jake lamotta vs charlie burley... why didnt it happen?

[shommel]

lamotta fought just about everybody and their brother and most of the black murderers row. he also beat most of the good or great colored fighters of his ere. why didnt he fight burley ?this would have been a dream matchup.who wins?

[McGrain]

Burley would win.

LaMotta knew of Burley's interest. He said of Charley: "What do I need Burley for when I have Zivic?"

Zivic was not the fighter that Burley was even peak for peak, and by this stage Zivic was fading and Burley was peaking. It's a duck, i'm afraid.

[teeto]

Burley would win.

LaMotta knew of Burley's interest. He said of Charley: "What do I need Burley for when I have Zivic?"

Zivic was not the fighter that Burley was even peak for peak, and by this stage Zivic was fading and Burley was peaking. It's a duck, i'm afraid.
Really? Ive never looked into it, i'll take your word for it McGrain, but i just find it hard to believe that LaMotta ducked someone, considering he suffered the same injustice for so long.

Totally agree with you that Zivic wasnt the fighter that Burley was aswell

[Chinxkid]

LaMotta knew of Burley's interest. He said of Charley: "What do I need Burley for when I have Zivic?"



I've heard that quote. Coulda been Jake figured if he was gonna make the trek out to Pittsburgh, might as well make the bigger buck.

[Raging B(_)LL]

Zivic was not the fighter that Burley was even peak for peak, and by this stage Zivic was fading and Burley was peaking. It's a duck, i'm afraid.

The kind that quacks you mean, right?

Because I don`t see how LaMotta ducked Burley in the true sense of the word... not by a longshot. When he said that line you quoted don`t you realize he was talking about the financial rewards of facing the more popular Zivic rather than the little known and more dangerous Burley?

While I agree that Burley probably would have beaten Jake, I seriously doubt Jake was afraid of him in any way and made it a point to avoid him at all costs, which is essentially what "ducking" a fellow boxer is...

Had the money been right and agreed upon by all parties the fight would have come off I`m sure, but just because it didn`t doesn`t mean the blame has to be placed squarely on LaMotta.

[McGrain]

The kind that quacks you mean, right?

Because I don`t see how LaMotta ducked Burley in the true sense of the word... not by a longshot. When he said that line you quoted don`t you realize he was talking about the financial rewards of facing the more popular Zivic rather than the little known and more dangerous Burley?

LaMotta was offered tens of thousands for the fight, along with Zale and one or two others. This myth that there was no financial reward available for taking on Burley is just that - a myth, apparently a self-perpetuating one.

Of course, I never saw the money, I was never at any of these meetings, but my understanding is that Burley was backed by tens of thousands of dollars later in his (cut short) career when he was EASY to duck because he had been for so long.

Had the money been right and agreed upon by all parties the fight would have come off I`m sure, but just because it didn`t doesn`t mean the blame has to be placed squarely on LaMotta.

Hey. You think the money wasn't there, i'm sure it was, I guess that's that. But my opinion is: LaMotta did not expect to win against Burley and he just didnt' have to fight him because almost no-one did. So he didn't.

[McGrain]

I've heard that quote. Coulda been Jake figured if he was gonna make the trek out to Pittsburgh, might as well make the bigger buck.


It's very possible that the biggest offer the Burley people could put together was still less than LaMotta could get elsewhere.

But I do know that in '46, during what amounted to Burley's last stab at the big time, his people were in position to offer Sugar Ray Robinson what amounted to a career best payday according to Otty, undoubtedly a very serious payday.

[Raging B(_)LL]

McGrain,

I am not saying there wasn`t any good money put on the table for a fight between Jake and Charley to happen... what I am saying is that maybe the money wasn`t enough to get Jake to take the fight or perhaps other factors may have played a part in the fight not happening as well. I just think your use of the word duck is uncalled for in this case considering what little is known about what official talks actually took place to make the fight happen.

LaMotta feared no one and if he decided not to fight Charley it wasn`t because he was afraid of him, rather it was more than likely because he could make more money fighting someone else. Don`t forget Jake was a popular draw due to his style and he made some good paydays as a result... Charley needed him more than vice-versa and thats the bottom line really, not fear on Jake`s part.

[McGrain]

McGrain,

I am not saying there wasn`t any good money put on the table for a fight between Jake and Charley to happen... what I am saying is that maybe the money wasn`t enough to get Jake to take the fight or perhaps other factors may have played a part in the fight not happening as well. I just think your use of the word duck is uncalled for in this case considering what little is known about what official talks actually took place to make the fight happen.

LaMotta feared no one and if he decided not to fight Charley it wasn`t because he was afraid of him, rather it was more than likely because he could make more money fighting someone else. Don`t forget Jake was a popular draw due to his style and he made some good paydays as a result... Charley needed him more than vice-versa and thats the bottom line really, not fear on Jake`s part.


I think that what amounted to a career-best payday for Robinson is bound to be serious money for LaMotta. The figure bandied about was something in the region of $80,000 (with Burley to go unpaid if gate receipts didn't reach a certain level, which they would have done against Jake as you have pointed out). Now, i've never seen details of the negotiations where this money and LaMotta are concerned, though I do know a fair bit with how this money went down relative to Robinson.

Regardless, LaMotta, upon being approached by a journalist concerning a fight with Burley mad the remark "Why do I need Burley when I have Zivic."

This could translate as "Why do I need $80,000 dollars when I can get $90,000 dollars" but I don't think so. I think it translates as "Why do I want to fight a fighter I don't think I can beat for $80,000 when I can fight a fighter I can beat with my head on backwards for $15,000, especially when the other fella is someone nobody fights."

You don't like the word "duck", OK, I get that a lot about a lot of fighters, I will change my line to "failed to fight", but to be clear, I consider it mealy mouthing.

Two all time great fighters were proposed to be matched. There was serious money involved for the dominant (in terms of negotiations - I think we both know Burley is a living nightmare in the ring for LaMotta and would probably beat him for six out of six) party, LaMotta and LaMotta took the easier option, admitted to do doing so quite candidly, and never made amends at a later date.

