cerdan didnt hurt his shoulder in the first round against lamotta?who would have won how and why?how would the fight have went?
I think LaMotta still would have beaten him. No matter how severe the shoulder injury was, no man would get that badly beaten unless there was some gap in greatness.
A one-armed Cerdan made it past the halfway point. A two-armed one makes it all the way, maybe even winning the decision. People here cite LaMotta's strength but if that was such a factor then Jake should have lost very few fights in his career(he was stronger than practically everyone!). As it stands why did so many WELTERWEIGHTS go hammer and tongs with him? Surely he was far stronger than they.
Cerdan was hardly a fleet-footed boxer though, was he? He met opponents head on, and in LaMotta he faced a bigger, stronger man who was excellent at in-fighting. Cerdan was man-handled in the first round, and it only got worse as the fight went on. LaMotta also injured his hand in this fight but you did not see him complaining.
I agree with your view. If Cerdan's shoulder injury was valid,and he was in pain,how should he be expected to beat LaMotta or any top-notch middleweight in a gruelling fight ? I have a shoulder injury and at times I can hardly extend my hand as the pain is so severe. The first fight with Cerdan/LaMotta really proved nothing,that is why there was the rematch,which never occured, as LaMotta claimed an injury and postponement, leading to the second date in which Cerdan's fatal air crash over the Azores Oct 27,1949,occured. I saw Cerdan/Georgie Abrams fight at MSG, and we in the audience was impressed with both Cerdan and the difficult to beat Abrams. Yes Jake LaMotta was very strong,but so was Cerdan. An acquaintance of mine Harold Green, was stopped by Cerdan in 2 rounds in 1947. About a day after the fight Green told a few of us, that after the first clinch in the first round,Green felt the strength of Cerdan and knew he had no chance to win.Yes Welterweights as Fritzie Zivic won a decision over LaMotta.And because of style,I can't see Fritzie Zivic at 147 lbs,coping with the bigger aggressive and healthy Cerdan. At their bests, I make Cerdan/LaMotta, pick em...
That's because he was still able to USE his hand, as the existing films clearly show (and the primary source newspapers, which I have posted before, concur was the case throughout- a one armed fighter vs a two armed fighter). I hear what you're saying but remember that Fritzie Zivic and Tony Janiro weren't fleet-footed either. Yet neither man was snowed under by LaMott'as huge "strength" advantage and both were standing at the final bell. These were welters, btw. So how is LaMotta's strength going to be such an issue with a healthy, two armed middleweight champion like Marcel Cerdan? Jake could possibly win the fight, but I definitely don't think the evidence of LaMotta's career points to his strength being the deciding factor. Not when welters are going toe to toe with you, surviving and in some cases even beating you. Zivic was no dancemaster.
Janiro was a boxer and he was knocked out at the final bell against a drained LaMotta who beat him severely. Zivic was a master matador when facing pressure fighters. He even gave Billy Conn hell at middleweight. LaMotta's strength was an issue with a healthy, two-armed Marcel Cerdan as seen in the first round where he was beaten up and tossed around. It's just extremely difficult to stand with Jake, and not get overwhelmed.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRuoilovR0Y[/ame] His style seems like that of a boxer's, not a slugger. I'm sure LaMotta forced him to brawl though because he was difficult to keep off without firepower. Marcel Cerdan was also a former welterweight. Zivic had the maneuvers to counter-act this strength, like a Roberto Duran, and he was also a back-pedaling boxer looking to counter, with numerous crafty moves in the clinches. And LaMotta's strength and size still won out in their series. In most fights I've seen of LaMotta he came out like a bull rushing out of the gates. Especially against Cerdan considering that he was fighting for the world title. Walcott was strong and he had stunned Marciano with a big punch. I find it very unlikely that Cerdan comes back to KO LaMotta with a right hand bomb after getting outpointed for 12 rounds. Marciano had almost no vision for several rounds, yet he was able to win. Which of them went toe-to-toe like Marcel Cerdan did? Bringing up Janiro and Zivic, the former beaten to a pulp by LaMotta and KO'd at the final bell, and Zivic who is known as a master matador in "taming" the bulls, is not enough to convince me that LaMotta's greater strength, which he used to maneuver Cerdan however he wanted in their match, was not a factor.[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZjTs7u8zSI"][/ame] A lot of times when two "bulls" collide, the bigger, stronger bull wins as was the case in LaMotta-Cerdan.
It's relevant and you were saying that he was "standing" at the final bell which I corrected as Janiro was actually flat on his back at the end of the fight. LaMotta's strength was a huge factor in this fight, and don't confuse strength with power here. LaMotta was not of course a huge puncher, but he used his strength to bully and rough up his opponents, which he was able to do successfully to Janiro, and to Marcel Cerdan too. He gave Graziano a plenty of trouble. I just don't see the relevancy of this example. Janiro got beat up and hung in tough, even some of the biggest punchers of all time haven't been able to score knockouts at times. But by no means did Janiro fight LaMotta on even terms. Possibly although Janiro would be one of Cerdan's better opponents. The strength factor can be nullified by a clever enough fighter, but I do not believe that Cerdan had the ability to do this. He usually overwhelmed opponents with his own strength. Fighting a stronger opponent was a relevation to him. Zivic was one tough welterweight and hung in there with a Billy Conn at middleweight. LaMotta's strength was a factor against Cerdan. I don't see how you can just ignore what actually happened in the ring and speculate what could have happened if Cerdan had been 100%. Cerdan got beat up in that first round, and I don't believe it was just a "surprise factor". More likely that LaMotta with his greater workrate, strength and in-fighting ability would take it to Cerdan if in prime condition. I do not count out Cerdan's chances in a rematch but with a near 100% LaMotta against a near 100% Cerdan, I take LaMotta. He was bigger, he was stronger, he was younger (Cerdan was nearly 33 at the time of the LaMotta fight), he fought a better class of opposition, he had great stamina and determination to win the title after years of being on the sidelines. As for common opposition, Cerdan was nearly KO'd by Anton Raadik while LaMotta beat the hell out of him to avenge his brother's loss. He lost close decisions to Beau Jack (one by a margin of a point deduction) and the difference was that Jack had good handspeed. Often you struggle more with the smaller, faster opponents than the bigger, slower men. LaMotta was young and strong but he was not nearly as experienced or crafty as Zivic. He learned a lot from those fights, everyone who ever fought Zivic did.