Dan Bucceroni 1950’s heavyweight contender

QUOTE="Jason Thomas, post: 21793446, member: 120389"]"WHEN"

It is important if the fighter is young and green, or old and washed up and losing to everyone.

Neither was true of Brion or Bucceroni. Brion was 24, had a 25-2 record, and I think you are wrong that he wasn't rated. He was rated by the NBA and I think in the monthly Ring ratings. He lost his Ring rating when he lost to LaStarza. But whatever, I don't think this is a big point, as he would go on to be rated as high as the #7 contender by The Ring, and the #6 contender by the NBA and to defeat several name opponents.

Bucceroni was 25, had a 38-2 record, and was the #4 light-heavyweight contender. He weighed 181 for LaStarza. He went into the 2nd LaStarza fight 41-2 and would go on to defeat rated heavyweights, such as Jimmy Slade and Tommy Harrison, and was actually rated for one month as the #1 heavyweight contender by both The Ring and the NBA.

What about Tommy Farr and Max Baer? Baer was not rated by The Ring or the NBA in 1936 and 1937. Farr defeated him in early 1937. Does this mean that the best Farr can be credited with is beating an unrated opponent? That is nonsense. Baer was a former champion and would get back to the #1 contender rank. He was easily one of the top ten heavyweights in the world regardless of being unranked at the moment and also easily one of the most dangerous punchers out there.[/QUOTE]
I give him credit for beating Greb I believe he was favourite to beat Walker?
Did anyone expect Olson to beat Moore? I very much doubt it.
Brion was25 -2 who had he beat
I hope I don't post nonsense?
But that is up to individuals to form their opinion about.
Brions 25 wins? 11 were over fighters with losing records and another 2 were debutees
He was a gatekeeper at best.

 

I give him credit for beating Greb I believe he was favourite to beat Walker?
Did anyone expect Olson to beat Moore? I very much doubt it.
Brion was25 -2 who had he beat
I hope I don't post nonsense?
But that is up to individuals to form their opinion about.
Brions 25 wins? 11 were over fighters with losing records and another 2 were debutees
He was a gatekeeper at best.[/QUOTE]

I notice you did not answer the question about Tommy Farr and Max Baer. If Baer was not rated when he lost to Farr in 1937, and all evidence says he wasn't, should Farr be merely credited with beating an unrated fighter? Is saying that Max Baer stepped into the ring unranked the whole story? Would Farr deserve more credit if he had beaten Ford Smith or Sonny Walker when they were rated, rather than Baer when he was not?

"Brion was 25-2 who had he beat"

Rated contender Bernie Reynolds and former #1 contender Tami Mauriello for two.

"He was a gatekeeper at best."

Yes. I would consider a gatekeeper someone who falls within the 6 to 10 ratings, as Brion did. A man likely to lose to the best, but possibly giving them worthy fights, while able to beat the pretty good guys much of the time.

On Brion, where would he rate as a heavyweight opponent of Gene Tunney prior to Tunney's challenge of Dempsey? I think he might rate as the best "heavyweight" that Tunney would have fought, or at worst second. One might consider Charley Weinert better. But Spalla? The green Risko? No. And none of them matched Brion's 6' 2 1/2" and 192 lbs. Tunney's best victims, Levinsky, Greb, Carpentier, Gibbons, and a teenage Loughran, were light-heavies at best, even if they were considered heavyweight contenders.

As for all of Brion's opponents with losing records, they were mainly the ones down in Argentina, I think their records might not be complete, but assuming they are, Brion fought mainly winning fighters in America, which for me buries that issue.

I don't understand your he was the "favorite" argument. It seems to be using the man's stature against him. Walker was the middleweight champion. Seems a good scalp even if Loughran was favored. Who would Loughran have not been favored over at 175 lbs?

As for Moore, who would have been favored over him at 175? Johnson wasn't in 1954. Olson was a 2-1 dog. That was the odds in the Johnson fight until late money coming in for Johnson right before the fight brought the odds down to 8-5 for Moore. Moore was also 2-1 over Valdes in 1955.

 

I notice you did not answer the question about Tommy Farr and Max Baer. If Baer was not rated when he lost to Farr in 1937, and all evidence says he wasn't, should Farr be merely credited with beating an unrated fighter? Is saying that Max Baer stepped into the ring unranked the whole story? Would Farr deserve more credit if he had beaten Ford Smith or Sonny Walker when they were rated, rather than Baer when he was not?

"Brion was 25-2 who had he beat"

Rated contender Bernie Reynolds and former #1 contender Tami Mauriello for two.

"He was a gatekeeper at best."

Yes. I would consider a gatekeeper someone who falls within the 6 to 10 ratings, as Brion did. A man likely to lose to the best, but possibly giving them worthy fights, while able to beat the pretty good guys much of the time.

