two ton tony galento....

Al Ettore was ranked #9 in the yearly rankings by Ring Magazine in both 1935 & 1936. He fought a draw with the highly regarded lightheavyweight champion, John Henry Lewis, in Jan 1937, and then lost a majority decision in Feb. He was down twice in the third of a fight which went 15. His performance was deemed good enough to justify renting the Baker Bowl, a baseball stadium, for a summer fight with Lewis. He lost a unanimous decision. Considering that Lewis was one of the best fighters in the world, Ettore's performances were not that bad. I think he came into the Galento fight as a respected fighter, whatever definition of "world class" you want to use. Being in the top 10 two years in a row and fighting a draw with an outstanding lightheavy champion, while holding wins over the current heavyweight champion, Jimmy Braddock, and future heavyweight champion Jersey Joe Walcott, would meet some definitions of world class.

Mann was ranked #3 in the 1937 yearly Ring rankings. Galento ko'd him in 1938.

 

Yes, but Lewis was really outstanding. Losing to someone like, let's say, Sugar Ray Robinson, does not prove you are a hapless bum. Neither does losing to a fighter of Lewis' calibre.

 

Oh, that was probably meant for me. Because when he was in diapers, I was covering fights. And yes, Sanders was ranked routinely in Ring and KO though not in the end of the year fight rankings available on line. Which is precisely why Don King offered him 3 million for a contract.

Oh, but I'm sorry.

You had to be there.

 

Commission Changes Ettore-Lewis Award.

PHILADELPHIA, Pa., Jan 9 (UP).--The Pennsylvania State Athletic Commission late Saturday changed the disputed Al Ettore-John Henry Lewis prize-fight decision to a draw.

Ettore had been awarded the verdict in the nontitle battle by a split decision handed down Monday night by two judges and the referee, although the light heavyweight champion apparently had given him a fine boxing lesson.

So it couldn't affect his end of 1937 rankings anyhow.

 

Tony Galento relentlessly battered decent contender Lou Nova, eventually winning on a TKO if I'm not mistaken (did it go the distance? can't remember).

I think Galento would do ALRIGHT, but seriously, I don't really see him getting past strong, tall fighters with good jabs like Wladmir Klitschko, or even Nicolay Valuev for that matter.

Galento's best chance would be too fight a guy like Sam Peter, or better yet, Oleg Maskaev. Or Ruslan Chagaev. They would all be good matches for him.

 

I read about this in Wikapedia.

 

With respect to yoru incredible knowledge, Galento had one of the hardest hooks and best chins of his era. He legitimately decked Joe Louis.

Soemthing else to compensate? how bout a great chin and great left hook?

 

No, the fight resulted in a late round TKO after one of the most disgraceful displays of sportsman ship the period had seen. Galento thumbed Nova in the eye deliberately and repeatedly. The referee of that fight was well respected prior to that match. After that fight, people no longer though highly of him for failure to DQ Galento.....

 

Lets look at it another way.

How many of the curent beltholders beat competition comparable to Galento to get their title shots?

Even alowing for your ungenerous interpretations?

Go for it......................

 

Obviously the Nova fight was a disgrace.

Nova also fouled liberaly but it might have been retaliatory.

Personaly I consider Nova to be a teir above Gallento but I do not dismis the rest of his record due to this fight.

 

I agree with Suzie. Galento was more Tua than Butterbean, and I see him at least coming within inches of an alpha belt.

 

Anybody who compares Gallento to Butterbean is thinking outside the real universe.

 

What's the difference between being ranked today and being ranked back then, if in both cases a lot of fighters got their high ranking without beating anyone of notice?

 

Well, I think a clear difference between being rated today and being rated back then (30s-50s is what I'm referring to explicitly) is what Chris P said above - today a single loss can set you back entirely, whereas back then it was not uncommon for fighters to lose, even lose trilogies and rematches, and keep their ranking. A good example is Ezzard Charles during the Marciano bouts.

Another difference is how many ranking bodies there are nowadays, and how they won't rank each other's contenders. There's alot more fluff in the rankings than there was back then, because your "top 10 contenders" lists are more or less 25-40 different individuals. There have been corrupt promoters with ties to ratings systems for boxing's entire history, but it's gotten even easier for them to get fighters ranked with all of these different systems.

 

It depends on who you lose to, if you are keeping an eye on Ring weekly ratings, when they lose to another fighter from top 10, they often stay within Top 10. I'm talking about Ring's ratings, not about misc orgs.