Who was the better heavyweight Tami Mauriello or Elmer a Ray?

The counter argument to that, is that if a weak contender beats an established contender, they don't automatically inherit their ranking. The established contender is always down graded. A recent example of this would be Glazkov beating Adamek, and only receiving a #8 rating for it.

Given that Mauriello was a more established contender, with a longer run of unbeaten form, you can see why moving him into the #1 slot might seem to be the logical move. They might have been reluctant to give the then deceptively uncertain Walcott, the #1 ranking.

Again, timing is everything here.

Mauriello's run of form, probably looked more convincing than Walcott's run of form, at this relatively early stage in Walcott's rampage through the rankings.

I wonder what Mauriello and Ray would think, to know that their legacies were being so hotly debated 70 years later!

 

Yes I do.

What I don't do, is use it to judge decisions made at the time.

For that, I effective put a napkin over everybody's resume the day after the Woodcock fight, and pretend that I have no idea what happens next!

 

I said REASONABLE. I stick with that.

You make much of the Bivins fights, but Mauriello fought Bivins years earlier when Tami was still a teenager and the fights were close. Walcott beat Bivins in a split decision. But a few months later Lee Murray beat Bivins by UD and observers felt Bivins had gone back. That is not unlikely, as Bivins proceeded to lose not only to Murray, but to others he had beaten earlier--Charles, Moore, and Maxim. By the way, Bivins had beaten Charles and Moore much more decisively than he had beaten Mauriello.

Oma lost in the summer of 1946 to Walcott, but he had lost two of three to Mauriello, one by KO. Common opponents favor Walcott, but it isn't the only basis for comparison.

Who had Mauriello lost to? Soose, a middle champion. Twice to Lesnevich, the light-heavy champion. Twice to Bivins. And these five losses while a teenager. After turning twenty he had lost only to Oma, whom he defeated twice, once by KO, and Baksi. All the five men who had beaten him were rated top five or higher in their divisions.

Walcott had lost in 1945 to Johnny Allen, a far lesser fighter than any of the men who had beaten Mauriello.

Walcott also blew a fight in August to Maxim.

Woodcock was an unbeaten fighter going into the Mauriello bout. This was an impressive win at the time.

All this made Mauriello a very reasonable choice for #1 contender.

 

"NBA had Bivins ahead of Mauriello entering 1946"

Did they have Bivins ahead of Mauriello after he lost to Walcott and Murray? After all, this happened before the Louis fight.

"Duration champion"

Bivins never fought a scheduled 15 round fight at heavyweight. His only scheduled 15 round fights were at light-heavyweight against Christoforidis and Marshall. He seems to have been generally recognized as "interim champion" at light-heavyweight, but not at heavyweight, which makes sense both because he had beaten Lesnevich while being "champion" over Joe Louis made no sense to almost anyone. His management may have claimed that title but I doubt the public thought much of it at heavyweight.

"Oma"

Winning one of one by decision isn't necessarily better than winning two of three, with one win by KO which was and probably still is considered a more decisive sign of superiority.

"Moore and Charles weighed 165 and 168 when they fought Bivins. They were super-middleweights."

So was Marshall. Mauriello was a teenager. Maxim had barely turned twenty. Lesnevich was a light-heavy. You are making a pretty good case here that Bivins was overrated as a heavyweight. Both Charles and Moore were light-heavyweights when they beat Bivins in 1946 and 1947. Bivins weighed 186 to Charles' 175. 184 to Moore's 174.

"Lee Q Murray. Irrelevant what happened after the Walcott fight."

Why? Walcott won a split decision. Murray a unanimous decision. So Murray beat Bivins more decisively than Walcott did. This happened in June well before Louis defended against Mauriello. You not considering it doesn't mean every other rater must never consider it either. This is a very subjective judgment.

"Johnny Allen. Avenged twice and held three wins over men who beat Mauriello."

Allen never beat anyone who beat Mauriello. He was a mediocre 11-14-1 fighter. Avenged? A rater can be forgiven for taking the position that Walcott should never have lost to Allen in the first place. This defeat was only a year and a half earlier.

"Maxim. Beat Bivins and Lesnevich, two men who beat Mauriello."

Years later he did. Actually, when he beat Walcott, he had only a loss to Bivins on his record.

"Woodcock undefeated. Against whom?"

Probably his best opponent was Al Delaney who had wins over Toles, Galento, Tiger Jack Fox, and Lesnevich, plus draws with Loughran and Pastor. Woodcock's opponents weren't a stellar lot, that is for certain, but he had 24 KO's in 25 victories in 25 fights and we've seen at other times that spectacular KO records tend to get a guy highly rated. He did convincingly knock out Lesnevich later in 1946.

"Ratings"

I agree that Mauriello shouldn't have been rated over Bivins going into 1946, or over Ray going into 1947. The issue with Walcott is fogged both by Bivins losing worse to Murray, Walcott's earlier spotty record such as the loss to Allen, and certainly by Walcott losing to Maxim in 1946.

I don't see Mauriello as an overwhelming choice as #1 contender in September of 1946, but I do think he was a reasonable choice.

 

Mauriello and Bivins was not a 15 round fight.

I think Big Boy Brown was also a duration champion by some state. But what does any of this mean. Bivins was the #1 contender. I agree with you there, but the Conn issue is a choice I think they had to make.

Bivins once being #1 doesn't mean much after he loses to both Walcott and Murray.

 

Sorry, McVey, but I am not plugged in enough to be able to interpret a few things in your post (with which I think I agree. Just out of curiosity, who was the white, Jewish author/jounalist/screenwriter to whom you refer? Damon Runyon? And who was the ******* verbal child of Archie Moore?

Hard to say, since there is no film of Elmer Ray, but I am pretty sure the "Violent" one would have dispatched Mauriello in short order. Just look at the Ray-Savold and Mauriello-Savold matches. Also, I feel sad that Ray's victory over Charles did not result in a title shot against Louis. I have always favored punchers who land a few telling shots over pitty-pat guys who land a few shots, so based on the description of the first Ray-Charles fight, I think Violent earned the title go. It probably doesn't matter in the great scheme of things since Louis seemed to handle Ray pretty easily in their exhibition, but I think Elmer deserved a payday against Louis.