On Brion, where would he rate as a heavyweight opponent of Gene Tunney prior to Tunney's challenge of Dempsey? I think he might rate as the best "heavyweight" that Tunney would have fought, or at worst second. One might consider Charley Weinert better. But Spalla? The green Risko? No. And none of them matched Brion's 6' 2 1/2" and 192 lbs. Tunney's best victims, Levinsky, Greb, Carpentier, Gibbons, and a teenage Loughran, were light-heavies at best, even if they were considered heavyweight contenders.

As for all of Brion's opponents with losing records, they were mainly the ones down in Argentina, I think their records might not be complete, but assuming they are, Brion fought mainly winning fighters in America, which for me buries that issue.

I don't understand your he was the "favorite" argument. It seems to be using the man's stature against him. Walker was the middleweight champion. Seems a good scalp even if Loughran was favored. Who would Loughran have not been favored over at 175 lbs?

As for Moore, who would have been favored over him at 175? Johnson wasn't in 1954. Olson was a 2-1 dog. That was the odds in the Johnson fight until late money coming in for Johnson right before the fight brought the odds down to 8-5 for Moore. Moore was also 2-1 over Valdes in 1955.[/QUOTE]
I don't duck questions.
Baer had been worlds champion less than 2 years previously and held a ko win over Schmeling currently rated no1. That's a bit different to Brion's resume imo! Excellent win for Farr, though Baer was badly handicapped with a badly cut eye ,and beat Farr up in their rematch.
I'm getting a bit irked by you repeatedly telling me I'm posting nonsense,perhaps I'm getting thin -skinned in my old age? Brion's rating in a different era is irrelevant,but again would make a decent thread. Brion beat Mauriello in Tami's last fight what else did he accomplish?
Brion was ranked in Dec 1951, trouble was he fought Lastarza in Dec 1949!

 

I don't duck questions.
Baer had been worlds champion less than 2 years previously and held a ko win over Schmeling currently rated no1. That's a bit different to Brion's resume imo! Excellent win for Farr, though Baer was badly handicapped with a badly cut eye ,and beat Farr up in their rematch.
I'm getting a bit irked by you repeatedly telling me I'm posting nonsense,perhaps I'm getting thin -skinned in my old age? Brion's rating in a different era is irrelevant,but again would make a decent thread. Brion beat Mauriello in Tami's last fight what else did he accomplish?
Brion was ranked in Dec 1951, trouble was he fought Lastarza in Dec 1949![/QUOTE]

"Nonsense"

Okay. I'm older than you are and probably more thin-skinned, but I wouldn't get worked up if a poster said one of my arguments is nonsense. I will withdraw the word. Still I think your argument was weak.

"I don't duck questions."

I didn't say you did. I said your post didn't answer the question I raised.

Farr and Baer--You seem to agree with me. Baer is a top scalp because of his overall career. Whether he was rated the night he stepped into the ring with Farr is not the critical issue.

I am certainly not placing Brion at Baer's level. But he was rated by the NBA on January 5, 1950 for their quarterly ratings and would continue to be rated by the NBA through 1950 and 1951. He was the #7 contender in the December 24, 1950 ratings, and #7 in the December 26, 1951 ratings.

For Ring Magazine I only have the monthly rankings for 1952. He was ranked #7 in the 1951 yearly ratings at the end of the year. He remained rated through the August, 1952 issue, when he was ranked #9. Brion peaked at #6 in the April 1952, issue.

You judged him a gatekeeper and that is fair. A fighter who peaked at #6 and was frequently ranked in the bottom half of the top ten for about 3 years.

Brion's ratings are relevant to a discussion of LaStarza.

 

"Jones destroyed LaStarza"

Box rec has him winning a UD with only 4 rounds from each official. So all three gave six rounds to LaStarza or as even. Is this actually destroying? Assuming box rec is accurate.

In the rematch LaStraza was credited with 7 rounds by two officials, and 9 by the third, a much more decisive decision.

"was on the handcuffs"

I know Suzi will go nuclear, but I have my doubts. LaStrarza was 52-2 in his other 54 fights before fighting Marciano. He beat better men than Jones. Jones was only 14-13-2 in his non-LaStarza bouts. In this supposed handcuffed fight, Jones knocked LaStarza down and cut him. Seems odd if one is trying to lose. That a gangster threatened him in his corner just doesn't ring true to me.

But Jones said he wore the cuffs. I don't doubt he did and I don't doubt he remembered it so. But the obituary posted mentions he completely lost his memory. Faulty memory in older age is not unusual, and even more common among old boxers. So how reliable is his memory? Given how unlikely this whole story is, I would counsel caution in accepting cuffs or a fix.