Link to read the La Motta - Cerdan fight report
So there we have it. A Los Angeles paper, a New York paper, the Associated Press, and comments by Murray Goodman(a New York guy) and others. Plenty of evidence.
This'll be a real test for the LaMotta-loonies. Let's see if they can take it in or if they will continue to try and debunk. I've done all they asked and provided sources(they've cited none other than the NY Times, which is so thickly biased and full of manure it drips).
This'll be a real test for the LaMotta-loonies. Let's see if they can take it in or if they will continue to try and debunk. I've done all they asked and provided sources(they've cited none other than the NY Times, which is so thickly biased and full of manure it drips).
The W on Rocky Marciano's record over Joe Louis is firmly fixed, too. The W on Larry Holmes' record over Ali is firmly fixed, too. The KO on Terry McGovern's record over Joe Gans is firmly fixed, too.BoxBuzz wrote:Hey the fight is what the fight is.....I guess he shouldnt have fallen down and hurt his shoulder but he did and the W is firmly fixed in Lamottas record. Protect yourself at all times even when the canvas attacks.
Does this mean that we should forego a closer examination? I don't believe that you believe that, Buzz.... 8)
Toe to toe would suggest a competitive fight. It most certainly was not. Cerdan was basically a punching bag the entire fight.Being able to go toe to toe with Jake LaMotta for 9 rounds without his best weapon(the left hook) suggests to me that he would beat him with two usable arms.
Im sorry, evidence of what again?So there we have it. A Los Angeles paper, a New York paper, the Associated Press, and comments by Murray Goodman(a New York guy) and others. Plenty of evidence.
theone wrote:Toe to toe would suggest a competitive fight. It most certainly was not. Cerdan was basically a punching bag the entire fight.Being able to go toe to toe with Jake LaMotta for 9 rounds without his best weapon(the left hook) suggests to me that he would beat him with two usable arms.Im sorry, evidence of what again?So there we have it. A Los Angeles paper, a New York paper, the Associated Press, and comments by Murray Goodman(a New York guy) and others. Plenty of evidence.
Yet he still stood in there and banged away with the mighty LaMotta. Think he could have slugged 9 with Hagler, Monzon or Robinson with one arm?
Read the threads. I'm not repeating myself.
Nero if your point is that Cerdan was an all time giant who had no chance to lose to Lamotta unless some unseen force/fluke/anamolie takes place I aint buyin. My guess is they would typically be competitive.
Louis and Marciano in there primes? Louis for me
Ali and Louis in there primes Ali for me
But there are people who will argue with my analysis.
Cerdan and Lamotta at their best? most likely a competitive fight. But I don't think it's a sure Cerdan win which seems to be what your indicating.
Louis and Marciano in there primes? Louis for me
Ali and Louis in there primes Ali for me
But there are people who will argue with my analysis.
Cerdan and Lamotta at their best? most likely a competitive fight. But I don't think it's a sure Cerdan win which seems to be what your indicating.
No, a competitive fight because of styles. For sure. I can give LaMotta that much. Tough as nails. But Cerdan was better.BoxBuzz wrote:Nero if your point is that Cerdan was an all time giant who had no chance to lose to Lamotta unless some unseen force/fluke/anamolie takes place I aint buyin. My guess is they would typically be competitive.
Louis and Marciano in there primes? Louis for me
Ali and Louis in there primes Ali for me
But there are people who will argue with my analysis.
Cerdan and Lamotta at their best? most likely a competitive fight. But I don't think it's a sure Cerdan win which seems to be what your indicating.
Well when you talking Lamotta your through the looking glass in some ways. If you want to argue that Cerdan was a better fighter maybe so. But would be beat Lamotta? Well he didnt. Lamotta could just take a beating until you got tired and then go to work on you. He's hard to predict. No way on paper he should have been able to hang with Ray but he did it. He seemed to have Novacaine in his blood.
His ability to perservere over superior fighters is pretty remarkable. Cerdan for what ever reason was just another example that fits that mold.
