Teenage Tony Licata

[klompton]

Klompton Knows Very Little About Tony Licata......

It would be one thing if both of us had only ever read newspaper accounts and magazine articles on Licata and so both were arguing from a position of relative ignorance. Yet, you clearly havent seen much of Licata. I have. How you can argue with some who speaks from first hand experience based on reading a bunch of clippings is beyond me. I'll leave it at that since we've had this discussion before but like Franklin-Douglas, dont come on here spouting off a bunch of nonsense about a fight youve never seen when there are actually people alive who can watch it anytime they want and refute your posts. In this case discretion might be the better part of valor with you just admitting your precious clippings might be mistaken and hence you as well are mistaken.

[BoxBuzz]

I and Jaclem are often criticized when we give feedback on Aaron Pryor, a fighter who achieved championship status. We both were present at many of his fights and both of us came to the conclusion that he was a product of genius management, mixed with good timing and luck. We also feel he took precisely the right risks at the right time...rolled the dice and won.

This is not to say he was a bad fighter at all. Some think he was very very good. Not sure I even disagree. But in my opinion (and I believe Jaclems as well) us he was not nearly as big as his reputation. He was well protected but to his credit delivered his best performances at the right time to inherit quite the reputation.

Could Tony simply be the inverse of this, similar but without producing his best work when it most counted?

I'd say it happens from time to time....and maybe in boxing, being protected until the moment it counts is a very good strategy. lol.

[klompton]

I and Jaclem are often criticized when we give feedback on Aaron Pryor, a fighter who achieved championship status. We both were present at many of his fights and both of us came to the conclusion that he was a product of genius management, mixed with good timing and luck. We also feel he took precisely the right risks at the right time...rolled the dice and won.

This is not to say he was a bad fighter at all. Some think he was very very good. Not sure I even disagree. But in my opinion (and I believe Jaclems as well) us he was not nearly as big as his reputation. He was well protected but to his credit delivered his best performances at the right time to inherit quite the reputation.

Could Tony simply be the inverse of this, similar but without producing his best work when it most counted?

I'd say it happens from time to time....and maybe in boxing, being protected until the moment it counts is a very good strategy. lol.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. But there is one difference, and its the difference that sets ordinary fighters apart from the upper crust. When given the opportunity Pyror rose to the occasion, as you said. Licata could not. Ultimately that is the test for any fighter. Its about what you do in the ring when the opportunity strikes. Licata could not rise to the occasion. Im sure he has a million excuses but at the end of the day those fighters that were special had their share of problems as well. Overcoming those problems is part of the equation. Licata didnt have that. What Il Dunce has to say is neither here nor there. Hes been run off of several forums for making it up as he goes along and slandering fighters based on a fertile imagination. Its been proven several times he wasnt there at the events he writes about. The bottom line (and history has conclusively proven this) is that Licata was an also ran. Certainly nothing more.

[klompton]

The fact that you have consistently personally attacked me simply for pointing out mistakes in your fairytales illustrates that I have struck a cord with you and that my argument not only has merit but that you cant add anything factual so you choose to get personal. Who has a dog in this race now?

[klompton]

Well lets explore this some more. You said you saw him fight numerous times. Less than a dozen of his fights were televised. less than a handful at most were televised nationally. You have stated more than once that you have lived your whole life in New York, where Licata fought just once. Are you going to bullshit us and pretend you travelled all over the country just to watch Tony Licata fight? Or are you going to pretend youve seen his film collection? Ive asked you more than once to state which fights youve seen. If you do I can pull a tape and pin you down on the specific particulars. Instead you choose to lie and quote magazine articles.

Viscussi and Esnault managed Licata, Pastrano was developed out of the same stable and same gym. What would you expect them to say?

[BoxBuzz]

I'm all for debate fellas, but I would appreciate it if you keep the topic at the center of your defensive/offensive statements, and not each other.

I think each of your points will stand or fall on their merits by those who wish to investigate for themselves. And frankly...some of what we are talking about is genuinely subjective regardless of how well one has documented, or reviewed the various records. Though admittedly there is nothing better than a dose of well disciplined journalism to add credibility to most discussion.

Even if one of you is a fiction writer, and another an obsessive fact finder, (hypothetical here) It still does not merit personal attacks. Fair enough?

[Dart340]

I'm not sure I have any idea on just how good Licata was even after this debate.
He couldn't match world class foes such as Monzon and Minter, no shame in that, but didn't look top level himself in either loss.
He beat name fighters of some note, such as Griffith and Mike Colbert, but lost to lower level Jean Mateo.
Hard to gauge the true level of Licata without a wider body of proven opponents, which is what I believe Klompton was saying, but can't completely discount him as a fraud since he did beat some decent names, which is what Duce was saying.

[hhaehre]

I would tend to think that as of February 1975,

Tony Licata at 48-0-3 {20 KO's} was worthy of a #1 Middleweight Ranking, as Ring Magazine had listed him.

I think you read to much into that record. Unless you're Ray Robinson, Carlos Monzon or the like, it is virtually impossible to stay unbeaten over 50+ pro fights if you take the competitive route. That record simply has to be a product of very clever match making.

[The Great John L]

You weren't fooling Ring Magazine back then, who had Tony as either #1 or #2 in the Middleweight Division.

Well obviously someone was fooling them because while the Ring may have had him #1 or #2 in the world around the time he fought Monzon, this was the same time that the Philadelphia group was near their best, and I think Watts, Monroe, Hart and Briscoe were all better fighters than Licata. And with the possible exception of Hart, had better in ring accomplishments as well. Even the extremely young Marvelous One of that time was better, although I could see him rated lower.

