BoxRec

zslayton wrote:

Big Bad John wrote:Punch output. That's one thing Jones never had. He'd always have trouble with a swarmer.

Yep. This is true. He did and still does have problems with guys that come right at him, crowd him, and throw a high volume of punches. However, I still give him the nod over Lamotta.

this couldn't be more false. if you're only looking at the g. johnson fight then ok. if you do that, you need to judge every fighter by their worst performance late in their career. jones had the same game plan for every fight in his prime. he hurt the guy in the first round and if he stayed aggressive, jones would knock him out. if they didn't take any chances after they were hurt, jones would usually cruise to a decision win.

zslayton wrote:

Ezzard wrote:How can you compare his abilities with fighters from the past if he was using substances that they did not have access too?

You can compare his achievements and you can say he was great in his day. But you can't compare physical qualities and draw any conclusions that are worth making.

The comparison can be made and is made on this board on nearly every post. In nearly all post on the 'boxers of the past' forum the old gets compared with the new, the then with the now. RJJ got caught taking something (ephedra or andro) and that makes his entire career a question mark? If that is the case then I question every fighter from before the 1970's since organized crime had their hands in the game (or so many claim). What about all the fighters that haven't been caught yet still used performance enhancing substances? I'm sure there are many more that used and still use them that have yet to be caught than those that have been outed for it. If that is how we are looking at things then everyone from every era is guilty of something and none of them can be compared to anyone other than the fighters of their time. If that is the case then we should just shut down the message boards and let everyone keep their opinions to themselves.

Yet again we go off topic. This post is about RJJ fighting Jake Lamotta at 170 pounds. I've are stated my case earlier in the thread so I'm done with it.

good comment zslayton. guys like ezzard (a noted jones hater) and big bad john (a guy who got kicked off the message boards for using the n-word. i'll infer from that he is a racist, kind of like he infers that jones cheated in all his fights) always have to say something about steroids anytime jones is mentioned on these boards. jones tested positive for something that was legal to the public at the time and that's it. this is unfortunate but this isn't like major league baseball. jones has to be tested in every fight with no union to back him and if he ever tested positive for something that was illegal to the public, i would have a major problem with it.

how come nobody has a problem with lamotta throwing a fight???? if jones threw a fight he'd be put in jail and would be crucified for it by the media. people don't talk about it much because lamotta fought in the good 'ol days. instead some people want to talk about something jones tested for that was available in supplements at the time. to be fair, let's start to look at all fighters flaws, in and out of the ring.

anyway, back to the actual topic. jones W15 lamotta. lamotta was a tough sob.

Taking steroids has tainted Jones's career. Look at Lloyd Marshall, who's mentioned in the "Who should be in the IBHOF" topic. He beat five IBHOF fighters, many of them 10 to 20 pounds heavier than he was, but he's not in the Hall in part due to his connections to organized crime.

I'm a huge Roy Jones fan. Not only have I seen him fight live, but I've seen him rap live. He'll always be not only one of my favorite fighters, but one of my favorite expert commentators. BUT he enjoyed a few advantages LaMotta didn't, like a 168-pound weight class, day-before weigh-ins and steroids. It's hard to compare the two. Also, it's funny to watch people squirm and try to claim that Jones didn't take steroids, when he did.

Big Bad John wrote:Taking steroids has tainted Jones's career. Look at Lloyd Marshall, who's mentioned in the "Who should be in the IBHOF" topic. He beat five IBHOF fighters, many of them 10 to 20 pounds heavier than he was, but he's not in the Hall in part due to his connections to organized crime.

I'm a huge Roy Jones fan. Not only have I seen him fight live, but I've seen him rap live. He'll always be not only one of my favorite fighters, but one of my favorite expert commentators. BUT he enjoyed a few advantages LaMotta didn't, like a 168-pound weight class, day-before weigh-ins and steroids. It's hard to compare the two. Also, it's funny to watch people squirm and try to claim that Jones didn't take steroids, when he did.

i believe all of this like i believe everything else you've written. no squirming here, just looking at facts.

