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

Why shouldn't I talk with you, I enjoy your input?

 

I don't know the answer to this question but,who beat the most rated fighters? Wouldn't /couldn't that be a factor in assessing them?

 

Okay. Why I don't think that highly of Mauriello at heavyweight:

There have been several posts on the depth of Mauriello's resume, but I think it is way overrated.

Gunnar Barlund (3)
Buddy Knox (3)
Tony Musto (2)
Red Burman
Lee Savold (2)
Lee Oma (won 2 of 3)
Lou Nova (2)
Steve Dudas
Bruce Woodcock
--------------------
to Louis fight
---------------------
after Louis fight
----------------------
Freddie Schott

How many were actually rated when Mauriello fought them. I think only three. Savold, Oma, and Woodcock.
Nova came out of 1941 ranked 8th, but had been KO'd by Savold in 1942 and with no worthy wins. I think Nova probably wouldn't have been rated if the Ring did monthly ratings back then (I don't know if they did)

Most of these guys were way past their days in the ratings, many coming off losses.

And I think it legit to ask why fight the same guys like Knox and Barlund over and over, but somehow miss the top contenders, both white and black. Somehow he never fights Bettina. Somehow he doesn't fight a return with Baksi. As Suzie has pointed out, somehow he missed all the black contenders after losing twice to Bivins.

Walcott has been put down as a former journeyman with a spotty record who had turned it around with some big wins and was now highly rated, so why get excited about Ray beating him. But what about Savold and Oma. They had even spottier records than Walcott, with more defeats and more KO defeats. Both were certainly journeymen at best before they turned it around. And Oma actually defeated Mauriello in one fight.

How good were Oma and Savold? Both lost twice to Phil Muscato. Now I doubt very many posters rate Muscato all that highly among 1940's heavyweights, but besides beating Oma and Savold twice each, he also defeated Joey Maxim, certainly a bigger actual win than any on Mauriello's resume.

Bruce Woodcock? This is the fight that probably cleared the way to Louis. Woodcock was 25-0 against war-time British opposition. He seemed on paper a good contender. Of course, not only Mauriello, but later Baksi, exposed him. Woodcock did beat the two light-heavy champions, Lesnevich and Mills, and Savold and Oma, but on balance seems to have been at the same level of Oma and Savold, a solid second-tier contender, but an obvious level below the best.

I don't personally dispute Mauriello getting his shot at Louis. He was the top-rated contender, although it seems to have been more from careful managing, luck, and the fact that he was so young when he lost close ones to Lesnevich and Bivins and drew with Pastor. Tami doesn't seem to have improved from his teen years though, and might have even regressed. His flabby appearance was commented upon prior to his bout with Woodcock on a Pathe newsreel.

The issue of this thread is not about Louis defending against Mauriello, but the relative merits, judged from 2018 with the benefit of hindsight, of Ray and Mauriello. While Ray did have a somewhat padded record, and a spotty early career, he peaked way above Tami. Wins over Walcott and Charles dwarf anything Mauriello accomplished. Even the vaunted depth of Mauriello's resume is I think dubious. Savold is arguably Tami's best heavyweight scalp, but Ray beat him more decisively.

 

I asked how many rated men each fought.I don't think you answered that question.

 

"If I had made the list, then Mauriello would have been significantly higher, and Ray probably a bit lower."

Well, would you rate Mauriello above Ray?

Personally, I don't see how anyone could, even if you think Ray overrated.

 

My point was that they have differing opinions.

When we did that list, my top criteria for rating was beating the best men. Ray meets that criteria. Mauriello does not. For me losing somewhere along the line to poor opponents doesn't cancel the big wins. I'm certain there is disagreement with those criteria by many.

 

McVey, an old featherweight challenger named Danny Valdez once said to me when discussing fighters, 'I tell these kids today, don't tell me how many KOs you had, tell me who you fought and then let's talk." I think this quote is very apt in this thread and to your last statement.

Studying these two fighters since this thread started (I started as being in the Ray corner and still am in head to head battle) but the deeper I got the more impressed I got with Mauriello. This guy had a true handicap. When I was a kid I used to hear older dudes talk about Mauriello as 'the fighter with the club-foot'. This probably is the reason for his paunchy appearance. Likely a lack of roadwork. And it barred him from national service. What I have read about him is he really went a long way on heart. Pulling fights out of the fire seemed to be his forte. As others were flagging, he just wouldn't quit. And a majority of reporters stated he deserved that decision in the first Lesnevich fight. I am very impressed with how far he got with the tools at his disposal.

Edward, you stated in one of your posts sort of accusingly, 'Why didn't he fight a return with Baksi?' As if he avoided him. Well, actually he was scheduled for a rematch with Baksi on September 22, 1944. Baksi pulled out claiming a cold, but the NYSAC had him checked out and when the physician could find nothing wrong with him they suspended Baksi for 45 days and subbed Lee Oma in his place.

Again, what I am most impressed with Mauriello is his heart. He quite clearly avoided no one despite claims otherwise. He continuously rematched hard fights, which others might avoid for the simple reason that it was a hard fight. And appeared to get where he did - not by possessing Sugar Ray-like skills - but by taking his marginal skills and fighting the top men hard and often.

 

An excellent post. It does explain why there was no rematch with Baksi. I retract any criticism of Mauriello on this score.

"He quite clearly avoided no one"

Bettina? All the black contenders other than Bivins? Saying someone avoided someone is always a bit dubious. What is fair off the record to judge is did he fight and beat the best? Did fights come off? How good did he actually prove to be.

I know it is harsh, but overcoming a handicap speaks to character but not to inside the ring accomplishment.

There was a fellow who played the outfield in American baseball back in the WWII years with one arm. A fantastic achievement, but it didn't make him an outstanding player. There was a pitcher a few years back who pitched with one arm. Doesn't make him a better pitcher than all the guys with two arms.

I do admire Mauriello more after reading your post, but I don't think it impacts the question of if he was a better fighter than Ray from our perspective.