Zale gave Jake a miss and opted for Graziano

[Flea Man]

Originally Posted by mcvey

No one is disputing that Graziano gave Zale three wars.
What is in dispute is whether he should have been the challenger giving Zale those battles.Zale was 35 years old and over the hill his best years were behind him ,otherwise Graziano would not have merited a trilogy with him ,because he would have been ruthlessly dismantled.
Zale should have faced either Burley or Lamotta his number 1, and number 2 contenders.
In passing may I say that a prime Zale would have lost to both imo ,let alone a diminished 35 year old whose skills had rusted due to his Navy service
.I likewise beleive Graziano would have been painfully schooled by Burley and stopped by Lamotta.
Bottom line is Graziano beat a once fine champion who was visibly in decline ,he did it once in three fights,which other very good middleweights did he beat?

All good points.

One thing I do wonder is how badly Zale would've been beaten if he HAD fought Burley or Lamotta at that time?

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by fleaman

All good points.

One thing I do wonder is how badly Zale would've been beaten if he HAD fought Burley or Lamotta at that time?

I think both would have beaten him,Burley would have been too wily and cautious to go for an allout attack imo,and Jake lacked top end power.
So decision wins for both imo.
One thing for sure Zale would keep coming out until he was half dead
.I seem to have been negative about the Man Of Steel,but no one can deny his fighting spirit,watch him against Cerdan ,he has only his balls keeping him on his feet,the man had true grit.
Cerdan would have smoked Graziano imo.

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by mcvey

We can see what a pile of crap this judgement was by the fact that,Belloise was rated
no 6 in 41
no5 in 43
no 6 in 46
no 4 in 47

no 2 in 48
no 5 in 49 . 8 YEARS AFTER PEARL HARBOUR

No we can't, because the rankings don't say what the fighter's actual form was at the time of them. As you yourself noted, Zale was clearly past his prime in the years following the war, despite the fact that he was rated either the champion or #1 contender in that time. The rankings also don't tell us that many people thought Belloise was robbed in his first title shot at Ken Overlin in 1940, the Ring's #1 ranked fighter at the time.

Besides, all you did was pull one random ranking from each year anyway. What was his ranking in October '40 for example, after probably his biggest career win over Ceferino Garcia? (who had been rated #1 by the Ring only a few months earlier)

Originally Posted by mcvey

IN 59 Machen was no5

He'd already been KO'd in 1 round by the newly reigning champion only the year before.

Originally Posted by mcvey

IN 60 no3

He'd already been beaten soundly by both the fighters rated over him, and also the one rated just under him, over the past couple years.

Originally Posted by mcvey

IN 61 no2

The #1 contender was already overdue for a title shot by that time, and had beaten Machen the year before on top of that.

There was no time in that frame when Machen could seriously be considered a deserving title challenger.

Originally Posted by mcvey

You say you don't know what the outcome would have been in fights between Graziano and the two men rated above him,Lamotta and Burley, yet based on a newspaper article you beleive Belloise and Abrams prime was pre Pearl Harbour.

Why shouldn't I? Those people saw them fight first-hand, and saw when their prime was. Who is more qualified to say when a fighter is/isn't at his best than that?

Originally Posted by mcvey

I show you Belloise was the rated no 5 contender 8 years after Pearl Harbour ,what does that say about the prick who wrote that assessment?

Nothing. Again, he actually SAW him fight at that time and SAW what his form was; you only looked at something else and made a guess as to what his form might've been.

Originally Posted by mcvey

You say I should read the articles of that period,I think you should delve a little into the NBA,and the corruption that it fostered before assuming that , if they did it it must be kosher.

You could make a fuss about the Ring's history of corruption as well if you wanted.

Originally Posted by mcvey

Zale should have faced either Burley or Lamotta his number 1, and number 2 contenders.

But he WAS fighting his #1 contender.

The Ring is not the one with the authority to sanction title fights or mandate challengers; that's the sanctioning body. On top of which, the NBA (not the Ring) is the one that was given credence in most newspaper reports of the day. Whether or not you "agree" with the rankings doesn't matter; the fact is, that's what the rankings were, and the NBA is the one with the authority to enforce its rankings.


In saying that Zale shouldn't have fought Rocky, you're saying that he should've openly DEFIED -
1. his sanctioning body
2. the writers
3. the fans
- all for the sake of satisfying some folks on a boxing board 60 years in the future.

When has something like that ever been expected of a champion?

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

No we can't, because the rankings don't say what the fighter's actual form was at the time of them. As you yourself noted, Zale was clearly past his prime in the years following the war, despite the fact that he was rated either the champion or #1 contender in that time. The rankings also don't tell us that many people thought Belloise was robbed in his first title shot at Ken Overlin in 1940, the Ring's #1 ranked fighter at the time.

Besides, all you did was pull one random ranking from each year anyway. What was his ranking in October '40 for example, after probably his biggest career win over Ceferino Garcia? (who had been rated #1 by the Ring only a few months earlier)




He'd already been KO'd in 1 round by the newly reigning champion only the year before.



He'd already been beaten soundly by both the fighters rated over him, and also the one rated just under him, over the past couple years.



The #1 contender was already overdue for a title shot by that time, and had beaten Machen the year before on top of that.

There was no time in that frame when Machen could seriously be considered a deserving title challenger.



Why shouldn't I? Those people saw them fight first-hand, and saw when their prime was. Who is more qualified to say when a fighter is/isn't at his best than that?




Nothing. Again, he actually SAW him fight at that time and SAW what his form was; you only looked at something else and made a guess as to what his form might've been.




You could make a fuss about the Ring's history of corruption as well if you wanted.




But he WAS fighting his #1 contender.

The Ring is not the one with the authority to sanction title fights or mandate challengers; that's the sanctioning body. On top of which, the NBA (not the Ring) is the one that was given credence in most newspaper reports of the day. Whether or not you "agree" with the rankings doesn't matter; the fact is, that's what the rankings were, and the NBA is the one with the authority to enforce its rankings.


In saying that Zale shouldn't have fought Rocky, you're saying that he should've openly DEFIED -
1. his sanctioning body
2. the writers
3. the fans
- all for the sake of satisfying some folks on a boxing board 60 years in the future.

When has something like that ever been expected of a champion?

Are you saying the fans would not have wanted Zale to fight Lamotta or Burley?
Are you saying they would not have preferred Graziano to actually beat a rated middleweight before he met Zale ?
Apart from a shot Zale which rated middleweights did Graziano actually beat?
You keep harping on all these fans that wanted Graziano to fight Zale , on what do you base this assumption?

[My2Sense]

Originally Posted by mcvey

You keep harping on all these fans that wanted Graziano to fight Zale , on what do you base this assumption?

1. The reports from the time that clearly state so.
2. The fact that roughly 40,000 of those fans filled the stadium and paid a combined $342,497 to see the fight.
3. The fact that the fans wagered heavily on Graziano and made him a solid betting favorite.

Originally Posted by mcvey

Are you saying the fans would not have wanted Zale to fight Lamotta or Burley?
Are you saying they would not have preferred Graziano to actually beat a rated middleweight before he met Zale ?

You tell me. I've yet to come across anything that describes any great outcry among fans for Zale fighting Graziano instead of someone else, nor did any of LaMotta's or Burley's fights draw the kind of attendance this one did.