And proves that you know next to nothing about how Marcel Cerdan was regarded in his day. I've given you examples. Where's yours? Have any? Or just a load of platitudes? That's OK, those are always easy to fall back on. Much easier than having your Mommy take you by the hand to your local library and doing some actual RESEARCH.
Oh, that pesky "R" word...[/quote]
Of course I'm a brit. Can't you tell that by my witty and intelligent posts?
What examples were those you gave? One boxer said he was the best fighter he ever saw? That's your 'proof'?
For fekks sake, man, there is an article at CBZ where Tunney states that Dempsey would KO Marciano in 1 round without breaking a sweat. Rocky described Ali as a heavyweight Robinson. One former Brit world champ still claims Chris Eubank was "a fraud, nothing but a fraud". Just because they have boxed doesn't mean they aren't often wrong. And, like you, they can get caught up in a fantasy.
The fact remains that La Motta beat the snot out of Cerdan.
Cerdan was a decent champ in a competitive era. Not some superman who if he hadn't collided with a mountain would have re-written history. You don't reckon much to La Motta but he was too much for dear old Marcel.
[/quote]Now how about giving me some solid examples of the research you've done into this fight. Have you done any? What sources? I'm offering to send you one of mine. What about yours?[/quote]
Can you keep your answers / comments in one post instead of firing them off like a sleeping drunk who had beans for supper. It's easier for me to try and follow your convoluted logic that way. Thanks in advance.
My research? What research? I initially responded to the comment that Cerdan would beat La Motta 10 times out of 10 if they met. What sort of research do I need to do when existing empirical evidence shows that was not the case????
I'd love to see the L.A. Times report or whatever it is you have. Can you put it up at geocities or some other free hoster so we can all read it easily?
What about the fight itself? You say you have it; any chance of posting round 1 somewhere in mpeg1 or divx format? All the punters here could then view it and offer (more educated?) comments.
I'm quite willing to be converted and perhaps you have the tools to do this.
So, let's see this report and anything else you have.
Also, good to see you aren't getting all bent out of shape like some of the others in here with long-held and long-cherished opinions. I like a good debate.
[/quote]Sadly, I must admit that I don't have any idea whatsoever on how to post video footage or how to get that LA Times article up. I don't have the internet at home(I go to the library, cyber-cafe or use a friend's comp).
Hopefully I can email it to a taker and they can post it here for all to read.
Don't know that I'll convert you in regards to Cerdan's greatness, but I will definitely be able to show you that Brock's and Silkov's assertions are myth and not reality. They are basing their entire argument on the laughably biased NY Times report of the fight(Yup, straight outt'a LaMotta's backyard!). I gave Brock quotes from several people(including the MSG matchmaker of that time) plus the LA, SF and Chicago reports on the fight. All of which diffused his notions and all of which he ignored. Incredible. Almost like he wants to believe the myths.
He has the facts on Marciano. Just wish he'd put the same research effort on the LaMotta/Cerdan match.
8)