For this fight to be fair, it would have to take place in 1943 both at 160lb....I like Lamotta by late stoppage in this one, Moore was vunerable to the body when he younger. Eddie Booker knocked him out, Shorty Hogue, Ron Richards, Burley all had success to the body. and lamotta attacked the body like a tiger. He would wear Archie down, and archie wasnt big enough to hurt lamotta then.... but archie would have a solid chance of outpointing lamotta. But I favor lamotta to walk in taking a young archies best shots and wear archie down. However a Prime 1952 Archie Moore vs any version of Jake Lamotta? Moore wins by KNOCKOUT, yes KNOCKOUT. Moore would knock lamotta flat to his back, thats how great a puncher and finisher archie later became not to mention moore grew into a HUGE 175lber.
I basically agree with Suzie here. Young Archie against peak Lamotta - I really don't know. Peak Archie vs peak Lamotta. Well, the Mongoose would be just too good and strong for the Bull. Likely outcome: a stoppage victory for Moore somewhere in the middle rounds, perhaps even before.
At 160lbs Moore widish UD, above 160 Moore by KO. Actually the 1945 version that ko'd Marshall weighing 162 KOs Lamotta at 160
No 162lb man could kayo lamotta. in fact no 162lb man in history could even floor lamotta. Thats how durable Jake was. Jake took flush punches off the biggest middleweight and lightheavyweight punchers of the era without going down. Moore at 175lb is a different story though. I think jake is the only white fighter of the 1940s that in head to head sense would have done very well and won multiple times vs black murders row. In fact, he came out on top when he did face black murders row. Lamotta in his prime would have been hell for Charley Burley.
Ridiculous to pick wide decision. Sugar Ray Robinson in 6 meetings never once won a wide decision over lamotta, and robinson was a better 160lber than moore and your loverboy charlie Burley.
Firstly any man can be ko'd if the right shots land flush often enough. Moore land bigger shots than Lamotta had ever taken, would be stronger than anyone jake faced and was very accurate with his shots and as you like remind us had 1 of the best KO records around. Did Lamotta face the biggest punchers at 160 upwards? I don't think he did. No Charles, no Moore, no Burley, no Bivins, no Chase, no Booker Lamotta had a great chin against Robinson (WW), Cerdan (WW), Williams (LW), Marshall, but those weren't the biggest punchers at 160 and above. Now I wouldnt say Moore certainly stop Lamotta, I just think he would Read anything of the beef between Moore and Bivins btw Suzie?
Yes they were.... I love how you didnt include Irish Bob Murphy, Bob Satterfield and Danny Nardico...Three of the biggest 175lb punchers of all time. Satterfield hit 10x as hard as Burley, middleweight charles, and middleweight moore. Nardico and Murphy hit 5x as hard as Jimmy Bivins, Jack Chase. Llloyd Marshall was considered far and away the hardest puncher of the black murders row. Much bigger puncher than burley, bivins, chase, booker. Marshall beat the living daylights out of Ezzard Charles for a 8th round knockout, while he could not floor Jake Lamotta. Sugar Ray Robinson is one of the greatest middleweight punchers of all time. knocked out the granite chin gene fullmer out with one punch. Robinson WAS A MUCH better puncher than burley at 160. Robinson couldnt floor lamotta once in 6 meetings. Btw, Robinson was not a welterweight anymore, he was MIDDLEWEIGHT champion, and one of the best in history. Certainly better than the black murders row. Cerdan grew into a fully fledged middleweight champion, Cerdan would be even money against any of the black murders row. Lamotta beat the **** out of cerdan.
Lets see this murderous punchers in detail: Robinson - the first time Robinson weighed in over 155 he tko'd Lamotta, this was the first time he could be considered a fully fledged MW and his power wasn't quite murderous at the weight despite the Fullmer KO Marshall - 36% KO ratio, stopped Charles after Charles was still beaten up from the Bivins fight, it was only 2months after he was knocked down 7 times by Bivins. Who knows what injuries Charles took into the Marshall fight. In the rematches though he dominated and destroyed Marshall as did Moore. Cerdan - career welterweight and injured his shoulder in the early going Satterfield - most top fighters didnt get ko'd by Satterfield, a journeyman, green only 13-2-1 Williams - exLW and past it Nardico - Lamotta would have been ko'd in the 8th if he didnt retire Murphy- Lamotta would have been ko'd in the 8th if he didnt retire Now firstly 3 of those fights were stopped and secondly don't tell me any of them were as dangerous as Moore and Charles because they clearly weren't and outside of Robinson none were as accurate as these men
For this fight to be fair, it would have to take place in 1943 both at 160lb....I like Lamotta by late stoppage in this one, Moore was vunerable to the body when he younger. Eddie Booker knocked him out, Shorty Hogue, Ron Richards, Burley all had success to the body. and lamotta attacked the body like a tiger. He would wear Archie down, and archie wasnt big enough to hurt lamotta then.... but archie would have a solid chance of outpointing lamotta. But I favor lamotta to walk in taking a young archies best shots and wear archie down. However a Prime 1952 Archie Moore vs any version of Jake Lamotta? Moore wins by KNOCKOUT, yes KNOCKOUT. Moore would knock lamotta flat to his back, thats how great a puncher and finisher archie later became not to mention moore grew into a HUGE 175lber. Archie Moore wasn't in his prime when he weighed 175 pound. He stayed at middleweight for 10 years and only moved up because he could't get a title show a middleweight. Archie Moore had a weak chin period, He usually got back up but he was knocked down countless times. The thing is Lamotta couldn't punch (86 wins with only 30 knockouts isnt a big punch but I bet most of you will still say he was) Lamotta was a naturally bigger man than Moore, Moore was the better boxer and harder puncher. Lamotta didnt fight many middleweights who could bang ( Sugar Ray Robison wasnt a natural middleweight) Moore would pick Lamotta apart and stop him in about 6 rounds or so.
Every time I think "this guy couldn't possibly make a worse post", you surprise me. I thought your weird racial rant against Pacquiao, which was not even factually acurate was about as low as you could get...but this total mis-understanding of a near universally accepted reality takes the cake. You don't even know your enemy, at all. I've never read claims on this forum that LaMotta was a "big puncher". Like most of your posts, this is inaccurate. Moore was bigger. He knocked out big HW's, he was comfortable at 200lbs. LaMotta never weiged above 175. Moore struggled to get down to 175, late on.
Chris Warren is quite possibly the worst poster on this forum. Look at Archie Moore at 175 lbs: This content is protected Moore went down from 190-200 lbs to make the light heavyweight limit. LaMotta was bloated and looked terrible the few times he weighed in at around 175. He was naturally a 166-168 lb man who had a tough time making 160 (especially with his eating habits in between fights) but could not fight at 175 either because of his height and lack of serious punching power. LaMotta had a terrific run from the time he first lost to Robinson to when he had to throw the fight against Billy Fox in order to get a deserved title shot. He only lost to Robinson, Marshall and Zivic. I think it would be fair to say that Archie Moore was somewhat inconsistent during his middleweight run. Some might not agree but in my opinion he was at his peak during the early 50's when he may have been a little older but also way more skillful and experienced. Sugar Ray Robinson & Jake LaMotta The Way It Was: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkf2ugQg8hU
