MANNY AND CANZONERI

Size

Canzoneri 5'4, 65 inch reach, Manny 5'6, 67 inch reach

Wins

Canzoneri 137, Manny 52

KO's

Canzoneri 44, Manny

Losses

Canzoneri 24, Manny 3

Lineal Championships

Canzoneri featherweight, lightweight, junior welter-Manny flyewight, featherweight, junior lightweight, junior welterweight

Wins over HOFers

Canzoneri 15, Manny (likely) six maybe seven

Wins over then ranked fighters

Canzoneri I stopped counting at 40, it's likely close to 50

Manny 15

Now this is NOT to take a shot at Manny. Just to keep some perspective. Given this data can anyone really find a way to rate Manny over Canzoneri?

hell no i cnt rate him over Cnazoneri but I actually have this thing I like to call "boxing common sense"

also i would say Canzoneris left hand was better than Manny's

Fought 18 world champions in 36 fights, and defeated 15 of them, 22-12-2 in those 36 fights

case closed

canzanerri by far the greater fighter.not even close..fighting 18 world champoins means exactly that..REAL champs not phoney abc starpholders with divisions every 3 pounds..take that into consideration then tony would of fought maybe 50 so called world champ strapholders..theres a huge differnce with 9 divisions and 1 champ then 17 divisions with 4 or 5 champs.why today there may be 300 guys fighting today thats called a world champ..a stiff like lineres last night is one of them....noo comparrision.good points marble and bird..tony was the first fighter great one that is that i ever talked to one on one.i was about 12 years old at yankee statium..tony is one of many fighters that truly defines ATG..

ya remember when World Champions meant jsut that

sad thing is i cant Im an 80s baby

Just to be argumentative. I can. I can say how the hell does he have 24 losses and be considered greater than Pac? Pac has one more lineal title than he does. Also you need to take in consideration the era's and how different boxing is today. Just because you have more fights does not make you better. It doesnt mean you had a better career either.

here we go again..my friend sooner talking out of spite and foolishness..how can robinson be considered greater than pac after all he has 16 more losses.or greb he has 5 more.or armstrong..ditto on the losses.how is boxing different today over tonys day..ohh suppliments..the training in reality the old timers was constant and dfficult..the other aspects of counterpunching angles defense feighting tecknique agression thatwas effective balance footwork etc etc has not changed one b it..the big differnce is fighters of the past in geneal mastered all of thoses things today they do not..whens the lasat time pac feighted ..what was his balance 2 years ago..the only differnce is yesterdays fighters fought ev eryone and often.todays fighters if they fight 3 times a year its a big deal..
and i dont want to hear all the phoney invalid excuses defending todays inactivity..at 118 yep tony started there to 126 130 135 he would of crushed pac..how can we know..its called skill level.look at pac at 118 126 he was a joke..1 fight at 135 against a guy that canzanerri sparing partners would beat..
im a big pac fan but a realistic.your not..stupid statements like tyson would be hard pressed to make your top 50 HWS proves you will post anything without reasoning for the sake of an arguement that makes you look far more foolish..for several years and decades it was noo shame to have a loss..today a lot of fans write of a fighter if he losses one..the floyd mayweather school of thought..

I don't think this thread is about who would win in a fight and I hope it doesn't become that.

I think it comes down to achievement. How did people feel about Cnazoneri during his career? I know that Manny's accomplishments right now are far and beyond anyone else in the sport. I'm not sure if that can be said about Canzoneri in his time, but I'll admit I don't know.

So how do we measure relative accomplishment? Older fighters will always have more gaudy resumes due to how the sport has evolved and guys fight less, fewer HOFers, more media scrutiny etc. But the older fighters definitely fought in a time when the sport was more talented and more popular. How can all that that be taken into account?

soonermark890 wrote:

Just to be argumentative. I can. I can say how the hell does he have 24 losses and be considered greater than Pac? Pac has one more lineal title than he does. Also you need to take in consideration the era's and how different boxing is today. Just because you have more fights does not make you better. It doesnt mean you had a better career either.

