Zale gave Jake a miss and opted for Graziano

[mcvey]

Just read an old matchup ,Lamotta v Zale.The experts were,Hank Kaplan,Teddy Brenner ,and Angelo Dundee.
All picked Jake,Dundee ,by late stoppage.
Brenner ,the match maker for Top Rank said,Zale was offered either Lamotta or Graziano. This was in 1946, before Zale met Rocky at Yankee Stadium, the offer was,for a title defence against Graziano,Graziano's people wanted 30%,because he was a big draw.
Lamotta was ready to take 10%.Zale still chose Graziano.
Of course Zale was a little past his best ,he had been in the Navy during the war, and had gone back a bit.If Zale had been prime, I doubt he would have had a trilogy with Graziano, imo, it would have been two crushing ko wins to Zale, leaving no need for a third.

[cotto20]

While Champion Zale never fought top contenders Lamotta, Holman Williams, Charley Burley, and Ezzard Charles back in 42. He opted to have big money fights with Graziano.

He was also lucky enough to be serving in the army when Archie Moore was a top contender. I think all would of defeated him.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by iran barkley

While Champion Zale never fought top contenders Lamotta, Holman Williams, Charley Burley, and Ezzard Charles back in 42. He opted to have big money fights with Graziano.

He was also lucky enough to be serving in the army when Archie Moore was a top contender. I think all would of defeated him.

This is true ,but Zale only had one fight in 42 , he dropped a dec to Conn,then enlisted in the Navy, he lost his best years in the service.
I agree he would be the underdog agaisnt those you mentioned imo.
I dont blame him for taking Graziano, he likely knew he was past his prime ,Graziano was crude and came to you ,he represented a big gate Zale had problems with speedy boxers ,which Rocky ,decidedly was not.

[cotto20]

Originally Posted by mcvey

This is true ,but Zale only had one fight in 42 , he dropped a dec to Conn,then enlisted in the Navy, he lost his best years in the service.
I agree he would be the underdog agaisnt those you mentioned imo.
I dont blame him for taking Graziano, he likely knew he was past his prime ,Graziano was crude and came to you ,he represented a big gate Zale had problems with speedy boxers ,which Rocky ,decidedly was not.

Yeah, cant really blame him for taking huge money fights with Graziano when past his peak do. But would of like to see him give Williams, Lamotta or Burley a shot, like a true champion.

To be onest I sometimes see Zale in top 100 lists, and I think that overrating him. He was a good solid fighter who maybe achieved more than he should of and got the right fights and avoided the wrong fights.

[My2Sense]

You guys are selling Graziano (and Zale) short here. He was rated as the leading MW contender by the NBA following his win over Servo, and was favored to beat Zale the first time. Obviously, he doesn't go down as being as good as someone like LaMotta or Burley today, but at the time he was rated right on par with either of them and considered just as credible a challenger.

[cotto20]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

You guys are selling Graziano (and Zale) short here. He was rated as the leading MW contender by the NBA following his win over Servo, and was favored to beat Zale the first time. Obviously, he doesn't go down as being as good as someone like LaMotta or Burley today, but at the time he was rated right on par with either of them and considered just as credible a challenger.

Although Rocky was a top contender, he was still behind Lamotta and Burley in the pecking order for a title shot....FACT

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by iran barkley

Although Rocky was a top contender, he was till behind Lamotta and Burley in the pecking order for a title shot....FACT

Not exactly. This was the NBA's rankings in April 1946, when the fight was first signed:

1. Graziano (named "logical contender")
2. Georgie Abrams
3. LaMotta
4. Holman Williams
5. Burley

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

You guys are selling Graziano (and Zale) short here. He was rated as the leading MW contender by the NBA following his win over Servo, and was favored to beat Zale the first time. Obviously, he doesn't go down as being as good as someone like LaMotta or Burley today, but at the time he was rated right on par with either of them and considered just as credible a challenger.

Servo,Fusari,and Janiro,probably Graziano's best wins , out side of Zale were all welterweights.
Williams was rated in the top 3 middles for about 4 years .like wise Lamotta .Graziano was a well managed fighter, who caught an old champ at the right time ,and still only beat him once out of three fights.
Zale at least could argue he lost his prime years to the war ,and therefore had some excuse for not fighting his best contenders, he did beat Abrams ,for the crown ,and Abrams was the stand out contender.
Graziano would have lost to just about all those he avoided, imo.
he used to call Lamotta" policeman", because ,as
Jake said in his book ,I knocked off the guys he didnt want to meet.

[cotto20]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

Not exactly. This was the NBA's rankings in April 1946, when the fight was first signed:

1. Graziano (named "logical contender")
2. Georgie Abrams
3. LaMotta
4. Holman Williams
5. Burley

Ring Magazine Rating As Of 1946
1.Jake Lamotta
2.Charley Burley
3.Rocky Graziano

Lamotta in 1946 was 9-0-1. Which included wins over Holman Williams, Tommy Bell, Tony Janerio, Bob Sasterfield.

Burley in 1946 was 5-0 and had lost just once in his last 27 bouts, which included wins over Archie Moore.

Both were more worthy challagers to Zale's Title.

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by iran barkley

Ring Magazine Rating As Of 1946
1.Jake Lamotta
2.Charley Burley
3.Rocky Graziano

No, that's the Ring ratings from February, 1947.

That still doesn't change the fact that the NBA rated Graziano as its leading contender when the fight was signed in April of that year.

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Servo,Fusari,and Janiro,probably Graziano's best wins , out side of Zale were all welterweights.
Williams was rated in the top 3 middles for about 4 years .like wise Lamotta .Graziano was a well managed fighter, who caught an old champ at the right time ,and still only beat him once out of three fights.
Zale at least could argue he lost his prime years to the war ,and therefore had some excuse for not fighting his best contenders, he did beat Abrams ,for the crown ,and Abrams was the stand out contender.
Graziano would have lost to just about all those he avoided, imo.
he used to call Lamotta" policeman", because ,as
Jake said in his book ,I knocked off the guys he didnt want to meet.

But you're judging them partially from retrospect and what they did afterward, which is unfair. As I said, Graziano was the NBA's leading contender in mid '46, and was favored to beat Zale. Besides, it was probably the most in-demand fight from the public - hence the reason it was such a big money fight.

[cotto20]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

But you're judging them partially from retrospect and what they did afterward, which is unfair. As I said, Graziano was the NBA's leading contender in mid '46, and was favored to beat Zale. Besides, it was probably the most in-demand fight from the public - hence the reason it was such a big money fight.

No Lamotta and Burley also should of been NBA number #1 contenders in reality. But for some reason Graziano was given the spot.....Pretty suspicous on the NBA's part.

At the end of the day Burley and Lamotta were more proven contenders at 160lb and should of been given the title shot before Graziano.

[cotto20]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

No, that's the Ring ratings from February, 1947.

That still doesn't change the fact that the NBA rated Graziano as its leading contender when the fight was signed in April of that year.

No the ratings were 1946
[URL]********boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine%27s_Annual_Ratings:_1946[/URL]

Why so much love for Graziano? Lamotta and Burley were much better and more worthy fighters for Title shots.

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by iran barkley

No the ratings were 1946
[URL]********boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine%27s_Annual_Ratings:_1946[/URL]

It says right on there, "As selected by The Ring magazine in the February 1947 issue."

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by iran barkley

No Lamotta and Burley also should of been NBA number #1 contenders in reality. But for some reason Graziano was given the spot.....Pretty suspicous on the NBA's part.

That's your view, but that doesn't change what the facts were, nor does it make any sense to blame Zale for not taking into account how someone 60 years in the future will view his choice of opponents.