28.06.1950. Rocky Graziano vs Jake La Motta

[Tomasino]

Why don't you screw yourself idiot??? You have the IQ of a snail after its been stepped on.. I saw LaMotta and Graziano fight on live TV.. I go back a long way.. Most of Graziano's losses were by decision BTW.. He was 67-10-6 with 3 KO losses... LaMotta was 83-19-4 with 4 KO losses... LaMotta fought better fighters on the whole -- but doesn't make him a sure thing when he lost that many fights to guys worse than Graziano, and lacked punching power.

Oh sure you did. Haven't you realised, nobody, not even boxbuzz, has fallen for your crap? Your a little skinny dude who looks like a mole because you never leave your mothers basement cubicle. Your boxing knowledge is limited to what you can read on boxrec day by day. Go away

GTH you utter idiot.

Sorry I'm not up on the kids abrevaitions these days...Gth? I guess your one of those guys who still gets breastfed in between bouts of furious trolling.

[davie]

Oh sure you did. Haven't you realised, nobody, not even boxbuzz, has fallen for your crap? Your a little skinny dude who looks like a mole because you never leave your mothers basement cubicle. Your boxing knowledge is limited to what you can read on boxrec day by day. Go away

GTH you utter idiot.

Sorry I'm not up on the kids abrevaitions these days...Gth? I guess your one of those guys who still gets breastfed in between bouts of furious trolling.

It's like GTF for people who get upset by sweary words

[Kalan]

Oh sure you did. Haven't you realised, nobody, not even boxbuzz, has fallen for your crap? Your a little skinny dude who looks like a mole because you never leave your mothers basement cubicle. Your boxing knowledge is limited to what you can read on boxrec day by day. Go away

GTH you utter idiot.

Sorry I'm not up on the kids abrevaitions these days...Gth? I guess your one of those guys who still gets breastfed in between bouts of furious trolling.

A troll is somebody who has no interest in the subject matter and is just there to irritate other posters with his nonsensical posts, such as you do.. BuzzBox is a bit of a wise ass, which makes him a bit of a troll, but he has 10 X your IQ, which makes him a little dense, but he's not a brainless turd like you.

[Tomasino]

GTH you utter idiot.

Sorry I'm not up on the kids abrevaitions these days...Gth? I guess your one of those guys who still gets breastfed in between bouts of furious trolling.

A troll is somebody who has no interest in the subject matter and is just there to irritate other posters with his nonsensical posts, such as you do.. BuzzBox is a bit of a wise ass, which makes him a bit of a troll, but he has 10 X your IQ, which makes him a little dense, but he's not a brainless turd like you.

Old timers don't use young kids abbreviations. They just use words. You are a child, if not in body the. certainly in mind. Your also a lying, stinking fantasist.

Can I ask, what have you been upto this Christmas?

[Ambling Alp II]

It's pretty obvious that he isn't somebody who was around for the old timers. Nobody that was says all the stupid things about them. My guess is that he is in his late 20s. He only cares about fighters in the last 15 years or so. He seems to be like some other people; he thinks the sport started the day he started to get interested in it.

He quotes meaningless stats like WBS title defenses, win/loss records as if it's always crucial. Nobody in his 50s or older thinks Joe Frazier wasn't good. He just looks at the needle on the scale and comes to the conclusion that he couldn't have been.

[Kalan]

Ambling Alp you're being an idiot... I can excuse Tomasino because he's a brainless piece of dog turd, but you make sense on occasion.. Many people in their 70's keep up with the kids... I'm around kids and young people all the time and follow all the best contemporary boxers because I love the sport... I've been in and around Boxing since the 1960's and have been watching fights in arenas and on TV since the 1950's... I know boxers have improved with every generation.. You don't realize this because you haven't followed Boxing for as long as I have ... and haven't been as intensely involved with it for as many years as I have.. Not only Boxing---but the Olympic and world records from the 1950's have been shattered many time by generations of athletes.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't believe anything that you say. People that have followed boxing for a long time know that if someone has a good win/loss record it doesn't automatically mean that they are good. Yet you keep saying things like "he beat a guy whose record was 38-2" or something like that as if that means a lot.

