BoxRec

I'll say it again - BB is too quick to attack people who disagree with him!

Nero3000 wrote:

jimglen wrote:Nat Fleischer was 'sighting' him as early as 1938 and later when Cerdan became better known and was being quote as the next champ and coming to America (circa mid 40's), he (Nat) 'reminded' Ring readers of this fact!

True. Actually, when he came to America he was considered by most experts across the ocean as being past his peak. Heck, when he fought LaMotta he was about 5 years older than Jake and had more fights under his belt(that is why I found it funny that Klompton stated that most felt that it was LaMotta and nor Cerdan who was past his peak!

Still, Marcel came with a truckload of hype which must have put extra pressure on him. Expectations were perhaps a bit too high and Americans reacted badly when he didn't quickly KO Georgie Abrams and Anton Raadik, forgetting that those two(especially Abrams) were among the best and toughest in the division. Somehow because they were standing at the end of the fight it was believed that they should have been "given" the decision. If they'd deserved the decisions they would have gotten them! How else can you explain Marcel getting the decision in the backyards of those two(Abrams-NY, Raadik- his adopted home of Chicago)??

More info that Cerdan detractors here will happily ignore.....

Nero

Thanks for all the info on Cerdan and his fight with La Motta. This has been a really interesting thread. I haven't seen the fight. I have only seen clips. I like La Motta but your arguent here ahs been exemplary.

DoubleM wrote:I'll say it again - BB is too quick to attack people who disagree with him!

no manassa get it right , just when i see something i totally disagree with do i attack :P

Ezzard, just because tiger may be more "skilled" or look better doesnt mean hes better than fullmer. a past his prime fullmer was thought to have won the rematch vs tiger. a over the hill joey giardello beat tiger and most thought giardello beat him twice. as u see, fullmer was just as good as tiger, his style was very effective in his own way

Ezzard wrote:

Nero3000 wrote:

jimglen wrote:Nat Fleischer was 'sighting' him as early as 1938 and later when Cerdan became better known and was being quote as the next champ and coming to America (circa mid 40's), he (Nat) 'reminded' Ring readers of this fact!

True. Actually, when he came to America he was considered by most experts across the ocean as being past his peak. Heck, when he fought LaMotta he was about 5 years older than Jake and had more fights under his belt(that is why I found it funny that Klompton stated that most felt that it was LaMotta and nor Cerdan who was past his peak!

Still, Marcel came with a truckload of hype which must have put extra pressure on him. Expectations were perhaps a bit too high and Americans reacted badly when he didn't quickly KO Georgie Abrams and Anton Raadik, forgetting that those two(especially Abrams) were among the best and toughest in the division. Somehow because they were standing at the end of the fight it was believed that they should have been "given" the decision. If they'd deserved the decisions they would have gotten them! How else can you explain Marcel getting the decision in the backyards of those two(Abrams-NY, Raadik- his adopted home of Chicago)??

More info that Cerdan detractors here will happily ignore.....

Nero

Thanks for all the info on Cerdan and his fight with La Motta. This has been a really interesting thread. I haven't seen the fight. I have only seen clips. I like La Motta but your arguent here ahs been exemplary.

Thank you for saying so. I imagine you must have especially liked the quote on Cerdan from the man whom you aqcuired your handle from.

Bump! Read the above statements regarding Marcel Cerdan

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

OK..well, let's just say that I think Hagler, Monzon and Cerdan were the top three who-beats-who middles in history.

cerdan? interesting pick but i wouldnt even rate cerdan over lamotta. lamotta kicked the shit out of cerdan. he had cerdan knocked out in the first round out on his feet before cerdan got injured, and then lamotta hurt cerdans shoulder which was partly due to lamottas incredible strength. dont forget lamotta was basically using one hand too as he broken his hand early on so lamotta was hurting bad too. I think lamotta just had marcels #. marcel was a very good middle though, he looked good on film. i however think a guy like charley burley would have beat cerdan.

BUMP! Read the above comments by Brock last year. Mostly myths.

"He had Cerdan knocked out in the first round". Not true.

"LaMotta was basically using one hand too" Not true.

Nero3000 wrote:

Randineous wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: if u give me ur email, i will send u an article of the new york times describing the cerdan-lamotta fight.

Do you have a secondary source in regards to that fight, Brockton?

