Who was the better heavyweight Tami Mauriello or Elmer a Ray?

Can we say Ray has the best wins overall,in Charles and Walcott,but that Mauriello has the greater depth to his resume?

 

Yes absolutely.

 

You talk as if Mauriello was the champion here.

Do you have any reason to think that these contenders saw a match with Mauriello as some sort of prize to aspire to?

I think that you over state the case against LaStarza, but I have no hesitation in saying that Mauriello was five times the fighter that LaStarza was!

 

Doesn't your first sentence rather undermine your argument?

Yes, but a loss to him would have pushed them down the ratings, and they had plenty of other options for increasing their rating.

Did anybody apart from Ray try to negotiate a fight with him?

At the time, that would have been a much better deal for Ray, than it would for Mauriello.

Ray would have got a #1 ranking for beating Mauriello, and Mauriello would have gained very little from beating Ray.

You are very fond of pointing out that LaStarza feasted of comparatively weak opposition, and got his #1 ranking off one good win, which could have gone the other way.

Mauriello fought a whole heap of dangerous contenders, over a period of several years, and he was not exactly a one hit wonder.

I have some sympathy with you position on LaStarza, but none with your position on Mauriello.

 

Yes but Nova had been a standout contender very recently, while Walcott was still viewed with skepticism.

Nova was #1 when Louis beat him, then Savold beat him, then Mauriello beat him and Savold.

When Ray beat Walcott, he was beating a former journeyman with a spotty record, who had somehow scored a series of impressive wins.

Louis Pastor III was being negotiated, before Mauriello held Pastor to a draw.

Mike Jacobs was being asked about Louis Savold, after Louis went into the army.

Bivins became the interim champion, but some people argued for giving it to Mauriello.

It seems to me that the four of them were in the mix!

Pastor must have held I high ranking when Mauriello drew against him, and I would be interested to know where Savold sat.

The bottom line is that if you keep beating people somewhere in the top ten, you are a very strong contender.

Color line really?

Are you aware of any instance of Mauriello denying a fighter a bout due to the color of their skin?

Is it fair to group him with the fighters who stated this as a matter of principle?

Could you perhaps throw the guy a bone, and say that he just strategically avoided a couple of contenders?

 

Ray might have the better wins and might have been a more dangerous opponent for Louis. But by mid 1946, when Louis had agreed to face Mauriello, Tami had faced better opposition over the course of the previous two years than Ray had, and I think deserved to be rated higher as a result at that point in time/

From 1943, when he got KO'd in one by Turkey Thompson, to the point when Louis faced Mauriello, Ray faced a grand total of zero rated contenders. It was the quantity of his work, rather than the quality of opponent, that allowed him to surge from #8 to #4 from 1944-1945. Eventually, he did finally face a couple of rated guys in Savold and Walcott, but by that point Louis was already about to face Mauriello. But in mid-1946, a fighter who had amassed a heavyweight record of 37-4-1 with several good results against rated fighters (UD Savold x2, KO NOva x2, 2 out of three against Oma and a KO over Top 5 rated Woodcock) probably had a better case to be rated higher than a guy who had feasted on journeymen since his loss to Thompson. Yeah, Mauriello missed some contenders, but it's not like Ray faced Sheppard, Murray or Thompson in a rematch either from '44 to mid-46.

Besides, I don't Ray would have done a whole lot better against Louis than Mauriello did. He might have rung Louis's bell early, just like Mauriello... but I have a feeling that he'd get tagged and stopped early...just like Mauriello.

 

No one is arguing ray deserved a title shot over Mauriello

Here are the arguments from me

1. Muariello had no business being the number 1 rated contender in 1946.

2. Mauriello shamelessly avoided several (6 or 7 ) top 5 rated black opponents from 1942-1946 so he could retain his high rating without losing to them

3. Ray had the much better heavyweight career than Mauriello

4. Ray at his peak would give Louis a much tougher fight than Mauriello

5. Mauriello ducked a fight with Ray at Madison square Garden

You’re last paragraph was very lazy. Ray was a skilled strong relentless swarmed with a lot of strength and punching power. He arguably performed better against Walcott and Charles than Louis did. Their is no doubt ray brought a lot to the table that Louis needed to be weary of. Too compare him to a stiff, robotic, uncoordinated, unathletic fighter like Tami Mauriello and say “well the fight might go like Louis Mauriello” is lazy and a huge underestimate of rays abilities


Oh by the way you made an incorrect statement. Perk Daniels was top 10 in the monthly ratings when Ray beat him. I have that addition. Daniels had recently defeated turkey Thompson[/QUOTE]


Suz, I love your exuberance on the subject, but I gotta disagree with you on points 1 and 3. Mauriello definitely deserved his top rating and title shot by consistently fighting the top guys. Like I said before, he beat beat Gunnar Barland x 3, Buddy Knox x 3, Tony Musto x 2, Lee Savold x 2, Lou Nova x 2, Lee Oma x 2 and Red Burman and Bruce Woodcock. Even the guys he lost to were top contenders like Jimmy Bivins and Joe Baksi and they were tight decisions. This is what Ray should have been doing rather than fighting club fighters throughout his career, which brings me to point 3. Ray has to have had the most unsatisfactory career I've seen. 134 fights and all we can talk about is the Charles and Walcott fights. Outstanding wins but Charles was only a rated light heavyweight at the time. Ray had 20 pounds on him. The rest of the guys really aren't worth a mention. Savold was like a well-chewed carmel by the time Ray fought him. Perk Daniels was nothing and Ray couldn't get past a club fighter like Frank Lumpkin in 3 tries. So really it's only Charles and Walcott. And again, great wins regardless. I also agree with your point #4, I too think he would have given Louis a better fight. But he should have stepped up to the plate like Mauriello did in 3 separate weight divisions, instead of barn-storming against a pack of no-hopers.