You said that you don't look at the opponent that someone has beat.
You have said that title defense is the "gold standard" of rating a fighter. Please. I mean, frikkin please.

You have said Tyson sucks, Lewis was in perfect condition against Klitschko, Frazier wasn't any good, Robinson fought weak competition. Then we get the endless drivel about frikkin Vitali Klitschko. The BS just goes on and on.

Some of the people on this Forum actually really know a lot about the sport. Of course there are honest disagreements. However arguing about who was better Monzon or Hagler is not the same as the nonsense that you spout off.

[Kalan]

I don't believe anything that you say. People that have followed boxing for a long time know that if someone has a good win/loss record it doesn't automatically mean that they are good. Yet you keep saying things like "he beat a guy whose record was 38-2" or something like that as if that means a lot.

You said that you don't look at the opponent that someone has beat.
You have said that title defense is the "gold standard" of rating a fighter. Please. I mean, frikkin please.

You have said Tyson sucks, Lewis was in perfect condition against Klitschko, Frazier wasn't any good, Robinson fought weak competition. Then we get the endless drivel about frikkin Vitali Klitschko. The BS just goes on and on.

Some of the people on this Forum actually really know a lot about the sport. Of course there are honest disagreements. However arguing about who was better Monzon or Hagler is not the same as the nonsense that you spout off.

You just spouted a ton of BULLCRAP... I never said Tyson sucked... He was a great fighter and would have murdered Ali and any champ from the 1950's.

I didn't say Lewis was in perfect condition... But he had months to train for a Heavyweight Championship Fight -- Vitali Klitschko had 2 weeks

I never said Frazier wasn't any good... I said he was short, fat, easy to hit, and was quickly destroyed by the only big, tall, powerful, and rock-solidly trained Heavyweight he ever faced... He was a snowball in Hell v Foreman... However he did beat a lot of undersized challengers and was a good fighter.

Robinson DID fight weak comp... Fullmer was a plodding light hitter... Basilio was a little short guy... Paul Pender was built like Mr Rogers... LaMotta leaned in with his head and was very easy to hit.. LaMotta barely won his fight previous to Robinson by a miracle KO with 13 seconds to go.

Vitali Klitschko was never floored and never behind on points after any fight... That's not drivel -- what other retired Heavyweight Champion can say that?

You spout a lot of nonsense... Consecutive Title Defenses has always been one of the Gold Standard stats for judging a boxer's ATG career.

[punchoutsb]

Why don't you screw yourself idiot??? You have the IQ of a snail after its been stepped on.. I saw LaMotta and Graziano fight on live TV.. I go back a long way.. Most of Graziano's losses were by decision BTW.. He was 67-10-6 with 3 KO losses... LaMotta was 83-19-4 with 4 KO losses... LaMotta fought better fighters on the whole -- but doesn't make him a sure thing when he lost that many fights to guys worse than Graziano, and lacked punching power.

Oh sure you did. Haven't you realised, nobody, not even boxbuzz, has fallen for your crap? Your a little skinny dude who looks like a mole because you never leave your mothers basement cubicle. Your boxing knowledge is limited to what you can read on boxrec day by day. Go away

GTH you utter idiot.

Tomasino is one of the best posters on boxrec

[klompton]

I don't believe anything that you say. People that have followed boxing for a long time know that if someone has a good win/loss record it doesn't automatically mean that they are good. Yet you keep saying things like "he beat a guy whose record was 38-2" or something like that as if that means a lot.

You said that you don't look at the opponent that someone has beat.
You have said that title defense is the "gold standard" of rating a fighter. Please. I mean, frikkin please.

You have said Tyson sucks, Lewis was in perfect condition against Klitschko, Frazier wasn't any good, Robinson fought weak competition. Then we get the endless drivel about frikkin Vitali Klitschko. The BS just goes on and on.

Some of the people on this Forum actually really know a lot about the sport. Of course there are honest disagreements. However arguing about who was better Monzon or Hagler is not the same as the nonsense that you spout off.