How would Jones deal with LaMotta's punch output? He had trouble with fighters like Tarver and Johnson, who threw a lot of punches at him.

Big Bad John wrote:How would Jones deal with LaMotta's punch output? He had trouble with fighters like Tarver and Johnson, who threw a lot of punches at him.

ok a weight drained, post-heavyweight jones would have trouble with a prime lamotta. johnson threw a lot of punches, tarver doesn't throw many punches at all. that's why roy won their first fight.

roy would have been way too big for lamotta. lamotta lost to 5'5" robert villemain. not sure he'd have been able to cope with jones. plus he lost 5 out of 6 with a much smaller robinson.

bjermaine wrote:ok a weight drained, post-heavyweight jones would have trouble with a prime lamotta. johnson threw a lot of punches, tarver doesn't throw many punches at all. that's why roy won their first fight.

Did you see Jones-Tarver I? I'm not saying that Tarver won it, but when he cornered Jones and threw a lot of punches, Jones didn't have too many answers besides covering up.

bjermaine wrote:roy would have been way too big for lamotta. lamotta lost to 5'5" robert villemain. not sure he'd have been able to cope with jones. plus he lost 5 out of 6 with a much smaller robinson.

I'm glad you have access to Boxrec. Otherwise, you'd have nothing to add to this conversation. That's obviously all you know about boxing. The Associated Press listed Villemain at 5'6.5"; I have no idea where you got that 5'5" bullshit. Boxrec lists him at 5'5.5", but Boxrec is notoriously unreliable when it comes to both heights and European records. Further, you make excuses for Jones - being past his prime during all his losses - but at the same time, you don't account for LaMotta's prime, which was in the early 1940s.

I would give the nod to Jones. IMO, from having seen several laMotta fights and from analysing his career record and from having seen several Jones fights,if they had fought six times maybe LaMotta would have won once. LaMotta was too short and his boxing style would have made him very vulnerable to Jones counter punches. I would say that if the fights were set for 15 rounds maybe LaMotta would have an edge in the later rounds because he actually fought several fights past 12 and Jones never. IMO, the best indicator that Jones would have won is that laMotta lost 5 of six bouts to Robinson and, to me, Jones would have posed the same problems for laMotta that Robinson did.

Two of LaMotta's losses to Robinson were controversial. Let's break down the six fights:

• I: Clear win for Robinson
• II: Clear win for LaMotta. Robinson is saved by the bell in the 8th.
• III: Controversial win for Robinson, as LaMotta had him badly hurt and down in the 7th.
• IV: Close win for Robinson, about a 6-4 decision.
• V: Split decision win for Robinson. The crowd boos the decision because Robinson backpedaled for the last third of the fight before rallying to win the 12th.
• VI: Brutal win for Robinson. LaMotta is clearly past his prime.

If you look at the series of five fights they had when LaMotta was in his prime, they were very hotly contested, and either man could have taken three of those fights. Robinson clearly caught all the breaks, and was lucky to win four of those bouts. I think your argument is borne of ignorance, Harvey Levy.

Still, LaMotta had ridiculous weight advantages over Robinson.

I would favor Jones, though I suppose I wouldn't be surprised if LaMotta managed to win.

We've seen LaMotta deal with uber-slick fighers, but when has Roy Jones dealt with a pressure fighter like LaMotta?

Big Bad John wrote:Two of LaMotta's losses to Robinson were controversial. Let's break down the six fights:

• I: Clear win for Robinson
• II: Clear win for LaMotta. Robinson is saved by the bell in the 8th.
• III: Controversial win for Robinson, as LaMotta had him badly hurt and down in the 7th.
• IV: Close win for Robinson, about a 6-4 decision.
• V: Split decision win for Robinson. The crowd boos the decision because Robinson backpedaled for the last third of the fight before rallying to win the 12th.
• VI: Brutal win for Robinson. LaMotta is clearly past his prime.

If you look at the series of five fights they had when LaMotta was in his prime, they were very hotly contested, and either man could have taken three of those fights. Robinson clearly caught all the breaks, and was lucky to win four of those bouts. I think your argument is borne of ignorance, Harvey Levy.

