Tony Zale vs the MW of the last 30 yrs

You have highlighted your bias from the offset by asking people to list excuses instead of reasons.

Every fighter who's ever fought has a list of guys who he never fought.

You are completely ignorant.

People have questioned why Marciano didn't fight Valdes. And your answer was that Valdes lost to Moore. Which is fair enough. Rocky didn't fight Valdes due to circumstances. Yet you won't allow anyone to give you logical reasons as to why Zale didn't fight certain guys.

This debate works both ways. If you expect people to take on board your logical reasoning, then you have to be prepared to listen to other people's as well.

It's unfair to accuse any fighter of ducking, until you've done appropriate research.

What you've wrote above next to each of those fighters is completely irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if you think they lacked skills and was inconsistent etc. That's not what we're looking at. We're looking at why Zale fought them instead of the 'Row'.

Now if fights against those guys above were due to them being either higher ranked, financially bigger, or there was a higher public demand etc, then there shouldn't be an issue.

 

Your criteria is fine.

But if you're objective, you need to research why he missed out on those guys before claiming that he ducked them.

With regards to Burt, he's a great poster, and he backs his points up with facts and logical opinions. You can't ask for more than that. Show some respect, he lived through the time that you're debating. Which means that he can give a first hand account of the circumstances that were involved.

You strike me as a guy that if Zale had fought all of the 'Row' and Jake etc, but not Rocky and Cedan, you'd be on here questioning why.

I'll be honest, you come across as a guy who's very narrow minded who would never be satisfied.

Now you won't take into account other people's opinions, but as yet, you still have not put forward any actual evidence that Zale ducked those guys.

Again, I'm a huge fan of Roy's. And people have got a list a mile long of the guys who he missed out on. Yet with both facts and logic, I can tell people exactly why all of those fights didn't take place.

Life is defined by circumstances and opportunity.

I'm sure if I looked at Jake's resume, there'd be lots of guys who he missed out on for whatever reason. But without knowing the facts and allowing for circumstances, it would be totally unfair for me to say that he ducked anybody. And that applies to any fighter past or present.

 

"People have questioned why Marciano didn't fight Valdes. And your answer was that Valdes lost to Moore. Which is fair enough. Rocky didn't fight Valdes due to circumstances. Yet you won't allow anyone to give you logical reasons as to why Zale didn't fight certain guys. "

Actually I have been critical of Marciano not fighting Valdez, look at my history of posts, no excuse for fighting ****ell over Valdes

Marciano still ended up fighting the 4 best fighters of his era



Did Tony Zale fight any of the best of his era? I don't think so. The best of his era were burley Charles Moore Marshall Williams booked and lamotta

 

"I'll be honest, you come across as a guy who's very narrow minded who would never be satisfied."

You don't know me so I wouldn't draw any conclusions about my personality. If you ever had a beer with me, your opinion might be different.


I am fine with Roy Jones career. He fought the best of his era, Toney and Hopkins. That's the key, fighting and proving yourself against the best of your era

 

Loudon

Let me look through my black murderers row books, I'm sure they have something in there about Zale. I'm not a big middleweights guy, my strength is the heavyweight division in 40s and 50s

 

But the point is, you won't objectively allow for all circumstances.

Under different circumstances, Rocky may not have fought he best 4 guys of his era. And how on earth can you do a direct comparison between a guy who fought 49 times, and a guy who fought almost 90 times?

 

I don't know you, and I may be wrong. Hopefully I am. But I'm just saying that from reading your posts, you come across as being ignorant. And I say that because you won't allow for circumstances and you don't appear to respect anyone with a different view.

I'd love to have a beer with you any of you guys.

 

Loud on here a nice post from klompton on zales post war antics

"

 

I am open minded, my lists have changed quite a bit over the years.

Larry Holmes, moved way up on my all time list after I researched him more throughly.

 

That's fine.

This is a great debate. And honestly, I don't know anything about the 'Row' and hardly anything about Zale. But it irks me when people make assumptions while refusing to allow for circumstances. That's the only reason I've posted on this thread.

You could get me onboard in agreeing that Zale ducked those guys, either because he was a racist, or he thought he'd lose due to styles etc, if you could provide any form of evidence. But it appears that you can't.

I'm a guy who can make my own mind up about things. I won't follow a pack. You show me some facts and some logic, and I'll make up my own mind. But right now, I'm completely satisfied with what the likes of Burt has said regarding why the fights didn't happen.

Now I'd love you to tell me what the 'Row's' thoughts on Zale was. But it will only be their opinions looking from their own perspective.

So my wish here, is for you to say "In my opinion, Zale ducked the 'Row' because...." and then provide facts and logic as to why.

If you could do that, we'd all respect it, even if we didn't agree with it.


:good

 

Some more good info from klompton

 

That's cool.

As the old saying goes 'you learn something new everyday'

:good

 

klompton is mostly correct.
Yes, Zale was a bit of a 'cherry picker' post war because, as everyone knew, he'd lost 4 years with the war and lost a lot of his ability. Also, he'd been living on Navy pay. Some easy tune ups and a big payday is what he needed.
It's wrong to blame Zale for Graziano's high rating or box office appeal. The fans wanted those fights. The promoters wanted those fights. The ratings were decided by someone other than Tony Zale.

His pre-war record was good, but again klompton is correct in saying some of the others had better records around that time.
But on the other hand, it has to be acknowledged that Zale was hitting his stride when war came. His performance against Abrams was perhaps his best at middleweight, it occurred shortly before US entered the war.
Then he faced Billy Conn, and enlisted in the Navy shortly after. He was clearly beaten by Conn but many people praised his performance.
I think Zale was peaking when the war came.

 

Who do YOU think zale would have defended his title against had he not fought in the war

 

I don't know.
Whoever his managers and the promoters and the governing bodies arranged for him.