You just spouted a ton of BULLCRAP... I never said Tyson sucked... He was a great fighter and would have murdered Ali and any champ from the 1950's.

I didn't say Lewis was in perfect condition... But he had months to train for a Heavyweight Championship Fight -- Vitali Klitschko had 2 weeks

I never said Frazier wasn't any good... I said he was short, fat, easy to hit, and was quickly destroyed by the only big, tall, powerful, and rock-solidly trained Heavyweight he ever faced... He was a snowball in Hell v Foreman... However he did beat a lot of undersized challengers and was a good fighter.

Robinson DID fight weak comp... Fullmer was a plodding light hitter... Basilio was a little short guy... Paul Pender was built like Mr Rogers... LaMotta leaned in with his head and was very easy to hit.. LaMotta barely won his fight previous to Robinson by a miracle KO with 13 seconds to go.

Vitali Klitschko was never floored and never behind on points after any fight... That's not drivel -- what other retired Heavyweight Champion can say that?

You spout a lot of nonsense... Consecutive Title Defenses has always been one of the Gold Standard stats for judging a boxer's ATG career.

This is some of the stupidest shit Ive ever read from a supposed boxing fan posting on a classic forum. Go back to modern with the rest of the idiots and casual fans.

[Kalan]

You're the casual fan stupid ass... When was the last fight you attended??? You know ZERO about the modern game... Another old fart fan of the 50's who can't relate... I'm a big 50's fan too...but Rocky and Zale were smaller than most Welterweights today and very easy to hit.

[klompton]

Not worth replying to. You've already proven your ignorance better than I ever could.

[keithmoonhangover]

You're the casual fan stupid ass... When was the last fight you attended??? You know ZERO about the modern game... Another old fart fan of the 50's who can't relate... I'm a big 50's fan too...but Rocky and Zale were smaller than most Welterweights today and very easy to hit.

Kalan, you think Anthony Joshua is the best heavyweight ever.

[Kalan]

Who do YOU think was the best ever??? ... Somebody who's been beaten, knocked out, and trashed??? ... Or somebody undefeated with 100% KO ratio???

[punchoutsb]

Who do YOU think was the best ever??? ... Somebody who's been beaten, knocked out, and trashed??? ... Or somebody undefeated with 100% KO ratio???

http://boxrec.com/boxer/733157

Best Heavyweight of all time!!

[Kalan]

100's of Heavyweights were undefeated with 100% KOs after 7 fights... But how many after 3 World Heavyweight Title Fights??? ...One... (1)

[klompton]

Jesus, talk about a product of shitty mayweather era. All about the "0". Sad. The old timers used to say that you dont know if a guy can fight until he loses. Nowadays fighters are such candy asses that they are so scared to lose they never fight anyone. Case in point: people were going on and on about how rare it was to see two guys like ward and kov face each other at the top of their games... a 32 yr old and a 33 year old! Thats how sad the sport is now that two guys that old are lauded for taking a risk (a risk that should be the rule not the exception) this "early" in their careers. That just tells you that we are forced to wait until fights are meaningless before big name matchups are made and why someone like kalan is not only a complete idiot but also transparently younger than he pretends. only someone unfamiliar with and born after boxing was truly a special sport would give do much credit to these watered down titles and overhyped overrprotected underqualified "champions". how hard is it to call yourself a champion today? theres a silver champion, super champion, regular champion, ring champion, champion in recess, its ridiculous. It was all done artificially to sell tv dates and now tv doesnt even want it because its do cheapened. its a joke a fool like kalan drools over these clowns who can win a title before theyve ever even been in a fight you arent absolutely certain they can win. No thanks. Ill stick to the guys kalan thinks are losers like lamotta and robinson, guys that make todays fighters piss their pants and jump out of the ring if they saw them standing in the opposite corner.

[Kalan]

Actually 2... Since Vitali Klitschko took out Herbie Hide in 2 rounds and his first 2 challengers in 3 and 9 rounds... Joshua will have the record next fight.

