BoxRec

BarryWashington wrote:i'm going to try to not argue with the ignorant but to say lamotta is overrated in any sense is complete bull shit.

19 losses? oh wow. gee he only had 106 fights (let's not forget his one loss against fox he threw that fight). jake must suck because of that. oh and of course because there's better nutrition and people run faster or throw farther automatically means today's guys are clearly superior. i mean forget the fact that 40's & 50's (when jake fought) were overall much deeper talent pool overall. oh and let's forget that someone who is constantly fighting as opposed to the douchebags that fight two-three times a year are going to be better prepared year round. benn was a good fighter but to say he is going to stop lamotta is effing retarded.

lamotta's resume speaks much louder than benn's does. maybe benn deserved the win in the second eubank fight but the stoppage on barkley was dirty and complete bull shit and don't even get me started w/the mcclellan fight. you get a normal competent fucking referee in that fight and benn doesn't make it out of the first round. so with that said i'm really left scratching my head as to what about benn says he would be able to compete with lamotta let alone stop him.

Nowhere did I say that he sucked and I also mentioned that records don't tell the whole story, although they certainly show that a lot of guys beat him in his career. Do you think that the fact that people run faster and throw further has zero bearing on other sporting performance?
The Benn-Barkley fight was stopped on the 3 KD rule, so whether Barkley could have continued doesn't really matter.
Saying bull shit a lot doesn't really strengthen your argument either.

BarryWashington wrote:

gb wrote:

BarryWashington wrote:i'm going to try to not argue with the ignorant but to say lamotta is overrated in any sense is complete bull shit.

19 losses? oh wow. gee he only had 106 fights (let's not forget his one loss against fox he threw that fight). jake must suck because of that. oh and of course because there's better nutrition and people run faster or throw farther automatically means today's guys are clearly superior. i mean forget the fact that 40's & 50's (when jake fought) were overall much deeper talent pool overall. oh and let's forget that someone who is constantly fighting as opposed to the douchebags that fight two-three times a year are going to be better prepared year round. benn was a good fighter but to say he is going to stop lamotta is effing retarded.

lamotta's resume speaks much louder than benn's does. maybe benn deserved the win in the second eubank fight but the stoppage on barkley was dirty and complete bull shit and don't even get me started w/the mcclellan fight. you get a normal competent fucking referee in that fight and benn doesn't make it out of the first round. so with that said i'm really left scratching my head as to what about benn says he would be able to compete with lamotta let alone stop him.

Nowhere did I say that he sucked and I also mentioned that records don't tell the whole story, although they certainly show that a lot of guys beat him in his career. Do you think that the fact that people run faster and throw further has zero bearing on other sporting performance?The Benn-Barkley fight was stopped on the 3 KD rule, so whether Barkley could have continued doesn't really matter.
Saying bull shit a lot doesn't really strengthen your argument either.

yes, it has nothing to do with boxing.


also lamotta lost to a lot of guys? funny cause he lost to one guy five times and threw one fight against billy fox.

here is the toughest opposition benn faced:

chris eubank (twice)
michael watson
thulani malinga (twice)
iran barkley
steve collins (twice)
doug dewitt
gerald mclellan

here is the toughest opposition lamotta faced:

jose basora (four times)
jimmy edgar (thrice)
california jackie wilson
sugar ray robinson (six times)
fritzie zivic (four times)
coley welch
bob murphy (twice)
gene hairston (twice)
laurent dauthuille (twice)
tiberio mitri
marcel cerdan
tommy yarosz
cecil hudson
tony janiro
holman williams

so now that i've taken to time to show you that their resumes clearly aren't equal (w/benn being leagues below lamotta) it goes to show much more battle tested lamotta was and how he fought the elite competition from middleweight - light middleweight.

benn has a chance in the fight but a very slim one. if this one goes 15 then i see lamotta winning 9-6/10-5.

