How does Tony Zale do against the murderers row?

It wasn't directed at you. It was "you" in the general meaning of people. Like "You don't want to go for a run when it's a thunder storm outside".

I have edited the sentence now, so there shouldn't be any confusion.

 

Got it...all good from my end

 

Zale came back from the war a somewhat diminished fighter,he obviously knew it,and that he was on borrowed time
he and his managers went for the big bucks ,his pension plan if you like.I can't really blame him too much, one on one I think Zale would have fought anyone.

 

I agree here 100 %

 

Yes when Floyd took responsibility and took on the outstanding contender it was still for the biggest available purse at that time. There literally was no other fight to take because Sonny Liston had beat enough contenders to eliminate any demand for just about any other fight that could take place for the title. The financial demand was also there. Wasn’t it?

 

Don't know. But I do know that his manager didn’t want him to make the defence but he made it anyway, by his own decision. That was my point.

 

"I haven't compared Graziano to Mills"

Fair enough. This response was more to Suzie who did lump Graziano with Mills. But the subject of the thread is Zale, so a criticism of a "going for the money" title defense I think reasonably be assumed to be be directed at Zale, so how good a contender Graziano was is a valid issue.

"The problem is"

No doubt Graziano initially built his rep on welters and small middles, but he wasn't that big himself, so his weight pulls were not excessive-he had 2 lbs. on Arnold, 6 on Davis, 2 on Green, and 7 on Servo. He did have 10 and 9 on Cochrane.

But what about the other contenders? LaMotta also largely built his rep on beating up welters, but with much greater weight pulls--Robinson, Wilson, Zivic, Bell, etc. with any where from 10 to 16 lb. weight advantages, but I would also point out, he lost quite a few and wasn't knocking these guys out on the whole.

Williams had done enough to earn a title shot, but even in 1945 he had lost to the Cocoa Kid, and the Kid in 1945 lost to Joe Carter (2), Johnny Carter, and George Henry. Hard to buy all these guys were a "murderer's row."

Lytell? He lost twice in 1945 to Henry Chmielewski and then to Jake LaMotta (by SD) and in early 1946 lost to Walter Woods, before beating Williams in April. Williams then lost to both Cerdan and LaMotta before Graziano took on Zale.

Bottom line is that all these men are under a cloud due to the impact of WWII. I think one can take the glass is half full or half empty position with Zale and Graziano, but also with Williams, LaMotta, Lytell, Marshall, etc. Charles and Moore proved themselves after the war. Williams? His 1946 and after record is 10-10-1. Marshall? His 1946 and after record is 12-13-1. LaMotta? pretty erratic also, but unlike the others in his prime.

Suzie called Graziano a "joke"--well, I think that a bit much for a guy who went 32-2-1 with 27 KO's and beat everyone he fought from 1945 until the Robinson fight in 1952, with KO's of three champions, Zale, Servo, Cochrane, and KO's of contenders Arnold, Davis, Green, Fusari, Burton, Greco, Janiro. He might have been overrated to a degree, but calling him a "joke" seems to me to be underrating him.

I think the real overrated guy today is LaMotta. In 2004 he was rated the #5 all time middleweight by The Ring behind only Robinson, Monzon, Hagler, and Greb. Ahead of Walker and Tiger, and all the others. I don't think his record actually supports that. Hard to know how many of the top middles over the years might have been able to log a win over Robinson once in six tries with a 16 lb. weight pull, and beaten a 33 year old and injured Cerdan. Other than that, an ordinary record, actually.

 

I agree that at least one poster's argument plays around with Zale being racist and/or cowardly on no serious evidence to speak of.

Strange how historical revisionism works. Zale gives up his best earning years to join the service in a war that could have ended anything like civilization as we know it if Hitler won, while also possibly risking his life (I admit I don't know his situation, but a lot of soldiers died), and decades later the take is he did it to duck black challengers.

 

This is exactly how I feel. You were able to Express it in a much clearer manner than I did. Thanku

 

Williams put up an impressive streak of wins - including Lytell, Burley and Moore - between his SD loss to Cocoa Kid and UD loss to Lytell and he was nr 1 ranked by The Ring in 44 and 45, so he would be my main candidate. After that Burley, LaMotta and perhaps Cerdan (his record is harder to decipher).

LaMotta did meet some WWs (except SRR also Bell and Zivic), but he also beat MWs. For example Lytell and Basora in '45 and Williams in '46. I agree that nr 5 among all time MWs is way too high, though.

 

My take on the rough deal several black fighters received in the late 30's, early 40's is that it wasn't really about any clear racism from the part of the champions who wouldn't give them title shots, rather racism and bias in society as a whole. It seemed to difficult to get a bigger audience interested in black fighters if they weren't outright exceptional like Louis, Armstrong and SRR. (And even then we all know about the "the humble black man"-persona that had to be created for Louis in order for him to be accepted.) Less public interest meant less money and thereby lower incentive for champions to give them a shot. Especially since they were so dangerous opponents.

I also think black fighters had a hard time getting good managers, which instead exposed them to be taken advantage of by other fighters' management (for example Zivic buying Burley's contract).

And then there were of course also the war. Williams and Burley both had the misfortune to peak when the title was frozen because of WW2.