BoxRec

Who do you think would have won if Cerdan didnt hurt his shoulder?? Burt surgar thinks Cerdan is the better fight would have easily beat Lamotta. I find that hard to believe Lamottas a tough guy. I think Lamotta still would have won, the guy cant be knocked out, he has the power, and a lot of heart as she showed against laurenthill dauthillle.

..it was lamotta's strengthin the bulling around that is part of boxing that injured cerdan's shoulder. plus, lamotta had a busted knuckle and nat fleischer thought the injuries equalled out.

lamotta wins every time they meet.

[quote="Jaclem]lamotta wins every time they meet.[/quote]

Really, was lamotta that much the superior of the two, or did he just have Cerdan's number?

I'm too young to have seen either fight but I've seen some film of both, though not of when they fought each other. Cerdan looks awesome if a little crude a little like Duran at lightweight or maybe Henry Armstrong, his KO of Zale is brutal.

Lamotta also looks formidable, with better boxing skills than I expected, probably because I was expecting De Niro from raging bull.

Jaclem, how do you think Cerdan would have done vs Robinson?

Ive always felt that LaMotta was far too much for Cerdan. People forget that LaMotta was beating the crap out of Cerdan BEFORE Cerdan ever hurt his shoulder and after he hurt his shoulder Cerdan continued to use the arm, films show this. Cerdan looks great but all the films we have of him are against Euro stiffs and once good fighters past their prime. What we dont get to see is him winning a gift decision over Anton Raadick (who LaMotta beat the hell out of) and Georgie Abrams. Dont get me wrong Cerdan is a beautiful fighter but he might have been made to look more imposing by wins over less than stellar opposition.

cerdan vs robinson is one of those matches that didn't happen because fate stepped in. i'm on record as saying i think robinson's greatest years against middleweights was when he was still a welter. he began to slip just after he beat lamotta for the title but was so great that he was still a magnificent fighter.

cerdan was a machine-gun puncher and kept the pressure on and at a time when ronbinson was in his comeback era i think cerdan would have given him a competitive fight....but only after the sugar man had slowed down. at their peaks...robinson wins...probably by a knockout because cerdan would have pushed him hard.

re: lamotta/cerdan....i say lamotta every time because jake was so strong and cerdan's style would have had him right there for jake to bully around and hammer with body punches and just keep on coming.

i do wish we had seen cerdan against more american fighters. he's really hard to assess.

Cerdan probably couldn't have stopped LaMotta, but few could. If it went the distance I feel Cerdan would have taken it on points. He was a far better all round fighter than LaMotta.

Thanks for the response Jaclem

I'm sorry boys I have to correct you all!

I've spoken at great lengths with a man that actually fought Cerdan (albeit the outcome was decided in the negotiations and on the scales) and if you look at Cerdan footage he is a fighter that "there can-NOT be a moment or 'reason' for any weakness!

Although Jake could not be put down, Jake was not a KO puncher and he was beat by some good rugged fighters, CERDAN could BOX/PUNCH, Box-fighter as it is more acurately called and he did beat the best American's in Holman Williams and Tony Zale... to say nothing of his unbelievable record (???)

Do you really think in an age of ONE World Champion, Dozens and even Hundreds of PRO-fights, THEE 'single' greatest period in Boxing History, that his or any other TOP PERFORMERS - opponents weren't of a better class "wake-up" lads!!!

CERDAN over Jake... "EVERYTIME" ..!

That argument is laughable at best when you consider that Cerdan had never fought anyone as big and strong and young and talented as LaMotta. When you consider that Zale and Williams were long past their primes. When you consider that "Cerdan over LaMotta everytime..." EXCEPT the time they actually fought when LaMotta stopped Cerdan. LOL.

..klompton..thank you for saving me the time to correct jimglen's specious "correction." did it in fewer words than i usually use, too.

klompton wrote:That argument is laughable at best when you consider that Cerdan had never fought anyone as big and strong and young and talented as LaMotta. When you consider that Zale and Williams were long past their primes. When you consider that "Cerdan over LaMotta everytime..." EXCEPT the time they actually fought when LaMotta stopped Cerdan. LOL.

Cerdan probably hadn't fought anyone with as good a chin as Cerdan, but having said that can you think of a middleweight in history who could absorb as much punishment as LaMotta could and still be on his feet after 15 rounds? With regards to youth, LaMotta was 28, Cerdan 33... not exactly a huge gulf in age. In terms of talent, anyone who has seen films of the two fighters and knows anything about boxing has gotta admit Cerdan wins hands down.

LaMotta was incredibly strong and had an almost inhuman ability to absorb punishment, but he was quite one dimensional as a fighter, there was nothing particularly clever about him, and he wasn't the hardest of hitters. He simply had tremendous stamina and an incredible chin. And it was a dislocated shoulder, not LaMotta that stopped Cerdan!

