Having a browse through Burt's book, an the one ranking that stands out a lot is that he rates Marcel Cerdan the 23rd best fighter of all time, ahead of the likes of Charles, Leonard, Monzon, Whitaker, Hearns, Jofre, Saddler, Arguello, Holmes, Napoles, & more. Now I looked at Cerdan's record a little more closely an it is pretty amazing. Cerdan won 106 of 110, an two of those losses were due to fouls, the other he fell an injured his shoulder in the 1st against Lamotta an the other he avenged. He was 2 weight European Champion when that title actually meant something, top contender at 147 & lineal champ at 160. Lamotta claimed besides Robinson Cerdan was by far the best he faced, an that was just with one arm. You think this rating is justified by the late Berg, when you look into Cerdan's career more closely?
In short, no. It's really his resume that prevents that sort of placement. I'm not implying that his CV isn't impressive, it is. However, it lacks many big names and some of the ones that are on there were either past their best or in the case of LaMotta, bettered him (I do understand the circumstances). I think many seem to recognize that he looked wonderful on film and was viewed as a stellar fighter by those who saw and engaged him, which is a major compliment seeing as he fought in the 40's, a loaded era. The problem is that it is hard to rate someone with so much emphasis on talent. I believe many of us care more about how it is used rather than simply having it. So in short: talent-wise, he may be a top-25 guy, but on resume, he doesn't come all that close to it.
come on, I wanna hear some thoughts on this. a lot of real boxing historians round, I wanna hear there opinions. If this was about Tyson, Ali, Robinson, Leonard, am sure there would be plenty of debate, I never see no discussions on rare fighters like Cerdan.
He was obviously a truly exceptional talent, but the circumstances of his death, might have impacted his all time standing. His next two or three fights, would have been highly significant.
It would have been great to see him versus a younger Zale, to see him in a rematch versus Lamotta...basically, if he had been fighting in the US years before he actually got there. Some historians believe he is in fact really overrated. I cannot say as many of the names on his record don't mean a thing to me and there isn't a plethora of film on the guy. From what there is he looks the business though. Personally I think a top 25 ranking is pretty damn high, too high.
I think the war effected his standing more than his death. Had there not been a war he would have likely gotten a shot at his best weight WW and that would have told us a lot about him on the world level and given us several more years of high profile fights, possibly even against guys like Robinson, Zivic, Burley, an aging Armstrong, Gavilan, and a prime Bell.
I am of the same mind, but a key win past your prime, can have a big bearing on your standing. His next few fights would likely have been against name opponents.
Based on his resume? No, that placement just isn't justified, especially ahead of the guys he's ranked ahead of. In terms of his actual talent? Maybe. Pretty much everyone who saw him fight believed he was a fighter for the ages: a clever, fluid, aggressive boxer with a stern punch and outstanding defense. From what I've read he pretty much handled Holman Williams, which is worth quite a bit. What if he had been in the thick of things on the American scene and mixed it up with guys like Al Hostak, Ceferino Garcia, Freddie Steele, and Rocky Graziano? Suppose he'd fought other imposing black fighters of the era, like Lloyd Marshall, Curtis Shepheard, Bob Satterfield, etc. What if he'd flirted with light heavyweight, like Lamotta? What if he'd survived and rematched the Bronx Bull? I would particularly have loved to see him fight Freddie Steele. Cerdan and Steele stand out as the two great gems of the era who left so many questions.
Like many commentators in boxing, Bert was narrative based, not factual based. He liked a good story and didn't really care too much if pesky facts got in the way. For instance, I am willing to guarantee that he rated Dempsey quite highly. Tell me if I'm wrong on that one.
Not sure i'd rank him in the top 23 middleweights tbh. Still, Sugar is as entitled to his opinion as anyone.
