How does Tony Zale do against the murderers row?

This misses the point that one can be Jewish and Italian. I think the actor Robert Loggia was.

I found this source addressing Italy:

"Before the rise of Nazism, Italian society was wide open to Jews. They could become doctors, lawyers, generals, even prime ministers until Mussolini passed his race laws in 1938, according to historian Andrew Canepa. Italian Jews were some of the most assimilated in the world, Canepa said, noting that they frequently married Italian Christians."

Like Jake's mother.

That quote doesn't prove she wasn't Jewish, only that she was from Italy. I wonder why any source would claim she was Jewish if she wasn't. Doesn't seem much point to that.

I think a good idea would be to just type in "was Jake LaMotta Jewish" on google and see what you get.

anyway, this discussion is off the track. The issue would be LaMotta's possible ties to Detroit gangsters, whether Jewish or Italian doesn't matter.

 

"It would be amazing if he was still prime when he fought LaMotta and Cerdan."

He lost to Cerdan and LaMotta in 1946. In 1945 he logged wins against Burley and Moore.

How to judge this? Did Williams hit an age wall? Or were Burley and Moore perhaps not quite as good at this point as some folks judge? No easy answers.

 

He was going on 32 and nearing 200 fights. He would lose half his remaining fights before retiring. The signs are he was clearly on the slide.

Moore ended 1945 as The Rings nr 1 LHW contender and Burley as the nr 2 MW contender, behind Williams himself. So better scalps at that time would be hard to get.

Let's say Golovkin last year beat the top contender besides himself, like he did with Jacobs, and then went 1-1 with Kovalev, and Canelo still didn't give him a shot, but instead took on Spence, or someone else who's main achievement was beating WWs.

Wouldn't that be a crap move? Isn't it painfully obvious it would be? So why are we even having this discussion?

 

Oh I quite agree ,I had an argument with Vyotsky about it ,he denied it saying its not a religion its based on ethnicity,my Wife is Jewish ,she is also English.I thought you meant his Mother was a eastern European Jewess.
I'm not sufficiently interested to pursue it further to be honest.

 

The venue wouldn't be central to Dauthuille, but how impressive were LaMotta's two fights with Dauthuille? He lost one and needed a miracle finish to win the other. Had Dauthuille simply taken a knee and a count rather than trying to ride it out, he probably could have finished the fight for the decision. LaMotta was only 28. Should have been at his peak.

"called the Cerdan fight a NC"

You bring up a valid point.

 

"Graziano even admitted LaMotta was his policeman"

Then you should have no problem naming the fighters LaMotta policed. You haven't responded to that question.

"what about Graziano"

Who exactly is saying Graziano was great? It is LaMotta who gets puffed up today. Janiro might have been "average" but he didn't actually beat Graziano in three tries. Cecil Hudson actually beat LaMotta. So did Dauthuille the first time, and almost in the second.

My point is the gap between these two New York and Hollywood hype jobs is not as wide as some like to claim.

 

If he were so much better than Graziano you would expect him to have less losses to guys like Dauthille

 

sure, but you are assuming that guys like Dauthille aren't also great fighters, they were, terrible injustice as far as I see, the World was/still is Full of Great fighters, they can't all fit into Champion or top 10 status, the sheer numbers alone make this impossible.

now IF boxing did its definite best through Sporting procedure with 'Proper tournaments and eliminations bouts, then contentions rights and champions coming out top would be acceptable and believable and workable...

however the 'Business' of boxing doesn't allow for that, leaving us with champions that aren't really the best and contenders who either aren't really and others who should be.

this is always the way it's been and always will be, it a Corrupt, Partisan, Nationalist BUSINESS First and Foremost.

 

Three title shots and only one win over a ranked contender (and Janiro wasn't ranked when Graziano beat him, only had slotted in at the nr 10 spot for one year, 1947)...

What other fighters have managed even something similar? Old George Foreman to a degree... Cooney also got two shots at the lineal title for doing very little on the whole. Can't come to think of another who received three with so few quality wins right now.

 

Lamotta in his book said ," I was very,very lucky to win that fight!"

 

We all have our own criteria about what makes a great fighter,but ,if I remember correctly ,[correct me if I'm mistaken,]you believe Bert Gilroy was a great fighter,if that is the case our criteria's are certainly poles apart.
For my part I am very sparing with the word .

 

LaMotta seems to have been on the slide after he won the title. He had a hard time making weight and probably had lost a fair bit of dedication. That imo makes Robinson's last win over him less impressive than it otherwise would be. I've read on this forum that SRR even said he devised his fight plan after the fact that LaMotta would be drained.

 

In fairness, Robinson also showed signs in 1952 of an aging, tired champion looking for some last paydays. Olson really hadn't done much to earn a shot at the title, nor had Graziano for his third.