LaMotta vs Zale (prime vs prime)

First of all I posted that I would not pick a winner in a bout between Tony Zale and LaMotta both in their primes, so please don't pretend that I did...I saw LaMotta a couple of times in NY fighting where he certainly didn't look unbeatable against a Verne Lester and Robert Villimaine, both no world beaters. Say what you will about the pre WW2 Tony Zale, but those boxing experts in the know rated him very highly as a tough searing body puncher,before his 4 year Navy tour.
Good enough to beat a helluva tough in prime Georgie Abrams in
1941. Abrams before WW2 was good enough to draw with the formidable Charley Burley in 1940, and in 1947 a past his peak Abrams gave Ray Robinson all he could handle while losing a controversial decision to the prime Robinson...I think very highly of Jake LaMotta at his best, who had the best set of whiskers I have ever seen. Period. But At times LaMotta was erratic. And I also think that in spite of your demeaning Tony Zale, that when he was in his stride pre WW2, he was a terrific Puncher and had great recuperative powers
and was as tough as they come...All the boxing writers of those days who praised "the man of steel", were not idiots...

not pick a winner between Tony Zale and LaMotta both in their primes, so please don't pretend that I did.

 

Jake by close, but clear decision.

 

I thought we were taking the best versions of these guys? If not then lets cherry pick some of Zales less than stellar performances because he had a lot more against a lot lesser opposition than LaMotta.

Would those be the same experts who talked for several years about him avoiding his #1 contender: LaMotta.

Burt the only thing controversial about his loss to Robinson was that the fight was so close. Ive already illustrated with several first hand accounts that Robinson won that fight handily the only thing making it close was him getting docked rounds for low blows that most didnt see. It was Abrams who was outboxed and hurt in that fight, not at all unlike the Burley fight which everyone thought Burley won despite Burley being a career WW fighting against MW. Spin that how you want and SPIN is something you consistently practice on here but the fact remains Ive given him the credit he deserves for beating a very good Abrams but Im not going to beef that win up even more by pretending Abrams was as good as Robinson or Burley because he wasnt.

And Zale wasnt? Again, this is supposed to be both guys at their best and at his best LaMotta simply fought at a higher level against better guys than Zale ever did. There's a reason for that. You cant have Zales management protecting him and his own corner saying that he wasnt as good as these guys and then pretend he just missed out on them. He didnt, he avoided them.

The only idiots are the ones who THINK 70 years later that Zale was called the man of steel because of his toughness.

 

iquote=mcvey;17632317]Jake by close, but clear decision.[/quote]

As far as I can ascertain Lamotta was Zale's number one challenger in 1943 and 1946.Zale was in the service in1943 he had his last fight before enlisting in Feb1942,and did not fight again until Jan 1946,when he had 6 over the weight fights before defending his crown.I don't think we can say Zale ducked Lamotta when he was in the armed forces?

 

Yes at his best I have a helluva more faith in the considered opinions of the boxing fraternity circa 1940s, who saw Tony Zale ringside many times and knew his ability and toughness than you today 75 years later... You can call those guys "idiots" for their thinking and seeing before their eyes that The Tony Zale of his prime was indeed worthy
of the nickname "man of steel" not only because he worked in the
steel mills catching searing metal rivets in a bucket, but he became a tough, tough middleweight and one darn ripping puncher...And if I
too fit your category of an "idiot" K, why I wear it as a badge of honor.
I try to be civil with you, but to no avail...

 

Zale has a very real chance, I honestly don't care what anyone says. If anyone gets overrated, it's Lamotta. Not to disparage either man, but what does Jake really bring that Zale could not cope with?
He was an underrated boxer true, but I still do not see where Tony is going to struggle so much.

I'll go with Zale thank you. :hey

 

grumpton is happy to place his trust in contemporaneous opinions in evaluating classiv fighters when it happens to suit his agenda.

 

Nah, you will change your opinion a few times over the years. That is the beauty of the game.

 

What ratings? The Ratings you just quoted were from Ring magazine. Those are not official ratings. LaMotta was rated Zale's #1 at least as early as December 1945. When Zale finally decided to defend his title he wanted no part of LaMotta. This was common knowledge and its not hard to find a ton of articles on the subject from the time. Instead Graziano's name was floated and LaMotta offered to face Graziano for the right to the shot but Graziano also flatly refused. Graziano got the title shot despite Jake being the established #1 contender and Graziano having never beaten a top MW contender. Graziano lost by knockout yet Zale had five more fights and then signed a rematch with Graziano, still ignoring LaMotta's status. This caused a big outcry not just with LaMotta but with all of the other contenders as well who correctly stated that Zale would effectively be putting the title on the shelf for the next 18 months (due to the rematch clause) after having already frozen out all contenders for the previous 18 months and that doesnt even factor in the war years. LaMotta appealed to the New York Commission and that combined with Graziano's persona non grata status for not reporting an attempted bribe kept Zale from defending in New York where the bout was planned and forced it to Chicago. When Zale lost and Graziano was steered away from LaMotta Jake made his now infamous deal to throw the Fox fight in return for a title shot. LaMotta was bumped because he was placed on indefinite suspension due to not reporting his supposed spleen injury which at the time he blamed for his performance against Fox (though nobody believed it) that was the worst they could do to him since they couldnt prove any evidence of foul play and the Fox fight was at LHW. So yes. You can easily say with a great degree of confidence that Zale ducked LaMotta. If you tie up the title for two and a half years over the course of 17 fights without facing your #1 and instead facing inferior opposition you are ducking the question.

 

As opposed to inane trolling and incompetent round by round reports of what passes for boxing today. Dont worry, you spend so much time in the modern threads I dont expect you to know what you are talking about.

 

Ouch, a hack writer doesn't like me! :-(

 

What are "official ratings"? Which ones held more credibility than the Ring's in the 1940's?

Here is your statement.

"Would those be the same experts who talked for several years about him avoiding his #1 contender: LaMotta"
I see 2 years in which Lamotta was rated number 1
1943 and 1946.Zale was not able to defend his crown in 43, 44, or 45. That leaves 1946.

I don't want to get into it with you again because you are incapable of being civil for more than a sentence to anyone who even mildly queries your opinions.


You'll quickly become insulting and I will reciprocate,and that's not what I'm here for.

 

lamotta 9-6. lamotta's strengths nullify zale's imo. zale would have success when lamotta has his back to the ropes but lamotta wont react like grqaziano did when he gets hit. the rest of the time lamota'll be landing because the biggest flaw zale shows on film is that he telegraphs his punches with his body position, lamotta will be the stronger man in the clinches too i think.

 

What ratings are you referring too since its not from the Ring, can you list what you mean by official ratings? Burt's and my fathers generation who saw Tony at his best held the Ring ratings as the standard, for some reason you have an axe to grind and it shows pretty loudly.

 

Your the best Burt, reading your posts reminds me of hearing my dad talk of the bouts in those days he saw. Keep well.