Nowhere did I say that he sucked and I also mentioned that records don't tell the whole story, although they certainly show that a lot of guys beat him in his career. Do you think that the fact that people run faster and throw further has zero bearing on other sporting performance?BarryWashington wrote:i'm going to try to not argue with the ignorant but to say lamotta is overrated in any sense is complete bull shit.
19 losses? oh wow. gee he only had 106 fights (let's not forget his one loss against fox he threw that fight). jake must suck because of that. oh and of course because there's better nutrition and people run faster or throw farther automatically means today's guys are clearly superior. i mean forget the fact that 40's & 50's (when jake fought) were overall much deeper talent pool overall. oh and let's forget that someone who is constantly fighting as opposed to the douchebags that fight two-three times a year are going to be better prepared year round. benn was a good fighter but to say he is going to stop lamotta is effing retarded.
lamotta's resume speaks much louder than benn's does. maybe benn deserved the win in the second eubank fight but the stoppage on barkley was dirty and complete bull shit and don't even get me started w/the mcclellan fight. you get a normal competent fucking referee in that fight and benn doesn't make it out of the first round. so with that said i'm really left scratching my head as to what about benn says he would be able to compete with lamotta let alone stop him.
The Benn-Barkley fight was stopped on the 3 KD rule, so whether Barkley could have continued doesn't really matter.
Saying bull shit a lot doesn't really strengthen your argument either.