Jake LaMotta vs Tommy Hearns

The reason you don`t see those fighters with 30 wins with 28 KOs on Jake`s resume is because he didn`t take on protected fighters who racked up impressive KO streaks against no hopers. In those days, you didn`t see those kinds of records that often anyway. Just because someone doesn`t have a high KO percentage it does not mean that they don`t punch hard.

Jake was a pretty good puncher contrary to popular belief, but when you are fighting durable fighters on a regular basis you will not be racking up an impressive KO streak. Jake took on solid opposition very early in his career, he wasn`t babied and put in against cream puffs to build up an impressive KO streak early on as many modern fighters are these days.

And the reason why people say LaMotta had a granite chin is simple, it`s because he walked through all the incoming fire that was thrown his way by all the fighters he fought who were regarded as hard hitting opponents. He was only ever dropped once which was at the hands of Danny Nardico who was considered a very hard hitter and was a bonafide lightheavyweight, in one of his final bouts when far past his prime.

Don`t let impressive KO records fool you into thinking the fighter with those numerous KOs is a deadly puncher, just like you shouldn`t assume that someone with a low KO percentage has pillows in his fists. What you should do instead is look at the quality of opposition of a fighter, not the amount of KOs they have on their resumes.

 

Great couple of posts Raging B(_)LL. :good

Styles make fights and you've convinced me on LaMotta - Hearns.

Tommy's best chance is to bomb Jake out and given LaMotta's propensity to take punishment I just don't see it.
Hearns realises this by rd4 or 5 and gets on his bike a la the first Leonard fight but tires late from the relentless pressure and volume of LaMotta's attack.

This would be a highly entertaing bout though. Good match-up.

 

I think you just set a new standard for boxrec warriors.

 

This would have the same result as Hagler vs Hearns... Jake creams the guy with the spindly legs and happy feet

Rocco

 

Hearns had shaky moments with too many 160 pounders for me to pick him over LaMotta, a big strong 160 pounder.

People say "ignore the Barkley fight" .... nah, it happened. Hearns also wobbled against Kinchen, Roldan, put to sleep by Marvin Hagler.
LaMotta aint ridiculously crude like Andries was in 1987, he's got enough and too tough. He'd get Hearns in a brawl and wear him down, turn those skinny legs to jelly.

 

Hearns did get wobbled a few times at middle,but up to and including the hagler fight he displayed a sound enough chin,he took many clean shots versus marvin who was a better puncher than lamotta. After hagler he was wobbled by barkley,roldan and andries at lt heavy,who were all very good punchers...Kinchen was at super middle and hearns was very badly hurt in that fight. He was also stunned badly by leonard a few times in their rematch and dropped in a flash knockdown by barkley at lt heavy in their rematch....However,he still survived all those punches (except barkleys in their first fight!) and displayed better survival skills in those fights...At lt heavy and cruiser he was never in any serious danger of stoppage defeat from any of the guys he fought...Hearns chin problems i feel are exaggerated at times,and to check his chin you had to go through hell and serious punches to get to him....
Tommy could definately outbox lamotta,and with his power and speed he could possibly stop lamotta,i find it hard to believe lamotta could do a 'hagler' on tommy,i think only hagler in the whole of history could beat a prime tommy like that,lamotta does not have the tools....

 

well in hand speed i think heanrs has far more it's hearns stamina that would be a problem...but at middlewieght he never had the problem(wow blew my own thouht out of the air there)


i say a very clear ud for hearns to fast and i mean very fast his jab would pulvarise and that right hand would go swinging lamotta's advantages were being able to stayb inactive for a while and then come out right as rain and bash you to bits. but hearns was a very decent inside fighter he just didnt have the chin to be a fully fledged in-fighter.....

 

lamotta would win, too aggressive,too strong, and too durable

 

LaMotta had a lot more power and boxing ability than you think. The Bull's body attack would tear Tommy up fast LaMotta in a 3 rd. mismatch.:hat

 

This dream fight would closely resemble the actual "Hearns-Roldan" 1987 WBC middleweight fight.......

Hearns has too much speed and damn good right hand power at 160 pounds, so I see Hearns picking LaMotta apart for a late round TKO win on cuts....

Roldan took a great wallop, but LaMotta took an even better wallop... But both "Roldan and LaMotta" would cut and bleed...

As long as Hearns doesn't lose focus against Jake LaMotta, I see Hearns doing a paint job on Jake....

MR.BILLhat:bbb

 

The big difference between Robby and Tommy is stamina and durability. Over the championship distance, Jake would hustle him severely. This could well be a longer version of LaMotta-Satterfield. Former amateur LHW LaMotta is not laying back on the ropes like former JWW Benitez. Hearns is going to be forced directly to the back foot, just as he was with Hagler. Also, don't forget that Marv was primarily a southpaw, and Jake was also known to switch.

Yes, like Hagler, LaMotta would be able to absorb Tommy's best shot, just as he did Satterfield's. Jake didn't typically wipe out opponents quickly like Marv often did, but Hearns would be in very desperate trouble as the rounds wore on. Over 15, I can't see him getting to the final bell. We've all seen how LaMotta finished off Dauthuille in their title rematch. Tommy probably opens up a sizable lead, and is ahead when he succumbs to the relentless pressure. The Jake of 1950 would be just a miserable ******* for any version of Hearns to contend with.

 

Jeez, a hard one this...

Either Hearns by UD or Jake by a late round stoppage.

50/50 imo.

 

Well said !.When in his first year LaMotta was throw in with the likes of
Lorenzo Strickland, Jimmy Reeves 2, Nate Bolden,and then Jose Basora,
Jimmy Edgar, Vic Dellicurti etc...Tough guys for the 20 year old LaMotta.

 

Thing is though it wasn't Hearns chin that was suspect but also his resistance to body attacks and, dare I say it, stamina or a batter word, endurance.

The type of pressure Lamotta puts on would be the type of pressure that would effect Hearns.

Exactly how I see it, but expressed much better than I could have.

 

LaMotta was strong and very bullish in the ring, but he wasn't as technically skilled or diverse as Hagler was in the 1980s... So therefore I can picture Hearns using the ring to his advantage and snapping his whipping jab down at LaMotta, and doing the type of things he was suppose to do against Hagler in 1985...

This is another thriller match, but I feel the '85 / '86 Hearns prevails here against the 1950 LaMotta.... STILL! LaMotta has a chance though....

MR.BILL