How the Classic Forum rate Rocky Graziano ??

You are correct. I will edit my post.

 

Did you mean to quote my post with this response? No problem if so, it just doesn't appear to relate to what I posted.

For what it's worth, I rank LaMotta slightly lower than most (I have him #16 at MW, whereas I most typically see him ranked 10-15), partially because some of his biggest MW wins, e.g. SRR, Zivic, etc., were against smaller men.

I haven't got a similar analysis of Graziano's career to the one you've responded to that I posted for Jake. When I completed analysis for top 20 MWs of all time, Rocky didn't make my shortlist of fighters under consideration and I'm comfortable he doesn't belong.

 

You know Cerdan being listed 3 times was a typo,but that's you isnt it.

I confused Booker with Nate Bolden my mistake.

Klompton and I are not Buddies ,we have about as much affection for each other as you and I,but when he is right I will acknowledge it.
I would even do so if it was you! lol
I think you are on the verge of insults and instigating a flame war with me,well sorry I'm not playing.
I'll post on this thread if I feel like it ,but I won't respond to you further.
You do what you wish.

 

Welters cum Middles vs Middles cum L-HWs was the way most divisions 'met' and fought each other in Catchweight Contests, not unusual at all, especially back then.

But Jake did fight & lose to a good few Welters, the lighter meet, that is not disputed, but recoded fact... Why would anyone not appreciate the research & reports that St Pat presented?

sure isn't that what we are supposed to do in forums, read, discuss, present & learn, yet some people just can't help fight against that, which when the actual reports are real, cited & presented, what's the argument?

Thanks to the many good astute researchers on such forums, for 'any' subject never mind boxing.

sure, the last 2-3 years is sadly how crazy that is when Questions, Voices among even TOP Qualified Professionals were Squashed by Govs & Media... but it is ALL in the Courts now isn't it.

this is Boxing and the Reports are not only welcomed (our should be), but Necessary... Thank you Sirs.

 

I am sure in a thread assessing Lamotta's resume this info, which is hardly unknown or needs to be reiterated, might be relevant.
[Have you learned anything about Lamotta from this thread that you did not already know?]

However in a thread about GRAZIANO I don't think it is,and I further think its been gratuitously added to attempt to minimise Lamotta's standing as a fighter.That's my honest opinion and anyone is welcome to disagree with it.

 

A thread where you brought his fights (mostly when he weighed like 152) vs. welters as damning on his resume, so I brought in LaMotta’s light-heavy-vs.-welter record in as context. I only posted it in response to your assessment of Rocky fighting smaller men to detract from his resume.

Which I’ve explained. I’m not going to waste time tracking down times you’ve mentioned one fighter in a thread about another, but rest assured all of us have.

 

I was trying to say I look at things differently than you with your methodology:

You seem to equate a 164-pound guy (you allow 4 pounds over to count at middleweight) vs. a 149-pound guy (typical LaMotta fight) with a 152-pound guy against a 149-pound guy (typical Graziano fight) — both are middleweight fights when you stack up resume ‘in and around middleweight’ by your methodology.

I think the weight differential matters, not just the weight of the heavier guy. I wouldn’t consider Muhammad Ali vs. Alexis Arguello to be a heavyweight fight just because Ali was a heavyweight, to use an absurd example (I think 164 vs. 148 to be absurd too, but in LaMotta’s case it was just a typical circumstance).

I’m not taking issue with where you rank LaMotta nor Graziano. That’s eye of the beholder. I think LaMotta was much more a super middle, or in his day a light heavyweight, than a middle. He happened to shrink down just often enough and put his hand on the belt (via injury from pushing his opponent to the canvas no less) for a relatively short time.

LaMotta actually stepped on the scales at 160 or below 27 times in 106 fights — 25% of his bouts. That means fully 3/4ths of his fights were at light heavyweight. That kind of percentage at one weight makes sense for a fighter who rose through the weight divisions collecting belts as he grew, not spending any long period of time at any particular weight. But for a guy who is considered a career middleweight with zero accomplishments above that division, it’s absurdly low.

If you break it down further, almost every single one of those fights where Jake made 160 or below was either his few title fights OR when he was fighting welters where he was anywhere fro 6-16 pounds heavier than the guy he was fighting, it paints a picture of what he really was.

 

Catchweights were indeed common in the day.

But it’s eye-opening how few times Jake was the guy fighting the bigger opponent (Billy Fox being one of the few exceptions) vs. how often he was the significantly larger opponent.

I mean if he fought 20 fights against welters where he was by far the bigger guy but also had 20 fights where he fought at 164 against light heavyweights coming in from 175-180, sure, but that just wasn’t the case with Jake. He liked beating up on smaller men (well, also women, but that’s a discussion for another day).

 

Just to set the record on this late substitution (guy LaMotta actually fought vs. guy he didn’t from your list):

Jake lost to Nate Bolden, both of them weighing in the 163-164 range. Bolden was 33-12-3 at the time. He lost to a lot of good fighters in his career. I think Jake and Jimmy Reeves are the only fighters of any note whom he beat.

EDIT: I stand corrected, he did win 1 out of 3 vs. Zale when they were preliminary fighters in 5- and 8-rounders in their series.

 

yeah as I said, it's not as if people aren't aware of the fact, it just surprises me how repeated reports & consensus, can be blanked or passed over and the opposite claims or diversions are made without ever crediting the actual reports... anyway I am grateful for such reports, I have a good little recourses of 1930s & 40s collection, which used to be from the 1930s - the 2000s before I sold it off. Truth is I have lost a lot of interest in Boxing in recent years.

Fury the best example as to why, but equally all the talking head hype from boxing pundits, TV and absolutely degrading Soul Selling big fight hype when everybody knows it's crap and so do the Sell Outs pushing it.

but Hey Ho, once a great sport is better than none at all.

 

When I collated data for my top 20 rankings in the original 8 weight divisions I decided to assign each fight of the contenders to a specific weight division.

In each case I allowed a few lbs over for non title fights. A fight between, for example, 2 x WWs weighing 149lbs in a non title fight seemed more appropriate to attribute to their WW record than MW.

Jake LaMotta didn't enter my head when I decided on applying this criteria, which I applied consistently.

If a fighter fights someone much smaller, I took that into account when evaluating the impact on their career (I think you missed this part of my previous post).

If you think there is a criteria for assigning fights to a weight division that makes more sense, you're welcome to let me know.

 

Seems to me Graziano was basically an Arturo Gatti or Mickey Ward of his day.

He could punch and he was in a lot of exciting fights.

Doesn’t make him an ATG but he’s the kind of fighter most boxing fans like to see. Probably left ticket-buyers satisfied they got their money’s worth more often than not.

I don’t see the need to tear him down for it. He was limited. So what. Who has him as some kind of immortal of the ring? Nobody as far as I’m aware. He was what he was, a colorful character who was good box office.