Zale gave Jake a miss and opted for Graziano

Aging veterans? In 1946 Burley was 29 years old, Lamotta 25years old,one year older than Graziano.
Basora was 28,Edgar 25,Belloise 28,Baroudi 20,Priest 26,Lytell 22,Abrams28,and Cerdan, the oldest at 30.
Cerdan would get the call after the Graziano trilogy was done.

It's true that Graziano was a"streaking ko artist",seven of his last eight fights had been ko wins ,however all of them were WELTERWEIGHTS, the other opponent Sonny Horne was a Middle,and he went the distance losing a dec.

This is a horse that "wont run"

 

Abrams was the standout contender when Zale fought him for the title,he floored Zale in the first and was competitive allthrough.Abrams began to lose his hair early in life what has that to do with his ability?
Abrams was still in the top 5 of the Ring's rating's in 46.
Cerdan was a little past his best after the War imo,maybe thats why Zale's people took him.
You suggest that Graziano was the more dangerous challenger,and that Zale should be commended for taking on a young ko artist ,instead of a "veteran" in his middle 20's.Yet after Zale disposed of Rocky ,that's exactly what he did ,he picked the oldest ranked challenger and defended against him.
The young ko artist had names on his record ,but they were all welterweights.Graziano was a protected fighter,and in his championship reign so was Zale.
Bottom line, Lamotta,Burley, Belloise,Edgar,Basora,Williams,Chase,Booker,Lytell,Tunero,and half a dozen more did not get shots at the title.

Zale can be excused some of this because of the War, but it is undeniably true that he chose Graziano to defend against over more deserving challengers Lamotta and Burley.
Zale and Graziano,tied up the middle weight title for 3 years, only the fact that Zale was past it made their fights the competitive wars they were,imo.
We saw the same thing with Floyd and Ingo 3 years of pass the parcel while challengers like Liston ,Machen and Folley waited in the wings.

Its interesting that after Zale kod Graziano in their last fight ,Rocky only briefly stayed in the ratings ,no 10 in 47 and then was gone,I feel his entertainment value got him his shots,and maybe it's for the best,otherwise we would have been denied their 3rd fight slug fest,sadly no film of their first 2 fights has ever surfaced.

I doubt those challengers who were never given the opportunity to try an on the slide Zale would view it this way though.

 

You pick a newspaper article on 2 of the 10 contenders concerning one fight, and use that to prove they were past it?
Even if you were right which I don't think you are ,what about the other 8?
How come Abrams was still rated years later?
I never said he was prime but he was 2 years younger than Cerdan,gave him a hell of a fight that many said should have been a draw.
Cerdan's win over Abrams put him on the map in the states.
What is your basis for asserting that Graziano merited a title shot over the two men ranked above him namely Lamotta and Burley ?
Had Graziano fought either of these to get his shot ,which he should have done, how do you think he would have fared?
Zale picked a challenger unproven at middleweight ,who had he beat who was even a fringe contender at 160lbs?
After getting the best of Graziano in their series Zale then picked the oldest challenger in the top ten to defend against ,so where is your premise that he defended against young men?
Lamotta was only a year older than Graziano ,and Burley at 29 was hardly shot.

Eddie Machen" wasn't in a position at any time to challenge for the title".
This is absurd .

Patterson's on/ off reign lasted from 56 to 62 ,during that time Machen was a rated contender ,in the top ten for every year of Floyd's reign,

Machen was never lower than number 7.

During these 6 years Machen had 37 fights losing only 4 , to
Harold Johnson by dec
Folley by dec
Liston by dec
Johannson by ko.
Machen beat the following contenders and fringe contenders ,in this period.
Mederos x2
Valdes x2
Dejohn x 2
Bethea
Miteff
Alonzo Johnson
London
Rischer
Jones
Maxim x2
Baker
Summerlin
Holman
Jackson
Besmanoff
McMurtry
Hunter

That's 21 fights against quality opposition out of 37.

If that does not merit a title shot, what does?

Folley was likewise rated in the top ten for every year of Patterson's two reigns.
Plus another two years, making a total of 8 years as a rated contender without receiving a title shot.
Liston was
no 9 in 58
no 3 in 59
no 1 in 60
no 1 in 61
He finally embarrassed Floyd into a title shot the following year

 

We can see what a pile of crap this judgement was by the fact that,Belloise was rated
no 6 in 41
no5 in 43
no 6 in 46
no 4 in 47

no 2 in 48
no 5 in 49 . 8 YEARS AFTER PEARL HARBOUR

 

IN 59 Machen was no5
IN 60 no3
IN 61 no2
So clearly he was in contention ,as a leading contender and not as you said" never in a position to challenge for the title."
You say you don't know what the outcome would have been in fights between Graziano and the two men rated above him,Lamotta and Burley, yet based on a newspaper article you beleive Belloise and Abrams prime was pre Pearl Harbour.I show you Belloise was the rated no 5 contender 8 years after Pearl Harbour ,what does that say about the ***** who wrote that assessment?
I think you ducked the question about Graziano's chances against Lamotta and Burley.
You say I should read the articles of that period,I think you should delve a little into the NBA,and the corruption that it fostered before assuming that , if they did it it must be kosher.
By the way Ring magazine had Cerdan at number 3 when he got his shot at the title ,one place above Belloise, whom you assert was seven years past it..Given that Cerdan had lost one of his last two fights ,I think that ranking is accurate.

 

Abrams was called up and lost years to the war ,but Belloise was inactive only from 1943 Dec 6th to 1945 27th Nov.

 

No one is disputing that Graziano gave Zale three wars.
What is in dispute is whether he should have been the challenger giving Zale those battles.Zale was 35 years old and over the hill his best years were behind him ,otherwise Graziano would not have merited a trilogy with him ,because he would have been ruthlessly dismantled.
Zale should have faced either Burley or Lamotta his number 1, and number 2 contenders.
In passing may I say that a prime Zale would have lost to both imo ,let alone a diminished 35 year old whose skills had rusted due to his Navy service
.I likewise beleive Graziano would have been painfully schooled by Burley and stopped by Lamotta.
Bottom line is Graziano beat a once fine champion who was visibly in decline ,he did it once in three fights,which other very good middleweights did he beat?