Like maybe one from the fight's location of Detroit, or even a newspaper account that isn't from Jake LaMotta's hometown?

Exactly. Who wrote that account? LaMotta's mom? Cousin? Paisan? No other newspaper accounts support this shamelessly biased account of the fight. Like I said, I've seen the fight. Jake really went after him like a junky fighting over a resin-covered spoon. He was grabbing, holding and hitting, pulling and yanking, but in no way was Cerdan in any serious trouble until he was thrown to the ground. And he still went several more rounds with Jake. What does that tell you?

BUMP. Read the above.

Nero3000 wrote:suddenly LaMotta has gone from a decent-hitting(at best) puncher with 30 KOs in 106 fights(pretty dismal when compared to his reputation) to this devastating KO puncher who staggers and nearly stops great champs in a single round.

Boy, the LaMotta myth continues to grow. Thanks Mr. Scorcese!

BUMP

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:lamotta broke his hand in the 2nd round and he could barely use his left hand yet he still beat the shit out of cerdan for 7 of the 9 rounds. i mean cerdan hurt his shoulder badly too and he was most likely hurting worse than lamotta, but part of the reason he was injured is due to lamottas strength. i feel lamotta would have won the rematch if cerdan hadnt tragically died. cerdan was a classy fellow.

Brock myth: "LaMotta could barely use his left hand"

Truth: "LaMotta constantly tore at Cerdan with left hooks THROUGHOUT the fight".

dnahar32 wrote:Some writeups of LaMotta-Cerdan for comparison sakes:

According to the AP writeup, LaMotta had a puffed up left hand. Cerdan had a pulled shoulder muscle. The writeup says that Cerdan injured his shoulder in the opening round of the fight and was able to use his left hand effectively only once or twice the rest of the fight. It says he took a body beating until the bout was halted after the bell in the 9th round.

According to the Middletown Times Herald (a NY paper), "Cerdan rallied magnificently from a first round battering and fought on even terms until the seventh. He gashed LaMotta's right brow in the second round and had Jake's left ear badly swollen at the finish. Cerdan also won the fifth round, and fought evenly during terrific toe-to-toe slugging in the 3rd and 6th. However, Marcel began to wilt near the end of the sixth under Jake's pounding left jab and persistent hooks to body and head. Marcel, always an aggressive scrapper, began to backpedal and side-step in the seventh. During that session Marcel was staggered three times by rights to the chin. Marcel continued to suffer a battering in the eighth and ninth."
The fight was then stopped after the ninth when the doctor looked at the shoulder and thought it was fractured. The bell rang and LaMotta was declared the winner when Cerdan did not come out. Cerdan claimed that the shoulder was injured when he threw his first left hook in the first round, and was aggravated when LaMotta shoved him to the canvas.

Heres TWO MORE SOURCES, folks. The Associated Press and the Middletown Times Herald(a NEW YORK paper)

Now do you all see why I find the NY Times article so laughable?

Somebody wake Silkov or give him mouth to mouth. I think he just went into Cardiac Arrest.

Brock is dodging better than Wilfred Benitez right now. He'll answer to none of this, but instead keep repeating the same tired LaMotta-myth banter.

jimglen wrote:I've got the fight, I've seen it quite a few times and the injury happened in the 1st round and you can see it was a PUSH that caused the fall and injury... LaMotta was the busier up to the fall, but that means smeg-all, it was the opening round!

Cerdan was definately "favouring" his arm and didn't through a whole lot, very obvious and Jake remaind his usual busy self and there is NO time in the film I've got where;

a) Cerdan seems to be in trouble or
b) nor does Jake seem to be hurting, anywhere

I've never heard that before.

For the record I'm Scots/Italian which also means smeg-all, but Cerdan beats LaMotta EVERYTIME he is a far Superior fighter as is well merited to him by countless followers of Boxing and people in the know!!!

More eyewitness to the filmed evidence, which LaMotta boosters ignore.

Nero3000 wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:cerdan even before getting injured was badly hurt by lamotta. cerdan simply got his ass kicked for 10 rounds by lamotta who also had a injured hand. cerdaan was hurting more than lamotta, but lamotta didnt have much use of his left hand either.


i think a prime holman williams beats cerdan and i think lamotta beats cerdan in the rematch

You skillfully circumvent every fact I've laid out. Is being allergic to the facts a prerequisite for being a LaMotta fan? Or can LaMotta fans simply not be bothered with the facts because they have a feeling?

