no. clearly no. but in this forum you will easily find at least 2-3 heavy posters to support anyone who was boxing at the 1950's and especially before.
An interesting question. It depends somewhat on where you put him on your all-time middleweight list and if you can't find enough fighters from other divisions to fill out your list. In other words, it depends on how you approach listmaking. I find it fascinating that Zale was out of the ring for four years (his title frozen during the war) and within 9 months of his return to the ring he beat Rocky Graziano. But he also had outstanding victories before the war. Even after the war, he looks fantastic in the rubbermatch with Graziano, yet looks shot three months later against Cerdan. The middleweight division was weak during and immediately after the war, but not before it, so Zale for the most part fought in a competitive era. The criticism of his career is the five knockout losses, as well as many points losses, but it appears that he learned in the ring (a lot of losses early on). A case can be made for including him in the top 10. I don't know if I will make that case or not. He was a savage body puncher and had one of the best left hooks I ever saw.
The war essentially robbed us of what would've been the best of Zale's reign. So no, I wouldn't say top 100, but a great fighter nonetheless.
the only things with zale was, he should of fought some of his top contenders like holman wiliiams, burley, lamotta etc
