Emile Griffith vs Jake La Motta?

Clearly the speed and movement advantage is Griffith's, a three time welterweight champ who captured two middle weight titles. Emile's hand speed and lateral movement was superior to Jake's. La Motta was as durable as they come, had a chin almost equal to Aaron Pryor's, and heart like few in history, but the slick boxing Griffith, on paper at least appears to have all the tools to out point LaMotta. Jake would have to KO Emile, I doubt LaMotta would win a decision against Griffith. But there are psychological issues that effect boxing at it's highest levels, and in this fight they would be pivotal.

The fact that Jake was a man's man who married a trophy centerfold, a traditional Italian male, with strict heterosexual values, and that Emile Griffith had an openly bi-sexual lifestyle and was an advocate for sexual promiscuity is an interesting side note. The controversy and obviously opposing moral belief systems makes this question a potential flash point in a debate few would have the balls to take on, but I think it's worth commenting on.

A man is judged by his behavior, same holds true for a woman, and regardless of what other people think of them, it's God who does the judging, not public opinion or other people. Emile Griffith's infamous quote in Sports Illustrated addressing the public response to the Paret ring death being forgiven by the public but his promiscuous life style being unforgiven is misleading and dangerous. Griffith's use of the word "love" to describe his sexual behavior is the basis of the gay rights political agenda. "Love" is not "sex", Griffith, like most gay people, pretends those two words are synonyms to cloud the real moral issue. In the Sports Illustrated quote, Griffith uses the same tired straw man fallacy to justify his life choices that all gay people use, and it fails upon closer inspection. To a heterosexual, you cannot justify homosexual behavior, it is perversion and sin to non-homosexuals. There simply is no middle ground in some moral debates, and as much as gay's would wish it not to be true, "Right and Wrong" do exist, and such moral distinctions are applied to each person's behavior.

A person can feel or believe what ever they want to, that is personal, but their behavior is not, it is public and will be judged. People will justify their actions if they so desire, but reality is above all of us, and the reality is immorality is frowned upon by most people. In boxing, intangibles matter, the insults Paret threw at Griffith about his sexuality were a direct contributing factor to the vicious exchanges that resulted in the ring prior to Benny's death. Who is to say that LaMotta's sense of morality wouldn't have effected Jake in the same manner, and upped LaMotta's intensity level even further than what he usually brought into the ring? It is possible that Jake would have done more than usual just to prevent the perceived "loss of face" associated with losing to a less than "masculine" opponent.

The famous Latin machismo that is so accepted in Mexican and other Latino boxing circles extends to many other cultures, including LaMotta's Italian one, and the psychological aspect of boxing cannot be ignored. This factor I am describing is a serious part of this match up's analysis, and would have a direct bearing on the fight's out come. Where Benny wasted insults and threw words at Emile before the bell, La Motta would have kept his opinions to himself pre-fight and thrown punches after the bell rang.

The end result would be LaMotta by KO over Griffith.

This is a good fight and bound to go the decision route in my opinion. Both fighters are durable with good chins, especially LaMotta. Griffith is the better boxer with superior hand speed. LaMotta was a bull always coming forward and hitting you anywhere and everywhere he could. Though not a knockout puncher probably because of brittle hands, he still di hit hard. Both fighters gave good accounts of themselves against middleweight legends Robinson and Monzon so both are obviously very good fighters. I think that the early rounds mostly o to Griffith with his superior speed with LaMotta coming on strong in the middle rounds and forcing Griffith on the ropes lettting go with hard body and head shots. In a close fight that has both men going at it until the final bell, the split decision goes to LaMotta.

La Motta...Griffith is faster but LaMotta is tough enough to take what he'd give and give some back. This toughness is what allowed him to beat Ray Robinson. He'd walk through a lot to give Griffith hell of his own.

My personal bias is going to pick Griffith. This would go to a decision with Griffith winning most of the rounds.

He was too fast for the raging bull.

If both were in their primes: LaMotta by KO in about the 7th round.