The "D" word fits, in my opinion.

[TommyV]

Because nobody wanted to fight Burley.

[Nobudius]

.......the "ducking" of Burley is looked at in a somewhat rose colored tinted glasses by some folks here.

[Raging B(_)LL]

I think that what amounted to a career-best payday for Robinson is bound to be serious money for LaMotta. The figure bandied about was something in the region of $80,000 (with Burley to go unpaid if gate receipts didn't reach a certain level, which they would have done against Jake as you have pointed out). Now, i've never seen details of the negotiations where this money and LaMotta are concerned, though I do know a fair bit with how this money went down relative to Robinson.

Regardless, LaMotta, upon being approached by a journalist concerning a fight with Burley mad the remark "Why do I need Burley when I have Zivic."

This could translate as "Why do I need $80,000 dollars when I can get $90,000 dollars" but I don't think so. I think it translates as "Why do I want to fight a fighter I don't think I can beat for $80,000 when I can fight a fighter I can beat with my head on backwards for $15,000, especially when the other fella is someone nobody fights."

You don't like the word "duck", OK, I get that a lot about a lot of fighters, I will change my line to "failed to fight", but to be clear, I consider it mealy mouthing.

Two all time great fighters were proposed to be matched. There was serious money involved for the dominant (in terms of negotiations - I think we both know Burley is a living nightmare in the ring for LaMotta and would probably beat him for six out of six) party, LaMotta and LaMotta took the easier option, admitted to do doing so quite candidly, and never made amends at a later date.

The "D" word fits, in my opinion.


So let me get this straight, LaMotta fought the likes of "California" Jackie Wilson, Holman Williams, Lloyd Marshall, Jimmy Edgar, Nate Bolden, Tommy Bell three times and Ray Robinson six times.... yet he was afraid of Charley Burley and avoided him at all costs? I`m sorry McGrain but I ain`t buying what you selling here, far too much speculation on your part and not enough substance to back it up. LaMotta feared NO ONE - his record proves this as he took on many of the most avoided black fighters of his day, so for you to insinuate that he ducked Charley out of fear is nonsense as far as I`m concerned.

[McGrain]

So let me get this straight, LaMotta fought the likes of "California" Jackie Wilson, Holman Williams, Lloyd Marshall, Jimmy Edgar, Nate Bolden, Tommy Bell three times and Ray Robinson six times.... yet he was afraid of Charley Burley and avoided him at all costs? I`m sorry McGrain but I ain`t buying what you selling here, far too much speculation on your part and not enough substance to back it up. LaMotta feared NO ONE - his record proves this as he took on many of the most avoided black fighters of his day, so for you to insinuate that he ducked Charley out of fear is nonsense as far as I`m concerned.


I'll dig out the references concerning the specific figures, and i'll point again to the fact that Burley wanted to fight LaMotta. LaMotta fought Williams when he was way, way past his prime, Williams was another one he "failed to fight" during his peak years, though Williams was supposedly keen.


EDIT: In addition, LaMotta managed only a split decision which was roundly booed by the crowd - that's the all action white fighter being booed by a crowd that clearly felt the black slickster had been cheated.

Finally, I don't see why LaMotta fighting other tough fighters totally precludes his ducking Burley any more than Robinson fighting other tough fighters totally precludes him ducking Burley.

[Raging B(_)LL]

[QUOTE]
I'll dig out the references concerning the specific figures, and i'll point again to the fact that Burley wanted to fight LaMotta. LaMotta fought Williams when he was way, way past his prime, Williams was another one he "failed to fight" during his peak years, though Williams was supposedly keen.


Before you do that if your references are either the Harry Otty or Allan Rosenfeld books don`t bother, as I have both and can look them up for myself although I can`t be bothered to do so at the moment. As for Jake fighting an old Williams that is true, but if your going to again claim that Jake ducked him I`d like to see some evidence proving it.

Because according to my own research there was never any serious talks undertaken to make the fight happen except for when they did meet... prior to that I haven`t found anything that would lend credence to your claim.

I`m sure Holman was keen for the fight as you put it, but that can hardly be used as proof that Jake ducked him just because Williams wanted to fight him, thats just ridiculous.


EDIT: In addition, LaMotta managed only a split decision which was roundly booed by the crowd - that's the all action white fighter being booed by a crowd that clearly felt the black slickster had been cheated.


Oh c`mon now, your exaggerating big-time here. There was some scattered boos in the arena that much is true, but it is hardly the robbery you are claiming it was. While the fight was close, most observers agreed that Jake`s closing rush in the last three rounds where he burried Holman under an avalanche of blows combined with the work he put in earlier afforded him the win.

Allan Rosenfeld was there that night and while he thought Holman clearly won the first four rounds, he did believe that Jake won every round after that and he even had Holman on the verge of a stoppage as he was dead tired in the last two rounds. It was a good and close fight, not a robbery by any stretch and to say otherwise is inaccurate.


Finally, I don't see why LaMotta fighting other tough fighters totally precludes his ducking Burley any more than Robinson fighting other tough fighters totally precludes him ducking Burley.


Listen, I did not say that Jake deserves a pass for not fighting Burley, what I DID say was that if Jake chose not to fight him (which we do not know for a fact that he did) it wasn`t out of "fear" of the man. Besides, what it all comes down to quite simply is that Jake wasn`t obligated to fight Burley for any reason be it financial or otherwise, and considering how little is known about what actual talks took place to get the fight to happen I think your claim of Jake legitimately ducking Burley is way, way off.

[Bummy Davis]

Lamotta fought Satterfeild, Robinson and Cerdan...I think he would have fought Burley....He had no fear...He did not fight Graziano either or Zale, I guess some fights just don't happen but Jake would not be a fight Burely was looking for either unless it was for a title because Jake Lamotta was a tough fight

[dpw417]

LaMotta and Burley are two of my favorites...and the ongoing discussion on this thread is informative. LaMotta's record is loaded with ultra tough competition so that speaks for itself, in my view. In a H2H, I would pick Burley to edge Jake...but in a series of six fights (as with Robinson) I think Jake might just take a couple...Why?...Why not!...He provided Robinson with some brutal fights. He would do the same with Burley...That's my rational, these fighters records, as I stated,'speak for themselves'.

