How did Ray Robinson navigate such a gifted path as a pro ?

Zale was prevented from defending his title at all for over 4 years.
It's bizarre you insist that he and Graziano tied the title up for 7 years when it was only 2 years.

Also, like it or not, the first Graziano fight was an absolute classic and justified a rematch, in terms of gate receipts AND for the fact that Graziano came incredibly close to knocking Zale out and Zale was considered fortunate to have pulled out his KO win.
Graziano legitimized his contender status with his performance.

 

Everything here is based entirely on LaMotta's version of events.
You swallow the LaMotta fairytale wholesale, hook, line and sinker.
In fact, your "knowledge" of middleweights of the era seems entirely distorted through a prism of idol worship for LaMotta.
LaMotta was a bitter whiner, and probably had good reason to be, but it would be best to take some of his claims with a pinch of salt.

If you have concrete proof of Cerdan receiving Lamotta's entire purse plus a bribe beyond 'what Jake said" years later, present your case.

 

Go read the senate testimony surrounding the Lamotta-Cerdan fight. The entire record of the senate sub committee presents "my case" better than I could. Particularly Lew Burston's testimony who was the bag man and front for the mob for Cerdan. I don't have to rely on LaMotta's version of events, which is entirely consistent with the senate testimony and the evidence read into the record as well as the testimony of others, the word of Joey (who plead the fifth during the testimony because he was criminally liable for his part in the affair), etc. No dumbass, as usual I rely on the consensus of sources. I don't cherry pick based on deluded hero worship. As usual you are talking out of your ass about a situation you only know from movies and magazines and claiming everyone else shares in your ignorance. I don't. Ive actually studied this period in history in depth far beyond what I can read on boxrec and hope it supports my starry eyed head in the sand view of Cerdan.

 

The only thing Graziano legitimized was that Zale was shot. Graziano had the same troubles with equally inactive welterweights who in their own primes were nowhere near as formidable as a prime Zale. So no, Im not impressed that Graziano snuck into a title shot at MW by going life and death with a bunch of welterweights and then had a life and death struggle with a shot champion who hadn't fought anyone with a pulse in four years and still Graziano managed to get stopped twice in their three fight series and lose to every rated MW he ever fought. If that impresses you so be it. He was the Arturo Gatti of his generation. Popular because he could get his ass outboxed by smaller fighters and have to come from behind to win with highlight reel KOs but limited, overrated, and beaten by anyone nearing his size with an ounce of class. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

They didn't. They controlled Cerdan through their connection with the mob when he defended against LaMotta. Go back and read what I wrote: "within the year." Within the year of the NBA cowtowing to the mobs control of boxers the IBC partnered with Carbo. The IBC through Norris had control of the venues and television dates and Carbo had control of several key fighters, not the least of which was Cerdan. Cerdan-LaMotta was the IBC's first major promotion. A week later they promoted the Charles-Walcott bout for the title that Louis had vacated through a deal with the IBC to step aside so they could take over promotion of the HW title. In short, within one week, the IBC promoted the championships in the two marquee divisions in the sport. It provided the IBC with control over promotion of boxing's two most bankable titles. Their control over Cerdan was a lynchpin in this.

Now that you know this you can revise your argument accordingly.

 

I've read the senate testimony. It's all online anyway so I'm sure others here have read it too.
Nothing was proven in regards to the bribe going to Cerdan, nevermind LaMotta's entire purse.
I don't doubt that LaMotta and others were shaken down and made to pay bribes - boxing is corrupt. I seriously doubt Cerdan was pocketing the money. And I doubt he was treated any differently.

You clearly haven't read and studied this period in history in depth at all, hence you ridiculous claim that "the IBC monopoly" threw their weight behind a Zale and Cerdan match for 1948.
A complete ignorant claim, and something you thought you could make up to suit your agenda, that you probably thought was plausible.
So you're the dumbass.
You know it.

 

You wrote : "Even Marcel Cerdan was ordered by the NBA to face LaMotta in an elimination before facing Zale but the monopoly of the IBC threw their weight around and got Zale that fight, "

Which is completely and utterly incorrect.
The "monopoly of the IBC" didn't exist when Cerdan fought Zale, nevermind before it, so what on earth are you talking about ?
The "monopoly of the IBC" didn't exist when Zale was active, it didn't get Zale ANY fights. So what's your story ?

(On top of that, Zale-Cerdan was promoted by Tournament of Champions, a new promotional company that was challenging the old 'monopoly' of the Twentieth Century Sporting Club, so it's not even a case of you mistaking the Mike Jacobs 'monopoly' for the later IBC one)/

LOL .... you're the one adjusting your argument.
You said the IBC monopoly pulled strings to make Zale v Cerdan ahead of an NBA ordered eliminator (Cerdan-LaMotta), which is complete bullsh^t, not even at all possible, not remotely plausible.

You're just making stuff up and then pretending everyone else is ignorant.

 

Boxing is a business. The second Zale-Graziano fight was a natural after the first match proved to be a fiercely contested classic. Fans wanted to see it again. Sorry, but that's how the business works.

 

Hagler used that insecurity to get better. He is one guy who knew how to use his weaknesses as a positive. And he knew his limitations. One of the smarter mean around, but he was very sensitive, and Ray Leonard used that and saying they were friends to weaken Marvin. Marvin needed insecurity to succeed.

