murderers row question.....

You could argue that the Hogue brothers and Georgie Abrams deserve to be mentioned along with the Murderer's Row.

 

two British middleweights, too good for their own good as the saying goes, from the mid-30s to mid-40s Frozen-Out!

McAvoy Frozen-Out of World middleweight title mid to late-30s, and Gilroy Frozen-Out from McAvoy late-30s to early mid-40s.

given their shot they had real chances of success, the two of them fought more bigmen than any British middleweights!

 

During the teens and early twenties a lot of great fighters like Greb and Gibbons and others were shut out of title shots by guys like McTigue, McCoy, Wilson, Siki, Carpentier, and others. Even O'Dowd who was a quality fighter was hesitant to face the stiffest competition in decision matches without massive purses (in short he would regularly price himself out of competetive decision matches). The only reason he lost to Wilson was because he took Wilson lightly, underestimated his underworld connections, and some would argue lost a controversial decision.

It was really a few lucky coincidences that converged to allow Greb to challenge for the championship which really finally opened it up to serious competition after years of being basically frozen in ND fights.

 

How do you figure? Name me a murderers row that didnt get a shot from Europe after WW2?

I also think McAvoy and Gilroy are ridiculously overrated by some, particularly after Jimmy Glenn's cheer leading. Anyone who saw McAvoy get his ass handed to him by fellow European (who got more than one shot at the title and won, deservedly so) Thil would say that the right guy got his due. Having a couple of European fighters who had a couple of decent showings is a far cry from guys like Burley and others who had win after win after win that were literally eye popping and still didnt garner them any attention. Hell, you could argue that guys like Cerdan, and Mitri got shots at the title that they didnt even deserve. Particularly Cerdan. How can anyone bring Cerdan up as being passed over in the same thread as LaMotta who had a hell of a lot more impressive wins and higher standing than Cerdan for years but got passed over in favor of Cerdan who had more powerful people behind him. Cerdan's record had a hell of a lot of setups on it and is glaring for the fact that it actually doesnt even feature the best French middleweights. One could argue that he hadnt even proved himself as the best French middleweight much less the top contender for the world middleweight title or even the best middleweight period. I think Cerdan is one of the most overrated fighters personally. Thil would have stopped him.

 

Gustav Scholz.

 

Cerdan is arguably the greatest Fench fighter that ever lived and video evidence is there, though not necessary for thorough research.

the mistake a lot of people make is ruling out Brit and Euro fighters.
Yes the Americans dominated for the most part, but to suggest that a small percentage of these foreign fighters were'nt as capable is just plain silly.

Top draw is top draw! the real ones of course, and Brit and Europe had at least a few, credit where it's due man!

 

I may be wrong but I dont recall Scholz ever beating a top ten contender. Peter Mueller and Charles Humez MIGHT have been, Id have to go back and check the rankings but unless memory serves both men were defeated either before or after they had achieved their ranking. Besides, if those are the two best wins you can notch that hardly consists of a murderers row resume.

 

He was ranked Top5/10 at mws for years. Never got a shot. When he got one it was when he was past his prime and at lhw. He started out as a lw ...

 

The problem is that the evidence you refer to is Cerdan facing off against less than world class competition. Fighters routinely look amazing against less than stellar competition. Its called careful matchmaking and unfortunately today its the rule, not the exception. The only fight we have of him against someone world class and anywhere near their prime is LaMotta and we all know how that turned out injury or not. Beating a geriatric Zale who had protected his title for three years by facing Graziano in three fights that should have been easy victories but were life and death isnt that impressive. I dont dismiss European fighters, as I said, I think very highly of Thil who I think should be considered Frances greatest and who would have beaten Cerdan by stoppage IMO.I do think a lot of European fighters from that era and before got a lot of overexposure due to the big fish small pond syndrome. Take Gilroy for instance who some have now blown up to be more than he was. This is a guy who was losing at basically every stage of his career except an unbeaten streak from 37 to 43 when he was facing less than stellar opposition. Those losses came to guys from all walks of life, styles, and ranges of ability BUT Im supposed to believe that this guy was a world title threat? The guy lost to every recognizable name on his resume and a lot more guys who you never heard of yet his family wants us to believe that all these guys he was losing to were world class despite being stuck in small european back waters without any world class competition to train with or on their record? Im not saying these guys werent tough and couldnt fight. But being tough and being able to handle yourself is a lot different from being a world champion or even a top ten contender. Lenny McLean was tougher than 99 percent of the people alive, he could fight too, BUT he would have gotten his ass handed to him by pretty much any of the top ten heavyweights. Get my meaning? There are levels to consider. The toughest guy on the block in Brooklyn might be a bad MF but hes still getting his head handed to him by a Golden Gloves champ. That Golden Gloves champ is still getting his ass kicked by contender, and Contender, most of the time, is still getting a beating from a champion. Being the toughest guy in PontyPridd, or Glasgow, or Belfast can make you a legend there but it doesnt mean you are being ducked by men who are legends throughout the world and throughout history and there is nothing wrong with that at all. These guys deserve their respect but lets keep it in perspective and not make a mountain out of a mole hill or a prospective world champion out of a domestic champion.