His ability to perservere over superior fighters is pretty remarkable. Cerdan for what ever reason was just another example that fits that mold.
re
Why wasn't this posted in the same thread that the debate was taking place in instead of making a new thread? Being that it would be a waste of time repeating the same shit, I'm just going to post what I did in the other thread with the exception of this...the LA Times does not count as a seperate source as they did not have anyone at ringside...They printed the AP report that went out to the rest of the country, but the New York Times did have one of they're usual boxing writers at ringside.
>>>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?<<<
No I don’t. Reason being is that a lot of the papers from the rest of the country did not even have anyone at the fight and are just reprinting the AP, or UP report, which the AP report is exactly what is printed in the LA Times…they did not have anyone at ringside, but even that reports states that LaMotta’s middle finger of his left hand was badly swollen. The UP report, which appeared in the Oakland Tribune and other papers states that LaMotta’s left hand was so swollen that his handlers thought that it was broken, which the fist was to be x-rayed the next day, so the question about LaMotta’s hand is this…there is no question about it…his hand was hurt, but compaired to the LA Times, the New York Times did have a reporter on hand, so you be the judge!
Anyway, the hometown paper of a fight is the main primary source, which in this case there are several Detroit newspapers to chose from, so it is not just one hometown view…does that mean that the hometown paper is always right…not at all, but for a fight like LaMotta-Cerdan, which took place in Detroit, where neither fighter are from Detroit, then Detroit newspapers are by far the best papers one could use, at least in my opinion.
When a primary source is not available, then go with the next best thing, but just don’t place higher value on one paper just because they happen to fit your argument against another which paints a different picture. Personally, I like to use as many “live” sources as possible for a fight and then draw conclusions based on the entirety of all the views and not just praise one, while damning another that does not follow my argument.
The LA Times is alright to use if there is nothing else available, but for this fight the Detroit papers would be the best credential for that particular fight, but I would also put a lot of faith into the Ring magazine report of the fight, which I will post up here sometime tomorrow morning!
On a side note…the early New York Times was one of the worst in the country for reporting boxing, but that was around 1910 and before…they were really against boxing for a number of early years, but after they started covering the sport really well, which started thoroughly around 1912, or 1913 they did a very good job, especially by 1949, but then again the New York Times is not the be-all, end-all source…in fact it is not even the best New York source in my opinion (There are many New York papers to chose from), but it is still a very good source, as is the LA Times, that is when they have a reporter at ringside. The real weight of each newspaper opinion would not be the paper, but instead who was the reporter writing the report!
One thing is certain about the fight…LaMotta put a beating on Cerdan…a serious beating. Could he have repeated it in a rematch, very possibly, but as I said before, I would favor Cerdan in a rematch as I felt he was the better overall boxer, but how many times have we seen a tough-as-nails fighter beat the better overall boxer?
As far as Jake breaking his hand and still throwing it with regularity…well LaMotta is the kind of fighter that had his hand been cut off, he would still have thrown punches with the nub…a broken hand, or dislocated knuckle certainly was not going to hinder a fighter like LaMotta!
The UP Report in the Oakland Tribune states that LaMotta’s hand was so swollen that his handlers thought that it was broken, which the fist was to be x-rayed the next day.
>>>Do you have access to the Detroit reports?<<<
Not anytime access…I could have the reels ordered thru interlibrary loan, or I could buy microfilm copies of the Detroit papers if I chose. Unless you live close to a huge library like the New York Public Library, the Library of Congress, or some large university then more than likely you will have to request for your public library to order the rolls of microfilm for the Detroit papers.
As I mentioned earlier...I post the Ring Magazine coverage of the fight tomorrow morning!
>>>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?<<<
No I don’t. Reason being is that a lot of the papers from the rest of the country did not even have anyone at the fight and are just reprinting the AP, or UP report, which the AP report is exactly what is printed in the LA Times…they did not have anyone at ringside, but even that reports states that LaMotta’s middle finger of his left hand was badly swollen. The UP report, which appeared in the Oakland Tribune and other papers states that LaMotta’s left hand was so swollen that his handlers thought that it was broken, which the fist was to be x-rayed the next day, so the question about LaMotta’s hand is this…there is no question about it…his hand was hurt, but compaired to the LA Times, the New York Times did have a reporter on hand, so you be the judge!
