Page 2 of 2

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 13 Jul 2008, 14:34
by Harvey Levy
Big Bad John wrote:You're just being stupid and wrong. There was a Congressional investigation into that fight because it was so obviously fixed.
C'mon, BBJ. Your arguing style is that of a little girl. You think that the Fox bout was as that shown in Raging Bull? In reality Fox was kicking the crap out of LaMotta and the referee had to stop the fight. That's probably the outcome of a Roy Jones, Jr. - LaMotta fight :lol:

Anyway, what was the outcome of the Congressional investigation in the LaMotta-Fox fix?

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 13 Jul 2008, 14:51
by Big Bad John
Here's what the UP wrote about the fight:
"The technical knockout which Billy Fox scored over Jake LaMotta in the fourth round last night caused raised eyebrows in the boxing industry today. Widespread reports of a fix, which received official recognition, robbed, for the time being at least, the glory which naturally would have gone to Fox for becoming the first boxer ever to knock out the tough battler from the Bronx.

There was no question of Fox's victory and the dynamite which the Philadelphia negro packed in his fists. But there were doubting Thomases among the persons who paid to see the bout at Madison Square Garden, for a lot of maneuvering went on before the fighters stepped into the ring. Early in the week there were whispers that the 'fix' was on. Then, late yesterday, after the odds had been 6 to 5 and pick 'em, the betting changed and Fox became an 11 to 5 favorite. Three hours before ring time the odds on Fox soared to 3 to 1 and bookies refused to accept any more Fox money, although they took wagers on LaMotta.

The rumors of the fix became so persistent in the Garden corridors then, that chairman Eddie Eagan of the New York Boxing Commission twice went to the dressing rooms of the boxers to warn them. He was not available for comment after the fight, but a spokesman of the commission said that so far as he knew the commission was satisfied with the bout. He emphasized, however, that he had not spoken to Eagan.
LaMotta was fined and suspended after an investigation by the NYSAC.

Simply put, you don't lie to Congress. They already know the answers before they ask them to you. You lie, and you go to prison. He had absolutely nothing to gain by saying that he'd accepted $20,000 and a title shot in exchange for throwing the fight. Also, Billy Fox - who was managed by none other than Blinky Palmero - testified that in another fight, he was totally exhausted, but that his trainer told him just to go out there. His opponent simply fell without being touched by Fox. Sports Illustrated covered that in 1961.

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 13 Jul 2008, 16:20
by Harvey Levy
Big Bad John wrote:Here's what the UP wrote about the fight:
"The technical knockout which Billy Fox scored over Jake LaMotta in the fourth round last night caused raised eyebrows in the boxing industry today. Widespread reports of a fix, which received official recognition, robbed, for the time being at least, the glory which naturally would have gone to Fox for becoming the first boxer ever to knock out the tough battler from the Bronx.

There was no question of Fox's victory and the dynamite which the Philadelphia negro packed in his fists. But there were doubting Thomases among the persons who paid to see the bout at Madison Square Garden, for a lot of maneuvering went on before the fighters stepped into the ring. Early in the week there were whispers that the 'fix' was on. Then, late yesterday, after the odds had been 6 to 5 and pick 'em, the betting changed and Fox became an 11 to 5 favorite. Three hours before ring time the odds on Fox soared to 3 to 1 and bookies refused to accept any more Fox money, although they took wagers on LaMotta.

The rumors of the fix became so persistent in the Garden corridors then, that chairman Eddie Eagan of the New York Boxing Commission twice went to the dressing rooms of the boxers to warn them. He was not available for comment after the fight, but a spokesman of the commission said that so far as he knew the commission was satisfied with the bout. He emphasized, however, that he had not spoken to Eagan.
LaMotta was fined and suspended after an investigation by the NYSAC.

Simply put, you don't lie to Congress. They already know the answers before they ask them to you. You lie, and you go to prison. He had absolutely nothing to gain by saying that he'd accepted $20,000 and a title shot in exchange for throwing the fight. Also, Billy Fox - who was managed by none other than Blinky Palmero - testified that in another fight, he was totally exhausted, but that his trainer told him just to go out there. His opponent simply fell without being touched by Fox. Sports Illustrated covered that in 1961.
That's not all UP wrote, BBJ.

