Would Jake LaMotta win a fight a 6 fight series against Hagler and Monzon?

If Hagler fights LaMotta like he fought Ray Leonard then LaMotta wins 6 straight times.
Otherwise, I think the Bronx Bull can win 1 or 2 from each guy.

in any event I'd pay to see all 12 fights! I just wouldn't sit near ringside in a white suit.

 

Win 1 fight out of six? I'd say so.

 

lamotta would have strong cases to get multiple wins against these two greats
I think he could get to haggler and monzon his determination and toughness would make him prevail

 

Against prime versions of those guys, he goes 0-12.

LaMotta is the most overrated guy on his forum.

He had weight advantages in a large number of his fights, beat up a lot of moving-up welters (including once against Robinson) while he was generally coming in over the 160 limit. He was really a super middle, so three full divisions above a lot of his opponents.

I know that was somewhat common at the time, but scratch your head and explain to me why Jake hardly ever was on the other side of that fighting light heavies who were coming in at 178 while he was 164 or something like that?

Great chin. Not much of a puncher. Worked the body well but took a ton of punishment. Lost a lot of decisions to ordinary guys.

Heck, his first fight after winning the title he dropped a decision to a fighter of little consequence. He made one successful defense of his title. He's a legend because (a) he beat a great fighter once in a series where he had every advantage, (b) because he had a great chin and (c) because Robert DeNiro made a movie about him.

Take his one weight-aided win over Robinson away and let him fight a guy with two hands for the title and he probably isn't even remembered much more than Sammy Angott and some others of that general era.

 

take away the robinson win and he still fought lytell, williams and marshall. how many white names fought 3 of the row? 2 of them were not even shot yet.

the title win was his 95th fight, then he turns around and fights sugar ray robinson as his first defence. how much can you really criticise that?

 

He also beat a young Satterfield who I believe was a lightheavy.

 

Well, Robinson wasn't his first defense -- that honor goes to Laurent Dauthuille. He was well ahead going into the 15th round and blew it. Robinson was his second defense and like his seventh fight after winning the title.

As for Satterfield, it was his 17th fight (with already 2 losses and a draw) and Jake's 73rd. And Jake outweighed him, 167 to 164+change.

Jake rarely ever stepped into the ring without the deck stacked in his favor. He averaged well more than 10 pounds (and up to I think 16-plus) weight advantage over Robinson, fought Tomy Bell multiple times while weighing 10-plus more.

Oddly, one of the few times he fought a true ight heavy while giving up weight was Billy Fox, who stopped him ... and Jake later claimed he threw the fight.

 

Lamotta poses a threat to all middleweights but I don't think he would win a 6 fight series with Hagler or Monzon. He could make the fights close and probably win a couple but I doubt he wins a 6 fight series. Hagler and Lamotta would be a great match up imo.

 

Lamotta didn't fight like Leonard and probably wasn't capable of doing so. Hagler always had problems against slick boxers, even in his prime (See Watts,Monroe and even Duran) but walk in brawlers,or big punchers who depended on their power see (Sibson,Hamsho,Obijeimas,Mugabi,Minter,Briscoe, Antefermo and Hearns) He destroyed.

 

my mistake, sugar ray robinson was his second defence. that's bad how?

i never argued for him fighting lhw's, he was certainley outweighed a couple of times, but he was a big middle who fought at mw. by the end of his career he was getting stopped by lhw's, but he would have been getting stopped by the good middles then too.

so jake should have refused to fight other mw's? not his fault that ww's were stepping up and he was the rare case of a ducked white fighter.

i love the idea that sugar ray robinson has beaten him 4 times and he can barley make weight yet he still goes into the ring with the deck stacked in his favor. how does that work exactly? is it the same way canelo had the deck stacked in his favor against floyd?

any fighter, but especially an italian one, not playing ball with the mob for most of his career, couldn't have been that concerned about 'stacking the deck in his favor'

he blatantly threw the fox fight, you overreaching a stupid amount with that comment.

as with hagler and monzon, jake was a mw, just not as good a mw. how many lhw's did those other guys fight anyway? those guys didn't fight smaller men at least?