Once again- The unbiased newspaper accounts do not support your claims. Not a single one of them.

More myth mongering from Brock

dalek wrote:to me the best evidence is to look at the film.forget someone else's opinion as to what they think in a newspaper and judge for yourself.look at the fights as i have and then tell me cerdan was the same fighter,it just cannot be done.cerdan 1 handed v lamotta 2 handed its very clear to see.cerdan 2 handed against zale is beautiful to watch.
as for jake was too strong,how is throwing your opponent on the floor boxing?hulk hogan could have challenged tyson by this reckoning and dropped him on the floor dislocating his shoulder.heck he could have done it a second time and popped the other.tyson retires and hogan is champ.bb says hogan battered tyson and his strength was too much.

This is a good one, too

Nero3000 wrote:"Marcel Cerdan would have beaten Sugar Ray Robinson. I think he was the only middleweight in history who would have when Ray was at his peak. Robinson always had trouble with strong middleweights who pressured him. The difference between Cerdan and those guys is that Marcel had power. Guys like LaMotta, Fullmer and Basilio didn't. Plus his defense was much better than those guys. I don't think Ray could have handled him."
- IKE WILLIAMS

"The night Marcel Cerdan took on Jake LaMotta he fought the greatest fight I have ever seen, with ONE HAND! Marcel Cerdan would have beaten Ray Robinson. He had the style, the skill and the flexibility, as well as the temperament. In the ring he was swift, graceful and deadly. He was courage unlimited and could take a punch better than most. His jab was like a rapier, and he never wasted a punch. Every punch hit the target and he drove them in short. Cerdan the artist would have caught up with the lanky boxing master Robinson. It would have been a spectacular fight for as long as it lasted. But Cerdan would have beaten him. Maybe even KO'd him."
- MURRAY GOODMAN(former publicity director of boxing for Madison Square Garden)

Now one of my own

read the 7 posts above. I resurrected them so you can get a good idea of how the LaMotta myth has been kept alive and how the evidence I presented was ignored.

LaMotta myth...what myth?


>>>Heres TWO MORE SOURCES, folks. The Associated Press and the Middletown Times Herald(a NEW YORK paper) Now do you all see why I find the NY Times article so laughable?<<<

We considering that neither paper mentioned had a fighter at ringside for the fight and the New York Times did, who has more credibility? And for the record, the report that was in the LA Times was the AP report!

Also, I just scanned over a Ring article by the very, very respected Ted Carroll which you will find very sobering. The best thing to do is give up and let thius issue die down because I can guaranteee that you will not enjoy what you read about in The Ring...not only does it really give a proper account of the fight, but it also really debunks the myth that NYT would be bias toward LaMotta...hell they thought LaMotta was a joke for the title fight. Cerdan's camp chose LaMotta because they felt thast he was an easy touch, which that certainly came back to bite them in the ass. The reason the fight was in Detroit is because New York would not sanction it because they felt LaMotta was simply not a worthy challenger!

I'll post that article and any other that talk about the fight, but really you should not try to dig up any more threads about the bout!

[quote="barry"]LaMotta myth...what myth?


>>>Heres TWO MORE SOURCES, folks. The Associated Press and the Middletown Times Herald(a NEW YORK paper) Now do you all see why I find the NY Times article so laughable?<<<

We considering that neither paper mentioned had a fighter at ringside for the fight and the New York Times did, who has more credibility? And for the record, the report that was in the LA Times was the AP report!


THE LA TIMES AND MIDDLETOWN TIMES HERALD HAD NOBODY THERE, HUH? nOR THE AP? AND WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THIS INFO??

quote]

barry wrote:LaMotta myth...what myth?


>>>Heres TWO MORE SOURCES, folks. The Associated Press and the Middletown Times Herald(a NEW YORK paper) Now do you all see why I find the NY Times article so laughable?<<<

We considering that neither paper mentioned had a fighter at ringside for the fight and the New York Times did, who has more credibility? And for the record, the report that was in the LA Times was the AP report!

