Tony Zale vs the following men

But would he have lost to them in1940, when he won the WBA title?:think

 

Good question. Tiger in some fights looks really good and in others looks mediocre.

 

Tiger wasnt the type of guy you wanted to go head to head with. If you went after Tiger and tried to make a war of it hed chew you up and spit you out. Boxers gave Tiger trouble, not aggressive guys.

 

Same as Zale really, imo.

 

Prime for prime, yes he loses to all of them. The 1940 version of Zale against the 1940 version of say LaMotta (who was an amateur then) youd have to favor Zale.

 

I need to catch more of his bouts I've only seen 4 he looked great against Carter but the Rouse and Griffith bouts were not entertaining. The Foster fight I don't hold against him for obvious reasons.
Time for YouTube later

 

I dont know, I guess that depends on how highly you rate and Zale and how highly you rate some of the brawlers he fought. The best strong brawler he fought was Apostoli but Apostoli ran so hot and cold and had been out brawled, punched, and toughed by Garcia its hard to say that he would compare to Tiger. No doubt in my mind Garcia doesnt beat Tiger and certainly not the way he beat Apostoli. I think Zale is overrated in just about every way you can imagine. People think nowadays that he was a tough guy because he was called the man of steel. He was called the man of steel because he came from a steel town, not because he was so durable. His durability today is overrated. He was a terrific body puncher but his power is overrated. He wasnt a great boxer. He didnt have good defense. I dont know, I just think Tiger was better at almost everything he did with the possible exception of bodypunching. I think Zale would find an immoveable object in Tiger and get stopped or lose a wide decision taking a lot of punishment.

 

Not many beat Richard Ihetu in a tear up.:-(

 

He was already getting old when he fought Rouse and Griffith (most people Ive talked to thought he beat Griffith, I dont). Tiger was an odd fighter. If you came to him he looked unbeatable. He was a rock. But if you moved and boxed he had problems and could look ordinary. Ive never seen a fighter who had such a dramaticly difficult time switching like that. I mean, he looked THAT GOOD when he was up against ANYONE who tried to fight him but he just often looked very one dimensional against movers. But I dont think Zale had it in him to really do that to Tiger. I think he would either have to fight that kind of fight from the get-go or would very quickly revert to it and I dont see him winning that way. Tiger is the type of guy that I almost always favor head to head against slugger, bangers, or aggressive fighters. Throw a boxer in there or a guy who comes with a plan a, b, c, and d and Tiger stops being an overwhelming favorite for me. Arthur Mercante told me that **** Tiger was the strongest fighter he refereed. He said that when you went to break him touching him was literally like touching steel, his muscles were that hard. He said if Tiger didnt want to break from a clinch you werent going to break him until he was ready.

 

Very true, but its odd, if you look at his record he fought a TON of cuties. I dont understand that. Youd think his management would have been a bit more selective. They certainly didnt seem interested in protecting him, or even trying to match him selectively against guys that would make him look better. That being said he always seemed to do better in rematches. He was kind of like Briscoe in that regard, another guy who was better if you fought him (although I think Tiger was better than Briscoe). That brings to mind two intriguing matchups: Tiger-Briscoe and Tiger-Valdez. Valdez would be very interesting because he could box and brawl, had a great chin, big punch, and good inside game.

 

Ive lways enjoyed watchin Valdez

 

I agree here with you but the thread isn;t about Tiger or Basilio or Fullmer, we are getting sidetracked, Zale was out of the picture when these guys started knocking heads off shoulders

 

The problem is that their primes were in different times and usually in different weights, Moore does not really hit his stride at full gallop until at LHW, same goes for Conn and Charles. This makes it all hypothetical and opinion and therefore unscientific and unrealistic.

 

Zale is nowhere near as bad as all that, sure Tiger had the tools but today I did a masive write up on his qualities and i also pointed out a fact no one has yet mentioned here... the champs did not gt to pick and choose who they fought, the mob had a big say in who fought who. I think he proves his durabilty beyond any doubt, again i insist we all look at the Graziano and Cerdan fights again, then anyone questioning Zale's toughness will sound like a goose, the amount of punishment Cerdan gave out that night would have stopped just about any middleweight well before the 11th round, in this fight all I can do is think Fu**inghell is this guy human.... lets not question his obvious qualities, he has enough flaws fro you to look into. Fact is in the 30's and 40's trying to pick the winners of bouts was akin to closing your eyes and whacking a pinyada.

 

That's one of the reasons I have always rated an in shape Giardello.