I don’t profess to be an expert on European welter and middleweights of the 40s and 50s, the records that have been properly researched are scarse. However… take a look at Villemain’s record and it answers your questions for you:
Villemain’s experience prior to fighting LaMotta consisted of fighting these so called “Euro trash” boxers, bar a handful of fights in America. So here we have a boxer who has up to this point in his career fought almost entirely Europeans and with the experience gained fighting them is able to beat the great LaMotta (not once but twice when you count the dodgey decision). You do not have to be a rocket scientist to work out that these European opponents were good fighters, as Villemain had no problem bridging the alleged gulf in class to outbox LaMotta.
You mention Cerdan’s losses... Buttin and Craster were disqualifications, so I’ve no idea why you mentioned them. I’m not sure either why you refer to them as “mutts” when you know little or nothing about them. And as is common knowledge (to everyone except you it would seem) Cerdan retired from the LaMotta fight with a dislocated shoulder. So one legitimate defeat in 114 fights.. not a bad record really is it!
Instead of preoccupying yourself with stats why don’t you take a look at the film footage we have of the fighters.
Lamotta vs Cerdan ???
A victory over one French fighter doesn’t account for every European middleweight of the era, especially not when LaMotta was beaten by one of his countrymen!Sherlock wrote:Alex, how can you agrue that European middleweights of Cerdan's era weren't trash? Look how easily LaMotta handled the Frenchman Laurent Dauthuille
.
-
Manos de Oro
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 12:10
I think the point Sherlock may have been making, Alex, is that Jake went through hell before landing a honey punch in the dying seconds of the fight.*Alex* wrote:A victory over one French fighter doesn’t account for every European middleweight of the era, especially not when LaMotta was beaten by one of his countrymen!Sherlock wrote:Alex, how can you agrue that European middleweights of Cerdan's era weren't trash? Look how easily LaMotta handled the Frenchman Laurent Dauthuille
No problem, I should have been more clear.*Alex* wrote:Haha, sorry Sherlock my mistake. My brain must be too exhausted for sarcasm!
And thanks Manos for pointing that out
It must have been a closely contested bout to have been given fight of the year!
Dauthuille did give LaMotta hell before getting stopped with less than 15 seconds to the bell. There is a famous picture of a battered LaMotta standing over Dauthuille near the ropes, by the way, if you have ever seen it.
And by the way, I agree with you Alex. I think Cerdan would have given LaMotta trouble if they had made again, possibly beating him.
Yeah Dauthille gave LaMotta hell before the (according to Alex) feather fisted champ became the first man to stop him and the only man to do so during his prime. One need only look over Dauthilles record to see that he too fought some extremely stiff competition which is on par with anyone Cerdan faced.
How would a supposedly flat footed, supposedly defensively inept, supposedly predictable fighter like LaMotta outbox a smaller, weaker fighter like Cerdan who had never faced anyone even close to LaMottas calibre? Simple, the same way he beat an infinitely better fighter in Sugar Ray Robinson, or cuties like Jackie Wilson, Fritzie Zivic, Tommy Bell and others. Your probablem is that your so reliant on little archival footage of LaMotta that you know almost nothing about his style. You diminish his skills by calling him one dimensional, flat footed, and predictable. He was a master in-fighter whose defense is so ridiculously underrated today partly because of the movie raging bull and partly because almost all of the footage that exists of him was taken after his prime. Most experts agree that his fight with Cerdan was the pinnacle of his career and after he achieved his goal of a championship he was never the same fighter. There are only three fights known to exist of LaMotta prior to his win over Cerdan and one of those is an amateur fight. In fact theres more footage of Cerdan in his prime by FAR than of LaMotta.
As for Cerdans losses what if two were DQs? They should be ignored? Thats ignorant. LaMotta lost plenty of bad decisions because he was forced to fight in his opponents home towns, he wasnt losing DQs in his own backyard like Cerdan. If you want to talk about bad decisions then why ignore Cerdans wins over Abrams and Raadick, two of the best fighters he "beat"...