[klompton]

100's of Heavyweights were undefeated with 100% KOs after 7 fights... But how many after 3 World Heavyweight Title Fights??? ...One... (1)

Yeah and I cant name a single one, the vast majority of people cant and even some starry eyed anthony joshua knob gobbler like you wont remember those guys this time next year, but guess what, youre talking about alie, lamotta, zale, and robinson... I guarantee you this will be the first and last time i ever mention molina, martin, breazeale, and i had to look them up just to find their names to mention. lol.

[Kalan]

Ill stick to the guys kalan thinks are losers like lamotta and robinson, guys that make todays fighters piss their pants and jump out of the ring if they saw them standing in the opposite corner.

No top middleweight today pees their pants over fighting a slow, 5'7" midget Middleweight like the wide open LaMotta, who had a KO ratio of 28%... LaMotta would piss his pants if he saw 5'11" Chris Eubank in the opposite corner... A killer with speed, power, skill, and a savage work rate.

[Tomasino]

Ill stick to the guys kalan thinks are losers like lamotta and robinson, guys that make todays fighters piss their pants and jump out of the ring if they saw them standing in the opposite corner.

No top middleweight today pees their pants over fighting a slow, 5'7" midget Middleweight like the wide open LaMotta, who had a KO ratio of 28%... LaMotta would piss his pants if he saw 5'11" Chris Eubank in the opposite corner... A killer with speed, power, skill, and a savage work rate.

Holy Christ. Eubank would even disagree with you.

[Tomasino]

Oh sure you did. Haven't you realised, nobody, not even boxbuzz, has fallen for your crap? Your a little skinny dude who looks like a mole because you never leave your mothers basement cubicle. Your boxing knowledge is limited to what you can read on boxrec day by day. Go away

GTH you utter idiot.

Tomasino is one of the best posters on boxrec

Coming from you that's a great compliment man, thank you

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't believe anything that you say. People that have followed boxing for a long time know that if someone has a good win/loss record it doesn't automatically mean that they are good. Yet you keep saying things like "he beat a guy whose record was 38-2" or something like that as if that means a lot.

You said that you don't look at the opponent that someone has beat.
You have said that title defense is the "gold standard" of rating a fighter. Please. I mean, frikkin please.

You have said Tyson sucks, Lewis was in perfect condition against Klitschko, Frazier wasn't any good, Robinson fought weak competition. Then we get the endless drivel about frikkin Vitali Klitschko. The BS just goes on and on.

Some of the people on this Forum actually really know a lot about the sport. Of course there are honest disagreements. However arguing about who was better Monzon or Hagler is not the same as the nonsense that you spout off.

You just spouted a ton of BULLCRAP... I never said Tyson sucked... He was a great fighter and would have murdered Ali and any champ from the 1950's.

I didn't say Lewis was in perfect condition... But he had months to train for a Heavyweight Championship Fight -- Vitali Klitschko had 2 weeks

I never said Frazier wasn't any good... I said he was short, fat, easy to hit, and was quickly destroyed by the only big, tall, powerful, and rock-solidly trained Heavyweight he ever faced... He was a snowball in Hell v Foreman... However he did beat a lot of undersized challengers and was a good fighter.

Robinson DID fight weak comp... Fullmer was a plodding light hitter... Basilio was a little short guy... Paul Pender was built like Mr Rogers... LaMotta leaned in with his head and was very easy to hit.. LaMotta barely won his fight previous to Robinson by a miracle KO with 13 seconds to go.

Vitali Klitschko was never floored and never behind on points after any fight... That's not drivel -- what other retired Heavyweight Champion can say that?

You spout a lot of nonsense... Consecutive Title Defenses has always been one of the Gold Standard stats for judging a boxer's ATG career.

