Dick Tiger vs. Tony Zale

I would give Zale a good shot at winning this one. They didn't call him the "Man of Steel" without a good reason. Dick Tiger was one of the strongest middleweight champions. I don't think he had the punching power of Tony Zale however.

 

I would take Ketchel over all but a small handful of 160pounders.

In this thread I think I might give Tiger a very slight edge over Zale,but would expect them to split a trilogy.No stoppages however ,just the kind of fights that ruin boxers, and the fans never forget.

 

Real good point about LaMotta. Somehow those old willing to brawl types are not given very much credit recently and guys like Jake are usually mixed in with say, the Frank Fletcher types in the skills department. And LaMotta was around at a time in shark infested waters and there weren't a ton of softies to pad records and avoid certain fights. He simply had to have a set of tools to be the first guy to beat Robinson==who sure had one helluva winning streak going before ever losing a fight.

 

Totally agree.

 

Lest we forget, Dick Tiger was very good , but he was no world beater..Remember , Tiger lost to Randy Sandy, Spider Webb,Rory Calhoun,Joey Giardello twice,Joey Archer,Emile Griffith etc..These are all fine fighters,but they are not in the same league of a PRIME Tony Zale before the second workd war...Look at the fighters that Tony Zale faced pre_war Al Hostak, Fred Apostoli, Billy Conn, Billy Soose, Georgie Abrams...All GREAT middleweights in a great era...People convenietly forget this and remember the older past prime Zaly...Tony Zale,after 4 years service in world war 2,came back at the rusty and late age of thirty three...At this age ,he ko'd a crude but murderous punching Rocky Graziano twice,and lost to the great Marcel Cerdan when Zale was thirty Five ,and long past his peak...I feel Zale hit much harder in prime than Dick Tiger ,was just as tough, and beat better opponents than Tiger did ...Zale decisions or tko's Tiger, I believe, both in their primes.....

 

How was he "no world beater"? He was arguably the best MW of the '60s, which was as deep as any era in MW history; he has numerous big wins over HOFers like Gene Fullmer, Joey Giardello, Nino Benvenuti, and Jose Torres; and he was the unified world champ at both 160 and 175 - the only fighter to be so in the last 100 years.

Zale lost to fighters like Billy Soose, Nate Bolden, and Jimmy Clark even before he went to war. Most of the losses you listed under Tiger's name were on close, disputed decisions, and a number of them were decisively avenged. Conversely, Zale was outboxed decisively by Soose and Bolden and KO'd in 1 by Clark.

With the exception of Conn (who Zale failed to beat anyway), how is this group of fighters distinctly better than the one you listed under Tiger?

How old was Tiger when you put him down for losing a questionable decision to Griffith?

Tiger is never known to have been dropped until he was around 36/37 years old, and was never counted until after that when he fought arguably the hardest hitting LHW champ ever. Zale was stopped/KO'd several times at various stages of his career and was down and hurt several times even right at his pre-war - and that's without having been as active as many years as Tiger or spent nearly as long fighting above 160.

 

My2Sense, valid poits you mnake...But it is true Tony Zale lost to Billy Soose,Nate Bolden,Jimmy Clark,[who Zale kod after]...Not saying that Zale was invincible, but in prime I feel Zale was better than Dick Tiger, my opinion...It is just as true Tiger was beaten by the likes of Wilf Greaves,Randy Sandy, Rory Calhoun,Joey Giardello, Joey Archer,etc...Many who Tiger later beat...But I believe this firmly ...Fred Apostoli, Al Hostak,Georgie Abrams, Billy Soose,would have licked any of Tigers opponents, except for Bob Foster,who was a lightheavyweight, of course...One other fact...When Zale first started boxing in 1934, Zale was thrown to the wolves by his handlers,fighting once a week, while still working at in the steel mills...It was when he was then managed by Art Winch and Sam Pian in 1937, that Zale hit his stride...Art Winch and Sam Pian were vgreat mgrs. who guided the great Barney Ross to the top years before..Finally Zale and Tiger were both great fighters, in their respective eras..

 

Well, you are right boh were great fighters and atg mws. I rank Tiger higher though. I think Griffith, Giardello and Archer were as good if not better than Apostoli, Hostak or Abrams. Additionally I think Tiger was the greaes mw of the 60s while Zale was not he greatest of his era.

But then I know both only from film, you saw Zale live and thus your perception and appreciation for him are different and perhaps nearer to the truth.

 

bodhi, No I never saw Tony Zale live, but saw hisfights with Graziano of course...However I saw Georgie Abrams ringside at MSG, Dec, 1946 ,losing a close dec. to the great Marcel Cerdan...Close, close bout...Four months later in MSG my father saw Georgie Abrams lose a controversial dec. to the PRIME Ray Robinson...The fans wereagainst the dec. very much....Now to your next point...I would take the era of the late 1930s middleweight division over any collection you cite,of Tigers time...Griffith, Giardello,Fullmer,Archer etc... How about my list of great middleweights...Here goes...Freddie Steele, Fred Apostoli, Al Hostak,Billy Conn, Solly Krieger, Billy Soose, Teddy Yarosz, Ken Overlin [licked Ezzard Charles], Nate Bolden etc...That was truly a golden era of great middleweights ,most of who would be champs at other times... Tiger was a great and tough fighter but his opponents, most who I saw didnt compare with the great era I cited before....