 

No, I'm saying he SHOULD have been fighting middleweights. Look at his record: year after year, fight after fight where he's 164 and the opponent is 156, etc. ... yet you see Fox and that's pretty much it where he's fighting a bigger guy.

Odd how that worked out.

He wasn't ducked. Who ducked him? I didn't say him defending against Robinson was bad, I question how it's a big deal that he won one fight against a guy he literally outweighed by three full divisions, even an ATG who is probably the GOAT.

My point is that Jake is way overrated on this forum, which is what I stated originally. He lost a LOT of fights and many of those were to smaller guys. He had a brief, unremarkable run as champ. Yet because he had a great chin and a movie made about hiim, nearly every head-to-head matchup anyone dreams up, the vast majority here seem to rate him as the better guy.

I rate him to beat a lot of welterweights head to head as long as they come in light and he waddles into the ring around 164 pounds, which was often the case. I don't rate him as a top H2H middle as he doesn't have a ton of great H2H wins over true middleweights from his own era.

 

lamotta was worthy of a title shot from 43 onwards, so that would mostly be tony zale ducking him for the title but look at the list of mob controlled fighters who he never fought. the graziano fight would have been big money, which side didn't want that?

he was fighting mw's, if your argument is that he had a natural advantage because he is a good size for the division then fair enough, as a mw, that is a good thing.

weighing 160lbs for title fights and working down from a higher average weight he fought at, i.e damn near a modern walk around weight was standard for most of history. i just don't understand your issue, hagler fought men moving up, monzon fought men moving up, lamotta fought men moving up. they were all natural mw's fighting the guys who signed the contract. and none of them fought lhw's( except lamotta, who threw a fight vs fox then got smacked around in a shot lhw run.)

on the fox fight - you can't just call something convenient and ignore the fact that no one disputes that fight being fixed.(that i've seen so far, post some proof if you think it was a legit fight) that lamotta was able to throw the fight outside of his own weight division was somewhat convenient for him i guess.

yeah he had a brief run as champ, because he was already past his prime and because he chose to fight srr, again, as a defence.
which fighters do you think lamotta should have been fighting instead? was he constantly refusing to sign contracts or ducking people who were calling him out?

the list of overrated mw's from that era is pretty long, zale, graziano and cerdan seem far more guilty of manufactured careers- picked opposition ect, while you are judging jake very harshly for the results of the opposite - fighting whoever he could in his division and fighting a schedule that makes consistently making weight damaging/impossible.

 

Agree. You can go back and pick anyone`s resume apart. I give LaMotta credit for fighting some of the tough black fighters than those others avoided. I don`t know if Jake is overated because I`m not sure how he is rated. He was certainly one of the toughest fighters in the divisions history. I haven`t seen anyone put him in the top 3 or even 5 greatest middleweghts. He may be on the border of the top 10.

 

We have different views. I think LaMotta was mob-controlled -- you insist that he threw a fight for the mob and then at the same time claim that he had nothing to do with them. Can't have it both ways.

Is it not natural to be curious if the mob didn't help the guy who helped him?

There have been threads debating the Fox result. At the time he claimed injury. All I know is it'a basically the only time I can find where he actually wasn't the heavier, bigger guy.

Him fighting welters coming up is fine except that he almost always comes in OVER the middle limit for them. So he ends up 10 to 15 pounds heavier by weighin weight. If he meets them at 160 and they're 155, that's a lot different than him being 165 and them being 152.

So I don't give him a lot of credit for those.

Mostly I just think he's overrated. I've seen LaMotta vs. full-fledged light heavy ATG threads where poster after poster rate Jake to win ... yet show me what in his record would lead to that conclusion? Show me what prime non-welter truly top middleweights he beat -- except the one-armed man?

I think he's at best bottom of the top 10 at 160 all-time, and frankly rate him lower than that.

 

so he never gets a title shot and never fights mob fighters until the fox fight and then gets those things and then testifies under oath that that was what happened means he was always mob controlled? that's conspiracy theorist thinking.

so you rate lamotta about the same as almost everyone else then? what are you talking about man?

no, lamotta can't beat atg lhw's. if you'd said that was the definition of overrating him than you could have saved a lot of time because that's obviously an opinion with no basis in fact.

wtf man, was all that just trolling me? you rate him the same as basically everyone else.