BoxRec

I like The Hit Man and Marvelous...

I'll bet granberry disagrees....

I am in agreement with you. I'd take Hagler and Hearns both over Lamotta. I'm not saying any of them could stop him though. The Hagler fight would be the most interesting. Hagler isn't going to back up. Jake isn't going to back up. Toe to toe war, but I think Hagler would win.

zslayton wrote:I am in agreement with you. I'd take Hagler and Hearns both over Lamotta. I'm not saying any of them could stop him though. The Hagler fight would be the most interesting. Hagler isn't going to back up. Jake isn't going to back up. Toe to toe war, but I think Hagler would win.

LaMotta didn't back up but Hagler and Hearns would be hitting him with some bombs...

Does anyone know if Lamotta was prone to cuts or swelling around his eyes?

The reason I ask is I think before the 80's fights just didn't get stopped for cuts and swelling the way the do today. Some of the old school guys that might have not ever quit or gotten KTFO'ed might have doctors stop the fights if they were fighting today.

I know 'safety first' is the rule of thumb that is being followed now, but IMO if a fighter won't quit then don't stop the fight on a cut or eye swelling.

zslayton wrote:Does anyone know if Lamotta was prone to cuts or swelling around his eyes?

The reason I ask is I think before the 80's fights just didn't get stopped for cuts and swelling the way the do today. Some of the old school guys that might have not ever quit or gotten KTFO'ed might have doctors stop the fights if they were fighting today.

I know 'safety first' is the rule of thumb that is being followed now, but IMO if a fighter won't quit then don't stop the fight on a cut or eye swelling.

My uncle was a pro boxer in the thirties who ended up blind in one eye...IMHO, better to err on the side of caution..

I think LaMotta clearly beats Hearns and I think Hagler beats LaMotta probably in a close decision. LaMotta gave Robinson tough fights, imagine the problems he would give the weaker chinned Hearns who was almost KO'd by Roldan and then stopped by Barkley. Hagler would beat him, but he would be tougher than any of the opponent's Hagler fought.

Tommy Hearns could go to war with LaMotta and get knocked out, or box on the outside and get outpointed. I think he would eventually be stopped either way. With LaMotta-Hagler, I have to go with Hagler, since LaMotta simply didn't have much experience against southpaws, and even if he had, Hagler was more than enough for him.

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.

Robinson boxed against LaMotta and he still had difficulty. Hearns certainly has a chance, but even if he boxed I think I would favor Jake.

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.

Hearns hits harder, is nearly six inches taller, and has an eight inch reach advantage...

LaMotta by ko vs Hearns, Hagler by dec. vs LaMotta.

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:Hearns hits harder, is nearly six inches taller, and has an eight inch reach advantage...

Kind of like Vitali Klitschko against Mike Tyson. Who would you pick in that one?

Big Bad John wrote:

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:Hearns hits harder, is nearly six inches taller, and has an eight inch reach advantage...

Kind of like Vitali Klitschko against Mike Tyson. Who would you pick in that one?

I'd pick the Klitschko brothers if they had they had the skills of The Hit Man but they don't so I wouldn't...

But then again, Tommy Hearns doesn't have the chin of Vitali.

Tommy Hearns could beat LaMotta if he boxed for 15 rds, but he wouldn't. Instead he'd bust up LaMotta by going for the KO, win the first 8rds, gradually get worn down, and would be stopped late, 13th round or later.

Hagler would be a different story. He'd either take a clear decision or stop LaMotta on cuts late.

Hearns was not as good at 160lbs and up. But from 154lbs down to welterweight, he was a monster...especially at 154lbs.

LaMotta would beat Hearns, but Hagler would beat LaMotta. Pressure fighters were Hearns achilles' heel.

elmersalsa wrote:Hearns was not as good at 160lbs and up. But from 154lbs down to welterweight, he was a monster...especially at 154lbs.

LaMotta would beat Hearns, but Hagler would beat LaMotta. Pressure fighters were Hearns achilles' heel.

At "168," he beat Sugar Ray Leonard. At 175, he beat Virgil Hill, Dennis Andreis and Iran Barkley - Hearns won that fight. At 190, he beat Nate Miller.