[McGrain]

Before you do that if your references are either the Harry Otty or Allan Rosenfeld books don`t bother, as I have both and can look them up for myself although I can`t be bothered to do so at the moment.


Well when you can be bothered, be sure and post your findings, I know the other members of the forum like to see references concerning fighters they may not be familiar with.

As for Jake fighting an old Williams that is true, but if your going to again claim that Jake ducked him I`d like to see some evidence proving it.

Because according to my own research there was never any serious talks undertaken to make the fight happen except for when they did meet... prior to that I haven`t found anything that would lend credence to your claim.

I don't understand this.

You have two top fighters. They both have excellent resumes and fight in the same weight class. Fighter A wants to fight fighter B. But fighter B doesn't want to fight fighter A until he is old. Why do "serious talks" have to take place before a fight can be deemed a duck? There were no "serious talks" between Johnson and Langford after Johnson beat Jeffries, you don't consider JOhnson ducked Langford when he held the title?

I am absolutley sure that "serious talks" do not have to take place in order that a fighter "failing to fight" another fighter can be considered a duck.

I`m sure Holman was keen for the fight as you put it, but that can hardly be used as proof that Jake ducked him just because Williams wanted to fight him, thats just ridiculous.

Why????! What is a duck if it is not exactly as you describe here?

Two fighters, evenly matched, Williams probably has the better resume, perhaps not, he wants the fight, Jake doesn't but Jake hasn't ducked? This is a very narrow definition you are using.



Oh c`mon now, your exaggerating big-time here. There was some scattered boos in the arena that much is true, but it is hardly the robbery you are claiming it was.

To be clear; I am absoultey not a suggesting a robbery, I haven't claimed this anywhere. I consider this a clean win. I consider it valid. I wouldn't consider it otherwise, there are far to many guys on this board trying to re-write history in favour of their favourites, and I am not one of them.

But it does interest me that LaMotta was in a very close, apparently quite unpopular decision with an old version of a fighter I believe would have beaten him a few years earlier. And i'm interested that LaMotta's timing for taking the fight was exactly - exactly right.

While the fight was close, most observers agreed that Jake`s closing rush in the last three rounds where he burried Holman under an avalanche of blows combined with the work he put in earlier afforded him the win.

This is my postition, also.

Allan Rosenfeld was there that night and while he thought Holman clearly won the first four rounds, he did believe that Jake won every round after that and he even had Holman on the verge of a stoppage as he was dead tired in the last two rounds. It was a good and close fight, not a robbery by any stretch and to say otherwise is inaccurate.

Just because you've accused me of calling the fight "a robbery" again, I would like to reiterate that I don't consider it a robbery.


I didn't know Rosenfeld was actually there. It would have been great to ask him about that fight the week he was posting here (or appeared to be).



Listen, I did not say that Jake deserves a pass for not fighting Burley, what I DID say was that if Jake chose not to fight him (which we do not know for a fact that he did) it wasn`t out of "fear" of the man. Besides, what it all comes down to quite simply is that Jake wasn`t obligated to fight Burley for any reason be it financial or otherwise, and considering how little is known about what actual talks took place to get the fight to happen I think your claim of Jake legitimately ducking Burley is way, way off.

Your definition of a duck and mine are very very different. I don't think that serious talks need to take place for one fighter to duck another one. One absolute top fighter failing to take on any other absolute top fighter in any given era is enough to raise my eyebrow. When I know the ducked - excuse me, it's just easier to say than to quantify what I mean and I do think "ducked" is the right word, as you know - fighter was backed with money AND the ducking fighter has named an inferior fighter as a desired opponent when asked specifically about the fighter he is ducking, i'm two thirds of the way there.

This idea that Jake can't duck one guy because he fought a lot of other guys is strange to me. Did Jake feel fear for Burley? No, of course not. Is it possible that LaMotta was familiar with Burley's ability and style and didn't consider a win for himself a serious possibility? Of course! It's certainly how I see it.

We can agree that there was little media pressure on LaMotta to take on Burley, i'm sure. So let me ask you:

Is it possible that LaMotta took a look at Burley, decided he probably couldn't win and didn't fancy it?

Is it possible?

[McGrain]

Lamotta fought Satterfeild, Robinson and Cerdan...I think he would have fought Burley....He had no fear...He did not fight Graziano either or Zale, I guess some fights just don't happen but Jake would not be a fight Burely was looking for either unless it was for a title because Jake Lamotta was a tough fight



Do you think LaMotta's chances v Burley would be serious?

[McGrain]

LaMotta and Burley are two of my favorites...and the ongoing discussion on this thread is informative. LaMotta's record is loaded with ultra tough competition so that speaks for itself, in my view. In a H2H, I would pick Burley to edge Jake...but in a series of six fights (as with Robinson) I think Jake might just take a couple...Why?...Why not!...He provided Robinson with some brutal fights. He would do the same with Burley...That's my rational, these fighters records, as I stated,'speak for themselves'.


I like Jake (he's a durable and game dancing parnter in my favourite fighter of all time, Robinson VI) but I really don't think he has any sort of chance against Burley. The massive reach, the heavy, heavy hands, the fact that Jake leads with his face (not as easy to hit as some insist, but still) the fact that he will be in with a guy who doens't neccesarily own him for strength who also has the quickest one two - with real pep on the two - maybe ever at the weight spells -


Stoppage.

[fists of fury]

Nice discussion here.

Why did Burley's people specifically target Jake? Was he champion at the time or merely a big draw? McGrain, you mentioned something about Zale. Did they make him an offer as well? Did any talks develop between Burley and someone like Graziano?