If I take into account the era, Pac is going to fall away completely. Canzoneri's era was incomparably better. You're also being inconsistent in your logic. You can't argue on the one hand that more wins aren't important yet claim more losses are.

Canzoneri excelled against a far greater level of comp than Manny faced.

Gumby wrote:

I don't think this thread is about who would win in a fight and I hope it doesn't become that.

I think it comes down to achievement. How did people feel about Cnazoneri during his career? I know that Manny's accomplishments right now are far and beyond anyone else in the sport. I'm not sure if that can be said about Canzoneri in his time, but I'll admit I don't know.

So how do we measure relative accomplishment? Older fighters will always have more gaudy resumes due to how the sport has evolved and guys fight less, fewer HOFers, more media scrutiny etc. But the older fighters definitely fought in a time when the sport was more talented and more popular. How can all that that be taken into account?

There is LESS media scrutiny today on boxing than ever before, not more. Canzoneri was one of the first guys the concept of p4p was mentioned regarding.

Who would beat who? This is a pick'em fight in my view.

failed logic = more losses hurt, but 80 more wins dont matter

While boxing writers keep things honest, everything I see is the national media is negative. Is boxing dead? Where are the great fighters? Etc. On top of that everyone who likes boxing watches the fights now, a lot of times in HD and with multiple viewings and tries to find the details of the fight. Most people are looking for flaws. I've yet to see a fight in the past few years where there wasn't some sort of critical reaction to the fight regardless of how well someone did. At best, a fighter will get well... the other guy wasn't that good.

Right now Manny is well known for the is he or isn't he juicing saga that's trying to diminish his accomplishments. I really think today people are constantly trying to break down others accomplishments, and I'm not sure if that was true in the past.

Gumby wrote:

While boxing writers keep things honest, everything I see is the national media is negative. Is boxing dead? Where are the great fighters? Etc. On top of that everyone who likes boxing watches the fights now, a lot of times in HD and with multiple viewings and tries to find the details of the fight. Most people are looking for flaws. I've yet to see a fight in the past few years where there wasn't some sort of critical reaction to the fight regardless of how well someone did. At best, a fighter will get well... the other guy wasn't that good.

Right now Manny is well known for the is he or isn't he juicing saga that's trying to diminish his accomplishments. I really think today people are constantly trying to break down others accomplishments, and I'm not sure if that was true in the past.

I dunno. The Marquez-Baby Bull fight last year was great, the Izzy-Raffy wars were amazing, Manny's performances are nothing short of staggering and what's not to like about Thomas Adamek? Then you have comers like Gamboa and JML and Abner Mares. The sport sure isn't dead, but it has shrunken quite a bit over the last 15 years.

In sports , and maybe in life generally, we tend to be prisoners of the moment. Whatever happened today HAS to be the best because, well, it's TODAY.

But in boxing the math seems to show that's really unlikely to be true doesn't it? I mean what's going to produce better fighters, an era with twice as many guys jammed into half as many divisions fighting twice as often or the opposite?

I actually LIKE that fans try to be critical and understand the sport. The issue is fans today tend to value and be critical of the wrong things. My take anyway.

I'll say one more thing. Daring to mention ANYBODY in the same sentence as Tony Canzoneri is an incredible compliment in my view.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

I dunno. The Marquez-Baby Bull fight last year was great, the Izzy-Raffy wars were amazing, Manny's performances are nothing short of staggering and what's not to like about Thomas Adamek? Then you have comers like Gamboa and JML and Abner Mares. The sport sure isn't dead, but it has shrunken quite a bit over the last 15 years.

In sports , and maybe in life generally, we tend to be prisoners of the moment. Whatever happened today HAS to be the best because, well, it's TODAY.

But in boxing the math seems to show that's really unlikely to be true doesn't it? I mean what's going to produce better fighters, an era with twice as many guys jammed into half as many divisions fighting twice as often or the opposite?

I actually LIKE that fans try to be critical and understand the sport. The issue is fans today tend to value and be critical of the wrong things. My take anyway.

