Define available http://www.itnsource.com/en/shotlis...10/27/X27104701/?s=robert+villemain&st=0&pn=1 I did think there was a fight of his on youtube
The only fights I come up with off the top of my head that were seriously investigated and cost the officials their license or suspension was the aforementioned LaMotta-Villemain I, Art Aragon-Chuck Davey and the first Kid Gavilan-Peter Waterman fight.
The point isn't whether Lamotta-Villemain was a robbery, merely a bad decision, or a legitimately close fight. In my opinion the point is that Villemain demonstrated that he was good enough to fight an even fight with one of the Top 10 middleweights of all time. I'm curious why so many are mentioning the Armstrong fight, given that Armstrong, while highly rated at the time, was obviously on the slide. And from the accounts of the fight it was a pretty dreary waltz. Yes its a good scalp, and yes Robinson almost certainly carried him, but does that win merit ranking on this list. I don't know. I'm eager to hear the rationale though.
I would have placed his wins over Steve Belloise and Georgie Abrams above the Armstrong fight. They were in their prime, Armstrong clearly was not.
Here's an updated top 10. Thoughts? 1. Jake LaMotta: Valentine's Day Massacre 2. Kid Gavilan: 2nd fight ('49) 3. Henry Armstrong ('43) 4. Fritzie Zivic fight ('41) 5. Carmen Basilio: '58 Fight of the Year 6. Sammy Angott ('41) 7. Randy Turpin II ('51) 8. Tommy Bell ('46) 9. Gene Fullmer II ('57) 10. (Tie) Docusen/Villemain ('48, '50) I'm still going to hold the Armstrong win in decently high regard. He was still top 3 in the world and... It's Henry Freakin' Armstrong. Honorable mentions: Belloise, Jannazo, Costner, Basora, Abrams
i would go for a earlier lamotta victory, by valentines day srr was a proper mw and lamotta was fading and struggled for weight.
Turpin 2 and Villemain should be top 5, Fullmer a bit higher due to the manner of it. Armstrong and Zivic below the top5, Armstrong wasn't quite as far gone as people make out, I think it's partly that he was never a great WW in truth being such a small man
I wouldn't, it was for the title meaning more was on the line and he stopped him plus Lamotta was usually cutting weight anyway. Ofcourse beating Lamotta weighing 143 is mighty impressive
All great points. I'm inclined to agree with most of what you said. I guess I put more stock in the greatness of the opponent more than others. And probably more than even the method of victory. I find Turpin (career wise) a tad overrated.
Using that logic in the first paragraph, then surely Rays best win was against Marty Servo, wasnt it. Marty took on the best version of Ray (welterweight) and twice ran him close, with one of them being (arguably, without seeing it) a robbery.
Was La Motta the only fighter to beat Sugar Ray Robinson in Robinson's prime--1940-1952? And what did La Motta do differently in that fight--their second, if I'm not mistaken--in order to win, what do you all think was the difference? Quite obviously, Robinson used whatever he learned from their 2nd fight to defeat La Motta the next four times they fought, and Robinson just destroyed La Motta in '51. Sorry for going off-topic, but you all are the professionals.
It did fizzle out, but he was superb in both Robinson fights and back then a European Championship was like say an IBF Belt in how hard it was to win. Turpin did also. But in the first 2 Lamotta fights, robinson weighed 142-144 to Lamotta's 157-159 (those numbers are off the top of my head), so Robinson had massive disadvantage in weight. He later got bigger/stronger so had less trouble with Lamotta.