[McGrain]

Why did Burley's people specifically target Jake? Was he champion at the time or merely a big draw? McGrain, you mentioned something about Zale. Did they make him an offer as well? Did any talks develop between Burley and someone like Graziano?

Hey man.

He didn't specifically target Jake, though Jake was one of a raft of contenders Burley tried to get into the ring after Robinson ducked him for the last time (and the clearest duck, too, fulfilling Ragbing Bu()s requirements). Zale was another fighter he was after, I've heard nothing specific regarding him and Graziano. He certainly pursued Cerdan with more gusto than any of these guys, Cerdan was even by Burley's gym for a look at the man.

[fists of fury]

Must have been frustrating as hell. I guess Cerdan had second thoughts too?

[McGrain]

Must have been frustrating as hell. I guess Cerdan had second thoughts too?



There's a story - a story - that on one occasion when he came by Burley's gym, Burley wasn't aware that he was there. Burley was notoriosly hard on his sparring partners (though young fighters were always keen to climb in with him because he was generous with advice) and Cerdan did not like what he saw. Walked out and stopped taking the calls of the Burley people.

[SuzieQ49]

Mcgrain your being ridiculous. Lamotta was the most fearless fighter to ever step into the ring. he was the ONLY white middleweight of that era to consistently take on the black murders row. Lamotta himself was ducked by numerous fighters. lamotta would step in the ring with anybody, including charley burley. lamotta feared no one.

You say holman williams was far past his prime which is partly true, but holman clearly was still a very dangerous fighter in 1946considering who he had beaten leading up to the lamotta fight. just one year earlier holman beat archie moore.


I also think lamottas style IN HIS PRIME would have been a nightmare for burley. Burley didnt like pressure. lamotta would not only bring windmill like pressure, but a undentable chin, inhumane strength, and relenltless stamina. a counterpuncher like burley would be smothered by lamotta all night, i pick lamotta in a upset here.

[SuzieQ49]

jake lamotta ducked no one. Jake Lamotta fought MANY top members of the black murders row and did quite well. how many black murders row did zale and graziano and cerdan take on?

[McGrain]

Mcgrain your being ridiculous. Lamotta was the most fearless fighter to ever step into the ring. he was the ONLY white middleweight of that era to consistently take on the black murders row. Lamotta himself was ducked by numerous fighters. lamotta would step in the ring with anybody, including charley burley. lamotta feared no one.

I can only say this so many times and so many different ways: I didn't say that LaMotta was scared of Burley. I said he ducked him. They are not the same thing.

Why do you think LaMotta didn't fight Burley? What do you make of the statement, "Why do I need Burley when I have Zivic"?

You say holman williams was far past his prime which is partly true, but holman clearly was still a very dangerous fighter in 1946considering who he had beaten leading up to the lamotta fight. just one year earlier holman beat archie moore.

Absolutley true. He'd also beaten Sattersfield much more recently than Moore. But he had also just lost to Cerdan over ten rounds, the same distance that LaMotta's fight was scheduled for. What I find most interesting is that LaMotta JUST scraped home in this fight. If he'd taken it a year earlier, i'd have expected him to lose, frankly. In other words this fight happened to get made right at the very point where LaMotta was a tiny little bit superior, not a month before.


I also think lamottas style IN HIS PRIME would have been a nightmare for burley. Burley didnt like pressure. lamotta would not only bring windmill like pressure, but a undentable chin, inhumane strength, and relenltless stamina. a counterpuncher like burley would be smothered by lamotta all night, i pick lamotta in a upset here.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Burley has freakish reach and a really hard punch. I don't think that LaMotta's chances would be serious. Isn't the desperatly close SD win over old Williams bang in the middle of LaMotta's prime?

[McGrain]

jake lamotta ducked no one. Jake Lamotta fought MANY top members of the black murders row and did quite well. how many black murders row did zale and graziano and cerdan take on?

Whilst the point you make is generally a fair one, Cerdan took on Williams before LaMotta did, and his win is supposedly more convincing.

[SuzieQ49]

cerdan took on one black murders row fighter. Lamotta took on about 5 different black murders row fighters not including sugar ray robinson 6 times.


ps cerdan and lamotta beat williams at the same point in holmans career(both beat him in 1946), and both beat williams in close decisions. lamotta swept away the last 6 or 7 rounds hurting williams badly in the late rounds, while cerdan won a close but clear decision as well. both clear close decisions. dont go into comparing cerdans resume with lamottas not even close.... dont even get me started. cerdan had more holes in his resume than swiss cheese.



when lamotta and cerdan tangled, lamotta took all his frustrations of getting ducked for years, ordered to tank fights, etc out on cerdan. lamotta was a caged tiger that night waiting to be unleashed, nothing was stopping him. cerdan got knocked down by a left hook, then physically dominated by lamotta getting injured, only to then get battered for the next 10 rounds.

[SuzieQ49]

I can only say this so many times and so many different ways: I didn't say that LaMotta was scared of Burley. I said he ducked him. They are not the same thing.

Why do you think LaMotta didn't fight Burley? What do you make of the statement, "Why do I need Burley when I have Zivic"?


I dont know but I do have a Ring Magazine special issue interview with jake lamotta taken about 5-10 years ago, and he talked about how He wish he was given more credit for being the only white fighter of that era along with his friend joey maxim for taking on the top black fighters of there era. he also claims he feared no one and would have fought anyone at any time.

Ill post the article, lamotta was fearless


ps even in the 1950s way past his prime lamotta took on some young upcoming black murders row lightheavyweights whom were highly regarded in my IBRO journal i have next to me. guys like hairston.

[McGrain]

I dont know but I do have a Ring Magazine special issue interview with jake lamotta taken about 5-10 years ago, and he talked about how He wish he was given more credit for being the only white fighter of that era along with his friend joey maxim for taking on the top black fighters of there era. he also claims he feared no one and would have fought anyone at any time.

Ill post the article, lamotta was fearless


That would be really cool, to read that, I missed it, never read it.

