Bobo Olson and Jake LaMotta

Graziano was so scared of Lamotta he pulled out of a NYSC title elimination match in 46 then deliberately punched a tree to get out of a fight with Lamotta in 1950. Can’t believe some on here still defend graziano...a man who never defeated a top 10 middleweight in his career besides an ancient Tony Zale.

Graziano shouldn’t crack any top 50 middleweight list of all time

 

This will always be the subject of opinions. I'm as happy with mine, for now, as it appears you are with yours.

Your claim of corruption was specifically directed at LaMotta's win over Villemain. To the best of my knowledge, LaMotta admitted only to throwing a fight, to a subcommittee hearing in 1960 (?). Ironically, the bout in question is one you count against LaMotta, i.e. Billy Fox in 1947.

To the best of my knowledge, the LaMotta/Villemain bout was not a subject of the subcommittee's scope. Unless there's any more evidence to support your a claim of corruption here, I have to discount it, for now.

Again, it's a matter of opinion. Both Cerdan and LaMotta had been held back by the Zale/Graziano trilogy.

Belloise had done little, if anything at all, more than LaMotta, to justify his being given a shot at Cerdan ahead of him.



The aspect I need to look into further and balance, is the charge that LaMotta wasn't fighting all the best available; firstly, to understand why certain fights did not happen; secondly, to assess how this impacts LaMotta's status, in real terms. At the moment, I think his win over Holman Williams can't be ignored, given Williams beat almost everyone.

So, for now, LaMotta seems to have done enough for me, to be considered Top-20/15. I do acknowledge that there might well be some overrating going on and I will keep looking at this quite complex division and this period, in particular, to see what turns up.

 

Yes. But did either have as strong as case as Burley? LaMotta's and Cerdan's claims were largely based on beating former nr 1 Williams. Burley beat the guy (Lytell) who beat Williams, clearly btw, before any of these guys plus a good LHW and some others. And this coming off a higher ranking (by The Ring) than either LaMotta and Cerdan.

So the ones being shafted seems to be first Williams, then Burley and then probably Lytell (who was ranked right behind Zale going into 1948).

So wtf is all this talk about LaMotta being harshly treated? The guy who received a very controversial decision over Lytell, whose decision win over Williams was booed (perhaps unfairly, but who knows with all the dodgy outcomes in LaMotta fights?) and who probably received a crooked decision win over Villemain (the two judges voting for him was suspended, and we know Jake had mafia ties).

So apart from Jake being as tough and badass as they came and a great movie being made portraying him as working uphill, what do we have of any substance to say he was this long time ducked contender? In fact, if anything there's reason to believe that his mafia ties served him well in securing him several controversial decisions which in turn helped him get a title shot that Williams, Burley, Lytell and Belloise never did.

 

This discussion proves to me once again that if you want to be overrated on this forum: snarl a lot and look mean in the ring.

An attitude that seems well captured by this quote about LaMotta-Yarosz:

"Apparently influenced more by his threatening gestures and sporadic rallies than by the steady point-collecting jabs, hooks, uppercuts and straight rights of his opponent, the officials voted a unanimous decision to Jake LaMotta..over Tommy Yarosz." (The Ring, February 1949, page 43.)"

 

By end of 1946? Yes, they did. LaMotta finished that year, ranked Number-1; Burley Number-2.

Moreover, other than a win over Lytell (Burley's last fight of that year), Burley had done very little - not fighting in the last 4 months of '46.

Lytell himself had been climbing back from a loss to unranked Walter Woods (who LaMotta had KO'd a few months earlier) and a draw against Jackie Cooper. Following his loss to Burley, he would also be stopped early by Deacon Johnny Brown, avenging the same by the close of the year.

On balance, both LaMotta and Cerdan had had a better '46 than either Burley or Lytell.

Possibly - at some point - but it doesn't stand out to me, at present, and I'd have to look into to that.

Since this thread is about suggestions of LaMotta being overrated, I've not really focused on Williams. However, given that he lost to Lytell, Cerdan and LaMotta in the space of four or five months, during 1946 and was no longer ranked in the Top-10 by the end of that year, it's a moot point.

Burley, having beaten Lytell, went on to lose to him in his very next fight and his first bout of '47. And, for the second year running had no more bouts in the last four months of that year, having fought only twice, going 1-1, and falling out of the rankings.
He would fight only once in '48; twice in '49 and retired after three more in 1950.

Lytell had a good '47. But, how he managed to hold onto his ranking through 1948, is a mystery to me. I see no huge injustice in Cerdan getting ahead of Lytell. He'd been ranked in the Top-5 for three years running.

LaMotta had been Top-5 for for about 6 years running, before he got his shot. Neither Lytell nor Belloise can say the same.

Again, all things above considered, makes any claim that Williams, Burley and Lytell were "shafted" appear to be quite moot.

You seem very upset by a perspective, which has relied, as closely as possible, on the facts - and, for this, you have gone into a mode of distinct overstatement.

All I have suggested is that both LaMotta and Cerdan deserved a shot at Zale ahead of Graziano.

The comment on LaMotta benefiting from a "very controversial" decision over Lytell is markedly over the top. It was a close bout, but not a robbery. Likewise, when LaMotta's decision win over Williams got booed. So what? If fights were judged solely on crowd approval, expressed in cheers and boos, it might count - but they aren't and it doesn't.

Without evidence, this kind of aspersion-casting is mere filling for the space made by a lack of argument.
It's obvious from the admission made by LaMotta himself, that he was forced to throw a fight, he might otherwise have won, and there's a big difference between having fighters throw a fight and controlling the scoring.

Who's saying he was a "long time ducked contender"?

He may well have helped his cause in obtaining a title shot, by throwing a fight, but there's no evidence I have seen, to indicate that the scoring of his fights was fixed. That's not to say he wasn't on the end of a controversial decision - because he was. But, if you think no evidence equates to a "reason to believe" then that's a sheer bias showing, right there.

If you have the evidence, then I am more than happy to review it.

 

Belloise got a win over Villemain. So did LaMotta.

As I've pointed out in a previous post, LaMotta had been ranked Top-5 for years going into '49. There's no great travesty in him getting ahead of Belloise.

This move by Eddie Eagan was widely condemned by the press.

In particular, a piece by Jimmy Powers, in the Daily News (New York) on the 31st of March, 1949, the final paragraph of which sums up this storm in a teacup quite nicely...

"

This content is protected

"

Was any wrongdoing proven on the part of the Harold and Harry? No.
Did the decision stand? Yes.
Were Barnes and Ebbetts reinstated? Yes.

Anything else is just a conspiracy theory...

 

I could see an Olson-LaMotta matchup shaping up like Eubank-Benn.

Their fights would be competitive, but Olson was better than LaMotta, overall.

That said, I think Eubank and Benn were probably better than both of them.

 

Whilst one has to accept there was a controversy over the LaMotta/Villemain bout, I still do not see this as a matter of great magnitude, as far as LaMotta getting a title shot ahead of Belloise, is concerned. You mention LaMotta's loss to Dauthuille. However, let's not forget that Belloise hadn't exactly been blazing a trail in the year leading up to his Villemain bout.

Belloise had fought no one of note, in the preceding year. His loss to Chuck Hunter and Draw with Randy Brown were far worse, in terms of a drop in form, than LaMotta's loss to Dauthuille.

In any event and, as previously stated, LaMotta had been Top-5 for over six years. Belloise's one notable performance, in a dozen or so fights, does not trump LaMotta's perenniality, in my opinion.