I don’t remember the specifics of the ratings at that time, but Licata was clearly over hyped. He was a good fighter, but probably belonged no better than a ranking of somewhere in the middle of the top 10 at any time in his career regardless of what The Ring may have published.

[klompton]

Here we go. More lies. Briscoe-Curto 1 was not a hometown decision.

Licata was better than Briscoe? They wouldnt have stuck Licata in the same ring with Briscoe. Anybody can play the record comparison game:

Licata outpointed and dropped by Chiaverini in 1980. Chiaverini was stopped in 8 two years earlier by Briscoe and won only 2 of his next 8 fights.

Licata was knocked down several times and out by Jean Mateo in 1976. One year later Briscoe brutalized Mateo, leaving him a blood mess despite Briscoe now being past his prime.

Licata was dominated by Monzon in 1975 despite Monzon never kicking it into second gear. Briscoe fought a home town draw against Monzon in 1967 and a was hurt in the 1972 fight.

See how easy that is.

[klompton]

still with the personal attacks... tsk tsk someone is begging to be banned.


you mean you didnt actually see the mendez fights??

[BoxBuzz]

I'd prefer no one was banned,

drop the personal insults.....go after the empirical information with full fire if you wish. lol.

People can learn from a good give and take when it's focused on the evidence.

However without issuing a formal warning to either, I will lock this thread if anymore personal barbs are expressed.

I very much enjoy the opinions regarding the subject matter regardless of how passionate they are delivered.

It's when the guns are drawn on personalites that I have to attend to my responsibilites.

I'd rather just read and learn....and decide for myself.

[BoxBuzz]

I love how the word "telegraphed" is used in reference to Monzon......not sure I disagree....in fact he might be a great example of that term. However........check his stats, and I think you'll find that he had a better delivery percentage than Western Union. lol When he sent his "telegrams" they almost always arrived to their intended destination. Apparently very few had the ability to "read" his telegrams until they actually arrived.

He was uncanny that way.

[BoxBuzz]

Yep....but somehow Deliberate captures his style very well. And I think slow has been a descriptor that is often used by his detractors. However, his accuracy within that slow and deliberate aspect is not debateable. Perhaps he only used the speed that was required.

Efficient? maybe that descriptor captures his style as well.

I see genius at work when I see his fights. Perhaps "evil genius" is more appropriate. However he was a very bad man, in every sense of the word, and he should be no one's hero.

[BoxBuzz]

Well, if "efficient" is relevant...then he simply fought to the level that was required in order to impose a good beating. I think he enjoyed giving (and maybe sharing) a good beating. He was not all there that one.

[klompton]

Nope for once you are perfectly describing how a 'deliberate' 'slow footed' nearly 33 year old,,,,,, fighter handed this 'special' fighter a one sided pasting in every aspect of the sport,,,,,,,


Kinda makes you wonder if Licata wasnt actually a 'protected' 'overhyped' 'product of careful matchmaking' who could not compete at the highest level of the sport,,,,,,,,,,

[The Great John L]

But of course Licata didn't actually fight Monroe. Or Watts, Hart or Briscoe either.

[Dart340]

I have an acquaintance who is very well versed in 70's boxing and very opinionated and asked him about this whole "was Tony Licata a hype job" thread.

His response was "He lost to Colbert in New Orleans. What does that tell you?" and then dropped the subject.

I took that as a vote towards the negative.

[The Great John L]

I have an acquaintance who is very well versed in 70's boxing and very opinionated and asked him about this whole "was Tony Licata a hype job" thread.

His response was "He lost to Colbert in New Orleans. What does that tell you?" and then dropped the subject.

I took that as a vote towards the negative.

I lived through the period. He was decent fighter, but was completely over-hyped. At his best he was probably near the bottom of the top 10 in the division.

[JohnReed]

Tony Licata would probably be thrilled to see how much attention he's getting in this thread.
And it's probably his greatest career accomplishment, no matter how good his wins over Rossman and Griffith really were, that he managed to get a flame war started between two noted boxing historians such as Klompton and Il Duce.

Licata's hometown newspaper, the The Times-Picayune of New Orleans, scored the fight in favor of Rossman. Many, if not most observers, regarded the decision as a hometown gift in favor of Tony. At this point in his career, Licata -- if I'm not mistaken -- was on the downside. I think he was showing signs of burn-out by this time. So, the Rossman victory is impressive only on paper, assuming people don't know the details of bout.

That's my understanding, based on magazine and newspaper archival research.

[JohnReed]

I have an acquaintance who is very well versed in 70's boxing and very opinionated and asked him about this whole "was Tony Licata a hype job" thread.

His response was "He lost to Colbert in New Orleans. What does that tell you?" and then dropped the subject.

I took that as a vote towards the negative.

But the Colbert fight took place in 1976, when Licata may have been shopworn and not nearly as good as he had previously been. That's just my guess, based on reading boxing magazine and newspaper articles about Licata.

I saw Licata's 1976 effort against Alan Minter. That fight's on Youtube, and Licata looks awful. He's slow, there's no snap in his punches, he's always squared, shows minimal defense and keeps his head sticking straight up at all times. He gets hurt by almost every solid punch that Minter lands. I can't believe that Tony displayed this ability level in beating Emile Griffith.

Again, I believe that a younger, fresher version of Licata must have had much more ability than what he showed in his 1976 efforts against Mateo, Rossman, Colbert, and Minter. I'm not an expert on Licata, but that's my assumption about him.

[goose 5]

Did any of you guys see Licata's fights with Vinnie Curto and Danny McAloon ? If so, would you share some thoughts,please ?