View Full Version : Jake LaMotta vs. Light Heavies
Russell
12-01-2008, 07:38 PM
How does he do against the following, and what kind of majority does he win or lose?
Micheal Spinks
Michael Moorer
Virgil Hill
Dwight Muhammad Qawi
Glen Johnson
Billy Miske
WhataRock
12-01-2008, 08:40 PM
The Spinks fight is not even close.
Moorer does not blast him out which may make it interesting...Moorer was a monster at light heavy but often this gets overblown because really he didnt face anyone worth remembering.
I really actually dont know how Moorer would cope with the later rounds..Im sure remember seeing some film of him labouring to put away some very average dude, he looked to be breathing heavily..Not sure if he had trouble with the weight by then.
Moorer probably had the size and skill to beat LaMotta though...who would have been half a foot shorter.
I think Hill is difficult matchup for Lamotta...Virgil wouldnt try to battle Jake on the inside where Lamotta would have his best hope and I think his jab & consistency sees him take clear point verdict.
Qawi stops him late...to strong.
Good scrap vs Johnson..Just think Jake is a little to smart to let a guy like Johnson beat him.
Cant really comment on the Miske fight...I am familiar with him and see his name pop up from time to time when trawling through boxrec but I havent seen him on film.
From the pics I have seen of him he had muscle tone that not many fighters had back then.
Joe E
12-01-2008, 09:09 PM
How does he do against the following, and what kind of majority does he win or lose?
Micheal Spinks
Michael Moorer
Virgil Hill
Dwight Muhammad Qawi
Glen Johnson
Billy Miske
1. Lose
2. Lose
3. Win
3. Lose
4. ?
5. Lose
I wouldnt make him a favourite against any, and a prohibitive underdog against Spinks, Qawi and Moorer.
jowcol
12-02-2008, 07:18 AM
One thing that doesn't bode well with Jake is his apparent lack of huge punching power @ 160. Rarely has a fighter ever taken his power with him when moving up and I don't see him being able to bang big enough in order to continually keep the bigger guys off him. IMO what would begin as interesting matchups would eventually become one-sided beat downs unfortunately.
my $0.02
Senya13
12-02-2008, 08:52 AM
He loses to all of them. He didn't do well against light heavyweights.
shommel
12-02-2008, 09:05 AM
are you kidding ? he starched some of the best light heavies of his time as well as koing satterfield who i believe was a heavy later on in his carreer
Senya13
12-02-2008, 10:41 AM
Satterfield was a primitive easy to outbox slugger.
Billy Fox - LaMotta got KTFO'd (whatever BS he made up as an excuse, the fact remains).
Villemain (if you consider him as LH) - barely got an SD the 1st time and lost the 2nd.
Bob Murphy - got a beating and quit the 1st time, got a very close win the 2nd.
Danny Nardico - got a beating and quit.
Kilgore - lost.
Best light-heavy's, my ass!
shommel
12-02-2008, 11:37 AM
nah youre full of wind .satterfield :one of the hardest hitters ever,lamotta kos him .villemen:loss was on cuts . murphy: the first loss was after taking the tremendous beating from srr and he was out of shape and too heavy, the second time around he almost ko murphy and had him in trouble several times(watch it on film he beats the shit out of murphy)nardico:lamotta at end of carreer actually way past it. kilgore: same thing .fox : well the man(lamotta)stood in front of the world and admitted it was a fix so he could get a shot at the middleweight title. you forgot about mentioning him fighting and beating williams ,edgar and losing one to marshall despite everyone except the judges thought lamotta won.lamotta won the amateur diamond belt at light heavy started out in pro at light heavy went to middleweight and still was beating light heavies.he could compete and win over light heavies.
Senya13
12-02-2008, 12:28 PM
Look up Satterfield's record, full of wind. Easy to outbox, and just as easy to knock out. Loss to Villemain was on what? Murphy - he beat the shit out of LaMotta, Robinson had nothing to do with that, LaMotta didn't have to fit into weight limits not natural to him. Murphy will have a hard time getting into Top 50 175-pounders in history. Nardico - fact is LaMotta got a beating, same as with Kilgore. Fox - there's no evidence whatsoever except LaMotta's empty words, a man who had no idea what honesty is. Williams = middleweight. Edgar = jr. middleweight. Marshall fight - AP scored 8 first rounds for Marshall, final two for LaMotta, what you talking about "LaMotta won". LaMotta claimed he injured a knuckle of his left hand, but in the last two rounds it wasn't visible from his actions that he had any injury, yet another fake excuse. LaMotta's light-heavyweight resume is poor, to say it mildly.
Russell
12-02-2008, 12:34 PM
nah youre full of wind .satterfield :one of the hardest hitters ever,lamotta kos him .villemen:loss was on cuts . murphy: the first loss was after taking the tremendous beating from srr and he was out of shape and too heavy, the second time around he almost ko murphy and had him in trouble several times(watch it on film he beats the shit out of murphy)nardico:lamotta at end of carreer actually way past it. kilgore: same thing .fox : well the man(lamotta)stood in front of the world and admitted it was a fix so he could get a shot at the middleweight title. you forgot about mentioning him fighting and beating williams ,edgar and losing one to marshall despite everyone except the judges thought lamotta won.lamotta won the amateur diamond belt at light heavy started out in pro at light heavy went to middleweight and still was beating light heavies.he could compete and win over light heavies.