Anyway, the hometown paper of a fight is the main primary source, which in this case there are several Detroit newspapers to chose from, so it is not just one hometown view…does that mean that the hometown paper is always right…not at all, but for a fight like LaMotta-Cerdan, which took place in Detroit, where neither fighter are from Detroit, then Detroit newspapers are by far the best papers one could use, at least in my opinion.
When a primary source is not available, then go with the next best thing, but just don’t place higher value on one paper just because they happen to fit your argument against another which paints a different picture. Personally, I like to use as many “live” sources as possible for a fight and then draw conclusions based on the entirety of all the views and not just praise one, while damning another that does not follow my argument.
The LA Times is alright to use if there is nothing else available, but for this fight the Detroit papers would be the best credential for that particular fight, but I would also put a lot of faith into the Ring magazine report of the fight, which I will post up here sometime tomorrow morning!
On a side note…the early New York Times was one of the worst in the country for reporting boxing, but that was around 1910 and before…they were really against boxing for a number of early years, but after they started covering the sport really well, which started thoroughly around 1912, or 1913 they did a very good job, especially by 1949, but then again the New York Times is not the be-all, end-all source…in fact it is not even the best New York source in my opinion (There are many New York papers to chose from), but it is still a very good source, as is the LA Times, that is when they have a reporter at ringside. The real weight of each newspaper opinion would not be the paper, but instead who was the reporter writing the report!
One thing is certain about the fight…LaMotta put a beating on Cerdan…a serious beating. Could he have repeated it in a rematch, very possibly, but as I said before, I would favor Cerdan in a rematch as I felt he was the better overall boxer, but how many times have we seen a tough-as-nails fighter beat the better overall boxer?
As far as Jake breaking his hand and still throwing it with regularity…well LaMotta is the kind of fighter that had his hand been cut off, he would still have thrown punches with the nub…a broken hand, or dislocated knuckle certainly was not going to hinder a fighter like LaMotta!
The UP Report in the Oakland Tribune states that LaMotta’s hand was so swollen that his handlers thought that it was broken, which the fist was to be x-rayed the next day.
>>>Do you have access to the Detroit reports?<<<
Not anytime access…I could have the reels ordered thru interlibrary loan, or I could buy microfilm copies of the Detroit papers if I chose. Unless you live close to a huge library like the New York Public Library, the Library of Congress, or some large university then more than likely you will have to request for your public library to order the rolls of microfilm for the Detroit papers.
As I mentioned earlier...I post the Ring Magazine coverage of the fight tomorrow morning!
..lamotta would have kept fighting if he'd had a broken leg. one reason he could keep punching with his left with that broken thumb (which nat fleischer said was a bad injury) was lamotta wasn't a hard puncher. a puncher like....oh, hearns, for example..hit so hard he'd shatter his whole hand if he could fight through the pain.
the referee did not throw cerdan down. cerdan did not fall down because he fainted. in fact he did not fall down. he was thrown down by the stronger fighter who was in a fury to win the title he'd been after for so long. cerdan could not have held back lamotta with his power because lamotta had a concrete jaw and a lot of stamina....would keep charging in ....and in general was the superior fighter.
the legend has it that cerdan's legacy isn't as good as it should be because he would have beaten lamotta in the rematch had he lived.
alas...it's jake's legacy that is diminished because he would have beat cerdan in the rematch without the shoulder controversy.
if you people would just stop arguing with boxbuzz and in this case theone it would save me so much time...
happy holiday weekend to all...
the referee did not throw cerdan down. cerdan did not fall down because he fainted. in fact he did not fall down. he was thrown down by the stronger fighter who was in a fury to win the title he'd been after for so long. cerdan could not have held back lamotta with his power because lamotta had a concrete jaw and a lot of stamina....would keep charging in ....and in general was the superior fighter.
the legend has it that cerdan's legacy isn't as good as it should be because he would have beaten lamotta in the rematch had he lived.
alas...it's jake's legacy that is diminished because he would have beat cerdan in the rematch without the shoulder controversy.
if you people would just stop arguing with boxbuzz and in this case theone it would save me so much time...
happy holiday weekend to all...
