Steve Collins vs Jake La Motta
Posted: 12 Apr 2006, 09:25
Who do you think wuld win in this battle of hard men?
BoxRec
Steve Collins vs Jake La Motta
Page 1 of 2
Posted: 12 Apr 2006, 17:45
lamotta was something else. In 6 fights with ray robinson, one of the smartest, best, hardest hitting (weight for weight), and most tactical fighters, ray never put him down. They fought 53 rounds together and ray could never put him down. I dont think collins could ever stand up to the same class.
Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 10:54
LaMotta steamrolls him 
Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 16:09
Taylor wrote:LaMotta steamrolls him
LaMotta never "steamrolled" anybody(except welterweights), so why would he steamroll a tough fighter like Collins? I think Jake would win a hard fought decision but comments like this verify the fact that the movie RAGING BULL has solidified LaMotta in the public's mind as being some sort of killer in the ring(which he certainly was not). He was a good- even great- fighter, but lets not overrate him here.
Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 16:26
Collins was no hard man, the only time he had a decent oppoment to fight he retired, what a con man.
The mans a joke.
The mans a joke.
Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 16:32
Oh? A prime Mike McCallum(who called Collins his toughest opponent) doesn't qualify as a "decent opponent"?tigerpomfret wrote:Collins was no hard man, the only time he had a decent oppoment to fight he retired, what a con man.
The mans a joke.
Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 16:34
Nero3000 wrote:Taylor wrote:LaMotta steamrolls him
LaMotta never "steamrolled" anybody(except welterweights), so why would he steamroll a tough fighter like Collins? I think Jake would win a hard fought decision but comments like this verify the fact that the movie RAGING BULL has solidified LaMotta in the public's mind as being some sort of killer in the ring(which he certainly was not). He was a good- even great- fighter, but lets not overrate him here.
lamotta TKO 10 cerdan
Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 16:35
He was nothing special, I could of came out of retirement and stoped him, and actually I will if he keeps talking crap.
Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 16:37
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Nero3000 wrote:Taylor wrote:LaMotta steamrolls him
LaMotta never "steamrolled" anybody(except welterweights), so why would he steamroll a tough fighter like Collins? I think Jake would win a hard fought decision but comments like this verify the fact that the movie RAGING BULL has solidified LaMotta in the public's mind as being some sort of killer in the ring(which he certainly was not). He was a good- even great- fighter, but lets not overrate him here.
lamotta TKO 10 cerdan
More like "One-armed opponent goes 10 rounds with Jake LaMotta". Don't even go there BB. You've already lost this arguement.
Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 16:37
tigerpomfret wrote:He was nothing special, I could of came out of retirement and stoped him, and actually I will if he keeps talking crap.
Ah, a personal issue? Cool....
Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 16:39
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Nero3000 wrote:Taylor wrote:LaMotta steamrolls him
LaMotta never "steamrolled" anybody(except welterweights), so why would he steamroll a tough fighter like Collins? I think Jake would win a hard fought decision but comments like this verify the fact that the movie RAGING BULL has solidified LaMotta in the public's mind as being some sort of killer in the ring(which he certainly was not). He was a good- even great- fighter, but lets not overrate him here.
lamotta TKO 10 cerdan
I put this one in the category of Sharkey W. over Fitzsimmons or Griffin W. over Jones. So would you if you did yer research!*L*
Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 16:42
Nero3000 wrote:Taylor wrote:LaMotta steamrolls him
LaMotta never "steamrolled" anybody(except welterweights), so why would he steamroll a tough fighter like Collins? I think Jake would win a hard fought decision but comments like this verify the fact that the movie RAGING BULL has solidified LaMotta in the public's mind as being some sort of killer in the ring(which he certainly was not). He was a good- even great- fighter, but lets not overrate him here.
Correction, it has solidified in BB's mind that Jake is a killer.