[Sam Dixon]

There were no "serious talks" between Johnson and Langford after Johnson beat Jeffries, you don't consider JOhnson ducked Langford when he held the title?

I am absolutley sure that "serious talks" do not have to take place in order that a fighter "failing to fight" another fighter can be considered a duck.

McGrain, I'd be interested in your views regarding Johnson issuing the statement only a couple of days after the Jeffries fight, when, while he was still in Reno and boarding the train to Chicago, he stated that he'd fight Langford as long as Sam put up a $20,000 side bet to gain the fight, which Langford agreed to not but a few days later when the papers stated he was on his way to New York to post the forfeit.

Or what about the in-ring meeting they had while both were in Boston in Sept of that year where a lengthy debate (said to be about 15 minutes) took place between the two fighters while they discussed the possibility of a fight, which carried over to the next day when the two met again at a Boston newspaper office and again squabbled over the particulars (basically Johnson refusing to post the funds until langford did first) of a meeting between the two?

I'm summarizing there, as well as leaving a lot of things out between the dates of July and Sept of that year (or even the statement issued by Johnson a couple of days after those meetings when he stated that he'd accept McIntosh's offer to get them in the ring together provided...), but wouldn't you classify those as being somewhat serious in nature as far as talks go?

[McGrain]

wouldn't you classify those as being somewhat serious in nature as far as talks go?

Yes, absolutley.

I'll withdraw my assertion that there were no serious negotiations between Langford and Johnson. I remember the 20k thing from an awful book called Fight of the Century which was about the Johnson-Jeffries fight, but when was the in the ring meeting? That sounds interesting.

It all sounds a little bit fly by night, but I understand that newspaper offices were often the sight for these negotiations, I think that difficult Fitzsimmons-Corbett negotiations took place in a newspaper office.

[Sam Dixon]

Yes, absolutley.

I'll withdraw my assertion that there were no serious negotiations between Langford and Johnson. I remember the 20k thing from an awful book called Fight of the Century which was about the Johnson-Jeffries fight, but when was the in the ring meeting? That sounds interesting.

It all sounds a little bit fly by night, but I understand that newspaper offices were often the sight for these negotiations, I think that difficult Fitzsimmons-Corbett negotiations took place in a newspaper office.

The in-ring meeting was said to have happened on Sept 20th, 1910, and here's a couple of quick quotes on it, McGrain;


"Boston, Mass., Sept. 20--Jack Johnson, the heavyweight champion, and Sam Langford, his most persistent challenger, met in the ring of the Armory Athletic Association tonight, and after fifteen minutes of the fastest joint debate ever heard at the club, decided to post $20,000 each tomorrow morning to bind a match between the two." - Sept 21st, New York Times


"Boston, Mass., Sept 20--As the result of an impromptu meeting within the squared circle tonight at the Armory Athletic Association, Sam Langford and Champion Jack Johnson have shaken hands and come to a temporary understanding.

The challenge has been extended by Langford and the posting of the forfeit tomorrow is probable. At the weekly meeting before the Armory Athletic Association tonight Johnson was introduced to make a few remarks and had started to make a speech, when Langford entered the ring a demanded to be heard. Neither man was willing to give way and a keen debate occured.

While Langford yelled loudly about the amount of money he was willing to put to fight Johnson, 'in a cellar if necessary', Johnson waved a fat roll of bills and declared that Langford never had the coin to post.

The pair finally agreed to meet at a newspaper office tomorrow forenoon and talk business." - Sept 21st, 1910, San Francisco Call


That meeting was also described in numerous other sources from the day, as was their meeting the next day, and this was pretty much the jist of it as described in the New York Tribune, Sept 22nd, 1910;


"Boston, Sept 21--Jack Johnson, the champion pugilist and conqueror of Jim Jeffries, refused today to put up $20,000 for a fight for the title with Sam Langford, the Boston middleweight boxer, until the latter had made the first deposit. They may come to terms later.

The two fighters, who had a two-round oratorical contest in the ring at one of the local boxing clubs last night, had another fast debate in the sporting department of a Boston paper today, and while each displayed a roll of bills which it was claimed contained $1,000, Johnson absolutely refused to show additional cash until Langford had made the first move.

Johnson backed his stand by claiming that it was the challenger's duty to put up the stake and his, as defender, to cover it. He said he would hand the $1,000 over to a stakeholder on the spot, and would give Langford twenty-four hours to put up his $20,000, with the agreement that if he (Johnson) did not make up the remaining $19,000 the $1,000 would go to Langford.

The Boston fighter called Johnson's attention to the latter's statement last night, in which Johnson offered to put up the money today, but Johnson said he made a mistake in saying so."

[McGrain]

Cool! Ta Sam.

I wonder how close Johnson was to just going for it? I think Jeffries was the sumit for him, and he kind of lost interest after that. I guess I would make Langford a favourite in those circumstances.

[Nemesis]

McGrain,

I am not saying there wasn`t any good money put on the table for a fight between Jake and Charley to happen... what I am saying is that maybe the money wasn`t enough to get Jake to take the fight or perhaps other factors may have played a part in the fight not happening as well. I just think your use of the word duck is uncalled for in this case considering what little is known about what official talks actually took place to make the fight happen.

LaMotta feared no one and if he decided not to fight Charley it wasn`t because he was afraid of him, rather it was more than likely because he could make more money fighting someone else. Don`t forget Jake was a popular draw due to his style and he made some good paydays as a result... Charley needed him more than vice-versa and thats the bottom line really, not fear on Jake`s part.

Oft subject,

Are you aware of any other fight film of Burley other than the often mentioned Oakland Billy Smith fight?

I wasnt hugely impressed with what I saw...

[McGrain]

I think that's it; one film.

[Nemesis]

I think that's it; one film.

did TV companies stop filming fights in the 40's or what? :twisted:

[Sam Dixon]

I wonder how close Johnson was to just going for it?

