BoxRec

I think this would be quite a battle. Who takes it?

Fulmer on points.

Great fight!

Roco wrote:I think this would be quite a battle. Who takes it?

I'm assuming both at ther bests? The LaMotta of the Cerdan fight and early Robinson bouts whips any version of Gene Fullmer. LaMotta,cuter, easily as strong, wins a unanimous decision...

I think Lamotta wins this by a few points, but it'd be one hell of a fight. Both were tough as all hell and rarely took a back step.

i think the bronx bull takes fulmer out in 9

misterpunch wrote:i think the bronx bull takes fulmer out in 9

I think predictions dont come much more ridiculous.

misterpunch wrote:i think the bronx bull takes fulmer out in 9

On the under card I like Cory Spinks to stop Carlos palomino in 7.

This is a tough fight to call, LaMotta is a bit bigger but Gene was equally as tough and possibly a little more skilled. Close decision either way, probably a slight lean to LaMotta.

Jake Lamotta for me, but both where tough as they come!

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

misterpunch wrote:i think the bronx bull takes fulmer out in 9

On the under card I like Cory Spinks to stop Carlos palomino in 7.

This is a tough fight to call, LaMotta is a bit bigger but Gene was equally as tough and possibly a little more skilled. Close decision either way, probably a slight lean to LaMotta.

Funny how the passage of time distorts, the relative merits of fighters. During Gene Fullmers time
[after Jake LaMotta's heyday], the question of LaMotta or Fullmer ? [primes of course],would be greeted with a snicker. The middleweights ,such as Cerdan, Tony Zale, Ray Robinson, Randy Turpin, Georgie Abrams, and Jake LaMotta, were considered a step above the likes of Gene Fullmer.
I saw all of the above boxers at their bests and I would take each one over the strong but awkward Gene Fullmer...Take my word for it. A pre-war Tony Zale, or Marcel Cerdan puts a beating on the brave but limited Gene Fullmer IMO...

beaujack wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

misterpunch wrote:i think the bronx bull takes fulmer out in 9

On the under card I like Cory Spinks to stop Carlos palomino in 7.

This is a tough fight to call, LaMotta is a bit bigger but Gene was equally as tough and possibly a little more skilled. Close decision either way, probably a slight lean to LaMotta.

Funny how the passage of time distorts, the relative merits of fighters. During Gene Fullmers time
[after Jake LaMotta's heyday], the question of LaMotta or Fullmer ? [primes of course],would be greeted with a snicker. The middleweights ,such as Cerdan, Tony Zale, Ray Robinson, Randy Turpin, Georgie Abrams, and Jake LaMotta, were considered a step above the likes of Gene Fullmer.
I saw all of the above boxers at their bests and I would take each one over the strong but awkward Gene Fullmer...Take my word for it. A pre-war Tony Zale, or Marcel Cerdan puts a beating on the brave but limited Gene Fullmer IMO...

I agree with most of what you say, but to be honest, I would consider (at their best of course) Cerdan, Zale, Robinson and probably Turpin to be a step above LaMotta, so it seems a very good fight. I would have to think more before making a final say, but i think it is going to a split decision, and be a great fight. I go with Fulmer, only because i think that Lamotta gets a little over rated because of the De Niro factor.

beaujack wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

misterpunch wrote:i think the bronx bull takes fulmer out in 9

On the under card I like Cory Spinks to stop Carlos palomino in 7.

This is a tough fight to call, LaMotta is a bit bigger but Gene was equally as tough and possibly a little more skilled. Close decision either way, probably a slight lean to LaMotta.

Funny how the passage of time distorts, the relative merits of fighters. During Gene Fullmers time
[after Jake LaMotta's heyday], the question of LaMotta or Fullmer ? [primes of course],would be greeted with a snicker. The middleweights ,such as Cerdan, Tony Zale, Ray Robinson, Randy Turpin, Georgie Abrams, and Jake LaMotta, were considered a step above the likes of Gene Fullmer.
I saw all of the above boxers at their bests and I would take each one over the strong but awkward Gene Fullmer...Take my word for it. A pre-war Tony Zale, or Marcel Cerdan puts a beating on the brave but limited Gene Fullmer IMO...

