jake lamotta vs charlie burley... why didnt it happen?

Burley would win.

LaMotta knew of Burley's interest. He said of Charley: "What do I need Burley for when I have Zivic?"

Zivic was not the fighter that Burley was even peak for peak, and by this stage Zivic was fading and Burley was peaking. It's a duck, i'm afraid.

 

LaMotta was offered tens of thousands for the fight, along with Zale and one or two others. This myth that there was no financial reward available for taking on Burley is just that - a myth, apparently a self-perpetuating one.

Of course, I never saw the money, I was never at any of these meetings, but my understanding is that Burley was backed by tens of thousands of dollars later in his (cut short) career when he was EASY to duck because he had been for so long.

Hey. You think the money wasn't there, i'm sure it was, I guess that's that. But my opinion is: LaMotta did not expect to win against Burley and he just didnt' have to fight him because almost no-one did. So he didn't.

 

It's very possible that the biggest offer the Burley people could put together was still less than LaMotta could get elsewhere.

But I do know that in '46, during what amounted to Burley's last stab at the big time, his people were in position to offer Sugar Ray Robinson what amounted to a career best payday according to Otty, undoubtedly a very serious payday.

 

I think that what amounted to a career-best payday for Robinson is bound to be serious money for LaMotta. The figure bandied about was something in the region of $80,000 (with Burley to go unpaid if gate receipts didn't reach a certain level, which they would have done against Jake as you have pointed out). Now, i've never seen details of the negotiations where this money and LaMotta are concerned, though I do know a fair bit with how this money went down relative to Robinson.

Regardless, LaMotta, upon being approached by a journalist concerning a fight with Burley mad the remark "Why do I need Burley when I have Zivic."

This could translate as "Why do I need $80,000 dollars when I can get $90,000 dollars" but I don't think so. I think it translates as "Why do I want to fight a fighter I don't think I can beat for $80,000 when I can fight a fighter I can beat with my head on backwards for $15,000, especially when the other fella is someone nobody fights."

You don't like the word "duck", OK, I get that a lot about a lot of fighters, I will change my line to "failed to fight", but to be clear, I consider it mealy mouthing.

Two all time great fighters were proposed to be matched. There was serious money involved for the dominant (in terms of negotiations - I think we both know Burley is a living nightmare in the ring for LaMotta and would probably beat him for six out of six) party, LaMotta and LaMotta took the easier option, admitted to do doing so quite candidly, and never made amends at a later date.

The "D" word fits, in my opinion.

 

I'll dig out the references concerning the specific figures, and i'll point again to the fact that Burley wanted to fight LaMotta. LaMotta fought Williams when he was way, way past his prime, Williams was another one he "failed to fight" during his peak years, though Williams was supposedly keen.


EDIT: In addition, LaMotta managed only a split decision which was roundly booed by the crowd - that's the all action white fighter being booed by a crowd that clearly felt the black slickster had been cheated.

Finally, I don't see why LaMotta fighting other tough fighters totally precludes his ducking Burley any more than Robinson fighting other tough fighters totally precludes him ducking Burley.