz typing a paragraph about nothing.
I wasn't trying to bust anyone I was asking what made you change your mind.
And i remember posting this thread so i threw it in here, if you call that sad then what do you call two old confused guys trying to start a ruckus?
I call it barry and boxbuzz trying to start a ruckus.
I wasn't trying to bust anyone I was asking what made you change your mind.
And i remember posting this thread so i threw it in here, if you call that sad then what do you call two old confused guys trying to start a ruckus?
I call it barry and boxbuzz trying to start a ruckus.
re
>>>A waste of time is you and boxbuzz typing a paragraph about nothing.<<<
A paragraph takes one, or two minutes to type...searching back through years of someone's posts takes hours and days, so really...what's a waste of time?
>>>I wasn't trying to bust anyone I was asking what made you change your mind.<<<
No, you did not ask me...you just now did and I gave you the reason in my last post. If you had just wondered why I chose Gans now as opposed to Leonard who I had two years ago then you would have asked that instead spending days going through two years of my threrads.
But I thought that I answered said question in my last post. Gans and Leonard have been consistenly rated at one and two with each taking turns at number one, which this was done by all serious researchers and continues to be done even to this day, though about twenty years ago Duran was added to the mix, so now it is Gans, Leonard and Duran who will constantly take turns at the number one spot until another great on their level comes along and then it will be four. As I said, right now I would pick Gans over Leonard, though the biggest percentage of historians list Leonard right now as the number one lightweight, but that could easily change, it could change next week and Leonard, Duran, or Gans any of the three could be number one!
A paragraph takes one, or two minutes to type...searching back through years of someone's posts takes hours and days, so really...what's a waste of time?
>>>I wasn't trying to bust anyone I was asking what made you change your mind.<<<
No, you did not ask me...you just now did and I gave you the reason in my last post. If you had just wondered why I chose Gans now as opposed to Leonard who I had two years ago then you would have asked that instead spending days going through two years of my threrads.
But I thought that I answered said question in my last post. Gans and Leonard have been consistenly rated at one and two with each taking turns at number one, which this was done by all serious researchers and continues to be done even to this day, though about twenty years ago Duran was added to the mix, so now it is Gans, Leonard and Duran who will constantly take turns at the number one spot until another great on their level comes along and then it will be four. As I said, right now I would pick Gans over Leonard, though the biggest percentage of historians list Leonard right now as the number one lightweight, but that could easily change, it could change next week and Leonard, Duran, or Gans any of the three could be number one!
Re: re
1. I searched for a topic I posted you just happened to respond.barry wrote:>>>A waste of time is you and boxbuzz typing a paragraph about nothing.<<<A>>>I wasn't trying to bust anyone I was asking what made you change your mind.<<<
No, you did not ask me...you just now did and I gave you the reason in my last post. If you had just wondered why I chose Gans now as opposed to Leonard who I had two years ago then you would have asked that instead spending days going through two years of my threrads.
But I thought that I answered said question in my last post. Gans and Leonard have been consistenly rated at one and two with each taking turns at number one, which this was done by all serious researchers and continues to be done even to this day, though about twenty years ago Duran was added to the mix, so now it is Gans, Leonard and Duran who will constantly take turns at the number one spot until another great on their level comes along and then it will be four. As I said, right now I would pick Gans over Leonard, though the biggest percentage of historians list Leonard right now as the number one lightweight, but that could easily change, it could change next week and Leonard, Duran, or Gans any of the three could be number one!
2. Unless you have some sort of terrible dial up a search of this should only take about 15 seconds.
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
Re: re
Excellent post barry.barry wrote:Couldn't have said it better Buzz...in fact in two years a person can write two books on both Leonard and Gans.
But that's nothing...on any given night either fighter could beat the other and be number one...same thing pretty much goes for all of the top ten lightweights of all-time...on any given night any one of the ten could beat number one...serious historians understand and realize this while others waste hours with nonsense.
Hell, two years from now I might pick Duran over Leonard and Gans and then two years later it might be Leonard again! Now if I had listed someone like, oh I don't know, Phillip Holliday at number one then you might have something, but everyone knows that Leonard, Gans and Duran are pretty much in a tie for number one.
What I'm wondering is who has such a sad life that they spend all day seaching back and forth through years of threads thinking that he can bust someone on something...talk about a waste of time...is life that bad Grimm!!!
When you reach the point of wisdom that I have attained, you know better than to be operating without a ruckus. I always have an ongoing ruckus up and running in life so I never have to resort to "starting" a new one. Errors of judgement of than nature are strictly for first timers.Grimm wrote:A waste of time is you and boxbuzz typing a paragraph about nothing.
I wasn't trying to bust anyone I was asking what made you change your mind.
And i remember posting this thread so i threw it in here, if you call that sad then what do you call two old confused guys trying to start a ruckus?
I call it barry and boxbuzz trying to start a ruckus.
Oh and I was just answering what I thought was the most likely answer to your question. I felt it was succint and spot on both in topic and tone...even if I do say so myself.
Benny Leonard was knocked out twice in his first 11 pro fights.Luigi1985 wrote: Benny Leonard could take a hell of a punch
He was knocked down in the first round of his title fight with Ritchie Mitchell.
He was knocked down and through the ropes in his title fight with Charlie White.
He was knocked down in one of his fights with Rocky Kansas.
He was hurt badly by Lew Tendler in his title fight 12-round draw with Lew Tendler.
He was hurt badly by a right hand from semi-retired Willie Ritchie in their first fight.
Leonard had a vulnerable chin.
It is hilarious to see the crew of the clueless here offer their jabberings on a topic they don't have a glimmer of hope of ever knowing anything about.
Hey there, clueless Luigi,Luigi1985 wrote: Gans, although not prime anymore, was KTFO vs. Battling Nelson who wasn't a hard puncher
You omitted to mention that Gans DIED OF TB IN 1910.
He lost the two fights to Nelson in 1908, while already affected by TB.
Just a slight omission by you, huh, Luigi ?
You know SO MUCH about Joe Gans.
Apparently no one ever told clueless Harry Carpenter that Benny Leonard was knocked out by Jimmy McLarnin in his last fight.Senya13 wrote:Harry Carpenter "Masters of Boxing" (1964), p. 79 (chapter about Benny Leonard)
He was so little thought of by his own local supporters at the start that they dubbed him the East Side Powder Puff Kid; his first manager, Buck Areton, overmatched him with Joe Shugrue in 1912 and got him knocked out. His second manager, Tom McArdle, made a similar mistake in 1913 and Leonard was knocked out by a rugged Canadian, Frankie Fleming. ... The defeat by Fleming and the tie-up with Gibson proved the turning-point in Leonard's life. The knockout, the last he would ever suffer, although his career stretched to 1932, convinced Gibson that Leonard not only needed additional strength, but technique which would steer him clear of dangerous punches. Leonard had one of those long, willowy necks which frequently betray a man who cannot absorb a heavy punch.