There’s no doubt that Zale and Cerdan were fantastic boxes who often get overlooked today. That was a great generation of boxers.

Not that this means too much but LaMotta and Fullmer both fought series of fights with Robinson and Lamotta fought the better (if sometimes smaller) version with similar success.

beaujack wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

misterpunch wrote:i think the bronx bull takes fulmer out in 9

On the under card I like Cory Spinks to stop Carlos palomino in 7.

This is a tough fight to call, LaMotta is a bit bigger but Gene was equally as tough and possibly a little more skilled. Close decision either way, probably a slight lean to LaMotta.

Funny how the passage of time distorts, the relative merits of fighters. During Gene Fullmers time
[after Jake LaMotta's heyday], the question of LaMotta or Fullmer ? [primes of course],would be greeted with a snicker. The middleweights ,such as Cerdan, Tony Zale, Ray Robinson, Randy Turpin, Georgie Abrams, and Jake LaMotta, were considered a step above the likes of Gene Fullmer.
I saw all of the above boxers at their bests and I would take each one over the strong but awkward Gene Fullmer...Take my word for it. A pre-war Tony Zale, or Marcel Cerdan puts a beating on the brave but limited Gene Fullmer IMO...

Fighters aren't always appreciated properly in their time. While I certainly appreciate the input from someone who watched them all fight when I never had the chance. I'm comfortable with my opinion. No way in hell LaMotta stops Fullmer. They could fight twenty times and that would never happen.

Ezzard wrote:

beaujack wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: On the under card I like Cory Spinks to stop Carlos palomino in 7.

This is a tough fight to call, LaMotta is a bit bigger but Gene was equally as tough and possibly a little more skilled. Close decision either way, probably a slight lean to LaMotta.

Funny how the passage of time distorts, the relative merits of fighters. During Gene Fullmers time
[after Jake LaMotta's heyday], the question of LaMotta or Fullmer ? [primes of course],would be greeted with a snicker. The middleweights ,such as Cerdan, Tony Zale, Ray Robinson, Randy Turpin, Georgie Abrams, and Jake LaMotta, were considered a step above the likes of Gene Fullmer.
I saw all of the above boxers at their bests and I would take each one over the strong but awkward Gene Fullmer...Take my word for it. A pre-war Tony Zale, or Marcel Cerdan puts a beating on the brave but limited Gene Fullmer IMO...

There’s no doubt that Zale and Cerdan were fantastic boxes who often get overlooked today. That was a great generation of boxers.

Not that this means too much but LaMotta and Fullmer both fought series of fights with Robinson and Lamotta fought the better (if sometimes smaller) version with similar success.

Cerdan didn't face the competition that Fullmer did, his talent was obvious but he didn't test against as many great fighters as Gene did. Brave can overcome "limited" inside the ropes.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

beaujack wrote: Funny how the passage of time distorts, the relative merits of fighters. During Gene Fullmers time
[after Jake LaMotta's heyday], the question of LaMotta or Fullmer ? [primes of course],would be greeted with a snicker. The middleweights ,such as Cerdan, Tony Zale, Ray Robinson, Randy Turpin, Georgie Abrams, and Jake LaMotta, were considered a step above the likes of Gene Fullmer.
I saw all of the above boxers at their bests and I would take each one over the strong but awkward Gene Fullmer...Take my word for it. A pre-war Tony Zale, or Marcel Cerdan puts a beating on the brave but limited Gene Fullmer IMO...

There’s no doubt that Zale and Cerdan were fantastic boxes who often get overlooked today. That was a great generation of boxers.

Not that this means too much but LaMotta and Fullmer both fought series of fights with Robinson and Lamotta fought the better (if sometimes smaller) version with similar success.

Cerdan didn't face the competition that Fullmer did, his talent was obvious but he didn't test against as many great fighters as Gene did. Brave can overcome "limited" inside the ropes.

I would take Cerdan to beat Fullmer but it would be close.

Cerdan gets rated highly by people who lived through the era. Interesting how perspectives change.

