Zale gave Jake a miss and opted for Graziano

My2sense, didn't Suzie Q own you on this subject awhile back? Or is my memory confusing something else. I remember him bringing the Ring ratings too. You brought the NBA subject, he said that held no real meaning. I'll possibly search for that thread if I can...

 

This is the only other thread where I talked about Graziano's ranking in '46:

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=162844&highlight=Graziano

I don't where/how you see that I was "owned" here though. Nor do I see how anyone could be "owned", as it's just a simple fact.

 

I have read in a 1950's Ring Magazine. That they select the ratings of 1946 in early 1947........So thats why.....

 

It's a FACT that Rocky was rated over LaMotta and Burley by the NBA. It's also a FACT that he was heavily favored to beat Zale. Again, how can there be criticism for a titleholder for fighting his leading contender, and who is expected to beat him on top of it? That's normally what a champion is expected to do, and criticized if he doesn't do. You can look at any reports from his day and see that the fans and writers lauded him for fighting someone as dangerous as Rocky in his first defense since returning from the army. The notion that Zale was somehow "avoiding" other contenders or selecting a "less dangerous" challenger is purely a revisionist one.

 

Yep.......:good

 

Why does it matter if the NBA has any "credibility" with you, me, or anyone else 60 years after the fact? It had credibility when the fight happened, and that's what matters. Suggesting that any champion should concern himself with what someone 60 years later might think of his choice of opponents is absurd.

Do you have the rankings from April '46?

 

I just cant get over the fact that your basically saying Graziano was more worthy of a Title shot than Burley and Lamotta, WHEN HE CLEARLY WASN'T! :-(

 

And those are both rather revisionist claims (particularly the second) that do not reflect a number of the facts and conventional thinking at the time the fight happened. Rocky got the shot because he vaulted to the NBA's top contender spot after beating Servo (whether you agree with that or not, it's still what happened), and the belief clearly expressed in most reports was that he was the most dangerous challenger out there for Zale. At the time, it was thought it would've been more prudent for him to fight one of the fellow "aging" veterans in his first defense back rather than the streaking young KO artist.

 

Bull****.......Lamotta and Burley were the most dangerous contenders out there for Zale's title. Both Lamotta and Burley would of licked Zale and Graziano........

 

Those who were actually following the sport and those fighters at the time said otherwise.

For example:

"...The Hoosier gladiator has selected his most dangerous challenger for his first defense of the crown, a fact which speaks eloquently, in this day of more or less convenient match-making, of Zale's fearlessness and his attitude toward the championship responsibility."
-The NY Times, April Sept. 27, 1946

 

So just because a newspaper said this, then it is fact? Lamotta and Burley were much greater fighters than Graziano, and deserved there title shots before him. That is a fact...........

You trying to dispute this is stupid......

Question. How do you think Graziano actually fairs against Lamotta and Burley if he were to of actually fought them?, instead of ducking the both of them.

 

Is something a fact because someone on an internet forum 60 years later says it?

You can find no shortage of reports from that time that repeat that sentiment; so yes, it does mean it's a fact that Rocky was widely considered his most dangerous challenger at that time.

No it isn't, it's showing a regard for historical accuracy.