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

It definitely seems a bit iffy that he would rank so highly with no win of any note at MW.

Ok, then we are agreed.

Ok. I'm not involved in this discussion so can't say any which way.

 

"Graziano was considered a legitimate contender, near the top, rightly or wrongly."

This is the only thing which really matters concerning Zale in 1946. Certainly the obvious fact that Graziano was viewed as the hottest contender by the general public also matters.

There are really two issues here. One is was Graziano a legit contender in 1946 in the eyes of the folks of the time? The other is what is the hindsight judgment of how Graziano was viewed? The first is a legit issue about Zale defending his title. The second is not.

"I can't argue if someone says it impacts Zale's legacy"

How good the opposition is viewed in retrospect impacts everyone's legacy. I think it fair if what we are addressing is Zale's standing in all time ratings. But it should not be confused with the historical fact of contemporary opinion of a contender's worth.

 

"It definitely seems a bit iffy that he would rank so highly with no win of any note at MW."

My point is that modern opinion doesn't really matter here. My opinion, your opinion, everybody's opinion, no one's opinion from the 21st century means anything concerning Zale in 1946.

The folks of the time apparently felt that impressive KO's over two welter champions proved you were a top fighter regardless of the weight class.

In fairness, Graziano wasn't totally unique. How many top welters had Henry Armstrong beaten before he got his shot at Barney Ross? Some posters have written off Cochrane and Servo because they were not active during WWII. Clearly this was not how the folks at the time viewed it. Quite the opposite. Some at least, and they put it in writing, felt that wartime competition was so weakened that wartime ratings didn't really add up to much. All I can say about that is that this does make logical sense (millions of young men being in the military) and these critics were there watching the fights.

LaMotta asked in the quote I posted why the press, and the NYSAC, and by implication the public didn't fight for him rather than Graziano to get the 1946 shot at Zale. Well, I would only observe that they had watched and were watching his fights. Perhaps he didn't impress the folks who saw him back then as much he impressed himself.

Just on all time ratings, I not impressed with any of them versus the best from other eras, and that includes LaMotta.

 

I'm not saying Graziano's case was totally unique. Armstrong's WW reign was pretty weak. There was a fair number of very questionable defenses in the 40's. That Servo got the shot before Robinson was also a joke. The 40's is very overrated in this sense.

I'm just saying that it is silly to pretend that there weren't better and more proven MWs out there that Zale could defend against. Even by The Ring's generous ratings he skipped the three top contenders in 1946 and the two top ones in 1947.

He could easily have squeezed in one or two more deserving challengers in that time frame while still facing Graziano.

 

"He could easily have squeezed in one or two more deserving challengers in that time frame while still facing Graziano."

The wartime tax rates which stayed in place after the war were very high. Because of the size of the purses with Graziano, Zale might have been defending his title for more or less nothing if he had extra fights, or even just getting himself into trouble with the IRS. Zale fought four title fights between 1946 to 1948. Louis defended his title 4 times between 1946 & 1948. Robinson defended his welter title once a year. It was the norm, with taxes probably being the bottom line in restricting championship fights.

"Armstrong's WW reign was pretty weak."

But my point is he got the shot at Ross w/o fighting top welters. He was the featherweight champion.

*I think also there might have been two championship defenses in 1947 except the Graziano rematch was delayed, I think, and then Graziano won the title, and generally a new champ was given a few months leeway before defending.

 

What? So he could only defend the tile once a year, except in 1947 he was supposed to defend it twice? Make your mind up.

He defended against Cerdan in 1948 after winning the title back a couple of months earlier.

But any which way, he should have defended against his nr 1 challenger, as Robinson and Louis did.

 

Here are some of the tax rates from 1950, the earliest "forties" year I have. I doubt if there is much difference. This is not the entire schedule but just some $ examples

$16,000-$20,000--------31%
$36,000-$40,000--------48%
$76,000-$80,000--------63%
$80,000-$100,000------66%
$160,000-$180,000-----76%
$180,000-$200,000-----79%
over $200,000 & up-----81 to 84%

*There are also state income taxes in certain cases.

