BoxRec

What are your thoughts of this TRUE ALL-TIME great?

Has beaten more hall of famers than anybody in boxing history and still, he seems that he was not mentioned enough by boxing historians. To me, he is a top 50 all-time great pound per pound of all-time.

this was a very underrated champion.

Most of those hall-of-fame fighters were at their best at 112, 118, 126 and 135. And old, to boot.

I disagree. With the notable exception of Benny Leonard, all of the HOFers McLarnin fought - and most often defeated - were at or near their primes. Another notable exception was Fidel LaBarba, who was just starting out his career (as was McLarnin).

One forgets that Jimmy McLarnin started his career as a flyweight and progressed up to welterweight. So it wasn't a case of him beating up smaller, older, "past-their-prime" men. In most instances, he was within a few pounds of the HOFers he fought.

Elmer, I think the terms "underrated" and "forgotten" are generally overused, but not in the case of McLarnin, who was a truly great - and now largely forgotten - fighter.

Two other all-time greats that nobody talks about anymore are Barney Ross and Tony Canzoneri. Somebody should write a book about those three - McLarnin, Ross and Canzoneri - and their memorable battles. You throw guys like Lou Ambers, Frankie Klick, Ray Miller, Bat Battalino, and Billy Petrolle i(just to name a few) nto the mix and - wow - what an exciting period in boxing history. And right at the top was Jimmy McLarnin!

raylawpc wrote:I disagree. With the notable exception of Benny Leonard, all of the HOFers McLarnin fought - and most often defeated - were at or near their primes. Another notable exception was Fidel LaBarba, who was just starting out his career (as was McLarnin).

One forgets that Jimmy McLarnin started his career as a flyweight and progressed up to welterweight. So it wasn't a case of him beating up smaller, older, "past-their-prime" men. In most instances, he was within a few pounds of the HOFers he fought.

Elmer, I think the terms "underrated" and "forgotten" are generally overused, but not in the case of McLarnin, who was a truly great - and now largely forgotten - fighter.

Two other all-time greats that nobody talks about anymore are Barney Ross and Tony Canzoneri. Somebody should write a book about those three - McLarnin, Ross and Canzoneri - and their memorable battles. You throw guys like Lou Ambers, Frankie Klick, Ray Miller, Bat Battalino, and Billy Petrolle i(just to name a few) nto the mix and - wow - what an exciting period in boxing history. And right at the top was Jimmy McLarnin!

Barney Ross and Tony Canzoneri have amazing records... When you trawl through their victories they are pretty amazing. I mean these guys are right up there as p4p greats. Some of the greatest fighters who ever lived.

Ezzard wrote:

raylawpc wrote:I disagree. With the notable exception of Benny Leonard, all of the HOFers McLarnin fought - and most often defeated - were at or near their primes. Another notable exception was Fidel LaBarba, who was just starting out his career (as was McLarnin).

One forgets that Jimmy McLarnin started his career as a flyweight and progressed up to welterweight. So it wasn't a case of him beating up smaller, older, "past-their-prime" men. In most instances, he was within a few pounds of the HOFers he fought.

Elmer, I think the terms "underrated" and "forgotten" are generally overused, but not in the case of McLarnin, who was a truly great - and now largely forgotten - fighter.

Two other all-time greats that nobody talks about anymore are Barney Ross and Tony Canzoneri. Somebody should write a book about those three - McLarnin, Ross and Canzoneri - and their memorable battles. You throw guys like Lou Ambers, Frankie Klick, Ray Miller, Bat Battalino, and Billy Petrolle i(just to name a few) nto the mix and - wow - what an exciting period in boxing history. And right at the top was Jimmy McLarnin!

Barney Ross and Tony Canzoneri have amazing records... When you trawl through their victories they are pretty amazing. I mean these guys are right up there as p4p greats. Some of the greatest fighters who ever lived.

I agree, Ezzard. I don't do lists, but if I did I know that I'd have Barney Ross right up there in the top 10 - maybe the top 5 - greatest fighters of all-time. The mid-30s was a remarkable period in boxing history among the lightweights/welterweights. Maybe the most competitive era ever! Look at all the guys who were around and fighting each other!

It's a shame but I doubt there will ever be such an era again when the top names fight one another so often...

I think boxing really lacks the rivalries and it's no coincidence that great rivalries come around during strong eras. Multiple rematches are great for the sport IMO.

Ezzard wrote:It's a shame but I doubt there will ever be such an era again when the top names fight one another so often...

I think boxing really lacks the rivalries and it's no coincidence that great rivalries come around during strong eras. Multiple rematches are great for the sport IMO.

Do you think part of the problem is that today's fighters box only a couple of times a year when they reach the "elite" level?

raylawpc wrote:

Ezzard wrote:It's a shame but I doubt there will ever be such an era again when the top names fight one another so often...

I think boxing really lacks the rivalries and it's no coincidence that great rivalries come around during strong eras. Multiple rematches are great for the sport IMO.

Do you think part of the problem is that today's fighters box only a couple of times a year when they reach the "elite" level?

