barry wrote:As to Cerdan and LaMotta...they both were very good fighters, though Cerdan often does not get the same shake as LaMotta here in the states, but Cerdan was a hell of a fighter, and one who very well may have taken the title right back from LaMotta had he not been killed...in fact, I would have favored Cerdan in a rematch as he was the better all-around fighter, but you cannot discredit a source simply because the source is from the city of a certain fighter.
New York had several papers to go to and no doubt some may have been biased toward LaMotta, but others were just…though it does not matter what paper it is that someone may refer to…if the paper did not have a reporter at ringside then it is not a good source to use at all.
But the best sources to use for the Cerdan-LaMotta fight would be the Detroit newspapers; notably the Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, Detroit Tribune, Detroit Evening Times or Ring Magazine and probably a few other boxing periodicals of the time.
True, but if you weigh the hometown source versus other sources(several!) that have no clear vested interest in the said fighter and say something completely different, then I tend to lean more towards the numerous unbiased sources. Don't you?
barry wrote:Nero--If you have ever noticed any of Collins2000 previous threads from the past you would realize what a total tool he really is. He is of the ignorant brand of people who refuses to admit he is wrong, even when he has absolutely no clue about an issue, which happens a lot, or even when correct evidence has been shoved down his throat…he is still dumb about it!
It has been proven and demonstrated that whenever disagreed with all he will do is get upset, insult you, cry and then eventually leave the forum for a couple of months after being made to look like the idiot. Then, many moons later, he will return and it's like he hasn't lost a step in his ignorance...that is until he tries to whine to the owner of the site about this forum member, or that forum member thinking he can have someone banned, which in turn just gets him laughed at because he is the little boy from that story...you know the one who cried wolf one too many times and in the end, like the little boy in the story, he is just laughed at and generally ignored!
Notice how he completely dodged the issue of you asking what kind of research he has done into the LaMotta-Cerdan fight...that’s because he hasn’t done any kind of research…he hasn’t seen the fight, nor has he read any reports of the fight and it's the same way with anything else he tries to yap about! His research consists of looking at a fighters record...and that sums it up...well that and he also uses many of the records that I myself have researched over at the CBZ, and he then tries to take the quotes from certain records and attempts to use them as his own, until he was exposed for doing it, which now you will see he sometimes quotes the CBZ instead of now trying to claim the quotes as his own!
He is not allergic to research; he is just ignorant to the benefits of doing it. Trust me Nero...you are just wasting your time trying to argue with this clown...just ignore him!
Oh, is he one of those? There's a few of 'em in here. Thanks for the warning. I'll tread carefully and be careful where I invest my energy.
Nero, form your own opinions about my knowledge and motives. Didn't I say I was willing to be shown the error of my ways regarding the relative merits of Cerdan and La Motta? Leave that twat barry out of it; he just wants attention.
Now, why can't you post that report? Surely you have a link to it or is it a document you have? I'm interested to read it even if others aren't.
You can uderstand people being a bit wary of posting their email addresses in here but if you are serious I will PM you one where you can send it.
It's not an internet link. It's from PROQUEST, which is a library-based access-thingy to the LA Times historical archives. PM me and I'll send it. Then maybe you can post it here? Thanks.
barry wrote:Nero--If you have ever noticed any of Collins2000 previous threads from the past you would realize what a total tool he really is. He is of the ignorant brand of people who refuses to admit he is wrong, even when he has absolutely no clue about an issue, which happens a lot, or even when correct evidence has been shoved down his throat…he is still dumb about it!
It has been proven and demonstrated that whenever disagreed with all he will do is get upset, insult you, cry and then eventually leave the forum for a couple of months after being made to look like the idiot. Then, many moons later, he will return and it's like he hasn't lost a step in his ignorance...that is until he tries to whine to the owner of the site about this forum member, or that forum member thinking he can have someone banned, which in turn just gets him laughed at because he is the little boy from that story...you know the one who cried wolf one too many times and in the end, like the little boy in the story, he is just laughed at and generally ignored!
Notice how he completely dodged the issue of you asking what kind of research he has done into the LaMotta-Cerdan fight...that’s because he hasn’t done any kind of research…he hasn’t seen the fight, nor has he read any reports of the fight and it's the same way with anything else he tries to yap about! His research consists of looking at a fighters record...and that sums it up...well that and he also uses many of the records that I myself have researched over at the CBZ, and he then tries to take the quotes from certain records and attempts to use them as his own, until he was exposed for doing it, which now you will see he sometimes quotes the CBZ instead of now trying to claim the quotes as his own!
