Dick Tiger vs Jake Lamotta

Mag,a couple of rebuttals.
The Robinson in 1951,who kod,a weight-drained Jake LaMotta ,was THIRTY years old then, and in his glorious prime. And YET ,the drained LaMotta took DOZENS of thunderous shots on the jaw of LaMotta,and couldn't FLOOR the rock chinned LaMotta. And this was a 30 year old Robinson. No way,that Gene Fullmer could have coped with THIS Ray Robinson.
When Fullmer was kod by Ray Robinson in 1957,Robinson was THIRTY SIX years old,and long on the downside. The 1951 edition of Ray Robinson
destroys Gene Fullmer,I believe...
One other thing. In the days of Gene Fullmer [1957],most of the boxing people thought that Fullmer was not in the same class as a Zale, Cerdan, Robinson, Georgie Abrams.I recall the scuttlebut those days. Fullmer was tough,awkward and strong, but was no Jake LaMotta,when the Bronx Bull was at his best...Cheers..

 

Think LaMotta could outwork him.

 

That's a very questionable statement. Also, Fullmer was quicker on his toes and more versatile than LaMotta.

Nor was LaMotta, who lost to Zivic, Basora, Nate Bolden, Jimmy Reeves, Lloyd Marshall, Cecil Hudson, Dauthuille, and Villemain.

One notable difference is that nearly everyone who beat Tiger did it by boxing/moving, whereas LaMotta could occasionally be beaten even at his own game, such as against Villemain (who many people thought beat him in both fights).

 

He was not as good at what he did best as LaMotta was though.

I don't think Wilf Greaves was ever a man to back away from a fight:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...J&pg=7106,4697292&dq=wilf+greaves+tiger&hl=en

Or Rory Calhoun, although Tiger didn't necessarily deserve to lose.