Tony Zale vs the following men

He beats up all those overated bums, why Jesus Christ! 7 of the 8 are black! What chance would they have?:-(
Mismatches:nono

 

Colour should be neither here nor there but i do personally know a few blokes in Australia who automatically always pick a black guy over a white guy, if the white guy wins, of course it's gotta be a fix but for those who grew up in the 70's how could they think any other way, the heavyweights, LHW's MWs and WW's were totally dominated by the african Americans, no white guy ever won a fight in that decade against a black man (and I am not kidding) and when we get under the WW's every decent fighter was either Mexican or from middle america or were black or both (Esteban De Jesus) and the tiniest guys were Japanese, the last white champ I know of in the seventies (early decade) was Johnny Famechon and hell his Dad and uncle were Frogs.

 

BUT I do agree that Zale beats nearly all of those guys if not all of them..... TWICE :hi::hey:yep

 

Charles and Moore beat him for sure.
He beats LaMatta at his own game.
If pressure guys like Lamotta Fullmer and Basilio ( who Robinson declined a 3rd fight with ) beat him then Zale has a 50/50 chance.
As for the rest it's also 50/50

 

Tony doesn't beat Light Heavies, Conn proved that and Moore and Charles were at least as good as Conn and that's a prime Conn too.

 

I had charles and Moore beating Zale didn't I???? So Wat the hell r u talking about??

 

It's called AGREEMENT, I was emphasizing that I agreed with you, you hothead:twisted::|hi:

 

Sheesh !!!!!!!!!

 

I posted that there were a lot of names missing from Zale's resume .I also said that I gave hima pass for his fights after coming out of the service when he was 32 years old and had not fought in 3 years he went for the $$$ Graziano pension plan.
The problem with castigating Zale for not fighting those you listed,is that: Zale won the WBA title in July 1940, from Hostak, he then had 4 over the weight fights before defending against Steve Mamakos that was in Feb1941.
After beating Mamakos, Zale gave a rematch to Hostak,
then after beating him, he had another 2 over the weight fights before closing out 1941 with a defence and a unification bout with number one contender Georgie Abrams in November .Zale next fought inFebuary 1942 an over the weight fight with Billy Conn.

Zale then went into the Navy for the duration.
The problem with your accusation is that I believe only one of those you have named was ranked in the top ten duringZale's reign before Zale entered the Navy, that was Charles.
So you can't really criticize Zale for not defending against the others you listed.

If you want to criticize him ,you would be on firmer ground in questioning why he had 4 over the weight fights before defending his title in1941? But bear in mind none of those you mentioned, apart from Charles were rated contenders then. Also bear in mind that this was all in time scale of 7 months ie from when Zale won the WBA version of the title inJuly1940 ,until he defended it in Feb 1941.

Standing this on it's head for a moment
The guy that didn't deserve a title shot off his current form was Steve Mamakos whom Zale had beaten handily in an over the weight bout, flooring him twice. Ironically in their title fight Mamakos raised his game floored Zale and was in front going into the later stages, before Zale staged a tremendous rally and overwhelmed him. So, say we take Mamakos out of the pre war defences ,who should replace him? behind Zale were :
Abrams
Charles
Vigh
Welch
Garcia
Belloise
Fernadez
Apostoli
Richards
Stewart

So only Charles of the" Row".
It wasn't so cut and dried was it?

 

I pick Jake to beat Zale, just. Basilio no way! Fullmer ? 60/40 for Zale. Zale was in trouble with good slick boxers, not come forward sluggers. very few beat him at his own game.
Tiger ?

 

They would have been tougher prospects if they had been white.:good

 

Haha
Ok pal I misunderstood my apologies

 

He loses to all of them.