He is not allergic to research; he is just ignorant to the benefits of doing it. Trust me Nero...you are just wasting your time trying to argue with this clown...just ignore him!
Do you only come on this forum now to try and insult Collins?... thats rather sad... are you saying that Lamottas broken hand is a myth also?... or are you just here to throw insults.
As for 'research' Neros idea of research is everyone agreeing with his screwed point of view regarding Lamotta and Cedan... even written eye witness accounts of the fight are 'biased' according to him because they actually say that Lamotta beat the crap out of Cedan despite a broken hand and poor Mikey quit in his corner like a poodle.... fact!...
You said that Jake broke his hand in the second round. NAME YOUR SOURCE.
You said that Marcel quit in his corner. NAME YOUR SOURCE.
You said that Jake almost KO'd Cerdan in the first round(which still makes me chuckle considering Jake only had 3 first-round KO's his entire career, and those against no-names. Now we're being asked to believe that he could almost KO a great fighter like Cerdan in a single round!) Again, NAME YOUR SOURCE.
barry wrote:>>>Do you only come on this forum now to try and insult Collins?<<
Do you always have your head up your ass, or is it just a monthly thing? Or is it that you are just upset because I did not praise, or even acknowledge your half-ass assumption on the thread topic...which that is likely the case?
Besides, if you had actually been paying any kind of attention you would have noticed that your buddy Collins2000 disappeared for close to two months, but just this past week made a re-appearance on this forum and who was his first post directed to...me...no provoking from me...no mentioning his name from me, nothing from me...and now that I suggest to another poster that he should not waste his time with Collins you want to play the little bitch role…well that suits you pretty good! At least get your shit straight before you take your little bitch-rant to someone…alright!
I see that Nero has gotten under your skin...can't say that I know anything about your little tiff with him because I honestly find you a bore and usually just ignore what you post, that is unless you want to start whining and crying about me as you just did. You were one of the first whining twits on the forum and as you demonstrate here…little has changed...you go after someone when they disagree with you, like Nero...sad...really sad, but then again, as I said before, I have no idea what your panties are bunched up about as I just simply do not read your posts!
But to take a page from Nero...what exactly have you researched about the LaMotta-Cerdan fight...anything? And for the record...if I chose to do nothing but insult Collins, you, or anyone else there is not a damn thing you can do about it other than your usual whining and crying routine, which is as old as anything on this board…you’ve been doing it since you first arrived and continue today...as you demonstrated here. How about a little suggestion...mind your own business, or at least try to get the crap you spew straight and correct before letting it spill out of your mouth…jerk-off!
>>>are you saying that Lamottas broken hand is a myth also?... or are you just here to throw insults<<<
I see you have not lost your usual method of debate...making up shit, or maybe you could show me where I state, or even hint anything about LaMotta's hand! I think you just want to try and start shit...well you got it!
>>>and poor Mikey quit in his corner like a poodle.... fact<<<
Exactly what are you refering to here?
Oh dear, I'm not even bothering to read your post all the way through as it is obviously another diatribe against me, you should watch your blood pressure Barry. As you should know by now I don't bare grudges or go in for personal attacks, just simply say it as I see it... I'm well aware that you haven't mentioned Lamottas hand, and was pointing this out and saying that I'd prefer you to contribute to the argument about the Lamotta vs Cedan fight rather than come on here just to have a dig at Collins... which you did!. As for NERO getting under my skin, he seems to have got under a few others posters skin as well with his selective memory regarding Lamotta... but I won't be losing any sleep over it.
Lets keep it clean and civil and behave like adults!...
What I've said regarding Cerdan/LaMotta isn't based on memory-selective or otherwise-, it's based on RESEARCH. What about you?
BoxBuzz wrote:Ok don't shoot me I'm just the piano player here, BUT
I am very impressed with some of the historical knowledge that is known and shared by all contributors. I am not looking for and will not get drawn into a verbal battle but I will share a few things.
Style and Substance issues..... when there is a document or a written historical viewpoint that validates an opinion it still may or may not indicate that something is a fact. Although it is certainly something that helps the cause. I'm not sure if some of these debates have been over "credibility" of sources or not. It helps to stay objective when differing viewpoints arise and and not assume someone is an idiot for "passing along" something that may appear to be a corraberated "fact" I'll add to this, being "sceptical" is probably not a bad place to begin as long as scepticism does not lead to pure cynicism. How you present something that is placed into the "historical perspective knowledge base" may be important. How did one come about the "knowledge" that is purported to be factual is always interesting.
barry has done as much genuine historical assessment as anyone I know on this forum. Would anyone disagree with this? How he presents it may be another matter but I would not suspect him of manufacturing information.