The only way LaMotta could have beaten as talented a fighter as Cerdan was by stopping him and given that LaMotta was not a huge puncher, aside from another dislocated shoulder I couldn't see that happening. But then again anything could happen in boxing. But to rule Cerdan out simply because he hadn't fought many Americans is to defy all logic and ignore the extra attributes he had over LaMotta as a fighter.

*Alex* wrote:

klompton wrote:That argument is laughable at best when you consider that Cerdan had never fought anyone as big and strong and young and talented as LaMotta. When you consider that Zale and Williams were long past their primes. When you consider that "Cerdan over LaMotta everytime..." EXCEPT the time they actually fought when LaMotta stopped Cerdan. LOL.

"With regards to youth, LaMotta was 28, Cerdan 33... not exactly a huge gulf in age."

Not until you consider that LaMotta was a natural 175 pounder who fought at that weight most of his amateur and pro career. Cerdan had fought at as low as 143 pounds. Combine that with the fact that Cerdan had been a pro for six years before LaMotta and you can easily see who had more ringwear. The point however was that Cerdans big wins against Williams and Zale came against men who were far past their best. His other big wins against Raadick and Abrams (who was also past his prime) were controversial at best.

"In terms of talent, anyone who has seen films of the two fighters and knows anything about boxing has gotta admit Cerdan wins hands down."

I dont agree with this. Cerdans talent is exhibited against mostly euro trash in the films that exist of him. Arturo Gatti looks like Ray Robinson against the bums he fights but that doesnt mean he is talented.

"LaMotta was incredibly strong and had an almost inhuman ability to absorb punishment, but he was quite one dimensional as a fighter, there was nothing particularly clever about him, and he wasn't the hardest of hitters."

Correction, LaMotta is considered one of the greatest inside fighters in the history of the sport and one of the most vicious body punchers as well. Indeed it was his body attack in the first round against Cerdan that was literally lifting the French/Algerian off the canvas.

"He simply had tremendous stamina and an incredible chin. And it was a dislocated shoulder, not LaMotta that stopped Cerdan!"

Would Cerdan have dislocated his shoulder had he been in the ring by himself? I think not. Furthermore, the dislocated shoulder couldnt be used as an excuse early in the fight when LaMotta was beating the hell out of Cerdan. After Cerdan went down and supposedly hurt his shoulder he can still be seen using the injured arm throughout the fight so Im not exactly sure how much of that was a bad shoulder and how much of it was LaMottas body attack.

"The only way LaMotta could have beaten as talented a fighter as Cerdan was by stopping him and given that LaMotta was not a huge puncher."

PLEASE! Ray Robinson was a better fighter than Cerdan at both welterweight and middleweight and LaMotta didnt need a KO to beat him. In fact LaMotta beat plenty of saavy fighters WITHOUT a KO, he was a volume puncher, not a guy who relied on one punch, thats the worst argument Ive ever heard.

"But to rule Cerdan out simply because he hadn't fought many Americans is to defy all logic and ignore the extra attributes he had over LaMotta as a fighter."

Considering America sported NINE out of the top ten challengers for the middleweight crown at the time of Cerdans challenge for the title Id say its very telling that his biggest wins against American fighters came against two who were unranked and past their prime (Abrams and Williams, Abrams arguably won the fight) champion Zale who was also past his prime, and Raadick who was rated NINTH and was robbed. Thats right the only young strong fighter Cerdan faced in the top ten was Raadick and he probably deserved to lose. When he faced LaMotta he was stoppped. That says enough for me. As for the attributes he posessed in excess of LaMotta I cant think of one. Allan Rosenfeld who authored the book on Charley Burley was at the LaMotta Cerdan fight and told me in his own words that while he wouldnt go so far as to say Cerdan wasnt injured he would say that Cerdan was getting an awful beating before the injury and that injury or not he wasnt beating LaMotta. Tony Zales sparring partner Leon Thompson told me face to face that he sparred with Cerdan in Chicago for reporters before Cerdan fought Raadick, he found him to be very nice but he didnt think either Cerdan or Zale would have EVER beaten LaMotta. This is coming from a guy who remained a lifelong friend of Zales. Every person Ive ever talked to who attended the LaMotta-Cerdan fight said that injury or not Cerdan was getting a beating and the best he could have hoped for was a decision loss under optimal circumstances. That says enough for me.

Klompton, your are very "SUBJECTIVE" and NOT-AT-ALL, realistic, complimentary or FAIR (accurate)...
Cerdan was also past his prime when he fought Zale and WON the title CONVINCINGLY and likewise, when he fought LaMotta...