Posted: 14 Apr 2006, 16:47
Nero3000 wrote:BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Nero3000 wrote:
LaMotta never "steamrolled" anybody(except welterweights), so why would he steamroll a tough fighter like Collins? I think Jake would win a hard fought decision but comments like this verify the fact that the movie RAGING BULL has solidified LaMotta in the public's mind as being some sort of killer in the ring(which he certainly was not). He was a good- even great- fighter, but lets not overrate him here.
lamotta TKO 10 cerdan
I put this one in the category of Sharkey W. over Fitzsimmons or Griffin W. over Jones. So would you if you did yer research!*L*
lamottas strength caused the injury in the first place. lamotta was too strong for cerdan. lamotta woulda won the rematch
Posted: 15 Apr 2006, 02:45
No, it was caused by an illegal throw. Yet still Cerdan goes 9 rounds with him using only his right. What if Marcel had his best weapon available(his left hook)? And If Jake was so strong why were Welterweights able to fight tooth and nail with him?BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Nero3000 wrote:BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
lamotta TKO 10 cerdan
I put this one in the category of Sharkey W. over Fitzsimmons or Griffin W. over Jones. So would you if you did yer research!*L*
lamottas strength caused the injury in the first place. lamotta was too strong for cerdan. lamotta woulda won the rematch
Cerdan was favored to win the rematch and would have(why do you suppose that was? Maybe cuz the betting public saw him go several rounds with Jake with only one usable arm??). He was a better fighter than Jake.
Why do you still suffer from this delusion? We've gone over this countless times yet you still cling to this same thin, pathetic thread of an argument. I have discredited your arguments with evidence and you have two techniques of dealing with it.
1. You argue in circles, citing the same discredited(and laughable) source.
2. or you scamper away when a crippling piece of evidence is thrown your way.
It really puzzles me, because when you debate about Marciano's punching power vs. Langford's you use sound arguements and cite credible sources(and as a result, although I still feel that Sam has the superior punch, I no longer consider the possibility of Rocky being a harder puncher laughable.). If you used the same technique with this one then I'm sure you would toss your notion out the window. My sources were far more numerous(and unbiased) than yours.
re
Posted: 15 Apr 2006, 06:22
LaMotta would tear Collins to pieces...it's not really even a contest!
Posted: 15 Apr 2006, 09:32
Nero3000 wrote:Cedan hurt his arm when he was floored... so he was already introuble before he got the injury...BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Nero3000 wrote:
LaMotta never "steamrolled" anybody(except welterweights), so why would he steamroll a tough fighter like Collins? I think Jake would win a hard fought decision but comments like this verify the fact that the movie RAGING BULL has solidified LaMotta in the public's mind as being some sort of killer in the ring(which he certainly was not). He was a good- even great- fighter, but lets not overrate him here.
lamotta TKO 10 cerdan
People shouldnt forget that Jake was denied a title shot for years and was already past his best when he finally got his shot...
More like "One-armed opponent goes 10 rounds with Jake LaMotta". Don't even go there BB. You've already lost this arguement.
Posted: 15 Apr 2006, 09:34
How do you know that your sources are better than his?... :xNero3000 wrote:No, it was caused by an illegal throw. Yet still Cerdan goes 9 rounds with him using only his right. What if Marcel had his best weapon available(his left hook)? And If Jake was so strong why were Welterweights able to fight tooth and nail with him?BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Nero3000 wrote:
I put this one in the category of Sharkey W. over Fitzsimmons or Griffin W. over Jones. So would you if you did yer research!*L*
lamottas strength caused the injury in the first place. lamotta was too strong for cerdan. lamotta woulda won the rematch
Cerdan was favored to win the rematch and would have(why do you suppose that was? Maybe cuz the betting public saw him go several rounds with Jake with only one usable arm??). He was a better fighter than Jake.
Why do you still suffer from this delusion? We've gone over this countless times yet you still cling to this same thin, pathetic thread of an argument. I have discredited your arguments with evidence and you have two techniques of dealing with it.
1. You argue in circles, citing the same discredited(and laughable) source.
2. or you scamper away when a crippling piece of evidence is thrown your way.
It really puzzles me, because when you debate about Marciano's punching power vs. Langford's you use sound arguements and cite credible sources(and as a result, although I still feel that Sam has the superior punch, I no longer consider the possibility of Rocky being a harder puncher laughable.). If you used the same technique with this one then I'm sure you would toss your notion out the window. My sources were far more numerous(and unbiased) than yours.
Re: re
Posted: 15 Apr 2006, 09:37
Not really a contest?... Collins gave Mccallum one of his hardest fights... beat a near prime Eubank twice and Benn twice... to say he wouldnt even have been any contest is way off...barry wrote:LaMotta would tear Collins to pieces...it's not really even a contest!
Posted: 15 Apr 2006, 09:38
Lamotta would win on points... but it would be a tough fight and close imo....