That's what I was sort of wondering myself, although soon after those meetings were going on, as well as soon after Johnson stated that he'd accept McIntosh's offer for a London bout provided McIntosh posted the purse in America (Johnson was worried about the earlier business regarding the scheduled Langford bout in that location the year before and thought some would catch up on some payments, sort to speak), some of the papers were saying that Johnson was "all talk" in regards to the Langford fight (some said they were both all talk), so it's tough to say with any certainty one way or the other if he was seriously considering the bout or not.

[McGrain]

did TV companies stop filming fights in the 40's or what? :twisted:


Maybe it was about the venue? Fighters who were on the periphary tended to fight in smaller/more obscure venues perhaps, under the tv-stations radar? I don't know, it could be worse, there is NO film of his arch-rival, Holman Williams.

[McGrain]

That's what I was sort of wondering myself, although soon after those meetings were going on, as well as soon after Johnson stated that he'd accept McIntosh's offer for a London bout provided McIntosh posted the purse in America (Johnson was worried about the earlier business regarding the scheduled Langford bout in that location the year before and thought some would catch up on some payments, sort to speak), some of the papers were saying that Johnson was "all talk" in regards to the Langford fight (some said they were both all talk), so it's tough to say with any certainty one way or the other if he was seriously considering the bout or not.


It's a shame really. If Langford wins that one, no more arguments about who is p4p #1.

[Raging B(_)LL]

Well when you can be bothered, be sure and post your findings, I know the other members of the forum like to see references concerning fighters they may not be familiar with.



I don't understand this.

You have two top fighters. They both have excellent resumes and fight in the same weight class. Fighter A wants to fight fighter B. But fighter B doesn't want to fight fighter A until he is old. Why do "serious talks" have to take place before a fight can be deemed a duck? There were no "serious talks" between Johnson and Langford after Johnson beat Jeffries, you don't consider JOhnson ducked Langford when he held the title?

I am absolutley sure that "serious talks" do not have to take place in order that a fighter "failing to fight" another fighter can be considered a duck.



Why????! What is a duck if it is not exactly as you describe here?

Two fighters, evenly matched, Williams probably has the better resume, perhaps not, he wants the fight, Jake doesn't but Jake hasn't ducked? This is a very narrow definition you are using.





To be clear; I am absoultey not a suggesting a robbery, I haven't claimed this anywhere. I consider this a clean win. I consider it valid. I wouldn't consider it otherwise, there are far to many guys on this board trying to re-write history in favour of their favourites, and I am not one of them.

But it does interest me that LaMotta was in a very close, apparently quite unpopular decision with an old version of a fighter I believe would have beaten him a few years earlier. And i'm interested that LaMotta's timing for taking the fight was exactly - exactly right.



This is my postition, also.



Just because you've accused me of calling the fight "a robbery" again, I would like to reiterate that I don't consider it a robbery.


I didn't know Rosenfeld was actually there. It would have been great to ask him about that fight the week he was posting here (or appeared to be).





Your definition of a duck and mine are very very different. I don't think that serious talks need to take place for one fighter to duck another one. One absolute top fighter failing to take on any other absolute top fighter in any given era is enough to raise my eyebrow. When I know the ducked - excuse me, it's just easier to say than to quantify what I mean and I do think "ducked" is the right word, as you know - fighter was backed with money AND the ducking fighter has named an inferior fighter as a desired opponent when asked specifically about the fighter he is ducking, i'm two thirds of the way there.

This idea that Jake can't duck one guy because he fought a lot of other guys is strange to me. Did Jake feel fear for Burley? No, of course not. Is it possible that LaMotta was familiar with Burley's ability and style and didn't consider a win for himself a serious possibility? Of course! It's certainly how I see it.

We can agree that there was little media pressure on LaMotta to take on Burley, i'm sure. So let me ask you:

Is it possible that LaMotta took a look at Burley, decided he probably couldn't win and didn't fancy it?

Is it possible?

McGrain,

I can look up the information that is available to me if I really wanted to prove my point concerning the proposed Burley/LaMotta fight, but frankly I can`t be bothered to flip through the pages to find the quotes I am reffering as this debate is not that important to me really.

As for wether Jake didn`t fancy his chances against Burley, maybe he did and maybe he didn`t but that is all I can say as any other answer I would give would be mere speculation on my part. Neither you or me know why this fight did not take place, however what we do know is that there was no public outcry for the fight to happen and they were never mandated to fight each other either.

Jake was under no obligation to fight him, and there are any number of reasons as to why the fight did not take place as far as I`m concerned, so for you to so boldly claim that it is a legitimate duck on Jakes part just doesn`t fly with me. We will obviously not see eye to eye here, so lets just move on.

Now concerning the Williams fight, it sure sounded to me like you were claiming that Holman was robbed by the judges, at least that is the impression I got from reading your post. But if you say that wasnt the case than I believe you, it just came accross to me that way. As to why these two didn`t meet earlier again I couldn`t tell you as I do not know. But I do know that there were no talks of any kind between Holmans and Jakes people until a few weeks before they did meet and the contracts were signed.

As for your claim that Jake waited until the perfect moment to take on Williams to assure himself of victory, I disagree. SuzieQ49 already posted the names of some of Holman`s vitims leading up to his fight with Jake, and while I agree that he was on the slide by then he wasn`t completely shot and finished as a top echelon fighter just yet. And who says that Holman wouldn`t have been troubled by LaMotta`s style at any point in his career?

Because I think that Jake had the right style to give a guy like Holman fits each and every time and vice-versa. Both men were great fighters and neither would have had an easy time with the other, if you think otherwise thats your right but I disagree.

[Raging B(_)LL]

Oft subject,

Are you aware of any other fight film of Burley other than the often mentioned Oakland Billy Smith fight?

I wasnt hugely impressed with what I saw...

To my knowledge that is all that is available on Burley. If I ever find out otherwise I`ll let you and the forum know.

