Marcel Cerdan and His Historical Placement

Whoa dont shoot the messenger remember? You were wrong, I corrected you. You didnt like it and here we are. Lets call it what it is.

So now you are going to lie again. Man you are sad. Here is Jack Cuddy's report that Ive been quoting:

[url]http://www.fultonhistory.com/Newspaper%208/Schenectady%20NY%20Gazette/Schenectady%20NY%20Gazette%201949%20Grayscale/Schenectady%20NY%20Gazette%201949%20Grayscale%20-%204112.pdf#xml=http://www.fultonhistory.com/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&u=49893317&DocId=7304103&Index=Z%3a%5cIndex%20O%2dG%2dT%2dS&HitCount=30&hits=e+11+1e+24+2f+49+6c+c6+e4+f9+13c+14b+15e+164+185+19b+1f7+235+240+2bf+2cd+2e5+309+31e+34d+368+36c+3d7+3f4+435+&SearchForm=C%3a%5cinetpub%5cwwwroot%5cFulton%5fNew%5fform%2ehtml&.pdf[/url]

He says nothing about the first round? Let me guess, you cant be bothered to respond to this post can you? Is that AP quote you reported not the exact quote I posted above? Is it not?

Wrong again my friend. The reporters took pictures of Jake's hand after his gloves had to be cut off him. His broken hand was swollen twice its normal size. You can find those if you look hard enough too. The newspapers immediately after the fight mentioned that it was AT LEAST bruised not that it was definitively ONLY bruised. If you have a source that says Jake got an xray saying it was bruised after the fact then I would love to see it, otherwise you are going off the same reports you said didnt have all of the facts in regards to the fight.

Oh I know you wont mention any names, even the supposed guy who brought me onto that website, because I wasnt there. I dont even know what you are talking about. Its pathetic. You are going to make some stupid lie like that and then run when someone calls you out on it. Im sure if I had really gone on there and gotten banned in a day and all of these people hate me so much as to give this imaginary guy **** for bringing me on there then somebody would be willing to back you up. But like I said, I was never there. Can you reproduce any of my supposed posts? No. Can you reproduce this person who supposedly brought me there? No. But you cant be bothered with substantiating that. Just like McGrain cant be bothered to back up his claims. Im not going anywhere, when you guys want to stand behind what you say Ill be right here.

In my normal discourse I dont let people make **** up in front of me, or lie about me, and not challenge them. So please, run away when you cant stand behind your posts, believe me, you are doing everyone a favor. Maybe you can go hang out with your imaginary yahoo boxing dignitaries and trade lies, falsehoods, half truths, and fantasies together. Invite McGrain, hed get on perfect there.

 

Well after taking a look at Boxrec i see Cerdan retired in '49 after the Lamotta loss. He must have really lacked heart and been afraid of fighting more elite Murican boxers. Can't call a guy like that great.

 

To readdress the original post, I don't think the IRBO's #7 rating is absurd, debatable sure, but those who take particular opposition to it are likely missing some crucial detail. Cerdan's 160 lbs. campaign was short-lived. It wasn't paper thin.

Consider Georgie Abrams' credentials - beat Billy Soose thrice, held his own against Charley Burley, got a split decision over Cocoa Kid and pushed a prime Tony Zale to the limit. Cerdan decked him and, to some reporters' liking, was a clearer winner than Ray Robinson was the following year. Put this win in perspective and it shines.

And the Tony Zale victory has been unfairly tarnished. To put this one in perspective:

-Zale's previous bout, his three round demolition of Graziano, was the biggest turn up of the trilogy.

-A completely spent force does not fight for eleven rounds while getting the tar beaten out of him. Ring Magazine's '48 Fight of The Year award corroborates this.

 

to the original question,

I think one can make a strong case both for Cerdan and for him being overrated,

His statistical record is among the best with none of his four defeats being clear cut. He lost twice on fouls and a debated decision on the other fellow's hometown. He was injured in the LaMotta fight.

The bottom line for me is that we really don't know how he would have done in that fight if he had been healthy. There is no case to be made that he would have won. But the case for him being an obvious loser from the get-go impresses me as weak also.

Overall, he seems to be a fighter who lost his best years to the war but was still good enough to beat a few top men and become champion when probably past his best. He looks great on film, and most ringside observers of his era were impressed.

So I find his to be a the glass is half full or half empty sort of legacy.

He might have been great, but fate was certainly against him getting the chance to prove it.

*I don't think it was mentioned in this thread, but the fight that weighs most heavily for me against him is the one with Anton Raadik. Cerdan won the first nine rounds easily, but suffered three knockdowns in the 10th. That one raises more questions than his loss to LaMotta in my judgment.

 

Great post EM

 

Without wanting to come across as an apologist, I believe the Raadik scare was due to exhaustion rather than quality punches; a result of starting too quickly.

Regarding how he looks on film, it may be Cerdan's best selling point, though some have aired their opinion that he didn't look very good...tight guard, good lateral movement, power in both hands, clever single shots, ripping combinations, solid chin, top stamina.

It's harder to produce a list of fighter's who do look better.

 

I've always had the feeling Cerdan was likely at his best as a Welter.

He was no spring chicken by any means when he had his American exploits at the end of his career.

 

At middleweight or anywhere? I can think of a fair few middleweights who look better, as long as I don't need to look for those who look better at all those things in a textbook sense (which isn't the be all and end all of course)

Besides, I always weigh up how good the fighter looks with who he is looking good against. Hence why Ernesto Marcel's technical masterclasses against technically astute fighters blow my mind whereas Floyd Mayweather's clinics against N'Dou and Gatti do not.

 

He was European champion at welter when Armstrong and Zivic were kings there. Would have been interesting to see how he might have fared against them at that time.

 

For an aggressive fighter he was superb, in a text book sense, in an effective sense. The manner in which he slipped while punching reminds one of Duran, but yes, ultimately for that style. Toney-Barkley for instance looks choreographed.

I cosign with edward morbius' premise that we may have a bit of a catch-22 with Cerdan's career. A thorough investigation into the LaMotta bout may be an idea though...

 

what do you'll think was his best filmed performance? i would say he looks best vs zale, but maybe the even enough (imo) begining to the lamotta fight might give the best indication of his abilities. tho i would think the fading, but bigger and more experienced lamotta would have got the w injury or not.

how about burt's call he beats basilio at mw? a hard fight for me to call.

I never really devoted real time to learning about cerdan, after the last few days i think i had him judged about right, but how good he was is clearly debateable. It is fair to say that the war interfered with his career and that his death may have robbed him of the 1 victory that would push his rating significantly higher.

 

As far as depth is concerned you need to do a lot of fine sifting to find some really significant scalps in his books. That doesn't look good, specially at MW.

His two marquee scalps were really packing it in. You could say Cerdan wasn't 100 percent himself but Abrams was shaking off a 4 year lay off and Holman had nearly twice as much fights as Cerdan fighting in the most competitive scene of the generation with no stopping power to guarantee some easier nights.

Neither fight was a cakewalk and both Williams and Abrams would end up with losing records on whatever was left of their career. Abrams gave a good account of himself against Robbie but he had a good 10 pounds advantage over him and even still that looks as much as a nick on Robbie's body of work as it looks like a gem on Georgie's. Abrams would win one fight out of five being stopped twice. He was done.

Gilroy is a good scalp for the clouter considering the weight difference. He remained largely unproven offshore but had credentials in Europe.

I'll agree he looks good though. Small for the division specially considering his style, but looks skilled.