So if there is a defense with a purse of $80,001, the take out for the fighter would be $27,200 (not counting state taxes)

If a second fight for the same purse is fought and so the champ makes $160,002, the take out for the fighter is $39,400 (not counting state taxes), so the "real" purse for the second fight would be $12,200. I can see why a champ would ration title fights.

I have read that Sugar Ray Robinson in 1957 had his entire purse for the first Basilio fight go the IRS. Joe Louis also was fighting during his last years just to pay off the IRS.

*The point that the huge purses from a record middleweight gate might have prevented a second title fight in 1947 is a valid one.

 

Zale lost the title in 1947. It was Graziano who would have had to have made the second title defense in 1947.

In 1948, Zale was the challenger. It figures he probably got the short end of the purse in that fight, so he had financial leeway with the tax situation to defend a second time. How much these fights draw determines the fighter's purse and so his tax bill.

"he should have defended against his nr 1 challenger"

But the issue is who determines the top contender? Your position indicates you do not feel that the public has the right to make the determination. But why not? Why shouldn't the public get the fight the public wants to see?

So who decides? That is the issue I am raising. A magazine? Various politicians? The press?

Or the public? And if the public, what is exactly wrong with that? After all, it is subjective who the #1 contender is.

 

Just another question I would raise:

"he should have defended against his nr 1 challenger, as Robinson and Louis did."

I have no criticism of either man here, but I might ask if Conn & Mauriello were really the best contenders in 1946, or were they ranked #1 because they were penciled in by the promoter as the men to get the shots? In other words, does boxing politics really often determine who the top contender is with the ratings "experts" merely following along.

When the ratings began in the 1920's, it apparently was promoter Tex Rickard who made the choices.

 

No, Zale could have defended against a more deserving contender first and then given a rematch to the one who he already beat and who wasn't deserving in the first place.

Again, you're all over the place with this one. In 1946, Zale could only defend once because of taxes, you say, but in 1947 he was supposed to defend twice but lost his title. So obviously he could defend twice.

Incidentally, Louis defended twice in 1946. First against Conn (big money fight), then Mauriello. Both top contenders.

Robinson defended against Graziano and Olsen in the same year. Both pretty undeserving, but he did make two defenses that year. Clearly it could be done.

You can't seriously mean that I haven't answered this question?

The organization/organizations mandating the world championship should also mandate the top contenders. The organizations today have their mandatories and that's a good system as such, the problem is that there are several organizations with their different mandatories.

But in MMA you have one dominant organization, UFC, with all the best fighters, and the champions there always defends against the top contender as mandated by the UFC. Twice a year generally, I think. This is a good system.

If we go by your standard that anyone with a high public demand is fine, then it was excellent of Martinez to defend against Chavez and Cotto instead of GGG and other more highly ranked fighters, since those were the fights with public pull. McGregor would clearly have been a fantastic challenger if the fight was for a title, since he was part of one of the biggest purses ever in boxing. In short, just the kind of things boxing today is derided for by the less casual fans. Whereas the UFC has been building its brand by not letting champions skip the toughest challenges for better risk/rewards.

But I'm only saying the same things over and over again, so I'll stop here.

 

Yes, I think we should agree to disagree. There is no common ground.

"Robinson" & "Louis"

Not two fighters I would select as examples of how to deal with taxes.

"Zale in 1947"

Whatever I said or might have implied in any earlier post, taxes in 1947 would have to be a bottom line consideration for Zale or Graziano, and I think the tax schedule makes it clear why.

"UFC"

I am not a fan & know nothing about it in order to comment. Certainly a central organization controlling everything and also being fair sounds great in the abstract.

As for boxing, there is no central organization as you pointed out, and more importantly, there was none in the 1940's, so this is Utopian in regards to 1946.

And I really didn't see that there has been a good answer to why the public thinks so highly of a fighter who supposedly is not a worthy contender.

So best to agree to disagree.