How does Tony Zale do against the murderers row?

"let's pretend boxing in the 40s wasn't racist against black men"

I concede that you are way more racially sensitive than I am. I have always been a rather ordinary guy with loads of flaws so I can and do make no claim to any moral high ground.

I would like to discuss boxing history, though--with some effort at fairness to every fighter, all of whom paid in blood and sweat for whatever they achieved--without being hit over the head with racist charges at every turn.

One flaw in your arguing style is relying on Ring Magazine's yearly rankings when they support your case, but then trashing them when they do not.

You say Zale avoided top men, but who were the highly rated middleweights in the late 1930's and early 1940's off the Ring yearly ratings? Zale beat * Zale fought but lost**

1936
1--Freddie Steele
2--Fred Apostoli*

1937
1--Fred Apostoli*
2--Al Hostak*

1938
1--Fred Apostoli*
2--Solly Krieger

1939
1--Ceferino Garcia
2--Al Hostak*

1940
1--Ken Overlin
2--Tony Zale
3--Billy Soose**

1941
1--Tony Zale
2--George Abrams*
3--Ezzard Charles

Whom did Garcia beat in 1939? Lloyd Marshall twice, once by KO. You dismiss Overlin more than holding his own with Charles as Charles being green. But wouldn't Charles then also be green for Zale? Why criticize Zale for not fighting a green fighter when he was fighting the higher rated Abrams?

Now WWII intervenes. You call WWII an excuse, but I don't see how one can ignore that Zale was in the service, so the 1942 to 1945 years are out of the picture. After the war, he fights Graziano, but you haven't addressed my point about who actually was the #1 contender when Zale defended against Graziano. I would like to know, if anyone has that info.

As for the list of names

"Williams and Burley"

Prior to the war they were welters, not in Zale's division. After the war, Williams went 10-10-1 from 1946 on and so lost his top rating. Burley after the war has a better case, but it is weakened a bit by his losing to Williams in their last fights.

"Archie Moore"

He was the #4 middleweight contender in 1940, but spent most of the year in Australia. In early 1941 he lost to Shorty Hogue and drew with Eddie Booker, and then had to take a year off for health reasons, dropping out of the ratings. When Moore restarted his career Zale was in the military. When Zale came out Archie was in the light-heavyweight division.

"Jimmy Bivins"

Was #6 at middle in 1940, but moved up to light-heavy by 1941 and so was another in heavier divisions. Hard to see when these men would have fought.

"Eddie Booker and Jack Chase"

Peaked in WWII when Zale was in the military. After the war, neither was a middleweight contender.

"Lloyd Marshall"

Prior to the war wasn't that highly rated as he was beaten twice by Garcia in 1939, and by Teddy Yarosz and Shorty Hogue in 1940 and 1941. After the war he was not in Zale's division. Actually, Marshall was already being rated at light-heavy in 1940 and 1941.

"Jake LaMotta" "LaMotta didn't have to take a dive against Billy Fox to finally receive a title shot."

You dismiss WWII service as an "excuse" but buy Jake's excuse whole hog. This is the reason Jake gave for throwing the fight. The Senate investigators believed he did it for money.

The bottom line with Zale is that you are basically right that he has a thin resume. He was just another tough journeyman type for years who blossomed suddenly around 1940. Prior to that his record is ordinary. He then managed to fairly win his way to a title and then managed to unify. At that point, WWII intervened and prevented him from making the defenses which would have solidified his stature. After the war he understandably fought the top contender who would bring in the biggest gate (and who might have been the #1 rated man), but was clearly past his best and would quickly lose badly to Cerdan. Zale was then 35.

So I can't dispute that one can view Zale as overrated. Like many of these WWII era fighters, he is somewhat under a cloud. His best defense is that folks at the time saw him as very tough.

 

I am honestly confused by your position. Did McAvoy have a back injury in both of his fights with Mills?

 

You use the end of the year ratings to claim Graziano was not the #1 contender. I honestly don't know if he was or wasn't, but I do think by Sept of 1946 he might have been. He was on a KO roll and the impressive KO of Marty Servo had to have helped his stature a great deal.

"past their prime fighters"

Servo? Had to buy that. Williams is the guy who appears to have been past his prime.

"you can't criticize Lesnevich for fighting Mills instead of Ezzard Charles"

Oh, yes I do. Mills was a weak challenger in 1948 for two reasons. Lesnevich had already KO'd Mills in a title fight. Mills was coming off a bad loss to an over-the-hill Lloyd Marshall.

Graziano on the other hand was on a spectacular roll, blowing out a series of name fighters, including three wins over men who were welter champs when he fought them.

"the New York ring hyped up their golden boy to the racist American public"

Interesting that the "racist" American public would consider this Italian street kid their golden boy. Truthfully, most of the better white fighters over the years were outsiders to the WASP majority--Irish, Jewish, Italian. I don't think the racists under their hoods would have considered Graziano one of their own.

