Where does Graziano rate all time at middleweight?

Alot of good information in this thread men.

 

One man's opinion. If this is the Leon Thompson on boxrec, he didn't start his career until 1946, so I wonder how much he knows about a pre-war Zale or all the "ever" versions of Cerdan.

 

I concede it is very possible the 27 year old LaMotta would have beaten the 33 year old 1949 Cerdan under any circumstances, but the injury does cloud it. Seems to be a lot of stories about how Cerdan was injured. It is certainly possible to separate your shoulder missing a punch. I have seen it done in a fight (the bone sticking up was plainly visible).

"Abrams"

Well, none of this deals with Abrams beating Belloise in his previous fight. Belloise was highly rated and on a 27-1 run with the only loss to Abrams.

All knocks aside, I think Abrams was a good scalp and rated in the top 5 in 1946, for those who care that much about The Ring ratings. Abrams being past his best is also very possible, but almost everyone was because of WWII inactivity and the fighters who managed to stay active aging.

Cerdan can only beat the fighters who were there and ranked. Were the officials who voted for Cerdan suspended like the officials who voted for LaMotta in the first Villemain bout? All three officials and the AP & UPI gave this bout to Cerdan.

 

"Lamotta"

I agree he has been overrated because of the film. It was a clever twist I think. Admit you're an SOB because the evidence is so overwhelming that no one would think otherwise anyway, but play it that you're the toughest of the tough, because that is how you want folks to see you.

"Underrated today"--well it is not anything about being a "face first" fighter which has caused me to doubt his rep. He certainly could roll and slip punches with considerable skill. It is his erratic record and dubious decisions and rather obvious ducks if you really examine what was going on.

"the guys who wanted nothing to do with him"

Seems they were middles, but the welters were quite willing to fight him. Was Burley really not willing to fight him? Belloise? Abrams? Williams from 1943 to 1945 before he started to slip? Villemain after beating him in a non-title fight and challenging him directly? Interesting that the tough middles were craven but the smaller welters jumped into the ring with him.

"Cerdan"

"he always had an excuse"

Might surprise you, but I agree. Cerdan always seemed to make an excuse.

But, LaMotta, or perhaps his supporters, do the same. He really wasn't trying against Hudson or Villemain, or he was spending too much time in bed with Vicky, or the mob did this or the mob did that.

"Once he won the championship he went downhill pretty quick."

He was 25 when he lost to Hudson. He was 27 when he lost to Dauthuille and Villemain. Still 28 for the St. Valentine's massacre. Only 30 when beaten by Nardico. I don't think he went downhill all that much. He was just never really that good. For me, an ordinary record except for the win over Robinson with that 16 lb. weight pull. Certainly a big win, but not really as big as Turpin's who beat a middleweight Sugar Ray.

"The Fox fight was a fix"

And this is spun as a positive? And what about that decision in the first Villemain bout?

"he sort of did it by trying to make himself look bad"

He was doing that almost his whole career.

*Look, I'm having fun, and Jake was a good fighter, but just not one who stood out from all kinds of other guys during the 1940's.

**and if Cerdan was as bad as you claim, that only proves Jake backed into the title against a subpar champion.

 

Well, here is the AP & UPI on the Robinson-Abrams fight:

AP-----"Sugar Ray Robinson was awarded a split decision over Georgie Abrams in Madison Square Garden tonight, but the verdict was accompanied by a solid round of boos. Loser of two rounds on fouls and three others by the dogged infighting of his opponent, veteran Robinson wound up with two cut eyes and a solid cuffing about the head." The AP scorecard 6-3-1 Abrams

UPI-----mentions Robinson is thinking of moving up to middle, then "however the best advice that can be offered to the Sugar Man from Harlem off his squeaky split decision over the veteran Georgie Abrams in Madison Square Garden last night, is to leave well enough alone and stay where he is before he gets hurt. With the Harlem stringbean losing two of the ten rounds on fouls--actually he tossed 10 punches out of bounds altogether--Georgie won everything but the decision this time. And a large number of the customers thought he won that too, if you listened to their boos afterward." The UPI scorecard 6-4 Abrams

Spin aside, it seems to have been a competitive fight, and pretty strong evidence that Abrams still had quite a bit left to do so well against Robinson.

As for Robinson trying to save his hands for a fight with Doyle five weeks into the future, it seems an odd strategy when he was in a tough fight. As the AP reported, he ended up with cuts over both eyes, and one of the cuts was described as a deep gash. I think a cut would be potentially more harmful over the long run than an injured hand.

 

"Lytell, he had a great 1947"

But shouldn't all the losses in 1945 and 1946 count also? Why does he get to wipe his slate clean and start over?

As for the opponents--Williams (lost to Cerdan, LaMotta, and Baroudi in 1946, and Henry Brimm and Jean Walzack in 1947 before losing to Lytell) Baroudi (lost 6 fights in 1947) Cocoa Kid (an aged in and outer by this time--ten years earlier lost twice to Saverio Turiello, one of the Euro nobodies that Cerdan beat. The two fights were in Baltimore so spare us the "crooked" European judges rant) Burley (the one victim who really meant anything. Odd reading the fight report that said the two "waltzed" through the later rounds. Why a top contender wouldn't go all out to not leave it to the judges is certainly problematical)

"he had an excuse"

Might surprise you, but I agree on this point. Cerdan seems always to have had an excuse.

 

I found taking part in this thread a lot of fun and I have learned a great deal about the 1940's middles, but most of what I have learned doesn't flatter any of them, except possibly Belloise, who has risen a bit in my estimation.

 

Frankly, what confuses me about this debate is you and Compton trashing Cerdan. It is ironic that a critic of LaMotta is defending Cerdan. I certainly can see going all out defending LaMotta's win over Cerdan, but taking the position that Cerdan was more or less a phony seems to me to undercut LaMotta a great deal.

There is a brief film clip of Belloise on you tube scoring a KO over Jean Stock. Stock was not bad, coming off a win over Kid Tunero and a KO over Randy Turpin. Belloise doesn't look like a plodder at all. More like a boxer-puncher. I didn't like how low he carried his hands, but that might just be me. A lot of fighters who do that are successful. It is obvious that his punches carried authority as he KO'd Stock.

As for matching stylistically with LaMotta, Jake lost to so many different types of fighters, who knows? If he basically fought the aging welter Zivic on even terms, I wouldn't put any money on him handling Belloise.