Posted: 15 Apr 2006, 11:41
first of all, lamotta wasnt a big puncher and cerdan had a great chin. thats part of the reason why lamotta did not knock out the injured cerdan. 2nd, when a fighter fights in survival mode its damm hard to knock someone out. cerdan had great defense and covered up and fought in survival mode so it was much harder for lamotta to put even an injured cerdan away and when u consider lamotts lack of power and cerdans great chin, then this should not held against jake for not finishing marcel. bottom line is jake dominated the injured cerdan like he was supposed too.
injuries happen in boxing, cerdan tried to be physical with lamotta and lamotta showed how how strong he was and hurt cerdan. it was lamottas strength and physical aggresiveness that caused the injury in the first place.
what happens in the rematch when cerdan clinches lamotta? lamotta will outphysical and push him around again. this will take its toll on marcel and marcel will become worn down from struggling in the clinches.
3rd,
jake injured his left hand during the fight. it wasnt as bad as marcels shoulder, but he still injured it enough where he couldnt put full steam on the punch.
jake had the style to beat cerdan IMO, jake would have won the rematch.
jake was far more proven than cerdan against elite competition. cerdan padded his record his whole career with european stiffs. this is a hard matchup for cerdan because cerdan is not going to knock out lamotta. cerdan was a fantastic puncher with great technique, but lamotta was perhaps the most durable fighter of all time.
* jake lamotta on his A game was a very tough fighter to beat. he would give any middle in history headaches.
injuries happen in boxing, cerdan tried to be physical with lamotta and lamotta showed how how strong he was and hurt cerdan. it was lamottas strength and physical aggresiveness that caused the injury in the first place.
what happens in the rematch when cerdan clinches lamotta? lamotta will outphysical and push him around again. this will take its toll on marcel and marcel will become worn down from struggling in the clinches.
3rd,
jake injured his left hand during the fight. it wasnt as bad as marcels shoulder, but he still injured it enough where he couldnt put full steam on the punch.
jake had the style to beat cerdan IMO, jake would have won the rematch.
jake was far more proven than cerdan against elite competition. cerdan padded his record his whole career with european stiffs. this is a hard matchup for cerdan because cerdan is not going to knock out lamotta. cerdan was a fantastic puncher with great technique, but lamotta was perhaps the most durable fighter of all time.
* jake lamotta on his A game was a very tough fighter to beat. he would give any middle in history headaches.
Posted: 15 Apr 2006, 11:44
LaMotta by a landslide decision, I mean he beat SUGAR RAY ROBINSON for christs sake
Posted: 15 Apr 2006, 12:52
Yep.Lamotta wins.easy
Posted: 15 Apr 2006, 13:09
Jake LaMotta is overrated. TRUE he had one of the best chins in the history of boxing, but we only know that because he couldn't duck a punch from a blind man. Jake wasen't a big puncher either, and his win over Sugar Ray Robinson with a 16 lb weight advantage has been blown all out of proportion.
In a fight with Steve Collins though, I'd pick LaMotta by decision in a 15 rounder, but I think Collins would probably win in a 10 or 12 rd bout.
In a fight with Steve Collins though, I'd pick LaMotta by decision in a 15 rounder, but I think Collins would probably win in a 10 or 12 rd bout.
Posted: 15 Apr 2006, 13:35
Lamotta also beat Lightheavyweights, and he was no punching bag like some seem to think... its no coincidence that Jake is about 80 and still sharp mentally, he used to tuck his chin in his shoulder and bob and weave and he took far less punishment then is supposed, especially in his peak years... to say he could have been hit by a blind man just shows you aint seen his fights...Seamus wrote:Jake LaMotta is overrated. TRUE he had one of the best chins in the history of boxing, but we only know that because he couldn't duck a punch from a blind man. Jake wasen't a big puncher either, and his win over Sugar Ray Robinson with a 16 lb weight advantage has been blown all out of proportion.
In a fight with Steve Collins though, I'd pick LaMotta by decision in a 15 rounder, but I think Collins would probably win in a 10 or 12 rd bout.
Posted: 15 Apr 2006, 14:19
Seen a few of his fights on ESPN's Classic Sports Network, and I wasen't impressed to say the least with his defense. Fight accounts appear to confirm that as well.
Just curious Silkov, but on a 0 to 10 scale what would you rate LaMotta's defense ?
Just curious Silkov, but on a 0 to 10 scale what would you rate LaMotta's defense ?