 

And the business bottom line is very clear. Here are gates that I have for middleweight championship fights during this era. The list goes down only to $180,000 in the old Ring Record Book

Zale-Graziano (1946)------$342,497
Zale-Graziano (1947)------$422,009
Graziano-Zale (1948)------$335,646
Zale-Cerdan (1948)---------$242,840
Cerdan-Lamotta (1949)----$150,762
LaMotta-Robinson (1951)--$180,619
Robinson-Turpin (1951)----$250,000 (in London)
Turpin-Robinson (1951)----$767,630 (in NYC)
Robinson-Graziano (1952)--$252,237

These speak for themselves. LaMotta was not a big draw at this championship level compared to Robinson, Graziano, Zale, or even Cerdan.

I think the reasonable question to ask is if LaMotta was such a superior and exciting fighter, why not?

 

On the thread concerning why Louis didn't defend against Lem Franklin, there was this post:

"That's not up to Louis. Promoters and matchmakers decide who they think they can make money with and then build the fight. It's not up to Louis to be champion, matchmaker, promoter, head up the ratings committee, etc. Louis' only responsibility was to beat whoever they put in front of him."

This seems to be true for this poster for LaMotta also. But somehow not for Zale.

And no one has dealt effectively with why picking the big draw is suddenly for Zale the unforgivable sin. Nor has anyone really dealt with why Graziano was the big draw in the first place if he didn't impress the general public of the time with his performances.

 

LaMotta is quoted here giving his own spin, which I think is revealing:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I got the dirtiest deal on record when I was number one middleweight contender back around 1946. You probably remember how I was licking the toughest middleweights and light-heavyweights. So what happened when Tony Zale got back into action with the title? Did I get consideration? Did the press, the promoters and the New York Commission fight for me?

"Promoter Mike Jacobs saw a money shot for Rocky Graziano against Zale and bang! I was out in the cold. And I stayed out for two years while they took the match to Chicago and then Newark

"Then what happened? They had Zale the champion again and they brought in Cerdan. Did he deserve a shot as much as I did? Okay, let that pass. Finally I got a match with Cerdan. What does the commission in New York do? It drives the match out of town, laughs at the match, says it is one-sided. But when I licked Cerdan, New York jumped on the bandwagon, didn't it?"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The part about the New York commissions "laughing" at matching him with Cerdan as too "one-sided" is very interesting. But LaMotta is being quoted as saying this himself.

Also, while slamming Zale for fighting Graziano, I believe LaMotta was going to fight Graziano in his first defense until Graziano withdrew with an injury.

Also, the toughest middleweights and light-heavyweights is mainly spin. He never fought Burley, Booker, Chase, Moore, Belloise, Abrams, etc. The fairer claim was that he defeated some tough middleweights. As for light-heavies, he lost more often than not although often having weight pulls against smallish light-heavies (actually super-middles in size at most) The really big light-heavies he fought, Fox, Murphy, and Nardico, all stopped him, but in fairness to LaMotta, this was much in the future. But a list of "toughest" light-heavies that doesn't include Charles, Moore, and Maxim seems really not to be what is being claimed.

Overall, what strikes is the self-pity from a man who might have noted how fortunate he was not to have had to serve in the World War and thus could pursue a career during the war years and so build a deeper resume than rivals who were not so lucky.

LaMotta was only 26 in 1948 and had been penciled in by the NYSAC as the number one contender until he blew that rating in 1947 with a loss to Cecil Hudson before dumping the fight with Fox.

 

Don't buy this for a second. It's like Real Madrid got to choose whom to defend their CL crown against based on what team was the best risk/ reward. Other sports don't buy this nonsense "it's a business". To be holding titles you have to defend them against the most deserving opposition. Boxing should be no exception.

And Zale could well have faced a top ranked contender for the first time in six or so years and then taken the rematch with Graziano later that year. Actually he should have defended against a top ranked contender already in 1946 and taken Graziano as a bonus fight.

But for two years he only defended against a challenger who had beaten only one MW and none ranked. It's silly to pretend he couldn't and shouldn't do better out of a sporting perspective.

If we go by this "it's business" nonsense champions can start to only defend against the McGregors of this world because it's sound business for them.

 

Graziano was ranked #4 by RING magazine at the end of 1945 and ranked #3 by RING magazine at end of 1946 after the Zale fight.
I don't consider RING ratings to be the 'be all and end all', BUT it's a clear indicator that Graziano was considered a legitimate contender, near the top, rightly or wrongly.
And his first loss to Zale even enhanced his reputation.

I totally agree that Zale is open to criticism for not facing the better fighters than Graziano.
I agreed that Zale and Graziano tied the title up for 2 years. I can't argue if someone says it impacts Zale's legacy a bit.
But I also think it helps explaining the context of the times, in the face of such bias, lies and distortions of truth that klompton choses to inject into the discussions surrounding LaMotta v Zale/Graziano/Cerdan.

 

Exactly.
LaMotta was a bitter whiner, full of self-serving statements and clearly steeped in a 'victim mentality'.
But he was probably an actual pyschopath so it's not surprising.