Wrong and right can be debated as long as you are drawing upon some kind of verifiable documentation (written opinion, your own witnessing videos, films etc. For me barry always passes this test. Do I wish he could have less "fighting spirit" in these debates yeah but I think he stays true to who he is on these matters.
Respect and courtesy could be the coin of the realm to some better conversations along the way here. (barry dont' shoot me) Some of these things may go far deeper than what I am aware of and hell it makes for interesting reading even with the tempers explode I guess.
I would hope there is room for controversial opinions but be prepared for someone to call bullshit if that's the way another may see it.
I'll ask a question here just to satisfy my own curiousity......does anyone here suspect another of purely "manufacturing information'? I mean does someone think that another is driven by what they want to believe and is willing to "spin" everything just to have it the fact fit their delusions? I have seen no evidence of this so far but I have not read every contribution.
I don't seek conflict it's not my nature, but I do seek facts and unless I have seen something with my own eyes I can be sceptical. I prefer to know from what source someone gets their knowledge so that I can figure what "weight" to give someones opinion in the matrix of things.
I believe some come to this forum to "shoot the shit" and throw ideas around loosely using the forum for entertainment...nothing wrong with that....others are obssessed with facts and genuine probabilites ..I find both have some merit.
Funny thing I really like sports and I consider boxing a sport. I"m not really drawn to fights I suppose......paradoxical? Maybe. But I've noticed something along the way in boxing the "boxers" have an overwhelming lead in victories over the "fighters". I'm not talking styles here....I'm talking about the Mad vs the Sane. Though I will admit I like to see them in the same ring and those matchups intrigue me most.
Ok no one will read this I suppose but I've had my say.....
Well in your opinion Buzz is the NewYork Times outrageously biased?.... would they make up a story about the reporter seeing Lamottas broken hand in the dressing room after the fight. I mean ok, if he had lost you could expect it perhaps but he'd won hadn't he. Also I think Cedan was probably the favoured fighter, Lamotta wasn't particularly popular with verious people so I find h=it hard to believe that the press would be pro Lamotta to the extent Nero is saying. It does rather annoy me when someone like Nero comes on and tries to deny solid fact and in a totally biased way... as I said before Liston is often put down for quitting with an injured shoulder yet Cedan is almost praised for it.
Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion and Nero can come on here and say that Jake used to like wearing frilly dresses with pink bows on etc... but then where does it all end???.... next thing Nero will be saying that Jake never won at all and Cedan koed him in the first round!!!... 8)
The swollen knuckle AFTER the fight isn't the issue. The issue here is whether or not it happened in the secend round, as you say. Again, NAME YOUR SOURCE.
Yes, in post WW ll America- a very Patriotic time in our country's history- an American(LaMotta) would definitely get the press favoritism when fighting a foreigner(Cerdan), especially in his own backyard(NY). Doesn't tax the imagination too much at all.
You keep trying to perpetuate the myth that Marcel quit in his corner when in fact HIS CORNER THREW IN THE TOWEL! That's what I can't figure out about you. You like to keep the myths floating about. Marcel himself quit?? NAME YOUR SOURCE. DO YOU HAVE ANY?? I am offering to actually SEND you mine.
BoxBuzz wrote:barry your one of a kind....your nothing if not a focused studier of this sport.
silkov....you bring up very interesting question about the NY times. I would see no reason to accuse the times of being skewed in it's sport reporting. HOWEVER I'll bet if we did a bit of background checking on the reporters at any given time we would find them to be much like ourselves. Priding themselves on objectivity while using there "pulpit" to preach their gospel. For example How different would Tantum and I have reported the Patterson/Quarry fight? And yet we both would probably have captured the essence of it I expect you would come away feeling very different about the fight based on our two viewpoints. Skewed a bit by our personal biases though each of us could claim to be "objective" No one can truly be objective....if they think they can they have lost their objectivity.
True, everyone is human and so bias can come into it sometimes, but slight bias is one thing, saying someones hand is broken when it isnt is another... I'm pretty sure the story of Jake having the broken hand wasnt made up, ...simply because there was no reason to make up such a story...
