Was Lamotta A Top 10 MW all time

[Ivich]

I didn’t compare Satterfield to Langford. What I did was offer an impressive list of LaMotta’s opponents that justify his place in the top ten. Even with 16 fights Satterfield was a dangerous puncher. You dismissed his wins over Zivic while glossing over Robinson who also held wins over the smaller Zivic.

Langford was a middleweight at 21 years old when he fought Johnson, who was a HW and six inches taller. It was a mismatch then as it would be today. No one would celebrate a Holyfield win over Hagler. Or Usyk defeating Canelo.

The difference being Lamotta lost twice to Zivic who was giving him10 1/.2lbs and 7 1/2lbs ,and Robinson beat Zivic both times he fought him and Robinson was conceding 5 1/2lbs and 6 1/4lbs to the bigger Zivic !
Fighting and losing to Welterweights doesnt justify you a place in the top ten at Middleweight.
Beating ranked middleweights 9 times as he did could easily do so,but you didn't base your argument on that,instead you focused on the welters he beat,and the middleweights he didn't beat , and when I, justifiably mentioned that ,you got the hump about it and brought in Jack ****ing Johnson as though that had any bearing on Lamotta's resume!
I've no problem at all with anyone who puts Jake in their top ten,but do so because he beat;
Ranked middleweights like;
Dauthille
Mitri
Villemain
Basora
Lytell
Williams
Reeves

You've really got it bad about Johnson haven't you? It seems neither Z nor you can keep Johnson's name out of threads,he ****ed up 3 of mine by introducing Johnson into them,but neither he or anyone else will be ****ing up any more of my threads.
Post a single post of mine where I celebrate Johnson's win over Langford.
You keep ascribing agenda driven motives to me that I don't possess and its getting rather tiresome.join up with Dr Z, he is more your speed.
ps If you are going to compare height differentials at least get them right.
Langford was five feet seven and a half tall.Johnson was six feet and one quarter inch tall.
That's a difference of four and three quarters of an inch,or it was when I went to school.

[Slugfester]

Think about this for a moment: it was inevitable we were going to find the bomb. I mean the chemistry is right there. Big heavy elements, with forms that can throw off stuff and start a chain reaction... was going to happen sooner or later.

But Goddard and the whole rocket concept is an anomoli. Would we have thought one could create thrust in a vacuum? And the idea of getting through the atmosphere and all... I wonder what we would have had, if Goddard had not been funded. Rocket science is truly exotic compared to the simplicity of nuclear chemistry.

These things matter: You can actually make a combustion engine that uses water for the pressure instead of pistons, and the technology for nuclear physics could run engines with no emmissions... What gets funded and what does not is destiny. We still, at this point in time, have not found what gravity is, and because of this all of our travel is localized. Dependent on traversing space and time and not shrinking space and time with mass.

Much simpler. And already with a partially developed structure.

I have heard it said the reason physics is stalled right now is that it has run out of new mathematics, a bordering discipline which regularly provides insights for advancement. A lot of top mathematicians stray into physics anyway. The mathematics of curved space in relativity was already sitting there waiting for a physicist as creative as Einstein to make it applicable to the physical world. That is another reason they could go fast developing the bomb. A fair amount of the supporting mathematics had been developed in the 19th century. They knew it was not baloney. The same can be said of binary arithmetic applications. Leibniz had already been there two centuries before to physically show it was practical, and Boole later.

Had Ramanujan lived a normal lifespan many more insights for advancement would almost surely have been provided that would be of use now. The mathematician/mystic's symbol inventions have been connected to everything from string theory to black holes a century later and still going.

[billeau2]

Much simpler. And already with a partially developed structure.

I have heard it said the reason physics is stalled right now is that it has run out of new mathematics, a bordering discipline which regularly provides insights for advancement. A lot of top mathematicians stray into physics anyway. The mathematics of curved space in relativity was already sitting there waiting for a physicist as creative as Einstein to make it applicable to the physical world. That is another reason they could go fast developing the bomb. A fair amount of the supporting mathematics had been developed in the 19th century. They knew it was not baloney. The same can be said of binary arithmetic applications. Leibniz had already been there two centuries before to physically show it was practical, and Boole later.