Also, I just scanned over a Ring article by the very, very respected Ted Carroll which you will find very sobering. The best thing to do is give up and let thius issue die down because I can guaranteee that you will not enjoy what you read about in The Ring...not only does it really give a proper account of the fight, but it also really debunks the myth that NYT would be bias toward LaMotta...hell they thought LaMotta was a joke for the title fight. Cerdan's camp chose LaMotta because they felt thast he was an easy touch, which that certainly came back to bite them in the ass. The reason the fight was in Detroit is because New York would not sanction it because they felt LaMotta was simply not a worthy challenger!

I'll post that article and any other that talk about the fight, but really you should not try to dig up any more threads about the bout!

BTW, Murray Goodman was at Ringside as well. Read the snippet of his report of the fight.

Also, I just scanned over a Ring article by the very, very respected Ted Carroll which you will find very sobering. The best thing to do is give up and let thius issue die down because I can guaranteee that you will not enjoy what you read about in The Ring...not only does it really give a proper account of the fight, but it also really debunks the myth that NYT would be bias toward LaMotta...hell they thought LaMotta was a joke for the title fight. Cerdan's camp chose LaMotta because they felt thast he was an easy touch, which that certainly came back to bite them in the ass. The reason the fight was in Detroit is because New York would not sanction it because they felt LaMotta was simply not a worthy challenger!
quote]


I find that hard to believe considering he was the THIRD RANKED MIDDLEWEIGHT IN THE WORLD at the time. If The Ring thought he was a joke why did they rank him at number 3?

barry wrote:LaMotta myth...what myth?


>>>Heres TWO MORE SOURCES, folks. The Associated Press and the Middletown Times Herald(a NEW YORK paper) Now do you all see why I find the NY Times article so laughable?<<<

We considering that neither paper mentioned had a fighter at ringside for the fight and the New York Times did, who has more credibility? And for the record, the report that was in the LA Times was the AP report!

Also, I just scanned over a Ring article by the very, very respected Ted Carroll which you will find very sobering. The best thing to do is give up and let thius issue die down because I can guaranteee that you will not enjoy what you read about in The Ring...not only does it really give a proper account of the fight, but it also really debunks the myth that NYT would be bias toward LaMotta...hell they thought LaMotta was a joke for the title fight. Cerdan's camp chose LaMotta because they felt thast he was an easy touch, which that certainly came back to bite them in the ass. The reason the fight was in Detroit is because New York would not sanction it because they felt LaMotta was simply not a worthy challenger!

I'll post that article and any other that talk about the fight, but really you should not try to dig up any more threads about the bout!

Having written for boxing magazines myself(including a couple of THE RING's sister publications) I can tell you from firsthand experience that they often don't give a "proper account".

I always enjoy what I read in The Ring. Sometimes it's right on the money. Sometimes it's waaay off(read some of their articles on Pernell Whitaker from the 80s and 90s. They hated him and their contempt for him literally oozes out of every page). But always fun.

Yeah, I really believe you are in the "know" with Ring mag. Why don't you enlighten us with the articles that you wrote...I have pretty much all Ring issues as well as most of they're sister publications issues as well, so enlighten me with the articles and what mags they appear in because until you do that, with the manner that you have presenbted this argument there is no way in hell I would even contemplate that you have written for Ring, or any other hard copy magazine and if you have I would like to read the articles!

Also, do you think that the people runnning the Ring today are even close to those who ran it back then? Even if you were telling the truth about Ring today, which I doubt, it holds no weight as the magazine has changed owners around five, or six times since then and every new owner has changed the manner in which Ring was presented!

All you are doing now is just digging a hole for yourself!

Oh and by the way, I have read most of those articles on Pernell Whitaker and they are most certainly not as you say...they may have a couple of articles that have contempt for Whitaker, but most present Whitaker like he is bothi in the ring and out!

P.S. Have you ever heard of answering things in one thread instead of all of these multiple threads...it just makes you look even more clueless!

barry wrote:Yeah, I really believe you are in the "know" with Ring mag. Why don't you enlighten us with the articles that you wrote...I have pretty much all Ring issues as well as most of they're sister publications issues as well, so enlighten me with the articles and what mags they appear in because until you do that, with the manner that you have presenbted this argument there is no way in hell I would even contemplate that you have written for Ring, or any other hard copy magazine and if you have I would like to read the articles!