I'll say one more thing. Daring to mention ANYBODY in the same sentence as Tony Canzoneri is an incredible compliment in my view.

I love the sport and obviously know you do. As much as I like fans being critical...take a look at the ESPN board and tell me if people are trying to understand the sport or tear other fighters down? That's a large number of "knowledgeable fans". I understand that overall boxing was much better in its heyday. But every great fighter of the past will look better than a great fighter of the present on paper. I don't see that as a fair measurement. That's my main argument. A truly exceptional guy like Manny Pacquiao deserves to be mentioned with ANYONE whose ever laced them up in my opinion. I think what he has accomplished in this era is comparable to what the greats have done in past eras and will do in future eras. Not saying he's better or worse. I just think he deserves to be in any discussion of greats.

And I refuse to concede the point if experts/historians disagree. Because it's not an objective argument, it boils down to people's opinions. There are too many variables for generational comparisons to be objective. That's why I don't like them. If you want to say they were both great that's cool, but as soon as someone goes this guy was better than that guy, I'll occasionally take issue. Until someone invents a time machine, no one will know for sure who was better, whose accomplishments were more impressive, etc. So it's always going to be a point that can be debated. Potentially, I'll be having this same argument 30 years from now arguing with someone when Fighter X is the face of the sport and not as many people remember Pacman.

Looking at a fighters records and accomplishments will never mean more to me than a fighter I've grown up with and witnessed. Because there's more you get from the fights when you know all of the surrounding hype and lead-ins, things are still uncertain, and you get to watch everything play out. I've experienced what Pacman did and only seen and heard what Canzoneri did. So it will take a lot more to persuade me. I've won more hypothetical arguments than Khan and Floyd have hypothetical fights combined.

Gumby wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

I dunno. The Marquez-Baby Bull fight last year was great, the Izzy-Raffy wars were amazing, Manny's performances are nothing short of staggering and what's not to like about Thomas Adamek? Then you have comers like Gamboa and JML and Abner Mares. The sport sure isn't dead, but it has shrunken quite a bit over the last 15 years.

In sports , and maybe in life generally, we tend to be prisoners of the moment. Whatever happened today HAS to be the best because, well, it's TODAY.

But in boxing the math seems to show that's really unlikely to be true doesn't it? I mean what's going to produce better fighters, an era with twice as many guys jammed into half as many divisions fighting twice as often or the opposite?

I actually LIKE that fans try to be critical and understand the sport. The issue is fans today tend to value and be critical of the wrong things. My take anyway.

I'll say one more thing. Daring to mention ANYBODY in the same sentence as Tony Canzoneri is an incredible compliment in my view.

I love the sport and obviously know you do. As much as I like fans being critical...take a look at the ESPN board and tell me if people are trying to understand the sport or tear other fighters down? That's a large number of "knowledgeable fans". I understand that overall boxing was much better in its heyday. But every great fighter of the past will look better than a great fighter of the present on paper. I don't see that as a fair measurement. That's my main argument. A truly exceptional guy like Manny Pacquiao deserves to be mentioned with ANYONE whose ever laced them up in my opinion. I think what he has accomplished in this era is comparable to what the greats have done in past eras and will do in future eras. Not saying he's better or worse. I just think he deserves to be in any discussion of greats.

And I refuse to concede the point if experts/historians disagree. Because it's not an objective argument, it boils down to people's opinions. There are too many variables for generational comparisons to be objective. That's why I don't like them. If you want to say they were both great that's cool, but as soon as someone goes this guy was better than that guy, I'll occasionally take issue. Until someone invents a time machine, no one will know for sure who was better, whose accomplishments were more impressive, etc. So it's always going to be a point that can be debated. Potentially, I'll be having this same argument 30 years from now arguing with someone when Fighter X is the face of the sport and not as many people remember Pacman.

