What do you make of Gus Lesnevich’s title reign

Its fatal in terms of any perception of greatness.

 

Lesnevich backed into the title, but at least winning it seems legit.

In 1939 Lesnevich got to the #1 rating by beating Dave Clark, Larry Lane, and the Alabama Kid. Clark might have fallen through the cracks, but he beat Al Gainer, Tiger Jack Fox, and Johnny Romero that year, while in between being KO'd in one by Lesnevich and then beaten by Gus in a rematch. These wins I think earned Gus two legit shots at Conn, which he lost.

At this point, Conn abandons the title to go after Louis.

The guy who emerges is Anton Cristoforidis, who gets to a title elimination by KO'ing Jimmy Reeves and handing Jimmy Bivins his first loss. He wins the title from ex-champ Melio Bettina in early 1941. At the end of 1940, the top four are Jimmy Webb, Christoforidis, Bettina, and Lesnevich. So Gus is probably #2 behind Webb when he gets a shot at Christoforidis in the summer and wins it. I wouldn't doubt his right to the title at this point, except for the Euro champ, Len Harvey.

It is hard for me to buy that Mauriello wasn't rated, as would either the NBA or the NYSAC have sanctioned a title defense against an unrated teenager? The Ring has its odd dropping guys from the ratings when moving between divisions. They had Tami rated at middle in 1940. And #2 at heavy in 1942. Still, I wouldn't consider these impressive wins.

The loss to Bivins was on March 11, 1942. My question would be less why not a rematch than why wasn't this a title fight in the first place. Lesnevich was already set to enlist on March 15, so there clearly would be no rematch unless the military approved.

He comes back in 1946 and takes a big money fight with Mills. In a way, can't blame him for that. Moore is the top contender. Charles is not yet, as he was badly beaten by both Bivins and Marshall in 1943. It took a while to reestablish himself. Lesnevich faces Mills in May. Moore had the better claim for a title shot, but Mills at this point had a claim on the title off his win over Harvey and had beaten everyone he had faced in the 1940's. Not the best, but a somewhat justifiable defense for a man who is the world champion.

Fox? Actually the number one contender when Gus faced him. Can't criticize this one.

Now, though, Gus goes completely off the rails as a champion. He just fights heavies, Mauriello twice, and Bettina, although certainly Bettina especially is a good scalp.

In 1948 Gus makes two totally unjustified defenses against Fox and Mills in rematches, and loses to Mills. He is 33 and clearly ducking Charles and Moore.

Not much to say. A marginal and lucky, but fairly won championship, followed from 1942 on with mainly dubious defenses, except interestingly Fox. Fox was 37-0 and so apparently looked to observers as a most formidable challenger at that point.

Suzie lays it on a bit thick, but he is basically correct about this being a very questionable championship reign on the whole.

In fairness to Gus, though, he was floating around the top for a very long time, from the mid-thirties until the late forties, and seems an honest workman who fell short of the top men of the time, but they were a very good bunch--Conn, Charles, Moore.

 

I think Edward is referring to a different Fox? Tiger Jack

 

It is not a champion's job to second guess the rankings.

If Fox was ranked #1, then unfortunately that is who he had to fight.

 

Sorry Suze I see it now.Billy Fox was a hyped hoax. What Lamotta had to say about him didn't leave him worth picking up!

 

Absolutely.

Unless there was some sort of tangible proof, then Lesnevich was right to fight the #1 contender.

At worst he was in a difficult position.

He could have said "this guy is ranked #1, but there are unsubstantiated rumors, so I am going to fight this guy who looks more dangerous on paper."

Once the opponent breaks the top three with Ring Magazine, it is hard to criticize the choice anyhow.

Moore should have got it, but you still have to look at it in today's money.

If the lineal champion fights the #8 today, we all buy the pay per view, and consider it a significant defense.

Champions of the past are held to a higher standard!

 

No, they're not. Few will claim that Martinez reign wasn't poor after Williams or that he didn't duck Golovkin. And I don't think it's in the least controversial to say that Cotto's reign was a joke or that Canelo's was until he took on GGG.

Old Foreman is roundly criticized for his abysmal reign in the 90's, Bowe is widely criticized for ducking Lewis, and so on and so on.

The one top ranked contender Lesnevich took on was a fraud. And was Lesnevich not wise to this? Was his hands tied since it was after all the nr 1 contender? Then why on earth didn't he feel obliged to take on any other nr 1 contender? And why did he give Fox a rematch after beating him without a fuss?

Was it only a coincidence that the only nr 1 contender he faced was a fraud and that he faced said contender twice? The guy who's manager said that a fighter who roundly beat him in a non-title fight would never get a title shot. Come on.

Such a charade of a reign would get heaps of **** today, and rightfully so.

 

Yeah, it's funny that the nominal nr 1 ranking meant so much when the fraud Fox had it that he had to take him on twice, yet seemed to matter not at all neither before or when Charles took the spot.

And it's not really like Fox was a big draw either, was it?

 

Mediocre if even that..Janitor hit it on the money