Just wanted to follow up with Kalan's recent claim that he never said Tyson sucked or that Lewis was in perfect condition for the Klitschko fight. (Read above what is in bold.)
On the Vitali Klitscho vs Mike Tyson thread (December 23) he said these things. Play attention below to what he wrote that is in bold:

"Tyson sucked... 42-1 underdog Buster Douglas.. Who was a lot shorter and smaller than Vitali Klitschko, but dwarfed Mike Tyson. He beat the living crap out Tyson and put him out with brutal smashes... Tyson was as short as the flabby little Frazier and he couldn't avoid those punches... Douglas was so big and long and fast, that all he had to do was throw and he hit Mike right in the face... He was big and strong enough to get Mike out.

You can't compare Vitali to big, stiff, slow guys like Michael Grant... Tomasz Adamek easily out boxed a 38-year-old Grant and beat him -- but Vitali Klitschko won every minute of every round from Adamek and stopped him -- so there's no comparison... Lewis did beat Grant by fouling the poo out of him and holding and hitting like crazy. He destroyed him quickly but should have been DQ'd ... He could't do that to Vitali who completely out-boxed Lewis and was winning on all scorecards after 6 rounds... The fight should have gone to the scorecards because those cuts were slashed opened by foul blows... Lewis was in perfect vs Vital condition... He averaged over 250 for his final 6 fights and deliberately added weight to be much stronger."




Kalan has been caught in a blatant lie. Why should believe anything that he says?

[punchoutsb]

I don't believe anything that you say. People that have followed boxing for a long time know that if someone has a good win/loss record it doesn't automatically mean that they are good. Yet you keep saying things like "he beat a guy whose record was 38-2" or something like that as if that means a lot.

You said that you don't look at the opponent that someone has beat.
You have said that title defense is the "gold standard" of rating a fighter. Please. I mean, frikkin please.

You have said Tyson sucks, Lewis was in perfect condition against Klitschko, Frazier wasn't any good, Robinson fought weak competition. Then we get the endless drivel about frikkin Vitali Klitschko. The BS just goes on and on.

Some of the people on this Forum actually really know a lot about the sport. Of course there are honest disagreements. However arguing about who was better Monzon or Hagler is not the same as the nonsense that you spout off.

You just spouted a ton of BULLCRAP... I never said Tyson sucked... He was a great fighter and would have murdered Ali and any champ from the 1950's.

I didn't say Lewis was in perfect condition... But he had months to train for a Heavyweight Championship Fight -- Vitali Klitschko had 2 weeks

I never said Frazier wasn't any good... I said he was short, fat, easy to hit, and was quickly destroyed by the only big, tall, powerful, and rock-solidly trained Heavyweight he ever faced... He was a snowball in Hell v Foreman... However he did beat a lot of undersized challengers and was a good fighter.

Robinson DID fight weak comp... Fullmer was a plodding light hitter... Basilio was a little short guy... Paul Pender was built like Mr Rogers... LaMotta leaned in with his head and was very easy to hit.. LaMotta barely won his fight previous to Robinson by a miracle KO with 13 seconds to go.

Vitali Klitschko was never floored and never behind on points after any fight... That's not drivel -- what other retired Heavyweight Champion can say that?

You spout a lot of nonsense... Consecutive Title Defenses has always been one of the Gold Standard stats for judging a boxer's ATG career.

Just wanted to follow up with Kalan's recent claim that he never said Tyson sucked or that Lewis was in perfect condition for the Klitschko fight. (Read above what is in bold.)
On the Vitali Klitscho vs Mike Tyson thread (December 23) he said these things. Play attention below to what he wrote that is in bold:

"Tyson sucked... 42-1 underdog Buster Douglas.. Who was a lot shorter and smaller than Vitali Klitschko, but dwarfed Mike Tyson. He beat the living crap out Tyson and put him out with brutal smashes... Tyson was as short as the flabby little Frazier and he couldn't avoid those punches... Douglas was so big and long and fast, that all he had to do was throw and he hit Mike right in the face... He was big and strong enough to get Mike out.