Who said it wasn't?? I've conceded to you several times that Jake had a swollen knuckle AFTER the fight. I merely ask you to present to me eveidence that supports your contention that he "broke" it in the second round and thus had to fight with a handicap? You haven't and you can't.
Is holding onto myths in the face of evidence a trend in England? Like the whole Cooper/Ali torn glove myth? Present your evidence man. You've only shown an ability to regurgitate myths, not present evidence. Does England not have the resources? Cuz I can send you a report if you'd like. Or are you allergic to the truth?
barry wrote:>>>Actually I was on this thread before you, but that aside this is a free forum and I have the right to poke my nose where ever I please, as do everyone else<<<
I have no problem with that...but when you do poke your nose in, just don't whine about what you hear!
>>>I'm pretty sure the story of Jake having the broken hand wasnt made up<<<
For the record, I have read the NYT report and I don't think it was made up either, but I would not consider any one report as gospel and speaking of being objective that is something that cannot be if you only take the word of one view. Did any other publications speak about the broken hand?
I've read about the hand injury in other magazine articles on the fight... also in Lamottas biog he says that he had a dislocated knuckle to be exact in that hand... which is very painful, I've had them myself...
He also says that Cedan got a much better reception than he did when they entered the ring... Jimmy Cannon supposedly wrote that Jake was 'the most detested person in the country'.
I know you may say that Lamotta is biased for himself but I actually think that his biog is one of the most honest Autobographies I've read... he hardly paints himself as Mother Tereasa....
Oh? And the magazine articles said he injured it in round 2?? Really now. Why don't you tell me exactly which mags.
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:first off, nero could u please repost those 3 reports ur talking about so i can read them carefully and examine them myself before i further my opinion.
2nd, bias or not, new york times is not gonna make up false lies. IMO its still a legiteamte source even though nero seems to think the new york times report has no credibility at all
3rd i dont feel like spendin the money, but i will go dig through some old newspaper reports or historians opinions and see wut i can get
The NYT is an excellent source... usually they go into great detail about the fights and generally I'd say their reports are as unbiased as you can expect... if anything it is Nero who is showing the bias by disputing what actually happened in the fight... which is that both men got injured but Lamotta won... and that Marcels injury happened supposedly when he was pushed to the canvas while trying to repeatedly tie up Lamotta when he was hurt....
You keep saying "supposedly" hurt his shoulder in the first. Would you like the actual REPORT??
Nero I'm a bit confused you have posted a few contributions in a row here...did someone delete some posts or are you simply responding to the various posts all in a row? I'll assume the latter.
I think I find something to agree with you about. Some "myths" do need to be investigated, you can't take things to be common knowledge without getting to a source. Some of the folks here have studied the sport for so long they sort of "assume" a certain degree of "common" knowledge. I'm not sure if thats the case here or not. The round in which he got hurt is probably speculation based on viewing of tapes (my guess). It may also be based on a "concensus" of reporters along with interviews of others close to the event including the fighters. It's a hell of chase to be precise it would seem to me.
Norton Ali comes to mind here, we will never know the truth but there are about two or three "impact moments" that could have caused the broken jaw event but the "best guess" from those who understand the physics lead most to beleive it happened at a "certain moment" (I wont get into it here) but hell it sure gets convoluded to attempt to solve these puzzles. Some of this just takes the best educated guess you can muster.
I have to say I'm still confused at these last few posts....not sure who is saying what.
BoxBuzz wrote:Nero I'm a bit confused you have posted a few contributions in a row here...did someone delete some posts or are you simply responding to the various posts all in a row? I'll assume the latter.
I think I find something to agree with you about. Some "myths" do need to be investigated, you can't take things to be common knowledge without getting to a source. Some of the folks here have studied the sport for so long they sort of "assume" a certain degree of "common" knowledge. I'm not sure if thats the case here or not. The round in which he got hurt is probably speculation based on viewing of tapes (my guess). It may also be based on a "concensus" of reporters along with interviews of others close to the event including the fighters. It's a hell of chase to be precise it would seem to me.
Norton Ali comes to mind here, we will never know the truth but there are about two or three "impact moments" that could have caused the broken jaw event but the "best guess" from those who understand the physics lead most to beleive it happened at a "certain moment" (I wont get into it here) but hell it sure gets convoluded to attempt to solve these puzzles. Some of this just takes the best educated guess you can muster.
I have to say I'm still confused at these last few posts....not sure who is saying what.
Buzz- I am responding to each one individually, so sorry if it seems like I'm repeating.