There's no controversy about Robinson's win in fight III. The record clearly indicates that it was a solid win for Robinson

It was a polished performance for Robinson, who outboxed LaMotta most of the way with a dazzling left jab and jarring uppercuts..

Fight IV you have a 6 - 4 as if that's the only correct decision when the actual judges decisions where 6 - 4, 6 - 3 - 1, and 7 - 1 - 2. LaMotta won 8 rounds out of the three Judges cards which would average out to less than three rounds won for LaMotta while Robinson averaged over six rounds per judge. A clear victory for Robinson.

Fight V could have gone either way but it didn't. Robinson got the victory and there's no rational reason to think that Robinson got all the breaks unless you're a biased LaMotta supporter. To say that Robinson was

lucky to win 4 of those bouts

just brings out your bias for LaMotta.

Fight VI was a huge win for Robinson against a LaMotta that was still in his prime, age wise. That LaMotta faded so quickly after Fight VI may be due to the punishment Robinson gave. But let's look at a common opponent for both and see how they fared. Let's look at Fritzie Zivik, a tall light MW.

LaMotta was in his prime when he fought a well past his prime Zivik on four occassions and Zivik could have won three of the bouts. The record has it LaMotta 3 Zivik 1 but two of those LaMotta wins were controversial while the Zivik win was a SD. Now Robinson fought Zivik twice before the Zivik-LaMotta fights and beat him twice, the second by TKO in the 10th something LaMotta failed to score against Zivik.

Of their six fights LaMotta won one and could have won another and in all their fights LaMotta outweighed Robinson by a margin of 14 lbs in their first three bouts, by 9 lbs in their next two and by 7 in their last bout. This would not be the case if laMotta had faced a natural 168 pounder in Jones case. IMO, Jones in a cakewalk.

Big Bad John wrote:We've seen LaMotta deal with uber-slick fighers, but when has Roy Jones dealt with a pressure fighter like LaMotta?

Yeah, right. I already mentioned the Zivik fights and two very slick opponents, Robert Villemain and Laurent Dauthville gave laMotta fits.

Harvey Levy wrote:

Big Bad John wrote:We've seen LaMotta deal with uber-slick fighers, but when has Roy Jones dealt with a pressure fighter like LaMotta?

Yeah, right. I already mentioned the Zivik fights and two very slick opponents, Robert Villemain and Laurent Dauthville gave laMotta fits.

Villemain and Zivic slick?!?!?! Go back to school, son.

Big Bad John wrote:

Harvey Levy wrote:

Big Bad John wrote:We've seen LaMotta deal with uber-slick fighers, but when has Roy Jones dealt with a pressure fighter like LaMotta?

Yeah, right. I already mentioned the Zivik fights and two very slick opponents, Robert Villemain and Laurent Dauthville gave laMotta fits.

Villemain and Zivic slick?!?!?! Go back to school, son.

That's it!! That's all you got, BBJ? What's a slick fighter in your opinion?

Look, you're good at searching the internet and Boxrec, but come on. Fritzie Zivic? You didn't even spell his name right. He's the one who said, "I'm boxing, not playing the piano." And he's a slick fighter? Slick at what? Thowing elbows? Headbutting?

Big Bad John wrote:Look, you're good at searching the internet and Boxrec, but come on. Fritzie Zivic? You didn't even spell his name right. He's the one who said, "I'm boxing, not playing the piano." And he's a slick fighter? Slick at what? Thowing elbows? Headbutting?

I didn't say Zivic was slick. I used Zivic as an example of a common opponent between Robinson and LaMotta. It's a way of measuring performances, not ideal because styles make the fight. So, again. What's your definition of slick?

A slick fighter's hard for anyone to hit, like Billy Conn, Charley Burley, Pernell Whitaker, Floyd Mayweather... Villemain wasn't slick. He was more of a take-a-punch-to-land-two fighter. He was there to be hit. You obviously know nothing about his career.