"After this bout, the NYSAC made a complete investigation. Purses were held up for a time but later paid. LaMotta drew an indefinite suspension and a $1,000 fine for "concealing vital facts about his physical condition before the fight." The ban was lifted June 21. He would admit much later that he threw this fight to get a shot at the Middleweight Title."

The fact is that nothing came off the rumors. LaMotta's ban was lifted within six months and, btw, LaMotta said that he had to pay, not received, $20,000. Besides that, and what just makes the whole thing stink, LaMotta claimed that he threw the fight because he was promised a title shot against Cerdan. The funny thing is that Cerdan did not become champion until he beat Tony Zale on 21 Sept. 1948 and Zale had previously fought Graziano for the MW title 3 months before. So, the supposed fix must have also included Zale and Graziano, incredible!!!! In other words, BS.

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 13 Jul 2008, 18:25
by granberry
Good going, Harvey.

You have convinced us all that the Billy Fox-Jake LaMotta fight was not a fake.

Now what other gems do you have to offer?

LOL

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 13 Jul 2008, 20:15
by Harvey Levy
granberry wrote:Good going, Harvey.

You have convinced us all that the Billy Fox-Jake LaMotta fight was not a fake.

Now what other gems do you have to offer?

LOL
I'm not into jewelry.

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 13 Jul 2008, 21:26
by Big Bad John
So, what's your explanation why LaMotta lied before Congress and why Palmero and Carbo took the fifth when asked about the fight?

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 10 Apr 2011, 13:03
by Crease
That is one fight I would pay handsomely to see:

Marvin Hagler vs Jake LaMotta

:bow: :bow: :bow:

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 10 Apr 2011, 14:43
by dempseyfire
A prime LaMotta beats Hearns at 160. He'd get worn out but LaMotta would walk through some fire.

I like Hagler in a tough close decision over Jake. That would be a helluva fight.

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 10 Apr 2011, 15:01
by Syntax Error
Hagler beats LaMotta on points; albeit closer than it should be, as Hagler would do his usual of paying too much respect to great opponents (although Tommy Hearns would tell me different).

LaMotta stops Hearns as Hearns' ego would make him try & KO the titanium chinned LaMotta & that would be Tommy's greatest error. Hearns would not have had the stamina to tough it out in a war of attrition with LaMotta. After the fight, Manny Steward would say that someone boiled Tommy's breakfast egg for 30 seconds too long; that's why he was stopped by LaMotta. :TU:

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 10 Apr 2011, 22:42
by SaadOffTheDeck
Assuming they are 15 rounders.

I think marvin would beat Jake clearly by decision. Jake would back him off and make him box, but hagler was great when he did. 10-5ish

Hearns would bust Jake up early. But LaMotta would work his body and get to him for a late stoppage.

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 11 Apr 2011, 08:37
by Syntax Error
Borinken25 wrote:I agree that if Hearns goes to war with LaMotta he gets KO. However, I don’t see Hearns losing a decision to LaMotta if he decides to box from the outside. Hearns has even a punchers chance and could stop LaMotta on cuts late on the fight. Hagler vs LaMotta I have to go with Hagler all the way.
The thing about Hearns, he had the remarkable ability to outbox just about anybody, but his mindset was such that he loved to go for the KO, because he could.

Tommy Hearns, with a bit more ring smarts & stamina could have been the greatest fighter of all time, possibly.

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 11 Apr 2011, 10:13
by gilgamesh
I could see Tommy outboxing Jake if he did absolutely everything right. Jake Lamotta though would have a whole lot of oppurtunities in there and I think in a 15 round fight, he'd eventually break down Hearns and stop him late. I agree with pretty much everyone though that Hagler would've been too much for Lamotta, but it would've been a great fight with neither guy giving an inch all the way.