You can't compare Vitali to big, stiff, slow guys like Michael Grant... Tomasz Adamek easily out boxed a 38-year-old Grant and beat him -- but Vitali Klitschko won every minute of every round from Adamek and stopped him -- so there's no comparison... Lewis did beat Grant by fouling the poo out of him and holding and hitting like crazy. He destroyed him quickly but should have been DQ'd ... He could't do that to Vitali who completely out-boxed Lewis and was winning on all scorecards after 6 rounds... The fight should have gone to the scorecards because those cuts were slashed opened by foul blows... Lewis was in perfect vs Vital condition... He averaged over 250 for his final 6 fights and deliberately added weight to be much stronger."




Kalan has been caught in a blatant lie. Why should believe anything that he says?

It doesn't really get anymore black and white than that. Good find, Alp!

[keithmoonhangover]

I don't believe anything that you say. People that have followed boxing for a long time know that if someone has a good win/loss record it doesn't automatically mean that they are good. Yet you keep saying things like "he beat a guy whose record was 38-2" or something like that as if that means a lot.

You said that you don't look at the opponent that someone has beat.
You have said that title defense is the "gold standard" of rating a fighter. Please. I mean, frikkin please.

You have said Tyson sucks, Lewis was in perfect condition against Klitschko, Frazier wasn't any good, Robinson fought weak competition. Then we get the endless drivel about frikkin Vitali Klitschko. The BS just goes on and on.

Some of the people on this Forum actually really know a lot about the sport. Of course there are honest disagreements. However arguing about who was better Monzon or Hagler is not the same as the nonsense that you spout off.

You just spouted a ton of BULLCRAP... I never said Tyson sucked... He was a great fighter and would have murdered Ali and any champ from the 1950's.

I didn't say Lewis was in perfect condition... But he had months to train for a Heavyweight Championship Fight -- Vitali Klitschko had 2 weeks

I never said Frazier wasn't any good... I said he was short, fat, easy to hit, and was quickly destroyed by the only big, tall, powerful, and rock-solidly trained Heavyweight he ever faced... He was a snowball in Hell v Foreman... However he did beat a lot of undersized challengers and was a good fighter.

Robinson DID fight weak comp... Fullmer was a plodding light hitter... Basilio was a little short guy... Paul Pender was built like Mr Rogers... LaMotta leaned in with his head and was very easy to hit.. LaMotta barely won his fight previous to Robinson by a miracle KO with 13 seconds to go.

Vitali Klitschko was never floored and never behind on points after any fight... That's not drivel -- what other retired Heavyweight Champion can say that?

You spout a lot of nonsense... Consecutive Title Defenses has always been one of the Gold Standard stats for judging a boxer's ATG career.

Just wanted to follow up with Kalan's recent claim that he never said Tyson sucked or that Lewis was in perfect condition for the Klitschko fight. (Read above what is in bold.)
On the Vitali Klitscho vs Mike Tyson thread (December 23) he said these things. Play attention below to what he wrote that is in bold:

"Tyson sucked... 42-1 underdog Buster Douglas.. Who was a lot shorter and smaller than Vitali Klitschko, but dwarfed Mike Tyson. He beat the living crap out Tyson and put him out with brutal smashes... Tyson was as short as the flabby little Frazier and he couldn't avoid those punches... Douglas was so big and long and fast, that all he had to do was throw and he hit Mike right in the face... He was big and strong enough to get Mike out.

You can't compare Vitali to big, stiff, slow guys like Michael Grant... Tomasz Adamek easily out boxed a 38-year-old Grant and beat him -- but Vitali Klitschko won every minute of every round from Adamek and stopped him -- so there's no comparison... Lewis did beat Grant by fouling the poo out of him and holding and hitting like crazy. He destroyed him quickly but should have been DQ'd ... He could't do that to Vitali who completely out-boxed Lewis and was winning on all scorecards after 6 rounds... The fight should have gone to the scorecards because those cuts were slashed opened by foul blows... Lewis was in perfect vs Vital condition... He averaged over 250 for his final 6 fights and deliberately added weight to be much stronger."




Kalan has been caught in a blatant lie. Why should believe anything that he says?

Kalan caught telling porky pies.... oh dear. You have three choices Mr Kalan.

1. Admit your guilt and take it like a man.
2. Admit that you are nothing more than a troll.
3. Behave like a child and never mention it again.