Gavilan With Some Entertaining Footwork

He was at his very best against pressure. He was one of the most skilled, versatile in-fighters, with one of the widest arrays of punches I've seen at the weight. He was quicker and more skilled in every way than Margarito as well. He had a cast iron jaw and great stamina, took punches from better punchers(FAR better punchers, including Robinson's hardest shots to the jaw according to Ray himself) without going down or tiring out. This is why I refer to you as a childish idiot, because you try to speak on subjects you know NOTHING about.

Please, PLEASE show me Louis's TECHNICAL flaws. Not his size, speed, etc, but his technical flaws.

 

One of which lost a large number of fights post-prime, the other due to simply being a mediocre fighter. One of which faced a "who's who" of his era, the other whom faced two good fighters(one great).

See above. And let's not forget about LaMotta beating monster hitting HW's like Satterfield.

Robinson wasn't even champ when LaMotta beat him, he was just the only man to beat him in his first 130 fights. Again with the lack of knowledge of facts.

Such as Holman Williams?

Robinson, Judah. Judah, Robinson. Hmmmmmm.

That is enough to make a career comparison between the two?

And yet you miss out on the main point. Level of competition. You're taking a fighter who's career is based off of one win and wrongly assuming the same of another fighter simply because you know absolutely NOTHING about him.

LaMotta's wins resume: Robinson, Williams, Bivins, Cerdan, Zivic, Satterfield, Lytell, Yarosz, Janiro, Wilson, etc.

Baldomir's resume: Judah, Gatti......

 

Whwn did he fight ray? I cannot find it the records..I know Lamotta beat him once and Fuullmer TWICE,,,who the hell was Gavalin?

 

Wow man, on the wrong website!! (just kidding with you, but seriously, i do find your post a bit crazy)

 

Notice how you skirt around the issue and take issue with me mentioning that fighters of today might be tougher than fighters of yesteryear?

This is because you're a zealot, not an objectional fan.

 

I questioned your madness there, and you ignored ME. Lamotta's era was so tough man, the guys he fought, are you joking? You're saying that we're not objective?! Just read the names at the bottom of Pea's post.

MADNESS from you here man

 

teeto, help me out on the other Mayweather thread. Please!

 

I'll have a look, Classic Forum 2 da rescue!!!

Which 1??

 

LaMotta's era was littered with "elite" fighters getting beaten by tomato can journeymen.

That doesn't happen today.

 

So, Floyd Fans: Who Do You Have Beating Floyd at Welter in Boxing History

acb started the thread

:good

 

Read my earlier post about historians forgiving even the best of fighters for losing every now and again in such a tough era with such a tough and torrid schedule. Today's fighters have so much technology and healthy diet and when do they weigh in again sorry??!

Weve been through this

 

So you're acknowledging that fighters are better prepared, better trained and more capable than fighters of today to stave off defeat against lesser fighters?

 

Dont try to twist my words, what im saying is, that THAT PARTICULAR era was a golden one, great fighters who havent had their plaudits until after they have passed. Ive basically said from the begginning that Lamotta had a greater resume than Baldomir, fought in a tougher era, and you havent said **** about the names Pea outlined for u that Lamotta beat.

Bottom line, accomplishment wise, this aint close, uve lost it if u think it is - or you just commented on something you dont know about

 

But you're telling me that the reason bum fighters beat elite fighters was because of the amount of fights they had and to quote you "even the best of fighters for losing every now and again in such a tough era with such a tough and torrid schedule. Today's fighters have so much technology and healthy diet and when do they weigh in again sorry??"

Indicating that todays fighters are in better physical condition for their fights.

Can't have it both ways, saying that bum fighters beat good fighters because of their torrid schedules but the fighters of that day were better than todays fighters.

Also the difference between accomplishments and ATG ranking has to be spelled out because you're not seeing it. Accomplishments, what were their records, what was their achievements in the divisions they were in, what was their win/loss ratio

Not "Who did they fight to get their achievements" - that comes down to hearsay, because I'll be honest, I'm pretty schooled on the olden era of boxing and I haven't heard of half the guys you quoted above as being great wins for LaMotta.

 

And for the second time after comparing the two fighters resumes, he ducks my post. I think he gets the picture now. This has nothing to do with rhetoric, just fact, and you had your facts all wrong when you tried to argue this point.