Big Bad John wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Hearns was not as good at 160lbs and up. But from 154lbs down to welterweight, he was a monster...especially at 154lbs.

LaMotta would beat Hearns, but Hagler would beat LaMotta. Pressure fighters were Hearns achilles' heel.

At "168," he beat Sugar Ray Leonard. At 175, he beat Virgil Hill, Dennis Andreis and Iran Barkley - Hearns won that fight. At 190, he beat Nate Miller.

He did not beat Iran Barkley....NEVER. He beat Virgil Hill, but Hill was not a pressure fighter. Good champion, though. Hearns was past his best when he beat Virgil. He beat Sugar Ray Leonard, but Leonard was not that good after 154lbs. Hearns going up in weight AT LEAST, was better than Leonard and Roberto Duran.

Dennis Andries was a MEDIOCRE FIGHTER. He does not even make the top 60 greatest light heavyweights of all-time.

elmersalsa wrote:

Big Bad John wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Hearns was not as good at 160lbs and up. But from 154lbs down to welterweight, he was a monster...especially at 154lbs.

LaMotta would beat Hearns, but Hagler would beat LaMotta. Pressure fighters were Hearns achilles' heel.

At "168," he beat Sugar Ray Leonard. At 175, he beat Virgil Hill, Dennis Andreis and Iran Barkley - Hearns won that fight. At 190, he beat Nate Miller.

He did not beat Iran Barkley....NEVER. He beat Virgil Hill, but Hill was not a pressure fighter. Good champion, though. Hearns was past his best when he beat Virgil. He beat Sugar Ray Leonard, but Leonard was not that good after 154lbs. Hearns going up in weight AT LEAST, was better than Leonard and Roberto Duran.

Dennis Andries was a MEDIOCRE FIGHTER. He does not even make the top 60 greatest light heavyweights of all-time.

Leonard beat Hagler at 160...That win defined his career, controversial or not...It was Leonard's Rumble In The Jungle...

It's silly to suggest that Hearns wasn't good above 154. He was in fact, very good. Just not great.

Big Bad John wrote:It's silly to suggest that Hearns wasn't good above 154. He was in fact, very good. Just not great.

Didn't I said that, AT LEAST, going up in weight, Hearns was better than Leonard and Duran?

Marvin Hagler would have ripped LaMotta up. He was a better all around fighter, better puncher, better boxer, as strong a chin if not stronger. I would have liked to have seen if LaMotta could take Hearns shots like Hagler took them.
Hearns is an enigma to me. He was fabulous at times and very disappointing at others. Against Benitez I thought Hearns should have destroyed him given that I consider Benites to be a wuzz but it turned out to be a very competitive fight.

Against Leonard Hearns fought two great fights and, IMO, Leonard would have destroyed LaMotta. In fact, I detect a love fest here with LaMotta that he doesn't deserve. IMO, LaMotta was not that great a fighter even if he's rated fifth all-time by Ring magazine. I would take Hagler, Leonard, Monzon, Robinson, M. Walker, B. Hopkins, R. Jones, Jr., D. Tiger, H. Greb, G. Fullmer, Giardello, Jermaine Taylor, James Toney, M. Nunn.

Harvey Levy wrote:Leonard would have destroyed LaMotta.

No one destroyed LaMotta, except Robinson, when LaMotta was past it. And unlike Leonard, Robinson was a great middleweight.

Big Bad John wrote:

Harvey Levy wrote:Leonard would have destroyed LaMotta.

No one destroyed LaMotta, except Robinson, when LaMotta was past it. And unlike Leonard, Robinson was a great middleweight.

Billy Fox pulverized LaMotta. Danny Nardico ripped LaMotta. Of course you'll point out that LaMotta threw the Fox fight but there's only LaMotta's word on that. IMO, that's BS. If LaMotta had beaten Fox he could have been fighting Lesnevich for the LH crown. The fact that it took LaMotta almost two years after the Fox fight to land a MW championship fight lends incredulity to his account.

You're just being stupid and wrong. There was a Congressional investigation into that fight because it was so obviously fixed.