LaMotta vs Zale (prime vs prime)

Now watch grumpton run off and cry into his whack sock as everyone defers to burt's wisdom instead of "his". (...an important writer of important books! :yikes The outrage!)

LaMotta (or even Zale :hey) he isn't, re: emotional toughness.

 

Not sure The Myth makes a top 15 of the 40s MWs tbh

 

Is Zale Apostoli out there? Or other Hostak fights?

 

I rate him higher than you do.

 

For reals?

 

You do but you're ranking him on boxrec based on all the gifts he received. H2H he ranks below Robinson, Marshall, Lytell (massive robbery), Yarosz (robbery), Villemain beat him and then got a horrible robbery decision against him so bad that the commission investigated the judging, the Holman Williams decision was boo'ed by the crowd and this was a 34yo Holman in his 177th fight. He also obviously loses to Charles, Bivins, Burley, Moore, Booker and probably. Who knows if he beats an uninjured Cerdan?

Lamotta was and is a hypejob, with his legacy benefiting from having a movie made about him and sharing the ring with a great man much smaller than himself who he probably never deserved to beat. For the most part he picked on smaller guys and usually got outboxed when put in with someone who knew how to throw a straight 1-2

Lamotta is the biggest myth still not properly exposed on here, loads of posters actually pick him to beat the likes of Hagler

 

Are you taken in by gift decisons?

 

I've not seen his boxrec for a while so couldn't list off his biggest wins like you can.

I haven't seen those fights you claim are robberies neither.

In the fights I have seen I see a man who was a master at cutting the ring off, had a dedicated body attack and was one of the most durable in history. I think it takes a special type of fighter to overcome those attributes.

These robberies are fights I've not seen so I can't comment on how legitimate those victories are or aren't.

As I said I rate him higher than you do.

 

I think you're taking a very dim view of his worth h2h by focusing on the decisions you feel he was lucky to get. :think

 

What a shocker. My 5 year old shadow emerges to follow me around like a sick puppy. Shouldnt you be writing an inept rbr somewhere?


In the meantime if anyone can explain to me how exactly they think Zale could defeat LaMotta id love to hear it. To me its a no brainer that styles make fights and this one would be poison to zale, regardless of what zale may have said, and zale said a lot of stupid **** in his day (the guy was a punchy mush mouth by 1948). Nice guy but like tommy loughran he had absolutely no perspective on his career. Luckily for him his managers knew better and he was smart enough to listen to them. When your own managers and sparring partner dont think you have a snow***** chance in hell with robinson or lamotta (and steer you accordingly, again regardless of what tony said) then fanboys would be better served by saving their breath arguing the point.

 

Take a close look at the records of Jake LaMotta, Tony Zale, Rocky Graziano and Marcel Cerdan. LaMotta was the only one of the four who fought tough opposition on a consistent basis throughout his career. Yes, LaMotta had quite a few losses, but he lost a good portion of them by very close decisions.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Let me give you a few tough" fighters that the prime pre-WW2 Tony Zale fought that compares with most of LaMotta's opponents.
Nate Bolden 3
Al Hostak 2
Billy Soose
Fred Apostoli
Steve Mamakos 2
Ossie bulldog Harris
Georgie Abrams
LH Billy Conn
And then at the height of his prime Tony Zale spent the next 4 years in the Navy, returning to boxing at the ripe old age of 33.
In my opinion his opponents such as Nate Bolden, Billy Soose, Fred Apostoli, Georgie Abrams [in his prime] and the great LH Billy Conn
compared favorably with La Motta's opponents...I will not pick a
winner between Zale and LaMotta both in their primes, but to not
think that Tony Zale wasn't a helluva tough nut to beat, does truth a disservice...

 

Anyone can tell you that just throwing up a bunch of names Zale fought is meaningless without also giving a few details. For instance:

Zale had been fighting for three and a half years when he was beaten the first time by Bolden who had only 4 fights to his name. Zale won the rematch when Bolden had only 5 fights to his name, and won a split decision again when Bolden had only 7 fights to his name. They fought a fourth time (which you overlooked). By this fourth fight Bolden had 15 fights and was coming off two consecutive losses to Ken Overlin and easily outboxed Zale.

Al Hostak took the first fight with Zale for granted as Zale was a nobody and Hostak figured it to be easy money going into his backyard for the bout. He knocked Zale down in the first round but broke his hand (a chronic problem of his) and faded down the stretch. This win was what made Zale. It came out of nowhere and allowed him to break into the big time. In the rematch go read the Seattle reports of that fight. There isn't anything in them to suggest Zale did so great they are all about how poorly Hostak fought. As if he couldn't pull the trigger or no longer wanted to fight. They called for his retirement and sure enough he never again won another important fight.

Soose whipped Zale.

Apostoli was shot by the time he got to Zale after some of the most brutal wars of the era against Bettina, Conn, Steele, and Garcia.

Mamakos was nothing special at all at MW. He was a better WW than a MW. He finished his career losing almost as much as he won and he lost more at MW than he won. Im not sure why you would even include him on a list of supposedly great guys that Zale beat unless you just looked that Zale defended his version of the belt against Mamakos and assumed he was something.

Ossie Harris?? Are you kidding me? He lost more than he won and was a favorite record padder (which is exactly you picked him, to pad Zale's thin resume). Everybody beat Harris. Everybody. The guy had 102 fights, lost 51, drew 5 and only had 17 knockouts to his name. You do the math.

Conn outboxed Zale by a mile.

The Abrams bout was arguably, along with the first Hostak fight, Zales best. But the above just illustrates how weak Zales resume was. The guy came along at a time when the other boys had basically fought themselves out. He sneaked in with the upset over Hostak and then took over. You pretend the war hurt him by keeping him out of action during his prime but its every bit as likely that it extended his reign by keeping him on the shelf and away from better fighters. He certainly showed no inclination to look for tough game when he came out of the service. He fought six fights against the worst opposition you could find in the most out of the way places before going life and death with Graziano then fought another five nobodies in nowheresville while the men that Graziano wouldn't have dreamed of fighting waited and licked their chops. Now keep in mind that all the while he was avoiding LaMotta. He could have had that fight and it would have made a lot of money. Maybe not as much as Graziano but certainly more than than the 11 other fights he had as champion after the war. Also keep in mind that while Graziano was pleased as punch to face Zale every single time out he punched a tree to get out of his fight with LaMotta.

I asked a simple question: How does Zale beat LaMotta? Im not talking about some fantasy B.S. like "Zale gets on his toes and boxes rings around him like Robinson." Im asking how the real Zale fighting in Zales style with Zales physical attributes, strengths and weaknesses, beats LaMotta? Hes not going to knock him out, hes not going to run, hes not going to throw more punches, so exactly how does a guy who relies on his power beat a volume guy with great stamina who is damn near unstoppable even by guys who hit harder than Zale? Nobody has because it wouldn't happen. The fight isn't that hard to figure. Zale would have his moments but hed lose a decision at the very least and might even get stopped if a prime LaMotta really took it to him to the body and then brought it up stairs when Zale had to dip low to try to match him. Everybody is always so high on Zales bodypunching but LaMotta was a terrific bodypuncher as well and that combined with his physical, high energy in your face style could wear Zale down.

 

I respect Tony but think he is highly over rated .. I think Jake was far better, fought far better opposition and would have spanked him ..