I admit I didn't think much to Fullmer, but watching some of those fights again I realised that he's easy to dismiss and yet so very effective. I got it wrong.

fullmer - brave strong limited awkward..he also ran out of ideas very rapidly. i stick to la motta getting the job done - maybe not 9 - but before 15

how about lamotta and tribuani (who in my humble was better than fullmer)

misterpunch wrote:how about lamotta and tribuani (who in my humble was better than fullmer)

Are you talking about Al Tribuani ?

This fight would be very intense and evenly matched. Unless there is a very bad cut, there is not way that it would not go the distance. Both had great chins and neither had the power to put the other away.

LaMotta wins in a bloody affair.

Crease wrote:LaMotta wins in a bloody affair.

x2

yes of course there is only one tribuani - the great al - never discussed on boxrec

misterpunch wrote:yes of course there is only one tribuani - the great al - never discussed on boxrec

M,tell me about Al Tribuani, a name from the past.? A great action fighter from WW2 era,who had 2 wars with Al Bummy Davis...

Ezzard wrote:
There’s no doubt that Zale and Cerdan were fantastic boxes who often get overlooked today. That was a great generation of boxers.

Not that this means too much but LaMotta and Fullmer both fought series of fights with Robinson and Lamotta fought the better (if sometimes smaller) version with similar success.

Not true............Lamotta won one of six against the prime Robinson. Fullmer is the only fighter while Robinson was still relevant to have a winning record against him going 2-1-1 in their four fights (but two were in '61 after he went 1-2 vs Paul Pender). Fullmer's only loss was the 'perfect left hook'.

Having said that.........Tony Zale and Rocky Graciano were steered clear of both Lamotta and Robinson by their management in the pre and post-war 1940's. Which is partly why Robinson and Lamotta kept fighting each other. They didn't have a whole lot of other options.

I think Lamotta beats Fullmer in prime vs prime because if the prime version of Lamotta did show up, I think he just wears him down and outmuscles him in likely a very ugly fight.

I also think Lamotta he beats Zale or Graciano at any point. Cerdan.....well, he did beat him. But Cerdan had a crazy record of 111-4, with two losses by DQ at WW. But his record isn't quite the same as Robinson's at that mark......he fought almost entirely in Europe....

I agree Lamotta is over-rated due to that movie. But it's more over-glorified than over-rated. But all those guys were tough and it's too bad many never did get to face each other. Lamotta was supposed to get a shot at Graziano or Zale but the 'Billy Fox' debacle ended up costing him that shot, either of which I think he wins........and I think he would have beaten Cerdan if not for the unfortunate accident..........but after that he got too lazy, the 'St. Valentine's Day Massacre' was actually a damn good fight despite Lamotta being out of shape and barely making weight......at least up until the 9th round or so. Virtually all the Lamotta-Robinson fights were quite close..........

All fighters in the conversation were at least two steps below the very best Robinson, Fullmer and Basilio a step below them...........but all tough as hell.....no shame being two or three steps lower than the best ever, eh? though........

A lot of interesting points here.

I think when Ezzard says "similar success", he mean that the LaMotta-Robinson fights were all competitive with Robinson being a little better most of the time. Fullmer had the edge in the series with Robinson in another great series.

I agree that LaMotta would have beaten Graziano. Post World War II he probably would have beaten Zale. Pre World War II could have gone either way.

Considering that Robinson (while still very good) wasn't as good when he fought Fullmer, I think comparing LaMotta and Fullmer based on their fights with Robinson is a wash.

There were a lot of great middleweights in the 1940s and 1950s
At their best Robinson was the best of this bunch. LaMotta, Fullmer, Zale, and Cerdan were all very close. You could probably add Turpin as well. Basilio was probably a half step behind them; Graziano was definitely the worst.

Alp understands.

LaMotta could have got more than one decision without it being a robbery.

I'm not sure that he was out of shape for the final Robinson fight. I think he left it on the scales. He never made 160 again. He had been killing himself to get down for some time.

He may well have lost a little fire once becoming champ. He wouldn't be the first to do so. But he was as up for the Robinson fight as a fighter could be. He had a wonderful 10th round (from memory) in which he had Robinson in real trouble. But Jake seemed to empty the tank in that round and making the weight took its toll.