re
As they appeared in the September 1949 issue of Ring, and I hope this works:
http://us.f13.yahoofs.com/bc/444bfe55m8 ... EBeD6Dfwnn
http://us.f13.yahoofs.com/bc/444bfe55m8 ... EBeD6Dfwnn
re
The first round knockdown sequence in pictures:
http://www.antekprizering.com/lamottace ... kdown.html
Also, I have contacted the sports department at the Detroit Free Press asking if they can provide a report of the fight.
http://www.antekprizering.com/lamottace ... kdown.html
Also, I have contacted the sports department at the Detroit Free Press asking if they can provide a report of the fight.
re
Also, here is Nat Fleischer's account of the fight from the August 1949 issue of Ring.
http://us.f13.yahoofs.com/bc/444bfe55m8 ... EBCc4SbG5z
http://us.f13.yahoofs.com/bc/444bfe55m8 ... EBCc4SbG5z
Re: re
[quote="barry"]Why wasn't this posted in the same thread that the debate was taking place in instead of making a new thread? Being that it would be a waste of time repeating the same shit, I'm just going to post what I did in the other thread with the exception of this...the LA Times does not count as a seperate source as they did not have anyone at ringside...They printed the AP report that went out to the rest of the country, but the New York Times did have one of they're usual boxing writers at ringside.
>>>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?<<<
No I don’t. Reason being is that a lot of the papers from the rest of the country did not even have anyone at the fight and are just reprinting the AP, or UP report, which the AP report is exactly what is printed in the LA Times…they did not have anyone at ringside, but even that reports states that LaMotta’s middle finger of his left hand was badly swollen. The UP report, which appeared in the Oakland Tribune and other papers states that LaMotta’s left hand was so swollen that his handlers thought that it was broken, which the fist was to be x-rayed the next day, so the question about LaMotta’s hand is this…there is no question about it…his hand was hurt, but compaired to the LA Times, the New York Times did have a reporter on hand, so you be the judge!
Anyway, the hometown paper of a fight is the main primary source, which in this case there are several Detroit newspapers to chose from, so it is not just one hometown view…does that mean that the hometown paper is always right…not at all, but for a fight like LaMotta-Cerdan, which took place in Detroit, where neither fighter are from Detroit, then Detroit newspapers are by far the best papers one could use, at least in my opinion.
When a primary source is not available, then go with the next best thing, but just don’t place higher value on one paper just because they happen to fit your argument against another which paints a different picture. Personally, I like to use as many “live” sources as possible for a fight and then draw conclusions based on the entirety of all the views and not just praise one, while damning another that does not follow my argument.
The LA Times is alright to use if there is nothing else available, but for this fight the Detroit papers would be the best credential for that particular fight, but I would also put a lot of faith into the Ring magazine report of the fight, which I will post up here sometime tomorrow morning!
On a side note…the early New York Times was one of the worst in the country for reporting boxing, but that was around 1910 and before…they were really against boxing for a number of early years, but after they started covering the sport really well, which started thoroughly around 1912, or 1913 they did a very good job, especially by 1949, but then again the New York Times is not the be-all, end-all source…in fact it is not even the best New York source in my opinion (There are many New York papers to chose from), but it is still a very good source, as is the LA Times, that is when they have a reporter at ringside. The real weight of each newspaper opinion would not be the paper, but instead who was the reporter writing the report!
One thing is certain about the fight…LaMotta put a beating on Cerdan…a serious beating. Could he have repeated it in a rematch, very possibly, but as I said before, I would favor Cerdan in a rematch as I felt he was the better overall boxer, but how many times have we seen a tough-as-nails fighter beat the better overall boxer?
As far as Jake breaking his hand and still throwing it with regularity…well LaMotta is the kind of fighter that had his hand been cut off, he would still have thrown punches with the nub…a broken hand, or dislocated knuckle certainly was not going to hinder a fighter like LaMotta!
The UP Report in the Oakland Tribune states that LaMotta’s hand was so swollen that his handlers thought that it was broken, which the fist was to be x-rayed the next day.
bquote]
The debate wasn't whether or not his hand was broken. It was whether Jake broke it in the second round as certain people have insisted. My contention was that there was nothing to support this contention. Jakes wounded knuckle was discovered AFTER the fight. WHY DO I HAVE TO KEEP REPEATING THIS???????