With a fight like Hagler/Hearns, you can see clearly when Tommy hurt his hand. He stops throwing it full power pretty quickly. With LaMotta, he's throwing it full throttle the entire fight. My guess is that he fractured that middle knuckle late in the fight, just before it ended.
We can't be positive, but we can say for sure that during the majority of rounds LaMotta was fighting with two good fists, while Cerdan was fighting with one(the films support this 100%, as does the LA Times, SF and Chicago reports). I will be happy to send a newspaper report for anyone here to post. I'm just wondering how many here are willing to release the myths and latch on to the truth. It's a difficult transition but it can be done.
great observation, but I have to add something. I beleive Lamotta may have been one of those very rare people who were wired different than most of us. His reaction to pain may allow him to operate on a bit of a different plane than Hearns. I do not know this for sure but Lamotta was one of the most unusual in this particular trait. That could possibly explain it and it would be consistent with what LaMotta demonstrated time and time again. Did you know jake had some of the smallest hands in boxing? Not sure if that helps or hinders as it would up the "sting" factor while taking the down the ability to truly shake someone up without a purely precision pinpoint hit.
Hell I wonder if he could have mustered the will to not react to a liver shot? It is theoretically possible and this is a dynamic of fighting that seldom gets discussed.
Nero3000 wrote:
It's not an internet link. It's from PROQUEST, which is a library-based access-thingy to the LA Times historical archives. PM me and I'll send it. Then maybe you can post it here? Thanks.
OK, I've PM'd you the email details. If you send the the report I'll read it and post it here.
Anyone else got any links etc? Come on, Nero is willing to share his.
How about The Ring report? Someone said they had all issues.
Nero3000 wrote:
It's not an internet link. It's from PROQUEST, which is a library-based access-thingy to the LA Times historical archives. PM me and I'll send it. Then maybe you can post it here? Thanks.
OK, I've PM'd you the email details. If you send the the report I'll read it and post it here.
Anyone else got any links etc? Come on, Nero is willing to share his.
How about The Ring report? Someone said they had all issues.
barry wrote:Nero--If you have ever noticed any of Collins2000 previous threads from the past you would realize what a total tool he really is. He is of the ignorant brand of people who refuses to admit he is wrong, even when he has absolutely no clue about an issue, which happens a lot, or even when correct evidence has been shoved down his throat…he is still dumb about it!
It has been proven and demonstrated that whenever disagreed with all he will do is get upset, insult you, cry and then eventually leave the forum for a couple of months after being made to look like the idiot. Then, many moons later, he will return and it's like he hasn't lost a step in his ignorance...that is until he tries to whine to the owner of the site about this forum member, or that forum member thinking he can have someone banned, which in turn just gets him laughed at because he is the little boy from that story...you know the one who cried wolf one too many times and in the end, like the little boy in the story, he is just laughed at and generally ignored!
Notice how he completely dodged the issue of you asking what kind of research he has done into the LaMotta-Cerdan fight...that’s because he hasn’t done any kind of research…he hasn’t seen the fight, nor has he read any reports of the fight and it's the same way with anything else he tries to yap about! His research consists of looking at a fighters record...and that sums it up...well that and he also uses many of the records that I myself have researched over at the CBZ, and he then tries to take the quotes from certain records and attempts to use them as his own, until he was exposed for doing it, which now you will see he sometimes quotes the CBZ instead of now trying to claim the quotes as his own!
He is not allergic to research; he is just ignorant to the benefits of doing it. Trust me Nero...you are just wasting your time trying to argue with this clown...just ignore him!
Do you only come on this forum now to try and insult Collins?... thats rather sad... are you saying that Lamottas broken hand is a myth also?... or are you just here to throw insults.
As for 'research' Neros idea of research is everyone agreeing with his screwed point of view regarding Lamotta and Cedan... even written eye witness accounts of the fight are 'biased' according to him because they actually say that Lamotta beat the crap out of Cedan despite a broken hand and poor Mikey quit in his corner like a poodle.... fact!...
You said that Jake broke his hand in the second round. NAME YOUR SOURCE.
You said that Marcel quit in his corner. NAME YOUR SOURCE.
You said that Jake almost KO'd Cerdan in the first round(which still makes me chuckle considering Jake only had 3 first-round KO's his entire career, and those against no-names. Now we're being asked to believe that he could almost KO a great fighter like Cerdan in a single round!) Again, NAME YOUR SOURCE.
