tony zale question...

So is it your contention or dundees that Abrams was so good in his prime, that after being supposedly wrecked by Zale and a four year layoff he was able to hold arguably the greatest fighter ever damn near even as well as Cerdan? Because thats what either you or he are saying. Because surely if a fighter is completely wrecked and can hold those guys about even then imagine what he could have done in his prime... And if thats the case, if indeed he was just that damn good, then why did he have such a hard time with Janazzo, Chmielewski, Henneberry when he was in his prime? Were those guys somehow on the same level as Cerdan and Robinson??? Like I said. Nobody who is wrecked holds two P4P fighters that close. Tony Zale was wrecked after he fought Cerdan, how do you think he does against Robinson in 1948? Evander Holyfield is wrecked, how do you think he does against either Klitchko (and they arent even P4P IMO). David Reid was wrecked after Trinidad, anyone wanna guess what would have happened had he stepped into the ring against someone like Mosley or Hopkins? Abrams was not wrecked. We can debate it all day long but like I said. I disagree with Dundee.

 

the case, if indeed he was just that damn good, then why did he have such a hard time with Janazzo, Chmielewski, Henneberry when he was in his prime?

prime? were not taking about the same fighter
Georgie was a baby/teenager when he fought these cats.
Your still mixed up about this "wrecked" thing. Now you have
"completely wrecked".
Chris Dundee made it clear his Georgie was never the same after the Zale fight. Nobody's in a better position than he to gauge the fighter.
vs Robbie chunky Georgie had a 20 pound weight advantage and lost. Never mind weights papa mike announced to the public.
He lost to Cerdan. Did he do this despite the Zale damage? I would always agree with Dundee. He was there all the way.

 

He is entitled to his opinion, you to yours, and me to mine. We can simply agree to disagree.