Also, do you think that the people runnning the Ring today are even close to those who ran it back then? Even if you were telling the truth about Ring today, which I doubt, it holds no weight as the magazine has changed owners around five, or six times since then and every new owner has changed the manner in which Ring was presented!

All you are doing now is just digging a hole for yourself!

Oh and by the way, I have read most of those articles on Pernell Whitaker and they are most certainly not as you say...they may have a couple of articles that have contempt for Whitaker, but most present Whitaker like he is bothi in the ring and out!

P.S. Have you ever heard of answering things in one thread instead of all of these multiple threads...it just makes you look even more clueless!

You like to try and stay on offense don't you? Why don't you just answer my questions and quit circumventing them. It makes YOU look clueless. Does Murray Goodman count? Does the AP count? Do the films??

If LaMotta was such a joke as a contender why was he ranked number 3??

Answer my questions and you may get some answers back. Quid pro quo.

BTW, I feel nop need to "prove" my writing credentials to the likes of yourself. I've written several articles that were published, one on Whitaker which the editors for THE RING butchered in order to make Whitaker look bad(if Pernell ever meets me in person I've got some explaining to do). They had a vendetta against him and were merely carrying on the glorious tradition started by Nat Fleischer, who had no problem lambasting and treating unfairly those fighters with whom he disliked(see Sonny Liston).

Still wanna argue?

>>>You like to try and stay on offense don't you? Why don't you just answer my questions and quit circumventing them.<<<

Hey, offense is what I do best because most of the time I do not need to be on the defensive, you don’t have to be defensive when you look for and present facts!


>>>Does Murray Goodman count?<<<

Of course he counts, if he was at the fight, but he most certainly does not count any more than Nat Fleischer, or Ted Carroll, or any other writer of the time! And exactly what is it that he wrote about the fight?


>>>Does the AP count?<<<

As I stated earlier…an AP should only be used when that is the only source you have. Why? Easy, AP reports were and are only half-ass summaries of an event. They rarely ever go into any kind of depth into an event and in the case of AP boxing reports, they generally just summarize who won and sometimes give certain stats of a bout, like the gross, attendance number, etc!. But, when there are multiple ringside accounts of a fight, the AP report should be tossed aside, which is something that you will not only here from me, but all the top historians in the world will tell you the exact same thing…an AP report is only good to use when that is all you have!



>>>Do the films??<<<

As I asked you before…exactly where did you get a film of this bout? It’s been several years since I watched it, but since you are trying to use that as a source surely you can enlighten us with where you got it because I know that certain films are very hard to come by unless you know someone and I would like to know just who it is that you know who gave the film to you…can you do that, or will you just continue to ignore, run around it and by time until you can make up some kind of lie? Just remember, be very careful who you name as any source because as I said before, I know a big percentage of the people that have such things and if I don’t know them personally, I most certainly know someone else who does! Now quit acting like a little girl and take some responsibility…really, it’s not a difficult thing to answer, that is unless you are making up lies, whi9ch is what I suspect!


>>>If LaMotta was such a joke as a contender why was he ranked number 3??<<<

LaMotta was ranked 9th at middleweight in Ring magazine as of May 14, 1949, which was the last ratings that were published before he beat Cerdan, so you are also wrong about the number three ranking!

>>>Answer my questions and you may get some answers back. Quid pro quo. <<<

There, you have answers now how about doing the same, or can you?

>>>BTW, I feel nop need to "prove" my writing credentials to the likes of yourself. I've written several articles that were published, one on Whitaker which the editors for THE RING butchered in order to make Whitaker look bad(if Pernell ever meets me in person I've got some explaining to do).<<<

As I said, bullshit. Earlier you said that you had written for the sister publications of Ring, but no you are claiming that it is Ring…yeah right! You have wrote no articles except maybe in your fantasy…if you had then you would have listed them here.


>>>They had a vendetta against him and were merely carrying on the glorious tradition started by Nat Fleischer, who had no problem lambasting and treating unfairly those fighters with whom he disliked(see Sonny Liston).<<<

As I said, I have all of those issues of Ring, but maybe you can show us all these articles that had a vendetta against Whitaker because I certainly have not read them!

>>>Still wanna argue?<<<

No, I want you to prove some things instead of talking about this, or that…provide some actual evidence, but we both you’re not going to do that, why, simple…you can’t!

Also, you keep yapping about Murray Goodman, what source is that from?