All this foul' talk about Euro trash demonstrates your ONE-sidedness and completely arrogant and ignorant knowledge/respect for some "GREAT" fighters...

In an age of only ONE World Champion and a period when fighters fought hundreds of fights - CHAMPIONS and Top Contenders, from Boxings "leading" Nations were "CLASS" not all ALL-Time Greats but "good and Great" world Class fighters!

One only has to do "proper" research, which includes CROSS REFERENCES of Fight Records to see who all these fighters fought and how well they stood up both in Victory and defeat!!!
Last but not least "actual" fight reports or film of some of these men Tells and Shows in most cases great fighters...

And Klompton this is THEE most important fact of ALL " Given the opportunity to MEET and "COMPETE RUGULARILY", (which they weren't) Top Brits and Euro fighters of that era... DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE BOXING HISTORY WOULD REMAIN THE SAME, not even ALTERED a little??? Come on Klompton YOU wake up!!!

The Cerdan/LaMotta "film" CLEARLY shows Cerdan being PUSHED causing the injury and FAVOURING his right arm THROUGH THE REST OF THE FIGHT!!!

You know I never thought of it that way. Your right. If Roderick got a shot at Armstrong, Milligan got a shot at Walker, Farr got a shot at Louis, Carpentier got a shot at Dempsey, Moore got a shot at Greb, Cooper got a shot at Ali, Bruno got a shot at Tyson, etc etc. The entire history of boxing would have been radically different... Oh wait, those things did happen and...

“Cerdan had fought at as low as 143 pounds. Combine that with the fact that Cerdan had been a pro for six years before LaMotta and you can easily see who had more ringwear.”

You could call it ringwear, but equally many would say Cerdan had more experience than LaMotta and knew the game inside-out. I think it’s clear that by 33 Cerdan was past his peak, however that is not to say he wouldn’t have beaten LaMotta. He was certainly far from finished.


“Correction, LaMotta is considered one of the greatest inside fighters in the history of the sport and one of the most vicious body punchers as well.”

Did LaMotta have fast reflexes, good footwork, a good defence or the ability to adapt his fighting style, as required to out box a tricky opponent? No, he was terrifically strong and able to absorb huge amounts of punishment, but fought with the same flat footed style, constantly coming forward and with little variation.


“Cerdans talent is exhibited against mostly euro trash in the films that exist of him.”

I think this is both unfair and insulting to the fighters it refers. America had a monopoly of the boxing world titles and rankings. For a European to be considered even half decent let alone earn a shot at a world title he would have to be something very special. Cerdan had to wait till he was 32 to be allowed a shot at a world title, which he deserved years earlier.


“Would Cerdan have dislocated his shoulder had he been in the ring by himself? I think not. Furthermore, the dislocated shoulder couldnt be used as an excuse early in the fight when LaMotta was beating the hell out of Cerdan.”

The point is that no fighter can be anywhere close to their best with such a huge impairment. And therefore from the point of the injury onwards LaMotta was not fighting a Cerdan anywhere near his best. If anything, it’s remarkable and a testament to his courage and ability that Cerdan fought on as long as he did with the injury.

The case for both fighters could be argued all day. I think LaMotta, with his all-action style was a spectacular fighter to watch and was one of the toughest men ever to grace a boxing ring. But he didn’t have the talent of Cerdan and in an even fight would have been out-pointed. It is a shame that an all time great like Cerdan is often hugely under-rated, basically because of his nationality.

klompton wrote:You know I never thought of it that way. Your right. If Roderick got a shot at Armstrong, Milligan got a shot at Walker, Farr got a shot at Louis, Carpentier got a shot at Dempsey, Moore got a shot at Greb, Cooper got a shot at Ali, Bruno got a shot at Tyson, etc etc. The entire history of boxing would have been radically different... Oh wait, those things did happen and...

By covering 70 years, looking at the full range of weights you've come up with a handful of Europeans who got world title shots. How about the countless American fighters who got title shots ahead of the Europeans?

Exactly Alex!

Klompton is being "selective" again... Purposefully IGNORING the key word and "fact" REGULARLY..!

AS the Top Americans fought each other regularly,
and the Top Brits fought each other regularly,
and the Top Europians fought each other regularly...

You don't think Boxing History would be different if they could have competed against each REGULARLY???

Lets just do this the easy way. Name me one ONE great fighter that was anywhere NEAR his prime that Cerdan BEAT...

I didnt think so.


Name me one ONE great fighter that was anywhere NEAR his prime that Cerdan FOUGHT...

I didnt think so.

So your basing his entire legacy on what he did in a handful of films against third and fourth raters and one well past his prime great fighter? That makes ZERO sense.