>>>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?<<<
No I don’t. Reason being is that a lot of the papers from the rest of the country did not even have anyone at the fight and are just reprinting the AP, or UP report, which the AP report is exactly what is printed in the LA Times…they did not have anyone at ringside, but even that reports states that LaMotta’s middle finger of his left hand was badly swollen. The UP report, which appeared in the Oakland Tribune and other papers states that LaMotta’s left hand was so swollen that his handlers thought that it was broken, which the fist was to be x-rayed the next day, so the question about LaMotta’s hand is this…there is no question about it…his hand was hurt, but compaired to the LA Times, the New York Times did have a reporter on hand, so you be the judge!
Anyway, the hometown paper of a fight is the main primary source, which in this case there are several Detroit newspapers to chose from, so it is not just one hometown view…does that mean that the hometown paper is always right…not at all, but for a fight like LaMotta-Cerdan, which took place in Detroit, where neither fighter are from Detroit, then Detroit newspapers are by far the best papers one could use, at least in my opinion.
When a primary source is not available, then go with the next best thing, but just don’t place higher value on one paper just because they happen to fit your argument against another which paints a different picture. Personally, I like to use as many “live” sources as possible for a fight and then draw conclusions based on the entirety of all the views and not just praise one, while damning another that does not follow my argument.
The LA Times is alright to use if there is nothing else available, but for this fight the Detroit papers would be the best credential for that particular fight, but I would also put a lot of faith into the Ring magazine report of the fight, which I will post up here sometime tomorrow morning!
On a side note…the early New York Times was one of the worst in the country for reporting boxing, but that was around 1910 and before…they were really against boxing for a number of early years, but after they started covering the sport really well, which started thoroughly around 1912, or 1913 they did a very good job, especially by 1949, but then again the New York Times is not the be-all, end-all source…in fact it is not even the best New York source in my opinion (There are many New York papers to chose from), but it is still a very good source, as is the LA Times, that is when they have a reporter at ringside. The real weight of each newspaper opinion would not be the paper, but instead who was the reporter writing the report!
One thing is certain about the fight…LaMotta put a beating on Cerdan…a serious beating. Could he have repeated it in a rematch, very possibly, but as I said before, I would favor Cerdan in a rematch as I felt he was the better overall boxer, but how many times have we seen a tough-as-nails fighter beat the better overall boxer?
As far as Jake breaking his hand and still throwing it with regularity…well LaMotta is the kind of fighter that had his hand been cut off, he would still have thrown punches with the nub…a broken hand, or dislocated knuckle certainly was not going to hinder a fighter like LaMotta!
The UP Report in the Oakland Tribune states that LaMotta’s hand was so swollen that his handlers thought that it was broken, which the fist was to be x-rayed the next day.
bquote]
The debate wasn't whether or not his hand was broken. It was whether Jake broke it in the second round as certain people have insisted. My contention was that there was nothing to support this contention. Jakes wounded knuckle was discovered AFTER the fight. WHY DO I HAVE TO KEEP REPEATING THIS???????
Re: re
barry wrote:Also, here is Nat Fleischer's account of the fight from the August 1949 issue of Ring.
http://us.f13.yahoofs.com/bc/444bfe55m8 ... EBCc4SbG5z
Reeks of bias. Nat said everything but "hip hip hooray" for Jake. He was rooting for LaMotta before the first punch was even thrown. Read the article again. Pretty obvious! "Jake would have beaten him anyway". Oh Nat....you always had your favs didn't you?)
And the news reports(and THE FILMS) don't agree with his assessment that Jake wasn't using his left after the 5th. A complete falsehood. Have you seen the fight?
Re: re
No I don’t. Reason being is that a lot of the papers from the rest of the country did not even have anyone at the fight and are just reprinting the AP, or UP report, which the AP report is exactly what is printed in the LA Times…they did not have anyone at ringside, but even that reports states that LaMotta’s middle finger of his left hand was badly swollen. The UP report, which appeared in the Oakland Tribune and other papers states that LaMotta’s left hand was so swollen that his handlers thought that it was broken, which the fist was to be x-rayed the next day, so the question about LaMotta’s hand is this…there is no question about it…his hand was hurt, but compaired to the LA Times, the New York Times did have a reporter on hand, so you be the judge!
OH, NO AP REPS WERE AT RINGSIDE?? i BEG TO DIFFER.