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 12 Apr 2011, 02:42
by jaclem2
..i think lamotta would have walked right through hearns punches and had him going back and finally falling from exhaustion. as for hearns' power....lamotta took everything bob satterfield had...BOB SATTERFIELD...and went on to stop him. jake showed the reporters covering that fight that he had bumps on his head from satterfields bombs.

lamotta - hagler? hard to pick. i think hagler would win if he'd stay in his boxing mode and outpoint jake. both had great chins, but hagler was the much harder hitter and i don't think lamotta would be able to hurt hagler. it would be a war...lamotta banging at hagler's body and always coming forward...hagler's over-all skill prevailing. 15 round decision.

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 12 Apr 2011, 05:38
by man
zslayton wrote:... but IMO if a fighter won't quit then don't stop the fight on a cut or eye swelling.
my guess is fighters have too much adrenaline to trust
their judgement. take vitali against lewis.

it is enough that they get dumb, they don't have to get
blind as well.

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 12 Apr 2011, 05:41
by man
Syntax Error wrote:The thing about Hearns, he had the remarkable ability to outbox just about anybody, but his mindset was such that he loved to go for the KO, because he could.

Tommy Hearns, with a bit more ring smarts & stamina could have been the greatest fighter of all time, possibly.
whenever i watch him against leonard in their first, i
find it hard to believe how he could fall into the trap
that leonard prepared for several rounds. finally hearns
opened up again in full confidence ...

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 12 Apr 2011, 05:49
by Ezzard
I’d pick Hagler’s all-round game to beat Jake but I think it would be razor thin. Hagler liked come forward fighters but had issues with men with great physical strength and this is what La Motta had.

I had Hagler – Antuofermo about 10-5 and I see La Motta taking 2 more rounds from Marvin.

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 12 Apr 2011, 19:06
by Crease
gilgamesh wrote:I could see Tommy outboxing Jake if he did absolutely everything right.
I agree. And I'm surprised that others haven't brought this point up before. :TU:

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 13 Apr 2011, 11:38
by The End
I know all of you will disagree but I think Hearns knocks Lamotta out.

Lamotta did have a great chin but he is still human. I think he's tasting canvas in this one and I also think Lamotta is over rated.

Go ahead let the flaming begin

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 13 Apr 2011, 17:42
by Syntax Error
The End wrote:I know all of you will disagree but I think Hearns knocks Lamotta out.

Lamotta did have a great chin but he is still human. I think he's tasting canvas in this one and I also think Lamotta is over rated.

Go ahead let the flaming begin
Nobody with more than 1 brain cell is going to flame you for having an opinion on a hypothetical matchup.

You're entitled to think that LaMotta was overrated, that's your perogative & one I don't personally agree with, but one thing that was not overrated about LaMotta was his ability to take a punch.

Judging by the way his career panned out, I sincerely doubt that ANYBODY, including Tommy Hearns would have KOd a fit & well LaMotta.

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 18 Apr 2011, 15:37
by keithmoonhangover
Syntax Error wrote:
The End wrote:I know all of you will disagree but I think Hearns knocks Lamotta out.

Lamotta did have a great chin but he is still human. I think he's tasting canvas in this one and I also think Lamotta is over rated.

Go ahead let the flaming begin
Nobody with more than 1 brain cell is going to flame you for having an opinion on a hypothetical matchup.

You're entitled to think that LaMotta was overrated, that's your perogative & one I don't personally agree with, but one thing that was not overrated about LaMotta was his ability to take a punch.

Judging by the way his career panned out, I sincerely doubt that ANYBODY, including Tommy Hearns would have KOd a fit & well LaMotta.
Ketchel would have stopped Lamotta. Jake wasn't hard to hit and Stanley could hit very very hard.

I am a gigantic Hearns fan, but at Middleweight, I think Hearns strugggles with Jake style wise.

The Hearns that fought Hagler would have punched himself out early and the Hearns that beat Roldan was too vulnerable.

I think Lamotta would take him out in the later rounds.

Re: Jake LaMotta Against Tommy Hearns And Marvin Hagler At 160

Posted: 19 Apr 2011, 09:40
by Ezzard
As aggressive fighters go I always considered that La Motta had a good defence.

Would love to hear from some of the older guys on here on this.