You got hot under the collar because I said he fought euro trash. Hey do your little cross record comparison and tell me which of those european fighters that Cerdan beat were world beaters. Turpin? Dellanoit? Walzack? Anyone else? Look at these guys record, if they didnt lose EVERY important fight in their career then the ones they won were usually marginal at best and those came years before Cerdan got ahold of them as was the case with Tenet.

And as for me being selective, LaMotta was a contender for the championship before Cerdan ever dreamed of moving up to 160, yet who got the shot first. What happened when he actually had to meet someone who wasnt shot? He lost. Its history, get a book and read about it, dont try to rewrite it.

...

Klompton,

Cerdan went 106 fights unbeaten (bar 2 disqualifications). He beat every American that was put in front of him and utterly outclassed the great Tony Zale. Admittedly Zale was past his best, but by then so was Cerdan: there was only two years between them in age and Cerdan had been a far more active fighter. Then Cerdan, stayed in with LaMotta for 10 rounds with an injured shoulder… how much of a troucing would he have given the Bronx Bull if fully fit?

You disregard Cerdan’s non-American opponents and brand them as “Euro-trash”, simply because their records have not been researched and we can not get a full picture of how good they were. One thing I can tell you, European boxing at this time was far superior to what it is today and if you are using the quality of today’s fighters as a ‘yard- stick’ then you are being very foolish. The quality and quantity of European fighters in this era, was far in excess of what we have today. To be the best in Europe and remain unbeaten for as long as Cerdan did was an incredible feat!

LaMotta himself was beaten by one of these so-called “Euro-trash” fighters in his own back yard: Robert Villemain in his next fight after facing Cerdan - something you conveniently neglect to mention! If LaMotta lost to Villemain, then by your own judgement of European fighters what does that make him?

You say LaMotta had to wait for a title shot longer than Cerdan. Well Cerdan soundly beat everyone put in front of him and went 106 fights unbeaten! By the time LaMotta faced Cerdan he had been beaten 13 times, and not always by quality opposition!

klompton wrote: Its history, get a book and read about it.

If it's written by you then I’d rather not thanks. It'd be extremely biased and selectively ignore facts!

Did Cerdan ever fight Villemain? Than why even bring him up? At first you guys say to do a cross record comparison of Cerdans opponents, when that shows they were nothing special then you say we cant truly judge how good they were. Whatever. You guys want to hang onto your fantasy that Cerdan was the shining night of Europe. Thats fine, if you need that then I wouldnt want to take it away from you. I would only add that your comment of "how bad of a trouncing would Cerdan have given LaMotta had he not been injured?" is again a joke, he wasnt doing shit with LaMotta before the injury except absorbing a brutal beating. As I said before, if he really was injured which is debatable, then maybe he lasts the distance, thats about it.

klompton wrote:Did Cerdan ever fight Villemain? Than why even bring him up?

Because he is a European fighter from the exact same era, a less succesful one than Cerdan, with nowhere near as good a record. He beat LaMotta in his next fight after Cerdan and had - according to newspaper reports and the response of a New york crowd - beaten LaMotta in their previous meeting, but was robbed of the decision.

klompton wrote:he wasnt doing shit with LaMotta before the injury except absorbing a brutal beating.?

He injured his shoulder in the first round, so how can what happened in the short space before that give any real indication as to how the fight would have turned out?

klompton wrote:As I said before, if he really was injured which is debatable, then maybe he lasts the distance, thats about it.

And you’re entitled to your own opinion, but it amazes me how you can say anything with such certainty when talking about two top fighters in a sport where anything can happen. I couldn't say for certain what the outcome of the re-match would have been... no one could. But with what i've got to go on, and looking at the styles and attributes of the two fighters I would say LaMotta's only real chance of beating Cerdan would have been a stoppage or KO... which given Cerdan could take a punch, and LaMotta wasn't really a knockout puncher would most likely not have happened.

Fine lets talk about Villemain. His record has more losses than Cerdans but they came against better fighters than Cerdan ever beat. Twice to Robinson, once to Sands, once to LaMotta (and he beat LaMotta, something Cerdan never did), etc. Dont act like Cerdan never lost because he lost to mutts like Dellanoit, Buttin, and Craster and those are the ones that DIDNT get fixed so he won. It could easily be argued that Villemains record isnt as pretty as Cerdan because he fought stiffer competition.

You say the only way LaMotta could beat Cerdan is by Stoppage, which he did, and I say the only way CERDAN could beat LaMotta is by stoppage which he had virtually no chance of. Tit for tat.

Now back to my question, who were these great euro fighters that Cerdan beat? Who were the guys that Cerdan beat that would have changed boxing history had they gotten a shot at the title which even eluded LaMotta for several years?

Alex, how can you agrue that European middleweights of Cerdan's era weren't trash? Look how easily LaMotta handled the Frenchman Laurent Dauthuille .