In responding to your post, of which the above is an excerpt, I only got this^ far before realizing there was very little chance we could even come to a compromise, let alone agree, on this matter. There is oftentimes a point in a discussion, at which the broader topic under debate gets lost in a swathe of talking points; splintered into what could become topics in their own right, with individual opinions for each. I'm not sure how many of these are needed, when the central matter of debate is quite simple, but your latest post on this thread throws a lot of talking points into the mix, at once. Most of these are aimed at diminishing the claims of a title shot for those Heavyweights in the NBA's rankings. One supposes this in order for you to strengthen the impression of Uzcudun, as a worthy contender. Unfortunately, whether intentional or otherwise, such an approach tends to obscure rather than clarify. As it happens, your overview of Levinsky probably overcomes this predicament and so, addressing this part of your post is sufficient to demonstrate just how perspectives can be shaped in writing, in order to hold a seemingly strong position. In this case, that Uzcudun, a boxer who had not been in any real contention for the championship, in years, somehow and quite suddenly became apt for a shot at the title. Despite your smudging of Levinsky's merits, I think the reasons for his higher rating - than that of Uzcudun - is really quite clear. Levinsky's challenge is perhaps stronger than anyone’s, other than Baer’s and Loughran's. Setting aside his superior placement in the NBA and Ring ratings, his wins over Retzlaff, Griffith and Sharkey, during ’33, outshine Uzcudun’s over Charles and McCorkindale. Charles and McCorkindale are good wins - at least, on paper - but they do not compare to the trials that Levinsky underwent, over the course, and I think your plain use of numbers to define Levinsky is unfortunate, since it conceals the level at which he was competing at, consistently. Your use of numbers to bolster your case is also decidedly conspicuous. Why are the "last 26" fights of these contenders, whom you've decided to provide a perspective on, so important? It is the second time you have used this number to provide a frame of reference for comparison. In forming such a comparison, between Levinsky and Uzcudun, you didn't really address, in any substantive way, what those numbers mean. Sure, 18-8 for Uzcudun reads better than 13-12-1 for Levinsky. But, without context, this provides no perspective. I provided some context for Uzcudun's 18-8 in my last post, which doesn't find its way to being acknowledged by you. You also fail to mention that 26 fights for Uzcudun covers a period of 5 years, whilst the same for Levinsky covers half that period. Over the course of 5 years, Uzcudun lost to every name of note, bar von Porat and a green Baer, in 1930 and '31 respectively. Over the course of two and half years, Levinsky lost to every name of note, bar Sharkey, Winston, Uzcudun and Loughran. Of his losses, Levinsky twice went the distance with a Max Baer, who was coming into his own; twice faced Carnera (and better versions of Carnera than Uzcudun had met in 1930); three times faced Risko. Other losses, including his split with Loughran and dropping a decision to Walker bring no shame on him, either. Perhaps the most significant difference - and one of the better benchmarks - is the result you more or less dismiss - That is, Levinky’s own win over Uzcudun, which was a comfortable one, just a year before Uzcudun gets his title shot. Home crowd or no, Levinsky was superior to Uzcudun. And you neglect to mention Uzcudun’s own loss to Carnera; preferring to only mention Levinsky’s losses to the same. Uzcudun had previosuly been owned by an inferior version of Carnera, in contrast to Levinsky’s second go at Primo , which was a close-run contest. Again, Levinsky provided the greater challenge. With a proper, objective review, there is much to place Levinsky above Uzcudun and I think the same could be applied to Uzcudun in relation to most of the NBA ranked fighters, save Gastanaga (and perhaps Cavalier). As I suggest, your take on Levinsky is enough for me to see there is no middle ground here. A cursory look through some of your other points, tends to confirm this… - Baer not that green? How old was Baer when he faced Uzcudun? How many ranked opponents had Baer beaten before meeting Uzcudun? How many times had Baer competed in a bout scheduled for more than 10 rounds? These might be initial, pertinent clues, as to how green Baer was. 1931 was a pivotal year for Baer. If I recall correctly, the book: ‘The Magnificent Max Baer: The Life of the Heavyweight Champion and Film Star’, two chapters deal with this period in his career. - Harking back to Uzcudun's more successful period, which was, in reality, the mid-20s and had ended 5 years earlier, does not support a case for his contention, 5 years later. - In addition, the fact Loughran and Baer received their respective shots, later on, does not in itself support a case for Uzcudun having been granted a crack at the title. -Gastanaga’s placement in the NBA ratings is not enough to write off the entire system and it is more than just a bit of a leap, to go from Gastanaga’s peculiar rating to that circumstance alone being “strong evidence for the probable corruption, and certainly for the uselessness, of the NBA ratings for that time.” The bottom line is that Uzcudun was a tough, aging, but durable veteran, who had had his heyday and been given a whole lot of chances to prove himself, even after that. He was not “a very worthy contender” in 1933, just because he had exploits to his name from several years before. His win over Wills was in 1927 - so, just how far was he supposed to have dined out on that one? Ultimately, his performance against Carnera, in '33, confirms just how far he'd fallen from the level, at which a legitimate contender needed to be. The appropriate level had been exhibited by previous Carnera opponents and would be so again, immediately after that farce in Rome.