 

He won the title legitimately. He defended it legitimately. There was a war on.

so why did they ever bother to fight at all then? When Ezz defended his title to Gus, Charles was only a 2-1 Favourite. If Gus was so inferior why wasn’t Charles a 25-1 favourite? By then Gus’s eye closed in fights. Surely without hindsight the folks then respected that Gus was still a capable challenger hence the short odds.

Gus took a licking without disgracing himself. Or the sport. He was 35.

And if championship Boxing was a Sport rather a business that would be disgraceful. It’s business to make the biggest fights happen first. Ezzard had bigger fish to fry. He was beating heavyweights the whole time and the LH title was a mere springboard for the real McCoy.

 

Definitely. His reign was at least in part weak and opportunistic. He must take responsibility for that in the end.

 

Something that really annoys me is attempts to explain away a duck with it making financial sense. OF COURSE IT DOES! AND OF COURSE IT'S TEMPTING TO TAKE THE EASIER CHALLENGE FOR MORE MONEY! We all get that.

That's totally beside the point, though. A world champion is supposed to be the best in the world and to prove that, thus showing that he earns the distinction of being a world champion, he should defend against the best.

 

Something I liked better with for example the 40's is that even the champions had non-title fights. Because I think it's alright that the champion also has fight against average competition to keep busy as long as the title isn't at stake. When it is, the opposition should always be world class.

 

I agree but unfortunately it has never really worked that way on a consistent basis.

 

Yes, but there is a difference between Zale and Lesnevich on the "taking the easier challenge for more money" argument.

Is it that obvious that Graziano was that easy of a challenge and clearly inferior to the others out there? Graziano went from 1944 to 1952 and the Robinson fight running up a record of 32-2-1 with 27 KO's. He KO'd two reigning welter champs, and a reigning middle champ. The guy who drew with him was beaten twice, once by KO. His ONLY defeats during this period were to Zale. He KO'd other contenders in Billy Arnold, Bummy Davis, Harold Green, Charley Fusari, and Tony Janiro, and a guy who had been the #1 welter contender just a couple of years earlier, Gene Burton. He KO'd Cecil Hudson who beat LaMotta in 1947. He KO'd Henry Brimm who beat Holman Williams and drew with Robinson during this period. Yes, a lot of these guys were puffed up welters, but Graziano was not a big middle himself, more like a modern super-welterweight. All in all, not that unworthy a record. And Graziano was certainly very highly ranked in Sept 1946 when he got his shot. He might even have been the #1 contender. I would like to know what the Ring ratings were that September.

Mills, on the other hand, got his shots both times when there were obviously better men out there, especially in 1948, although in 1946 it would have been less clear as there were no h2h fights to draw info on.

 

Harry Wills was the top rated contender for years while Dempsey was champion. And there was no war on and Dempsey was not in the service.

None of those men you list in 1941 were the top rated contenders in that year. Burley was rated in a different division. You should be criticizing Zivic or Cochrane with him.

George Abrams was the #1 contender and Zale fought him.

"Zale for missing out on"

It is equally true that they missed out on Zale in 1941 as they weren't as highly rated as the top men Zale was fighting.

In 1946 Williams was losing a lot of fights. While LaMotta fought an unimpressive draw with Edgar, Graziano KO'd the welter champ.

You keep calling WWII an excuse, a really bizarre position. A champion gives up 4 prime years to serve his country at a soldier's pay! And was he assured he wouldn't be in combat zones or in combat? Do you know that for a fact? The argument that a boxer would join the army during a war to avoid this or that contender in a boxing match is the strangest and weakest theory I have ever heard. The most dangerous puncher is not as dangerous as bullets or grenades.

 

Discrimination because of race was a big part of the picture in the 1930s and 40s. No question about it. It wasn't the only factor though. You had Mr. Gray and Blinky Palermo conducting buisness. You had the Manager's Guild and the fighters who didn't go along with it? well they just got frozen out. The "suggestion" to throw a fight or two. You win the 1st, he wins the 2nd and the 3rd is on the level. There was a lot going on none of it was about Tony Zale being fearful of another fighter.

I'm saying maybe we shouldn't totally lay it at the feet of a fighter. I believe most of those good boxers would fight anyone. These guys grew up fighting in the streets.

Some of the greatest boxers who ever lived came through during this era 1940s pre tv. It was the Golden age in that sense. Otherwise in reality it was the bad old days. You can blame Tony Zale for some of it if you want but it's complicated.

 

Great post.

 

I agree. However, there comes a point whereby it comes down to dollar and cents. Both fights are acceptable but only one of them is for a lot more money.

If the champion only takes the best money at the expense of a better fighter he deserves to be less regarded. It dosnt make him a paper champion. If he is good enough to keep winning eventually the avoided challenger becomes the biggest financial fight he can take

 

There can be a balance.
A boxer's Manager is gonna always do what? He going to try to get his fighter and himself paid. The most $ for the least risk without killing your boxers reputation and appeal. I dont have an issue with a new champion taking on maybe the #3 guy if that fight is $$$.
Take care of the family, feed those kids, Just do the right thing after that.