If jake la motta was fighting today

28 of his fights were against future hall of famers....Ugh.

 

The man fought Robinson 5/6 times beating Ray once(twice realy.Jake was robbed once).That should say enough about whether he can cut it with todays warriors.

 

I've read some dumb **** on these forums but this thread is defo up there.

 

in what way would you exmplify this?

there's an argument that pac and floyd will hit the heights that pea and jones did, no?

 

The freakish thing about this argument is where it is said Hopkins today is BETTER than he was at 26 years old, which is just ABSURD. Once he got the belt and had time to review tapes of his opponents, he looked great. Anybody see how easily he made an undefeated Glenn Johnson look like he had no idea what to do or how to box?

Hopkins is and was great, and the more old fights you watch the more you realize modern science and training techniques really can't give someone the heart and will to beat someone to death no matter what they have to go through.

Watch Basillio vs. Saxton II and see all the amazing infighting he did, sick slipping, watch the toughness on display, watch the TIRELESSNESS and the killer instinct. Basillio was always a second string kind of guy in his prime, but he would be one of the long reigning champions today with that skill set.

I am not as high on LaMotta, honestly, but those guys had way way more skills in close than many of our fighters today, and if Rios can get by with that "modern conditioning" he has then ...:-( Toughness is not a matter of when you were born, and LaMotta was ridiculously tough. Are you honestly going to tell me Maussa has any skills? No, he doesn't. He's one of the worst to ever lace them up, but because of his intangibles (read, a good chin and an awkward hard punching style) he actually won a belt in this superior modern age.

Today we are dealing with like 50 champions, back then there were like 8 in the whole sport, and they had to fight a lot. Pryor, Leonard, Hearns, Camacho, Hagler would present problems against ANY modern fighter in their primes, and are greater than almost everyone fighting now in terms of both conditioning, intangibles, and skill.

 

You have no clue what your talking about.

 

atsch

Your posts are painful to read, but this one stands out.

Most fighters from that era had to fight as often as possible to make a decent living. You didn't get guys getting paid tens of millions of pounds for fighting a couple of times a year.

That is why fighters from that era would often have over 100 fights over the course of their career and thats why many of their opponents would be bums. But many of these fights against bums would be stay busy, non-title fights anyway.

 

It's funny how people that have no clue what they are talking about always feel the need to say things like "it's clear you have never laced 'em up" or "I have boxed so I know what I'm talking about" ect.

Some comedy gold in this thread. Keep it coming PugilisticPower

 

Please tell me you're trolling.

There's too many bull**** points you made for me to be bothered to pick up on but you don't know **** son.

 

Ah PugilisticPower...good to see you again old buddy.

 

Am I in a parrallel dimension and it is April Fools Day? Chavez jnr beating Jake? For christs sake, you know nothing about boxing!

 

Is this sarcastic?

What fighters at 160 at this time would you pick to beat Lamotta?

And why?

 

This is laughable. La Motta had a very effective style and it would be incredibly effective today considering most people have very limited boxing skills.

Felix Sturm is a standard convention belt European style fighter with slightly more athleticsm than the next guy.

He has NEVER IN HIS LIFE seen a guy like Lamotta would not only beat him up on the inside, but out jab the **** outta the predictable Sturm.