Had Ramanujan lived a normal lifespan many more insights for advancement would almost surely have been provided that would be of use now. The mathematician/mystic's symbol inventions have been connected to everything from string theory to black holes a century later and still going.

Ramanujan the Dualist? who offset Shankara? I think you make some great points. I also think the same way about my discipline, philosophy. It has taken us extraordinary measures to get our collective brain around Quantum principles that govern the behavior of small things, things sub atomic in nature... Liebnitz often gets credited for inventing formal logic, there was another thinker who had the same insights around the same time... wanna say Schopenhuer but not sure about that.

I have the utmost respect for what thinking has brought us to, I just cannot help but intuit that once we can nail down gravity, as a technology, a lot of mysterious about comporting through time and space will translate as radical technologies allowing us to curve space time and traverse great distances with ease.

[Slugfester]

I guess I would need a fair amount of supporting evidence that Lamotta was robbed in any fight with Robinson. Maybe Dempsey this evidence. It has to be more than Lamotta's opinion, and more than one newspaper article. I need a large block of of people from that era who saw the fight, to put any stock stock into this claim.

[Slugfester]

I think Schopenhauer was the wrong era. Spinoza (born 1632) was in the right timeline. So was Descartes whose most lasting work was in mathematics. What Leibniz did was invent a mechanical calculating machine that worked, based on binary.

https://www.google.com/search?client...h=623&dpr=1.36

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=hYYfOKrkHis

[Willie Pep 229]

Boxrec

12 SD 26-09-1945

Comiskey Park, Chicago

"Robinson's best round was the sixth. LaMotta rallied furiously in the 9th, 10th, and 11th rounds. "The fight followed the usual pattern (of the previous four fights between the two), Robinson flashing style in the early heats, then coasting when he could. Jake set out in pursuit at the opening bell and bored in with bulldog tenacity throughout." The decision was disputed. Afterward, Robinson said "This was the toughest fight I've ever had with LaMotta."

I am not arguing this meets the standards you laid out. Just suggesting that this fight was close enough for it to be considered a disputed decision.

Both fighters were showing their wares; this kind of fight tends to be disputed.

Johnny Behr 59-61
Frank Clark 59-61
Arthur Oberg 63-57

[QueensburyRules]

- - Jake now #11 on IBRO.

04-IBRO-Middleweight-2019.pdf (ibroresearch.com)

Charley Burley replaced him at his former #9 spot.

[Dr. Z]

He fought Robinson 6 times, which makes your resume right there. Gave him brutal fights. If not for Robinson, who knows? I see him beating most middleweight champions. He beat Cerdan who I also see beating most MW champs. We know Jacob had one of the best chins ever, if not the best. Chuvalo might be his only rival. Or is Jake the rival?

Is Lamotta a top 10 MW all time? Who would probably give him a licking outside the top 5?

How good was Lamotta? Good enough for top 10 AT? There are only 5 spots left.

NO. 1 win of 6 vs Robinson, beating Cerdan after tossing him down and injuring his shoulder , and throwing a filmed fight ( by admission ) are what he best remember for.

[DooGee#33]

NO. 1 win of 6 vs Robinson, beating Cerdan after tossing him down and injuring his shoulder , and throwing a filmed fight ( by admission ) are what he best remember for.

Jake wasn't well liked from what I understand. Other than Walter O'Malley he might have been the most hated by New Yorkers. That may taint people's recollection of him. I don't think you fight a guy 6 times unless they were good fights.

[Ivich]

Jake wasn't well liked from what I understand. Other than Walter O'Malley he might have been the most hated by New Yorkers. That may taint people's recollection of him. I don't think you fight a guy 6 times unless they were good fights.

He beat.
Dauthille
Mitri
Villemain
Basora
Lytell
Williams
Reeves
All ranked middles,he was legit, if not top ten he is very near it!