how do you explain that Lamotta was able to beat SRR that one time?

Thanks!

 

LaMotta's a great fighter. It's not something that requires explanation.

Robinson was obviously greater, as evidenced by his overall record against LaMotta but that he lost to a fellow great once isn't some kind of fluke that demands to be deconstructed.

If you still aren't sure - watch more of LaMotta's fights.

 

Lamotta had around 17lbs on Robinson that night, so he was just so much stronger than Robinson. A very good bigger man sometimes beats a great smaller man

 

What are you basing that on?

 

Just very good?

 

Depends on your definition of great but I don't think Lamotta is a top10 MW. After Lloyd Marshall beat Lamotta at MW he said he thought most of his Murders Row counterparts would do the same

 

I think needing to place in a historical top ten in a division is a bit strict a criteria for greatness, myself.

I'm not one who thinks you need to place within a certain number of ATGs p4p (top 100, for instance) just to rise above the label of "very good". Incidentally, most people do have LaMotta within their top 100...many in their 50 and some in their 30. Many also have him in their middleweight top ten (FWIW, Sports Illustrated had him #1).

There have just been too many boxers over the course of history, and too many of them have been extremely talented, accomplished and/or effective head-to-head to pull a number out of one's ass and set arbitrary cutoffs.

Someone was great, or they weren't. Where they place on some list doesn't matter as far as that's concerned.

 

Jake gets monstrous respect here, and his fighting prowess will never be questioned thanks to the added boost of Scorsese and De Niro, but it never hurts to substantiate for new fans (of either boxing or cinema) to reassert the facts behind the fighter himself.

Nearly 30 years ago, one of the boxing magazines published a special issue, their answer to the "Book of Lists." I forget if the category was "Italian American Fighters," or great middleweights, or what it was precisely, but in that particular list, Graziano was rated over LaMotta. (No, excitement and punching power were not part of this specification.) The week after that magazine was released, "KO JO" Jack Obermayer slammed it in Tonight's Boxing Program. ("Graziano over LaMotta? No way, Bub!")

That magazine issue also contradictorily listed Jerry Quarry as one of the ten greatest never to win a title (Burley did top their list), while also naming him as one of the ten most disappointing white hopes. As Obermayer stated, can't have it both ways. (I think a much stronger case can be made for Jerry as a great non champion. Black heavyweight contemporaries with lesser records are very well remembered today. He was a great deal more than "The Great White Hope," and Foreman won't let anybody forget it. Neither will the internet video services, now that everybody can see JQ actually winning fights impressively against top competition, instead of relying on ESPN's censored and restricted misinformation.)

 

There are quite a few great fighters (in my opinion) who wouldn't necessarily make my top 10 MW list. LaMotta still has a very good case with opposition beaten.

 

To be fair, Lamotta did beat Holman Williams ten months after he beat Archie Moore. He was one of the few white middleweight contenders of the era who had no problems taking on the murder row crew.

Not to deney that the murder row crew was something of a minefield.

 

At the time though Holman Williams was 34 and a veteran of 177 fights if I remember correctly and had been losing to men he'd previously beat. Very good win none the less, but was he better overall than Williams and would he have won prime for prime? I'm not convinced. Does anyone have the fight report for this 1? Lamotta said Holman was as good as Robinson according to RSN

Saying he had 'no problems taking on the murders row' isn't strictly true, didnt he only fight 3 of them, and Holman was old, Lytell was green and took him to an SD. He was also quoted as saying 'why do I need Charles Burley when I can face Zivic'?

 

Dont think please!

 

My main gripe with Lamotta is I'm not convinced he was top5 MW of his own era, maybe, but with Robinson, Burley, Lloyd Marshall, Holman Williams, Cerdan, Zale I question if he was. Very good fighter, a tough fight for anyone but perhaps a tad overrated in the scheme of things

 

SSR was an aggressive type of fighter, which meant he left himself open to be hit. LaMotta, who started out a light heavy, was the bigger man, and did not have to chase Sugar Ray. It was a styles thing, and perhaps poor ring stragegy by SRR factored in to the upset. SRR beat LaMaotta a few times.

 

I think Lamotta is one of the more over rated greats. Jake was not a big puncher, nor was he fast.