[McGrain]

As for your claim that Jake waited until the perfect moment to take on Williams to assure himself of victory, I disagree. SuzieQ49 already posted the names of some of Holman`s vitims leading up to his fight with Jake, and while I agree that he was on the slide by then he wasn`t completely shot and finished as a top echelon fighter just yet. And who says that Holman wouldn`t have been troubled by LaMotta`s style at any point in his career?

Because I think that Jake had the right style to give a guy like Holman fits each and every time and vice-versa. Both men were great fighters and neither would have had an easy time with the other, if you think otherwise thats your right but I disagree.


I think that LaMotta is literally aged Williams worst nightmare come to life in terms of style, an aggressive, never give up fighter who denies room to the opponent - and still Willimas, past peak pushes him close.

I won't say that Willimas is shot, I will say if you take the five just before he fought LaMotta, the five just after, and the fight itelf, Williams is 6-5. That's less than stellar, is it not? If he wasn't shot he was sure as shit on the slide.

[McGrain]

To my knowledge that is all that is available on Burley. If I ever find out otherwise I`ll let you and the forum know.


And the rest of the world I hope!

[Raging B(_)LL]

And the rest of the world I hope!

No, just you folks here and some friends of mine, the rest of the world can fuck off.

[McGrain]

No, just you folks here and some friends of mine, the rest of the world can fuck off.

:lol:

[Raging B(_)LL]

I think that LaMotta is literally aged Williams worst nightmare come to life in terms of style, an aggressive, never give up fighter who denies room to the opponent - and still Willimas, past peak pushes him close.

I won't say that Willimas is shot, I will say if you take the five just before he fought LaMotta, the five just after, and the fight itelf, Williams is 6-5. That's less than stellar, is it not? If he wasn't shot he was sure as shit on the slide.

That is what I said in my reply to you earlier.

[McGrain]

That is what I said in my reply to you earlier.


Well, I do like to end on a note of agreement.

[Raging B(_)LL]

Well, I do like to end on a note of agreement.

Same here.

We can always disagree without being disagreeable towards each other... that is unless the other person is a complete and utter moron of course. Thankfully, the classic forum has very few such posters in it, which is why I do most of my posting here.

[Minotauro]

I don't think LaMotta ducked Burley he fought men who beat Burley like Zivic, Bert Lytell, Holman Williams and Lloyd Marshall. I can't see LaMotta ducking Burley and his comment about Zivic was probably more done to Fritzie being more popular it could be like Trinidad saying why do I need Mosley when I have Oscar.

[SuzieQ49]

Mcgrain,


How was Williams far past his prime if less than a year before he fought lamotta, he beat satterfield, archie moore, aaron tiger wade??? that doesnt make sense to me. If you can still beat archie moore 8 months prior, then your a very dangerous world class fighter. even after the lamotta loss, williams beat henry hall a very good fighter.

[McGrain]

Mcgrain,


How was Williams far past his prime if less than a year before he fought lamotta, he beat satterfield, archie moore, aaron tiger wade??? that doesnt make sense to me. If you can still beat archie moore 8 months prior, then your a very dangerous world class fighter. even after the lamotta loss, williams beat henry hall a very good fighter.


Williams was still a very good fighter when he took on LaMotta.

But he was 6-5 over the relevant 11.

That is not vintage Williams, and you know that.

[SuzieQ49]

while Burley had a long reach and could control lamotta on the outside, he didnt have a punch(no middleweight did) to knock lamotta out or keep him from working his way in. charlie will really have to be active in this fight if he wants to beat a peak mid 40s jake lamotta. lloyd marshall was very active, but that was his style, burley liked to sit back and wait.

[Nemesis]

Rather than start a new thread, heres a question to the board, what was Jakes greatest win?

The weight difference in the JL-SRR matchup brings the enormity down a notch (imo)

He beat the talented Holman Williams

Title-winning effort against Cerdan

any others?

[SuzieQ49]

Rather than start a new thread, heres a question to the board, what was Jakes greatest win?


He beat a near prime Marcel Cerdan, his best win. a top 15 middleweight of all time. He floored cerdan with a left hook, then physically manhandled cerdan hurting his shoulder, then battered him for the next 9 rounds until cerdan quit. A very underated win. Lamotta was a hungry tiger that night fighting for what should have been his years ago.


Next his Robinson: Robinson though 145lb could still beat most middleweights, in fact even when he held the middleweight title in the early 50s he only weighed around 150lb, 5 more lbs. No one had ever beaten sugar ray robinson before, the greatest, only one man ever beat him in his prime....jake lamotta. since cerdan was a more natural middleweight, i think he ranks higher but beating robinson in 1943 is a helluva accomplishment.


Next is Holman Williams, a past his prime but still dangerous member of the black murders row, arguebably top 10 middleweight of all time. Lamotta won a close but clear decision with his strong finish.


Next is Bert Lytell one of the best of the black murders row middleweights, who was at the top of his game when lamotta edged him.


Fritzie Zivic, a great fighter with an ATG resume, but a natural welterweight

Tiberio Mitri after that, he was one of the finest european middleweights of that era. 48-1 awesome record, european middleweight champ. He knocked out randy turpin in 65 seconds.



Dauthille, Jackie Wilson, Villemain( a very underated fighter who most felt beat lamotta twice, villemain was a helluva boxer cerdan wouldnt fight him)


So



1. Marcel Cerdan
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Holman Williams
4. Bert Lytell
5. Fritzie Zivic- not a natural middleweight
6. Tiberio Mitri
7. Robert Villemain
8. Laurente Dauthille
9. California Jackie Wilson- not really a natural middleweight, but a very good fighter
10. Jose Basora

[McGrain]

SQ, I think the Lytell wins should be above the Williams win for reason i've explained, though Williams would possibly be next. I would also have Zivic a wee bit higher and Robinson above Cerdan.

[SuzieQ49]

Maybe ur right but I gave the benefit of the doubt to the naturally larger middles in dauthille mitri and villemain.


Also 145lb robinson above cerdan? possibly

[Bummy Davis]

Do you think LaMotta's chances v Burley would be serious?