The thing here is that at no point did I say that Benn would KO or even beat LaMotta and can certainly see the logic in a 10-5 LaMotta points win. My point really was that there tends to be a bias on this forum towards fighters of earlier eras, which seems to me at odds with the fact that quantitative measures of human physical feats improve with time. I don't want to get into some sort of 'keyboard war' here, but I don't see how you can seriously believe that people running faster and throwing further has nothing to do with boxing; boxing as a sport does not exist in isolation i.e if people can throw further, I reckon that they will also hit harder.
When you mentioned the talent pool being deeper in the 40s and 50s, do you mean that there were more pro fighters around, wheras now people who could be good boxers are taking up other sports instead? I'm asking because I'm genuinely interested.

ryanst1982 wrote:All in prime. Who wins at middleweight or super mw

Floyd Mayweather

Tommy hearns

Roberto duran

Joe Calzaghe

James Toney

Sergio Martinez

Jake la motta

Bernard Hopkins

Michael Kessler

Random list I know whats your thoughts

Benn vs Mayweather: Benn wins...The weight class would be TOO BIG for Pretty Boy Floyd.

Benn vs Hearns: A great fight no matter the outcome. It would be just like Benn vs McClellan...Probably same fight. But I see Benn winning by KO after the 5th round. Hearns was not that good at 160lbs

Benn vs Duran:They had a sparring session and was very entertaining to watch, but THE WEIGHT CLASS WAS TOO BIG FOR DURAN. Both men beat Iran Barkley, but, if Barkley would have fought Duran in a rematch, probably Iran wins this time. Duran win over Barkley was a MIRACLE. Benn by points or late TKO.

Benn vs Calzaghe:Calzaghe on points.

Benn vs Toney: A great fight for the 90s. I don't know why this fight never happened. Toney by UD. He had more boxing skills and had more craftiness, especially at his very best.

Benn vs Martinez: Argentina vs England all over again, but this time in a boxing match. This would be a great fight. I pick Martinez by UD.

Benn vs LaMotta: LaMotta was better than Benn in every department except at punching power. LaMotta was not the best of hitters, but when it comes to grit and determination, he was an ultimate warrior. Benn only chance in this fight would be if the fight is fought in London, England than in Detroit, Chicago or NYC. LaMotta on points in a great scrap.

Benn vs Hopkins: BHop is one of the all-time greats of the middleweight division. Has more tools to beat you and is very crafty. BHop by late TKO a la Tito Trinidad fight.

Benn vs Kessler: I have never seen Kessler fight. If I pick Benn by KO would I be wrong?

elmersalsa wrote:

ryanst1982 wrote:All in prime. Who wins at middleweight or super mw

Floyd Mayweather

Tommy hearns

Roberto duran

Joe Calzaghe

James Toney

Sergio Martinez

Jake la motta

Bernard Hopkins

Michael Kessler

Random list I know whats your thoughts

Benn vs Kessler: I have never seen Kessler fight. If I pick Benn by KO would I be wrong?

It's pretty much always wrong to make a prediction without seeing a fighter. Kessler has a pretty sturdy chin, but I think Nigel would take a decision.

People are crapping on Martinez on here but I think he has a chance here. He has the slick speedy style that would give Been fits, the main question is whether Martinez, who is really a junior middle, has the size/power to keep Benn off him. Probably not.

Hearns-Benn is an intriguing fight but I think Tommy earns a decision 2 out of 3

I think Calzaghe, Hopkins, Toney and LaMotta all beat Benn, although if Toney came in a la Tiberi/Griffith half-hearted condition, Benn wins a decision on activity.

He beats Duran and Kessler. Floyd would never sign for this fight so it's not even worth mentioning.

I must say I wasnt expecting much love for Benn when I posted this but I have been suprised. Im a brit but im not someone who supports fellow countrymen for the sakof it. But Benn is one of my all time favourites so thought id see peoples opinion. Most over here rave about Hatton, khan, Froch, Calzaghe, Lewis and so on but Benn never gets a mention. For me more exciting than that list put tgoether. Just goes to show people on this forum no.what there talking about. (,expect the nut nut who suggest vitali would best.,Ali. That guy needs to.take s lie.down in his own piss

dempseyfire wrote:People are crapping on Martinez on here but I think he has a chance here. He has the slick speedy style that would give Been fits, the main question is whether Martinez, who is really a junior middle, has the size/power to keep Benn off him. Probably not.

Hearns-Benn is an intriguing fight but I think Tommy earns a decision 2 out of 3

I think Calzaghe, Hopkins, Toney and LaMotta all beat Benn, although if Toney came in a la Tiberi/Griffith half-hearted condition, Benn wins a decision on activity.

He beats Duran and Kessler. Floyd would never sign for this fight so it's not even worth mentioning.

I can't see any Hearns/Benn fights going the distance, let alone 2 out of 3. Both had suspect chins and Benn's wild style would make a tactical battle highly unlikely.