Looking at a fighters records and accomplishments will never mean more to me than a fighter I've grown up with and witnessed. Because there's more you get from the fights when you know all of the surrounding hype and lead-ins, things are still uncertain, and you get to watch everything play out. I've experienced what Pacman did and only seen and heard what Canzoneri did. So it will take a lot more to persuade me. I've won more hypothetical arguments than Khan and Floyd have hypothetical fights combined.

The concept of "better" in boxing never made much sense to me. I mean BHOP beats Pavlik who beats Taylor who beats BHOP. What does that tell us? I do think one can, with a reasonable degree of objectivity, talk about who was "more accomplished." Records, footage, lots of literature is available to do the work. My own view is that what happens outside the ring itself is completely irrelevant to this kind of analysis. It's fascinating for other reasons, but not relevant to in-ring greatness.

Now as for trying to determine a winner across eras? Tough. The closest I can come up with is trying to identify stylistically similar fighters who a given guy fought in his own era and extrapolate from there. In other words a wild-ass guess!

soonermark890 wrote:

Just to be argumentative. I can. I can say how the hell does he have 24 losses and be considered greater than Pac? Pac has one more lineal title than he does. Also you need to take in consideration the era's and how different boxing is today. Just because you have more fights does not make you better. It doesnt mean you had a better career either.

How did you become a Mod?

dmar5143 wrote:

here we go again..my friend sooner talking out of spite and foolishness..how can robinson be considered greater than pac after all he has 16 more losses.or greb he has 5 more.or armstrong..ditto on the losses.how is boxing different today over tonys day..ohh suppliments..the training in reality the old timers was constant and dfficult..the other aspects of counterpunching angles defense feighting tecknique agression thatwas effective balance footwork etc etc has not changed one b it..the big differnce is fighters of the past in geneal mastered all of thoses things today they do not..whens the lasat time pac feighted ..what was his balance 2 years ago..the only differnce is yesterdays fighters fought ev eryone and often.todays fighters if they fight 3 times a year its a big deal..
and i dont want to hear all the phoney invalid excuses defending todays inactivity..at 118 yep tony started there to 126 130 135 he would of crushed pac..how can we know..its called skill level.look at pac at 118 126 he was a joke..1 fight at 135 against a guy that canzanerri sparing partners would beat..
im a big pac fan but a realistic.your not..stupid statements like tyson would be hard pressed to make your top 50 HWS proves you will post anything without reasoning for the sake of an arguement that makes you look far more foolish..for several years and decades it was noo shame to have a loss..today a lot of fans write of a fighter if he losses one..the floyd mayweather school of thought..

Hey read my first sentence. I said just to be argumentative. I was playing devils advocate for the hell of it.
Oh and Dmar people to exagerate to make a point sometimes. Dont take statements so litteral all the time. Also I didnt make any excuses for todays fighters I just said the game is different today. I have no problem with fighters having a loss. The last thing I will comment on is how you seem to have no respect or at least little respect for the athletes we have in the ring today.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

Just to be argumentative. I can. I can say how the hell does he have 24 losses and be considered greater than Pac? Pac has one more lineal title than he does. Also you need to take in consideration the era's and how different boxing is today. Just because you have more fights does not make you better. It doesnt mean you had a better career either.

If I take into account the era, Pac is going to fall away completely. Canzoneri's era was incomparably better. You're also being inconsistent in your logic. You can't argue on the one hand that more wins aren't important yet claim more losses are.

Canzoneri excelled against a far greater level of comp than Manny faced.

Hey dont punch holes in my argument. I dont have a lot to go on here. If you keep pointing that stuff out I wont have anything else to argue about. Besides Marble I just posted that shit to give you guys someone to argue against. I really do not know enough about this topic to make a good argument for Manny.

NBrooks5 wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

Just to be argumentative. I can. I can say how the hell does he have 24 losses and be considered greater than Pac? Pac has one more lineal title than he does. Also you need to take in consideration the era's and how different boxing is today. Just because you have more fights does not make you better. It doesnt mean you had a better career either.

How did you become a Mod?

Did you read my post or just comment something stupid for fun?

BTW I was voted in by the board. LOOK at the bold Brooks.