How would a supposedly flat footed, supposedly defensively inept, supposedly predictable fighter like LaMotta outbox a smaller, weaker fighter like Cerdan who had never faced anyone even close to LaMottas calibre? Simple, the same way he beat an infinitely better fighter in Sugar Ray Robinson, or cuties like Jackie Wilson, Fritzie Zivic, Tommy Bell and others. Your probablem is that your so reliant on little archival footage of LaMotta that you know almost nothing about his style. You diminish his skills by calling him one dimensional, flat footed, and predictable. He was a master in-fighter whose defense is so ridiculously underrated today partly because of the movie raging bull and partly because almost all of the footage that exists of him was taken after his prime. Most experts agree that his fight with Cerdan was the pinnacle of his career and after he achieved his goal of a championship he was never the same fighter. There are only three fights known to exist of LaMotta prior to his win over Cerdan and one of those is an amateur fight. In fact theres more footage of Cerdan in his prime by FAR than of LaMotta.
As for Cerdans losses what if two were DQs? They should be ignored? Thats ignorant. LaMotta lost plenty of bad decisions because he was forced to fight in his opponents home towns, he wasnt losing DQs in his own backyard like Cerdan. If you want to talk about bad decisions then why ignore Cerdans wins over Abrams and Raadick, two of the best fighters he "beat"...
So you're saying he was at his peak when he fought Cerdan, then six months later when he lost to Villemain still aged just 28 he was suddenly past it? I'm not buying that.klompton wrote:Most experts agree that his fight with Cerdan was the pinnacle of his career and after he achieved his goal of a championship he was never the same fighter
Can you not admit that Europe had some very good (and in Cerdan's case great) fighters, who when given the chance were capable of holding their own with and in some cases beating the best Americans?
-
pound per pound
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1602
- Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 14:36
Cerdan
Cerdan gets no press. He was more talented than LaMotta, or Zale.
Cerdan was a rare mix of power, technique and defense. He is impressive on film. LaMotta to me was an all time tough guy, but not as skilled as Cerdan.
Jake won their lone match up, but as other pointed out the injury had a lot to do with the stoppage. Without an injury, I think Cerdan wins a decision over LaMotta.
Cerdan was a rare mix of power, technique and defense. He is impressive on film. LaMotta to me was an all time tough guy, but not as skilled as Cerdan.
Jake won their lone match up, but as other pointed out the injury had a lot to do with the stoppage. Without an injury, I think Cerdan wins a decision over LaMotta.
-
Marciano Frazier
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 326
- Joined: 29 Jul 2003, 13:13
Now, LaMotta did lose to more contenders than Cerdan, but Cerdan has an extremely padded record- he beat a handful of name fighters and for the most part built his record up with stiff after stiff. I believe that had Cerdan had nearly as many bouts against champions, Hall-of-Famers, and top contenders as LaMotta did, he wouldn't have come close to having such a spotless record as he does in reality.jimglen wrote:I'm sorry boys I have to correct you all!
I've spoken at great lengths with a man that actually fought Cerdan (albeit the outcome was decided in the negotiations and on the scales) and if you look at Cerdan footage he is a fighter that "there can-NOT be a moment or 'reason' for any weakness!
Although Jake could not be put down, Jake was not a KO puncher and he was beat by some good rugged fighters, CERDAN could BOX/PUNCH, Box-fighter as it is more acurately called and he did beat the best American's in Holman Williams and Tony Zale... to say nothing of his unbelievable record (???)
Do you really think in an age of ONE World Champion, Dozens and even Hundreds of PRO-fights, THEE 'single' greatest period in Boxing History, that his or any other TOP PERFORMERS - opponents weren't of a better class "wake-up" lads!!!
CERDAN over Jake... "EVERYTIME" ..!
I do suspect that LaMotta would have beaten Cerdan regardless of the shoulder injury.