 

Klompton, that´s the point. The competition of many non-European fighters aren´t seen as world class because they weren´t known or didn´t fight in the US even if they were top fighters in Europe or South America. But when a fighter of North America was a top fighter there he was world class.
And while I think the average was better in North America due to boxing has been a bigger sport there, I think the top fighters of South america and Europe would have been able to hold their own (and some did).

Most of the time in boxing history world titles actually were North American/British titles with the rest of the world beeing frozen out - with some exceptions to the rule. That was my point.

 

All right then. Allow me an attempt at tearing myself away from my wartime frozen title fixation. You're thinking about names like Villemain, Dauthuille, Delannoit and Mitri? (Because the Black Murderers Row was largely a middleweight clique, I guess that's why I'm placing my focus on that division.) Would it be suitable in your view to cross reference their records to identify other such competitors from mainstream Europe? (May I assume this is your preferred orientation?)

 

Klompton, that's a good stream of consciousness post. Please don't forget to take a breath, preview your posts, and break into paragraphs when you get on a roll. A solid block like this is like typing on Caps Lock. People will tune it out, skip over it, and you're too good a poster to have your work skipped over because of a form oversight. (I'm constantly having to remind myself to insert breaks, shorten my sentences, etc... It's never gotten easier for me, let alone automatic. If you were a shitty poster, I wouldn't say anything, but you're a premiere contributor here. Your opinions deserve consideration, and need to be read, but they have to be readable, especially for those of us with failing eyesight!)

 

I understand that but my point is that rarely do world class fighters develop in a vacuum. You get to be world class by sparring with and fighting other world class fighters. Some of these guys being labeled as threats had neither world class sparring, training, or fights.

Do you see where Im going with this? Im not saying that there were NO world class foreign fighters but I think for the most part most of the world class foreign fighters broke into the world scene and became known the ones that didnt werent up against some jingoistic conspiracy, or black listed because they were too damn good, they were ignored because they werent able to fight their way out of even their own fairly small pond and make a splash on the world scene.

The people, like Glenn, who promote this idea forget just how small, and how little money, and development went into European boxing between world war 1 and world war 2 outside of the major markets such as Paris, Berlin, London, etc (and even those markets paled in comparison both in talent, sheer numbers, and money to even some fairly minor American markets).

In a way this is a poor comparison because the time frames are different but it has some relevance and gives an interesting comparison. When Greb won his American LHW championship in 1922 against Gene Tunney Tex Rickard was eager to match him with Carpentier. He offered Carpentier the second biggest purse of his life (next to the Dempsey purse) to fight Greb. Carpentier refused preferring instead to stay in France. He wanted a relatively easy fight in front of movie cameras to take advantage of the European market. One would think that as massive a star as Carpentier was in Europe, and facing Siki who had been promoted to a fairly well known name in Europe at this time, he would have made a small fortune. Do you know how his purse compared to that offered by Rickard (for a no decision bout mind you)? It was about 1/12 of what he was offered to face Greb in the states. So for what he considered a large sum in Europe and local acclaim he lost his championship and was fairly conclusively proven (at least in my mind) to have attempted to fix the fight in his favor despite being an odds on favorite.

When Siki won the title Rickard made a similar offer. Siki too refused hoping to protect his championship by picking easy fights in Europe. He was basically banned every where he tried and ended up fighting journeyman Mike McTigue (who in the states was considered something of a joke as a title challenger). Now, I personally think Siki won this fight and was robbed, BUT he ended up losing to a guy who couldnt shine Greb's shoes and had indeed lost twice to him already for a relatively minor sum of money.

Meanwhile, Greb was back home fighting for a domestic title (which several gave more weight to than the world title due to the level of competition) against Gene Tunney and I may need to double check my facts but I think he was making more money than both Siki and Carpentier, in their title losing bouts, doing it.

This is a situation very similar to the black murderers row (excepting the purse sizes) whereby you had guys who were arguably more talented all around better fighters facing each other in highly competetive world class matches and making ripples throughout the sports community for their talent yet not being able to get close to a shot at the title. This is a situation utterly lacking in a lot of the scenarios being posted here about European fighters from the 10s through 60s.

I have no problem admitting that Europe is pretty rapidly passing the United States up currently in terms of talent but that shouldnt be misconstrued so as to elevate some of these fighters from the past beyond their actual capabilities.

 

Ok, let me rephrase that: Do you actually consider him a murderers row type of fighter? I guess my point is that his ranking wasnt really based on much that I can see and when I think of the murderers row I think of a group of guys avoided for one reason or another that could either taken the title outright or at least been a threat to the champion at any given time. I dont really see that in Scholz. His win loss record is nice but like I said, when Mueller, and Humez are your biggest wins its kind of hard to compare you to Holman Williams, Charley Burley, Ezzard Charles, and Archie Moore. I just dont see the Hall of Fame calling Scholz anytime soon.

 

IF these FEW Top Brit, Euro and S. American fighters could have campaigned in America regularily against the Ring's Top 10, which as bodhi stated was an American top 10 really and almost an automatic for American fighters (grossly incomplete), then the matches and decisions would have been just as impressive, wins or losses!

point is, the few never got to do it but were proved enough against the men they did fight, and more importantly who some of them were, especially stepping up out of their weight as some did! Lastly what about commentary of all the great writers, reporters, fighters and referees that were actually there - we're supposed to believe that it means nothing, 50, 60, 70 years later by us who WEREN'T THERE!

again credit to the smaller percentage of these foreign fighters who were just as good!