How about you show some of your own sources buddy... the fact that Cedan retired/quit whatever you want to call it in his corner is pretty much known to everyone who knows anything about boxing, I mean what is your point?... are we entering the twilight zone here and you're gonna tell me that in fact Marcel won on points and everything else was cooked up by the NYT???. So, say you have some article written at the time that may say Cedan would have won except for his injury, that proves nothing, its just the view of that particular writer who was probably as biased against Jake as you are and there were plenty of writers about then who hated Jakes guts and treated him like he was the antichrist. The point is though that Lamotta won and Cedan lost and that is fact, and you could smoke all the hash in Kingston town and it won't change that fact anywhere except in your own mind.
BoxBuzz wrote:great observation, but I have to add something. I beleive Lamotta may have been one of those very rare people who were wired different than most of us. His reaction to pain may allow him to operate on a bit of a different plane than Hearns. I do not know this for sure but Lamotta was one of the most unusual in this particular trait. That could possibly explain it and it would be consistent with what LaMotta demonstrated time and time again. Did you know jake had some of the smallest hands in boxing? Not sure if that helps or hinders as it would up the "sting" factor while taking the down the ability to truly shake someone up without a purely precision pinpoint hit.
Hell I wonder if he could have mustered the will to not react to a liver shot? It is theoretically possible and this is a dynamic of fighting that seldom gets discussed.
Possibly, but that would just further support my contention that Jake's hand didn't hinder him in any way.
He was never much of a hard hitter at all. Silkov suggesting that a light-hitter like LaMotta could almost KO a Marcel Cerdan in a single round is beyond absurd. As if LaMotta had that kind of power at his disposal! He didn't(30 kos in 106 fights, and only 3 in the first round). Never mind that the films and fight reports don't support this either.
If Jake had major KO power- like a Ketchel or Freddie Steele- he could have quite possibly become the greatest middleweight ever. But that's just an on-the-spot thought...
BoxBuzz wrote:Nero I'm a bit confused you have posted a few contributions in a row here...did someone delete some posts or are you simply responding to the various posts all in a row? I'll assume the latter.
I think I find something to agree with you about. Some "myths" do need to be investigated, you can't take things to be common knowledge without getting to a source. Some of the folks here have studied the sport for so long they sort of "assume" a certain degree of "common" knowledge. I'm not sure if thats the case here or not. The round in which he got hurt is probably speculation based on viewing of tapes (my guess). It may also be based on a "concensus" of reporters along with interviews of others close to the event including the fighters. It's a hell of chase to be precise it would seem to me.
Norton Ali comes to mind here, we will never know the truth but there are about two or three "impact moments" that could have caused the broken jaw event but the "best guess" from those who understand the physics lead most to beleive it happened at a "certain moment" (I wont get into it here) but hell it sure gets convoluded to attempt to solve these puzzles. Some of this just takes the best educated guess you can muster.
I have to say I'm still confused at these last few posts....not sure who is saying what.
Buzz- I am responding to each one individually, so sorry if it seems like I'm repeating.
With a fight like Hagler/Hearns, you can see clearly when Tommy hurt his hand. He stops throwing it full power pretty quickly. With LaMotta, he's throwing it full throttle the entire fight. My guess is that he fractured that middle knuckle late in the fight, just before it ended.
We can't be positive, but we can say for sure that during the majority of rounds LaMotta was fighting with two good fists, while Cerdan was fighting with one(the films support this 100%, as does the LA Times, SF and Chicago reports). I will be happy to send a newspaper report for anyone here to post. I'm just wondering how many here are willing to release the myths and latch on to the truth. It's a difficult transition but it can be done.
That means nothing, it is known for fighters to still use their hands even if they are broken... Gatti has done it in recent fights. Hearns break was particularly bad against Hagler with the bone actually breaking through the skin... which is just about the worst break you can have.
silkov wrote:
Do you only come on this forum now to try and insult Collins?... thats rather sad... are you saying that Lamottas broken hand is a myth also?... or are you just here to throw insults.
As for 'research' Neros idea of research is everyone agreeing with his screwed point of view regarding Lamotta and Cedan... even written eye witness accounts of the fight are 'biased' according to him because they actually say that Lamotta beat the crap out of Cedan despite a broken hand and poor Mikey quit in his corner like a poodle.... fact!...
You said that Jake broke his hand in the second round. NAME YOUR SOURCE.
You said that Marcel quit in his corner. NAME YOUR SOURCE.
You said that Jake almost KO'd Cerdan in the first round(which still makes me chuckle considering Jake only had 3 first-round KO's his entire career, and those against no-names. Now we're being asked to believe that he could almost KO a great fighter like Cerdan in a single round!) Again, NAME YOUR SOURCE.