Yeah, but a one-armed Cerdan took Jake 9 rounds. So much for the "mighty" LaMotta.Jaclem wrote:..this is nuts....just popped up on my "notify" email....today...feb 14 06...yet it doesn't make sense ...look at the date of the last one!!!
anyway...i took care of it a long time ago...lamotta beats cerdan every time they fight.
I just read through this thread and I'm betting that most people here have not even seen the fight(it is very rare and hard to get). I had seen it once and just got a copy of it today. Looking through it, you can see VERY CLEARLY that Marcel is using only his right hand while LaMotta was winging away with both. And just FYI, Cerdan's main weapon was his potent left hook. Yet even without it he goes 9 with Jake.
Sorry guys, but many of y'all ain't done yer homework re: Cerdan vs. Abrams and Raadik. He won both clearly. And in their own backyards! Please explain, how would a foreigner pull off that? The bad press was due to the fact that Marcel came to America with a lot of hype and was expected to mow down everyone with ease. People forgot that both Abrams and Raadik were two of the toughest middleweights in the world, so it shouldn't have been a surprise that they went the distance.
Read the unbiased reports of those fights and get back to me.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
Nero3000 wrote:Take a look at the debate I had with Brock on the "what are ur top 15 middleweights of all time" thread. That should close the book on Cerdan/LaMotta for anyone who doesn't suffer from LaMotta-myopia.
just face the fact lamotta was the better middleweight than cerdan. lamotta beat FAR better competition than cerdan ever beat.
lamotta TKO 10 cerdan
That's a childish argument.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Nero3000 wrote:Take a look at the debate I had with Brock on the "what are ur top 15 middleweights of all time" thread. That should close the book on Cerdan/LaMotta for anyone who doesn't suffer from LaMotta-myopia.
just face the fact lamotta was the better middleweight than cerdan. lamotta beat FAR better competition than cerdan ever beat.
lamotta TKO 10 cerdan
Ellis UD15 Patterson
Holmes TKO11 Ali
Ray SD15 Charles
Doesn't mean a thing in many cases.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
DoubleM wrote:That's a childish argument.BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Nero3000 wrote:Take a look at the debate I had with Brock on the "what are ur top 15 middleweights of all time" thread. That should close the book on Cerdan/LaMotta for anyone who doesn't suffer from LaMotta-myopia.
just face the fact lamotta was the better middleweight than cerdan. lamotta beat FAR better competition than cerdan ever beat.
lamotta TKO 10 cerdan
Ellis UD15 Patterson
Holmes TKO11 Ali
Ray SD15 Charles
Doesn't mean a thing in many cases.
of course it is
but nero is making childish arguements by saying "That should close the book on Cerdan/LaMotta for anyone who doesn't suffer from LaMotta-myopia"
does anyone here think cerdan would have won the rematch after getting dominated in the first fight?
He's far from unbiased. He hasn't even seen the fight. I hate to say it because on some levels I do respect Jake, but he looks like a total chump vs. Cerdan.dalek wrote:i do.i suggest you actually take a look at the fights as has been suggested and then come back and comment on how cerdan looks as well as jake compared to other fights.i'm sure any unbiased observer can see what has been pointed out to you.
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Nero3000 wrote:Take a look at the debate I had with Brock on the "what are ur top 15 middleweights of all time" thread. That should close the book on Cerdan/LaMotta for anyone who doesn't suffer from LaMotta-myopia.
just face the fact lamotta was the better middleweight than cerdan. lamotta beat FAR better competition than cerdan ever beat.
Face the fact? What fact? You haven't presented any facts, only debunked arguments from discredited sources. All your "facts" have been addressed and countered into oblivion.
You telling me to deal with facts is kinda comical when you have done everything to avoid dealing with the facts that have been presented to you. You evade more skillfully than Willie Pep, my friend.
*LOL* Another LaMotta-looney.Jaclem wrote:..okay....after reading these recent posts, i'll modify my original statement....if they fought fifteen times cerdan might have won a close decision over an out of shape lamotta if they fought in france.
thanks to the pro-cerdan guys who have enlightened me.