When a primary source is not available, then go with the next best thing, but just don’t place higher value on one paper just because they happen to fit your argument against another which paints a different picture. Personally, I like to use as many “live” sources as possible for a fight and then draw conclusions based on the entirety of all the views and not just praise one, while damning another that does not follow my argument.
WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT BROCKTON WAS DOING.
The LA Times is alright to use if there is nothing else available, but for this fight the Detroit papers would be the best credential for that particular fight, but I would also put a lot of faith into the Ring magazine report of the fight, which I will post up here sometime tomorrow morning!
WHY? NAT FLEISCHER HAD A WELL-EARNED REPUTATION FOR HIS PERSONAL PREJUDICES(REMEMBER SONNY LISTON?). HE WAS LIKE HOWARD COSELL AND OTHER BOXING WRITERS AND HISTORIANS WERE CONSTANTLY AT ODDS WITH HIM AND HIS OPINIONS. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST POSTED- AN OPINION PIECE. WOULD YOU CALL IT LACKING IN PREJUDICE? i WOULDN'T.
On a side note…the early New York Times was one of the worst in the country for reporting boxing, but that was around 1910 and before…they were really against boxing for a number of early years, but after they started covering the sport really well, which started thoroughly around 1912, or 1913 they did a very good job, especially by 1949, but then again the New York Times is not the be-all, end-all source…in fact it is not even the best New York source in my opinion (There are many New York papers to chose from), but it is still a very good source, as is the LA Times, that is when they have a reporter at ringside. The real weight of each newspaper opinion would not be the paper, but instead who was the reporter writing the report!
HOW DO YOU KKNOW THE LA TIMES HAD NO REPORTER AT RINGSIDE?
As far as Jake breaking his hand and still throwing it with regularity…well LaMotta is the kind of fighter that had his hand been cut off, he would still have thrown punches with the nub…a broken hand, or dislocated knuckle certainly was not going to hinder a fighter like LaMotta!
As I mentioned earlier...I post the Ring Magazine coverage of the fight tomorrow morning![/quote]
OH, NO AP REPS WERE AT RINGSIDE?? i BEG TO DIFFER.
When a primary source is not available, then go with the next best thing, but just don’t place higher value on one paper just because they happen to fit your argument against another which paints a different picture. Personally, I like to use as many “live” sources as possible for a fight and then draw conclusions based on the entirety of all the views and not just praise one, while damning another that does not follow my argument.
WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT BROCKTON WAS DOING.
The LA Times is alright to use if there is nothing else available, but for this fight the Detroit papers would be the best credential for that particular fight, but I would also put a lot of faith into the Ring magazine report of the fight, which I will post up here sometime tomorrow morning!
WHY? NAT FLEISCHER HAD A WELL-EARNED REPUTATION FOR HIS PERSONAL PREJUDICES(REMEMBER SONNY LISTON?). HE WAS LIKE HOWARD COSELL AND OTHER BOXING WRITERS AND HISTORIANS WERE CONSTANTLY AT ODDS WITH HIM AND HIS OPINIONS. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST POSTED- AN OPINION PIECE. WOULD YOU CALL IT LACKING IN PREJUDICE? i WOULDN'T.
On a side note…the early New York Times was one of the worst in the country for reporting boxing, but that was around 1910 and before…they were really against boxing for a number of early years, but after they started covering the sport really well, which started thoroughly around 1912, or 1913 they did a very good job, especially by 1949, but then again the New York Times is not the be-all, end-all source…in fact it is not even the best New York source in my opinion (There are many New York papers to chose from), but it is still a very good source, as is the LA Times, that is when they have a reporter at ringside. The real weight of each newspaper opinion would not be the paper, but instead who was the reporter writing the report!
HOW DO YOU KKNOW THE LA TIMES HAD NO REPORTER AT RINGSIDE?
As far as Jake breaking his hand and still throwing it with regularity…well LaMotta is the kind of fighter that had his hand been cut off, he would still have thrown punches with the nub…a broken hand, or dislocated knuckle certainly was not going to hinder a fighter like LaMotta!
As I mentioned earlier...I post the Ring Magazine coverage of the fight tomorrow morning![/quote]