How about you show some of your own sources buddy... the fact that Cedan retired/quit whatever you want to call it in his corner is pretty much known to everyone who knows anything about boxing, I mean what is your point?... are we entering the twilight zone here and you're gonna tell me that in fact Marcel won on points and everything else was cooked up by the NYT???. So, say you have some article written at the time that may say Cedan would have won except for his injury, that proves nothing, its just the view of that particular writer who was probably as biased against Jake as you are and there were plenty of writers about then who hated Jakes guts and treated him like he was the antichrist. The point is though that Lamotta won and Cedan lost and that is fact, and you could smoke all the hash in Kingston town and it won't change that fact anywhere except in your own mind.
"Pretty much known". Translation: "I heard it somewhere and never bothered to research it to see if it was true." That's the case with your entire argument. No sources to speak of. Thank you.
The more you talk and the more you evade my questions, the more you prove me right.
BoxBuzz wrote:great observation, but I have to add something. I beleive Lamotta may have been one of those very rare people who were wired different than most of us. His reaction to pain may allow him to operate on a bit of a different plane than Hearns. I do not know this for sure but Lamotta was one of the most unusual in this particular trait. That could possibly explain it and it would be consistent with what LaMotta demonstrated time and time again. Did you know jake had some of the smallest hands in boxing? Not sure if that helps or hinders as it would up the "sting" factor while taking the down the ability to truly shake someone up without a purely precision pinpoint hit.
Hell I wonder if he could have mustered the will to not react to a liver shot? It is theoretically possible and this is a dynamic of fighting that seldom gets discussed.
Possibly, but that would just further support my contention that Jake's hand didn't hinder him in any way.
He was never much of a hard hitter at all. Silkov suggesting that a light-hitter like LaMotta could almost KO a Marcel Cerdan in a single round is beyond absurd. As if LaMotta had that kind of power at his disposal! He didn't(30 kos in 106 fights, and only 3 in the first round). Never mind that the films and fight reports don't support this either.
If Jake had major KO power- like a Ketchel or Freddie Steele- he could have quite possibly become the greatest middleweight ever. But that's just an on-the-spot thought...
What is absurd is you trying to change facts and your almost psychopathic dislike of Lamotta. Cedans shoulder stopped him winning yet Jakes hand didnt hinder him in the slightest!!!... right!... very balanced viewpoint Nero! haha!!.... 8)
Nero3000 wrote:
You said that Jake broke his hand in the second round. NAME YOUR SOURCE.
You said that Marcel quit in his corner. NAME YOUR SOURCE.
You said that Jake almost KO'd Cerdan in the first round(which still makes me chuckle considering Jake only had 3 first-round KO's his entire career, and those against no-names. Now we're being asked to believe that he could almost KO a great fighter like Cerdan in a single round!) Again, NAME YOUR SOURCE.
How about you show some of your own sources buddy... the fact that Cedan retired/quit whatever you want to call it in his corner is pretty much known to everyone who knows anything about boxing, I mean what is your point?... are we entering the twilight zone here and you're gonna tell me that in fact Marcel won on points and everything else was cooked up by the NYT???. So, say you have some article written at the time that may say Cedan would have won except for his injury, that proves nothing, its just the view of that particular writer who was probably as biased against Jake as you are and there were plenty of writers about then who hated Jakes guts and treated him like he was the antichrist. The point is though that Lamotta won and Cedan lost and that is fact, and you could smoke all the hash in Kingston town and it won't change that fact anywhere except in your own mind.
"Pretty much known". Translation: "I heard it somewhere and never bothered to research it to see if it was true." That's the case with your entire argument. No sources to speak of. Thank you.
The more you talk and the more you evade my questions, the more you prove me right.
So how about you tell me how it ended?.... I'd really like to know, perhaps Cedan won and there was this big cover up where everyone pretended that he'd lost and he went along with it because of the rematch clause... but then his plane mysteriously crashes!... no Cedan! no rematch!!.... you have to hand it to Lamotta, if thats not a conclusive knockout I don't know what is!!!.... 8)
BoxBuzz wrote:great observation, but I have to add something. I beleive Lamotta may have been one of those very rare people who were wired different than most of us. His reaction to pain may allow him to operate on a bit of a different plane than Hearns. I do not know this for sure but Lamotta was one of the most unusual in this particular trait. That could possibly explain it and it would be consistent with what LaMotta demonstrated time and time again. Did you know jake had some of the smallest hands in boxing? Not sure if that helps or hinders as it would up the "sting" factor while taking the down the ability to truly shake someone up without a purely precision pinpoint hit.
