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

Well when you can be bothered, be sure and post your findings, I know the other members of the forum like to see references concerning fighters they may not be familiar with.

I don't understand this.

You have two top fighters. They both have excellent resumes and fight in the same weight class. Fighter A wants to fight fighter B. But fighter B doesn't want to fight fighter A until he is old. Why do "serious talks" have to take place before a fight can be deemed a duck? There were no "serious talks" between Johnson and Langford after Johnson beat Jeffries, you don't consider JOhnson ducked Langford when he held the title?

I am absolutley sure that "serious talks" do not have to take place in order that a fighter "failing to fight" another fighter can be considered a duck.

Why????! What is a duck if it is not exactly as you describe here?

Two fighters, evenly matched, Williams probably has the better resume, perhaps not, he wants the fight, Jake doesn't but Jake hasn't ducked? This is a very narrow definition you are using.

To be clear; I am absoultey not a suggesting a robbery, I haven't claimed this anywhere. I consider this a clean win. I consider it valid. I wouldn't consider it otherwise, there are far to many guys on this board trying to re-write history in favour of their favourites, and I am not one of them.

But it does interest me that LaMotta was in a very close, apparently quite unpopular decision with an old version of a fighter I believe would have beaten him a few years earlier. And i'm interested that LaMotta's timing for taking the fight was exactly - exactly right.

This is my postition, also.

Just because you've accused me of calling the fight "a robbery" again, I would like to reiterate that I don't consider it a robbery.


I didn't know Rosenfeld was actually there. It would have been great to ask him about that fight the week he was posting here (or appeared to be).

Your definition of a duck and mine are very very different. I don't think that serious talks need to take place for one fighter to duck another one. One absolute top fighter failing to take on any other absolute top fighter in any given era is enough to raise my eyebrow. When I know the ducked - excuse me, it's just easier to say than to quantify what I mean and I do think "ducked" is the right word, as you know - fighter was backed with money AND the ducking fighter has named an inferior fighter as a desired opponent when asked specifically about the fighter he is ducking, i'm two thirds of the way there.

This idea that Jake can't duck one guy because he fought a lot of other guys is strange to me. Did Jake feel fear for Burley? No, of course not. Is it possible that LaMotta was familiar with Burley's ability and style and didn't consider a win for himself a serious possibility? Of course! It's certainly how I see it.

We can agree that there was little media pressure on LaMotta to take on Burley, i'm sure. So let me ask you:

Is it possible that LaMotta took a look at Burley, decided he probably couldn't win and didn't fancy it?

Is it possible?

 

Do you think LaMotta's chances v Burley would be serious?

 

I like Jake (he's a durable and game dancing parnter in my favourite fighter of all time, Robinson VI) but I really don't think he has any sort of chance against Burley. The massive reach, the heavy, heavy hands, the fact that Jake leads with his face (not as easy to hit as some insist, but still) the fact that he will be in with a guy who doens't neccesarily own him for strength who also has the quickest one two - with real pep on the two - maybe ever at the weight spells -


Stoppage.

 

Hey man.

He didn't specifically target Jake, though Jake was one of a raft of contenders Burley tried to get into the ring after Robinson ducked him for the last time (and the clearest duck, too, fulfilling Ragbing Bu()s requirements). Zale was another fighter he was after, I've heard nothing specific regarding him and Graziano. He certainly pursued Cerdan with more gusto than any of these guys, Cerdan was even by Burley's gym for a look at the man.

 

There's a story - a story - that on one occasion when he came by Burley's gym, Burley wasn't aware that he was there. Burley was notoriosly hard on his sparring partners (though young fighters were always keen to climb in with him because he was generous with advice) and Cerdan did not like what he saw. Walked out and stopped taking the calls of the Burley people.

 

I can only say this so many times and so many different ways: I didn't say that LaMotta was scared of Burley. I said he ducked him. They are not the same thing.

Why do you think LaMotta didn't fight Burley? What do you make of the statement, "Why do I need Burley when I have Zivic"?

Absolutley true. He'd also beaten Sattersfield much more recently than Moore. But he had also just lost to Cerdan over ten rounds, the same distance that LaMotta's fight was scheduled for. What I find most interesting is that LaMotta JUST scraped home in this fight. If he'd taken it a year earlier, i'd have expected him to lose, frankly. In other words this fight happened to get made right at the very point where LaMotta was a tiny little bit superior, not a month before.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Burley has freakish reach and a really hard punch. I don't think that LaMotta's chances would be serious. Isn't the desperatly close SD win over old Williams bang in the middle of LaMotta's prime?

 

Whilst the point you make is generally a fair one, Cerdan took on Williams before LaMotta did, and his win is supposedly more convincing.

 

That would be really cool, to read that, I missed it, never read it.