Sounds like a laundry list of excuses, honestly.
shommel
12-02-2008, 12:52 PM
no excuses just facts. so clean your own laundry.
paidinrakim
12-02-2008, 03:46 PM
Satterfield was a primitive easy to outbox slugger.
Billy Fox - LaMotta got KTFO'd (whatever BS he made up as an excuse, the fact remains).
Villemain (if you consider him as LH) - barely got an SD the 1st time and lost the 2nd.
Bob Murphy - got a beating and quit the 1st time, got a very close win the 2nd.
Danny Nardico - got a beating and quit.
Kilgore - lost.
Best light-heavy's, my ass!
Well the last 3 you can say LaMotta was shot to shit
I've heard from a few people that Billy fox fight was definetly set up
Senya13
12-02-2008, 05:07 PM
Been there, discussed that. Even Jake's brother (still alive I think) never told the press there was a fix, it's been over half a century since that fight had taken place and tens of years since everyone who could be supposedly involved from the mafia and who could theoretically threaten him not to reveal the truth, have died. Not a word from him, although if it were true he could have said this long time ago freely.
radianttwilight
12-02-2008, 09:44 PM
If these fights really did come off, I would make a ton of money by picking an underdog Virgil Hill to school LaMotta and win a wide UD.
Russell
12-02-2008, 09:49 PM
If these fights really did come off, I would make a ton of money by picking an underdog Virgil Hill to school LaMotta and win a wide UD.
Why and how do you feel he'd beat Jake?
shommel
12-08-2008, 09:32 AM
i dont believe that it would be a wide decision but very feasible that he would beat jake. although i dont know if he could handle the constant pressure jake puts on him and we all know hes gonna keep coming.i believe jake was also ranked in the top ten light heavies after he moved up from middleweight and got on the light heavy trail.
mcvey
12-08-2008, 02:04 PM
Been there, discussed that. Even Jake's brother (still alive I think) never told the press there was a fix, it's been over half a century since that fight had taken place and tens of years since everyone who could be supposedly involved from the mafia and who could theoretically threaten him not to reveal the truth, have died. Not a word from him, although if it were true he could have said this long time ago freely.
Lamotta was pulled in by the boxing commision for what they termed an "uncharacteristic prformance ",against Fox.Jake said he went into the fight with a ruptured spleen,the commission promptly fined him for concealing an injury .The fight odds went like this ,two days before the fight Lamotta was a solid 8-5 favourite at fight time Fox was the 11-5 favourite,with some bookies refusing to take bets why do you think that was?
Senya13
12-08-2008, 02:39 PM
That's a very logical explanation, unlike a fix. As for betting odds, they had changed almost the same way before one of Billy Fox's previous fights... vs Gus Lesnevich. Where Fox was an underdog in betting, then suddenly before the fight it changed to Fox being a good favorite.
mcvey
12-08-2008, 06:33 PM
That's a very logical explanation, unlike a fix. As for betting odds, they had changed almost the same way before one of Billy Fox's previous fights... vs Gus Lesnevich. Where Fox was an underdog in betting, then suddenly before the fight it changed to Fox being a good favorite.
Journalist Red Smith was ringside when Lamotta fought Fox, he said Jake made a fight of it for the first round then covered up for the rest of the brief fight,he was convinced that Lamotta went into the tank,along with just about everyone else.It's interesting that when madison Square garden honoured Ray Robinson on his final retirement,his most famous foes were in the ring in fighting togs waiting to appaud him ,as he entered the ring for the last time,in the corners were Baslio,Olson ,Fullmer ,and flown in from UK Turpin ,conspicous by his absence was the man who had met Ray more times than anybody [6] Jake Lamotta,he was not invited.An open letter to the Chairman of the New York Commision ,General Melvin Krulevitch,challenged him to bar Lamotta Krulevitch caved in to pressure ,against Harry Markson ,the then head of the Gardens Boxing Club 's advice .When Robinson came into the ring to receive the cheers Fullmer ,Basilio,Olson ,and Turpin came to the center of the ring and embraced him,but the Raging Bull was not there.What is also interesting is that lamotta did not make his confession about the fix untilJune 14th 1960,when the statute of limitations gave him immunity from prosecution.The Kefauver committee also asked Lamotta i f it was true that along with the
promise of a title shot he received a rumoured $100,000 ,Jake took the 5th amendment on that. I must say you are alone in thinking the fight was on the level,after the fight a Philadelphia wise guy ,burst into Fox's dressing room and had a go at Blinky Palermo ,disgusted with the fight and its result.
Senya13
12-08-2008, 07:31 PM
People at ring side didn't know that Jake had an injury. He couldn't fight back properly because of an injury, although he did try, even during the 3rd round (according to report), why would he, if he was just going to let Fox finish him?
mcvey
12-08-2008, 07:36 PM
People at ring side didn't know that Jake had an injury. He couldn't fight back properly because of an injury, although he did try, even during the 3rd round (according to report), why would he, if he was just going to let Fox finish him?
If as you think ,the fight was legit ,why was Lamotta excluded from Robinson's farewel bash ,do you think? I have never read a report of that fight by any known boxing writer ,be it Cannon,Smith,Heinz, Liebling etc who did not think Lamotta took a dive.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.