Hell I wonder if he could have mustered the will to not react to a liver shot? It is theoretically possible and this is a dynamic of fighting that seldom gets discussed.
Possibly, but that would just further support my contention that Jake's hand didn't hinder him in any way.
He was never much of a hard hitter at all. Silkov suggesting that a light-hitter like LaMotta could almost KO a Marcel Cerdan in a single round is beyond absurd. As if LaMotta had that kind of power at his disposal! He didn't(30 kos in 106 fights, and only 3 in the first round). Never mind that the films and fight reports don't support this either.
If Jake had major KO power- like a Ketchel or Freddie Steele- he could have quite possibly become the greatest middleweight ever. But that's just an on-the-spot thought...
What is absurd is you trying to change facts and your almost psychopathic dislike of Lamotta. Cedans shoulder stopped him winning yet Jakes hand didnt hinder him in the slightest!!!... right!... very balanced viewpoint Nero! haha!!.... 8)
It gets better by the post Translation: "How dare you present me with the facts! I have a feeling, dammit!" Nero is stealing away Silkov's precious LaMotta mythology.
Are you ready to stop ranting and read the bit of historical fact that Collins is soon to post? Or will your allergies to the historical evidence prevent a thorough digestion?
silkov wrote:
How about you show some of your own sources buddy... the fact that Cedan retired/quit whatever you want to call it in his corner is pretty much known to everyone who knows anything about boxing, I mean what is your point?... are we entering the twilight zone here and you're gonna tell me that in fact Marcel won on points and everything else was cooked up by the NYT???. So, say you have some article written at the time that may say Cedan would have won except for his injury, that proves nothing, its just the view of that particular writer who was probably as biased against Jake as you are and there were plenty of writers about then who hated Jakes guts and treated him like he was the antichrist. The point is though that Lamotta won and Cedan lost and that is fact, and you could smoke all the hash in Kingston town and it won't change that fact anywhere except in your own mind.
"Pretty much known". Translation: "I heard it somewhere and never bothered to research it to see if it was true." That's the case with your entire argument. No sources to speak of. Thank you.
The more you talk and the more you evade my questions, the more you prove me right.
So how about you tell me how it ended?.... I'd really like to know, perhaps Cedan won and there was this big cover up where everyone pretended that he'd lost and he went along with it because of the rematch clause... but then his plane mysteriously crashes!... no Cedan! no rematch!!.... you have to hand it to Lamotta, if thats not a conclusive knockout I don't know what is!!!.... 8)
That's it old man. Get it aaaalllll out of your system. That way you may have some room for some actual research and absorption of facts.
silkov wrote:
How about you show some of your own sources buddy... the fact that Cedan retired/quit whatever you want to call it in his corner is pretty much known to everyone who knows anything about boxing, I mean what is your point?... are we entering the twilight zone here and you're gonna tell me that in fact Marcel won on points and everything else was cooked up by the NYT???. So, say you have some article written at the time that may say Cedan would have won except for his injury, that proves nothing, its just the view of that particular writer who was probably as biased against Jake as you are and there were plenty of writers about then who hated Jakes guts and treated him like he was the antichrist. The point is though that Lamotta won and Cedan lost and that is fact, and you could smoke all the hash in Kingston town and it won't change that fact anywhere except in your own mind.
"Pretty much known". Translation: "I heard it somewhere and never bothered to research it to see if it was true." That's the case with your entire argument. No sources to speak of. Thank you.
The more you talk and the more you evade my questions, the more you prove me right.
So how about you tell me how it ended?.... I'd really like to know, perhaps Cedan won and there was this big cover up where everyone pretended that he'd lost and he went along with it because of the rematch clause... but then his plane mysteriously crashes!... no Cedan! no rematch!!.... you have to hand it to Lamotta, if thats not a conclusive knockout I don't know what is!!!.... 8)
OK, Collins just posted the report on another thread. Go give it a look...and be sure to bring some smelling-salts.
Sniff the salts yourself, i'm still waiting for the great revelation... so Cedans shoulder made a funny noise?... bad luck... he still lost the fight. All that report offers is another viewpoint of the fight wheres your evidence that this report is more valid than the NYT report of the fight?.
Show me something that proves that Cedan actually won the fight and then I'll take the smelling salts....
8)
