Does anybody know how good was Marcel Cerdan

I did a similar thread some months ago that was more specifically about the general worth of both Cerdan and Zale and what, if anything, could be inferred from watching their fight.

Zale looked just abysmal, and it was his last fight; part of that was that Cerdan smartly fought with a guard-up type of pressure and swarming, nullifying Zale's offense and putting him very much on the back foot, where a guy like that doesn't belong. Part of it too, was that Zale was just shot, completely, totally cooked as a fighter. Based on what we see there, I think a lot of fighters take him out in similar fashion.

And Cerdan just doesn't have many other notable opponents. Hard to gauge much on him, therefore. Can't rate him too highly if the accomplishments don't match the press clippings.

 

Cerdan was fine. He stood out because France isn't exactly known for the thousands of Middleweights they've produced over the last 120 years.

He won a middleweight title from an aging champ and lost it in his first defense. That's about how good he was.

Somewhere down with all the other middleweight champs who held a title for about nine months and couldn't manage one successful defense.

But, in a country where you can't put together a top 10 list of boxing quality champions, he stands out.

In most other countries with rich histories of champions, he wouldn't.

At this point, if Tony Yoka wins a vacant heavyweight strap in the next year, he'll probably surpass Cerdan on the greats French champions list. If not, he'll be nipping at his heels. That's what we're talking about here.

 

Correct. We don't seem to see much about Cerdan on these pages I've noticed. Strange.
Plenty of Carnera tho..

 

Cerdan's record is confusing. We can't pretend it has great depth - the War gave his career a limp - but there's definitely substance.

Georgie Abrams is a good win, a fierce ten-rounder with one of the greatest fighter's never to win a world title. A guy who used to post here, who may sadly no longer be with us, claimed to have been there as a kid and was highly impressed with the Frenchman. Abrams would go onto give a prime Ray Robinson all he could handle. This is why numbers and rankings only take us so far.

Contemporaries who raved about Cerdan did so because of his performances, and of course, they shape your greatness. How did you deal with your opponents? Cerdan was a punisher in the ring.

Lavern Roach, rookie of 1947, had just whupped Tony Janiro, 9 rounds to 1. Many feel he wasn't the same after Cerdan trashed him. Later that year Marcel got his title shot, and yes, it's fair to say that Zale had seen better days, though we can't pretend this was a dead man walking. You don't take that kind of punishment (triple hooks), unless you're in some kind of condition. The fight prior he'd flattened Graziano. Cerdan left him in a sorry state.

Would Zale have ever beaten Cerdan? For me, no. That compact slugging style was bad news for an upright guy who welcomed trading. Cerdan was great at protecting his body, winning the inside exchanges, circling before pouncing. Clever and ruthless. It's why some thought he had the goods to beat Sugar Ray. Not as big as Lamotta but better defensively. Quicker. More accurate.

That last part is speculation but, really, Cerdan's body of work from '46-'48 isn't half bad. Williams, Abrams, Roach, revenge over Delannoit, and the destruction of Zale. Those who saw him felt he was top tier. When he lost his title most felt the injury was the reason, not the alibi.

I've got no problem calling Marcel great.

 

How severe was his injury in the LaMotta fight and how much did it contribute to his loss ?

 

I'm not sure how Zale beating Graziano has much bearing on how much Zale had left. Graziano has a very thin resume at middleweight. So how is beating him some great accomplishment?

 

Carnera was a heavyweight.

 

No John.. He's a super duper heavyweight..