YES, lamotta was a tough cookie and Burley was not better than Ray IMO

[Nobudius]

I read a newspaper account of Marshall vs. Lamotta once- apparently, Marshall was punching the snot out of the Bull & on his way to victory..... but he punched himself out due to Lamotta's uncanny ability to absorb punishment, & Jake came roaring back.

I wish I still had a copy of it.....

[Nobudius]

Btw, Craig's avatar of the Dempsey & Bob Foster is fascinating. I never knew their paths crossed, & the Dempsey still had that aura as an older man

[SuzieQ49]

I read a newspaper account of Marshall vs. Lamotta once- apparently, Marshall was punching the snot out of the Bull & on his way to victory..... but he punched himself out due to Lamotta's uncanny ability to absorb punishment, & Jake came roaring back.

I wish I still had a copy of it.....


Exactley, in a 15 round lamotta outlasts and stops marshall late. marshall was lucky time ran out. lamotta had 4 HUGE tools...he had a pure concrete chin, he had inhumane strength, and he had the stamina of a horse, and he had the workrate of a windmill. Not to mention his tricky manuevers and underated defense(he was great at slipping jabs)

[Minotauro]

Exactley, in a 15 round lamotta outlasts and stops marshall late. marshall was lucky time ran out. lamotta had 4 HUGE tools...he had a pure concrete chin, he had inhumane strength, and he had the stamina of a horse, and he had the workrate of a windmill. Not to mention his tricky manuevers and underated defense(he was great at slipping jabs)

I've read that Marshall said that most of the murders row would have beaten LaMotta. I'll try to find the quote it might been Harry Otty book.

[SuzieQ49]

sure in 10 round fights most would have beaten him, but only a few of the murders row could have beat lamotta in 15 rounds IMO at his best.


what did the black murders row say about cerdan?

[McGrain]

Exactley, in a 15 round lamotta outlasts and stops marshall late. marshall was lucky time ran out. lamotta had 4 HUGE tools...he had a pure concrete chin, he had inhumane strength, and he had the stamina of a horse, and he had the workrate of a windmill. Not to mention his tricky manuevers and underated defense(he was great at slipping jabs)



You've left off his fighting mentality. The attirubtes you've listed are nothing without what he had more of than maybe any other filmed fighter guts, heart and buckets of determination.

[McGrain]

I've read that Marshall said that most of the murders row would have beaten LaMotta. I'll try to find the quote it might been Harry Otty book.


Peak for peak I'd make Willimas, Burley and Cocoa Kid pretty big favourites. This info that's been brought to the table concerning Marshall is interesting. A 15 round fight would be a sight to behold.

I wonder how Eddie Booker would do against LaMotta? A bit too brittle for the Bronx Bull maybe?

[Minotauro]

Peak for peak I'd make Willimas, Burley and Cocoa Kid pretty big favourites. This info that's been brought to the table concerning Marshall is interesting. A 15 round fight would be a sight to behold.

I wonder how Eddie Booker would do against LaMotta? A bit too brittle for the Bronx Bull maybe?

I not sure if I would favour the Kid but I would favour Booker, Burley said himself that Eddie would have been his hardest fights I believe Charley even pulled out of two fights against Booker citing injuries and a cold as the reasons.

[McGrain]

Moore speaks spectactularly highly of Booker also. It seems anyone who saw him fight wondered at him.

[Minotauro]

Moore speaks spectactularly highly of Booker also. It seems anyone who saw him fight wondered at him.

An interesting story about those two is after Booker knocked out Moore Archie needed a blood transfusion, and because of the war, there wasn't enough plasma to go around and since Booker had the same blood type as him, he donated the blood Moore needed. They were friends ever since. And I believe that Moore was the godfather of Bookers son.

There is a guy on Boxrec who talks about Booker often he even said that Booker cornered Burley during his fight against Billy Smith.

[McGrain]

Interesting stuff.

[Nobudius]

I've heard the other fighters state that Booker was the most "talented" of them all.

One of my PRIZED boxing possessions are photos from the Marshall vs. Burley bout. Marshall had Burley down, & I have a few images from that sequence.

[Minotauro]

I've heard the other fighters state that Booker was the most "talented" of them all.

One of my PRIZED boxing possessions are photos from the Marshall vs. Burley bout. Marshall had Burley down, & I have a few images from that sequence.

Any chance you could scan them and post them or something?:hey

[Nobudius]

I'll try to post them here eventually. They are similar to the link:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I got them through Antiquities, as they came across a collection of Lloyd Marshall pics that were once owned by Marshall's manager at the time, Tommy Farmer. Even had some images from Marshall vs. Booker too. Certainly rare & unique, as you never know what exists, or is lost.

I believe Farmer eventually took his own life-do not know the specifics, but many of these were surrounded by sketchy characters.

[Quickhands21]

Burley wud have beat Lamottas ass..dont know if jake ducked him tho

[Bummy Davis]

Burley wud have beat Lamottas ass..dont know if jake ducked him tho

Burley had his share of losses, Zivic,Charles,Jimmy Bivins,Holman Williams,Jimmy Leto,Ezzard Chales,Bert Lytell,Eddie Dolan , not a bad crowd but nothing on his record or in the Ring would show that he would"beat Lamotta's ass"....Jake was a tough guy

[Quickhands21]

I know jake was a togh guy..Who stopped Burley? I think Burley is the greater fighter.Ok your right he wouldnt walk threw jake of course..But i thin he'd win comfortably

[Raging B(_)LL]

McGrain,

I`m curious to know how or what is it that made you become such a big Charley Burley fan and advocate? Let me guess...was it his haircut by any chance? :lol:

[mcvey]

An interesting story about those two is after Booker knocked out Moore Archie needed a blood transfusion, and because of the war, there wasn't enough plasma to go around and since Booker had the same blood type as him, he donated the blood Moore needed. They were friends ever since. And I believe that Moore was the godfather of Bookers son.

There is a guy on Boxrec who talks about Booker often he even said that Booker cornered Burley during his fight against Billy Smith.
Very good info thank you!