Quite possibly... The top guys also get paid better (so they don't need to fight so often) and the earning potential can drop off quite quickly for some if they lose 1 or 2. I think there's too much talk about undefeated fighters too. I'd like to see all split decisons rematched, I really would. I think how a fighter responds to defeat tells you more about the man than victory. And baords like this are full of us fans arguing over Hagler-Leonard, Hopkins-Calzaghe, etc...

I also think these are different times. Boxing is a hard, hard sport, and the idea of doing something because its worth achieving doesn't sit well with many people.

Sugar Ray Robinson was making $20,000 or more for most of his fights, once he caught the public's attention. He didn't need to fight ten times a year. He just did.

And pretty much every heavyweight champion besides Ali, Charles, Burns and Louis averaged two title defense per year.

delete

raylawpc wrote:Two other all-time greats that nobody talks about anymore are Barney Ross and Tony Canzoneri. Somebody should write a book about those three - McLarnin, Ross and Canzoneri - and their memorable battles. You throw guys like Lou Ambers, Frankie Klick, Ray Miller, Bat Battalino, and Billy Petrolle i(just to name a few) nto the mix and - wow - what an exciting period in boxing history. And right at the top was Jimmy McLarnin!

I don't know about that last part.

For my money, Ross was the best, as he seems to have performed consistently the best out of all of them in their fights against each other.

However, I suppose an argument could be made that he got to them all late in their careers, perhaps when they were nearing or beginning their declines.


IMO, Henry Armstrong beats them all.

You are right and I agree with you 100%. Poor and misleading syntax on my part. I didn't mean that Jimmy was the best of the group. I should have written. "And among the elite of that group was Jimmy McLarnin." That elite included Canzoneri and Ross.

I agree that Ross was the best - probably one of the greatest fighters that ever lived.

I don't agree that a "prime" Ross, Canzoneri or McLarnin would have necessarily lost to a "prime" Armstrong. Those would be "pick 'em" fights in my judgment.

The lightweight trio of Ross, Canzoneri, and McLarnin is somewhat equivalent to the "Big Four" of the '80s that was Leonard, Hearns, Hagler, and Duran.

They all were great, they all fought each other, and they produced fantastic fights almost every time.

Ross was the Leonard of his era IMO, in that he got the best of the others and came to be generally regarded as the best. Though like Leonard, as I pointed out earlier, you could raise questions about some of his wins.

Jimmy was a great fighter.
And a real good guy by all accounts.
His story also should always include his trainer and manager Pop Foster.
He met Jimmy in Canada when he was just a thirteen year old kid, taught him how to fight and the two stayed loyal to one another through Jimmy entire career.He moved Jimmy along perfectly.
They made alot of dough and when Foster died in 1956 he left a couple hundred thousand to Jimmy.
He invested it wisely and did well in a number of buissneses after his boxing career.
This stuff doesnt happen every day in boxing.

The first McLarnin-Canzoneri fight has been on ESPN Classic a couple of times. Great fight.
McLarnin, Canzoneri, and Ross were certainly great, fighters, no question about it.

McLarnin also beat Pancho Villa.

raylawpc wrote:I disagree. With the notable exception of Benny Leonard, all of the HOFers McLarnin fought - and most often defeated - were at or near their primes. Another notable exception was Fidel LaBarba, who was just starting out his career (as was McLarnin).

One forgets that Jimmy McLarnin started his career as a flyweight and progressed up to welterweight. So it wasn't a case of him beating up smaller, older, "past-their-prime" men. In most instances, he was within a few pounds of the HOFers he fought.

Elmer, I think the terms "underrated" and "forgotten" are generally overused, but not in the case of McLarnin, who was a truly great - and now largely forgotten - fighter.

Two other all-time greats that nobody talks about anymore are Barney Ross and Tony Canzoneri. Somebody should write a book about those three - McLarnin, Ross and Canzoneri - and their memorable battles. You throw guys like Lou Ambers, Frankie Klick, Ray Miller, Bat Battalino, and Billy Petrolle i(just to name a few) nto the mix and - wow - what an exciting period in boxing history. And right at the top was Jimmy McLarnin!

"McLarnin, Ross and Canzoneri" all three should be in the HOF

the greatest era in the history of boxing - what i'd give to have been there to see these great men duke it out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbup9RZK2aI

At 22:15 of this 1982 video former Dutch boxer Bep van Klaveren meets Jimmy McLarnin.

aliboy123 wrote:the greatest era in the history of boxing - what i'd give to have been there to see these great men duke it out

I agree but what about the 'lightweights' (135-154) during the eighties and early nineties that was a hell of a period as well.

Mc Larnin, Canzonri, and Ross v. Leonard, Hearns, and Benitez

wouter wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbup9RZK2aI

At 22:15 of this 1982 video former Dutch boxer Bep van Kaveren meets Jimmy McLarnin.

Great clip, I had never heard Mclarnin speak before but he seemed like a real gent, thanks for posting!

APerno wrote:

aliboy123 wrote:the greatest era in the history of boxing - what i'd give to have been there to see these great men duke it out

I agree but what about the 'lightweights' (135-154) during the eighties and early nineties that was a hell of a period as well.

Mc Larnin, Canzonri, and Ross v. Leonard, Hearns, and Benitez

not much between these heroes - another great era