Sugar Ray Robinson

First topic message reminder :

It is almost a crime against humanity (well boxing) to rank SRR anything other than number 1 ATG. Perhaps a closer analysis of his record will suggest that he should not be put on that pedestal.

At Welter weight he was supreme. Something like 110-1. Unbelievable. But who did he beat at that weight who is top 100 ATG?

At middleweight, he was a 5 time world champ. That meant he LOST the strap 5 times. Look at who he lost to at MW also. LaMotta? Basilio? Turpin? Fulmer? Olson? These guys were brawlers (Turpin had his number imo similarly to Norton/Ali). How would Hagler and Monzon fare against him at MW. IMO they would both beat him given that LaMotta et al beat him.

Now lets look WW. Who did he beat? Compare his record to Leonard who lost to another ATG and then comprehensively beat him in the next fight. Losing on points to probably the best pure boxer in the history of the WW division, he came back and won via KO.

Moving up in weight to take on the most fearful and dominant champ for 15 years at any weight, he won a (controversial) split decision.

There is a very strong argument for putting SRL above SRR in the ATG stakes.

Thoughts?

azania wrote:

Perfessor Albertus Lion V wrote:

azania wrote:Thoughts?

~ Why sir, we are still waiting for the 0.1 version of thought process to establish itself in that vast vacuum of space between your ears.

Aside from the more than two dozen fights Mr. Robby had against HOFers all through his career, as welter he beat some excellent versions of Lamotta, Kid Gavilan, and young lion vs old lion hand off the torch bout against The Great Armstrong. This long before he made his name legendary at middleweight in his twilight years.

One can scarcely believe that even a modern soft lad thinking he actually has legitimate thoughts could consider Mr. Sugarless Leonard in the same class. Poor Mr. Sugarless had to be exciting to make up for his lack of durability, shamelessly ducked rematches or at least until they no longer mattered, and never ever "comprehensively" beat Duran, and certainly never when it really mattered.

By the pulled wings of Pegasus, sir, Mr. Sugarless had to retire after some 33-34 bouts he was so shot. Sorry that he had to ruin his legacy by getting KOed by a featherweight, but hey, it happened to Jack Johnson in his last bout too, so, it happens as you have well proven.

SRL retired because of eye problems. I believe he suffered a detatched retina during the Hearns fight. As for the rest of your post, I just dont know what to make of it so I wont.

You might pay special attention to Albert's second paragraph, az.

I was just about to go through Robinson's record and count the HOF fights. Albert saved me the trouble.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Azania I rate Leonard very highly but he isn't deserving of top spot based on four wins alone as for comparing their Welterweight days it's quite simple

Armstrong is rated higher than Hearns
Gavilian is rated higher than Duran
Zivic is rated higher than Benitez

This doesn't take into account the far superior depth that Robinson has over Leonard

At the time Armstrng fought SRR, he was way past his best. He was a name only. Hearns beats him easily at that stage imo. Duran for me beats Gavilan also. Out of the 3, Benitez was the weakest but still had enough to beat Duran so I'd take him to decision Zivic.

Armstrong was not way past his best like your suggesting, he'd lost to Zivic and Beau Jack both of whom are Hall of famers, he was slightly on the wane but still in good enough form to beat many top ranked contenders

I think your putting too much stock into 3 fights which in reality aren't any better than the fighters Robinson beat, Duran wasn't at his best at Welterweight even then he had enough to beat Leonard.

At his peak Armstrong would have had too much for both Zivic and Jack. He was past his best when he lost to SRR. Duran and hearns at WW would have beaten the guys SRR beat at that time imo.

I am not one of those people who will shamelessly lie to myself to make a point and "win" a debate. Yes SRL didn't grant rematches. When I read and saw the programme about the Duran rematch, it increased my dislike for SRL. I explained in a previous post so will not do so again.

As for not comprehensively beating Duran, I dont know if you have heard of the "no mas" fight. It was like man against boy. SRL elected to box as oppose to brawl as he did in their first fight. If that wasn't comprehensively beating someone to the point that they quit, I dont know what is.

That may be so but if Robinson couldn't knock Gavilian out then I don't see Hearns being able to do it

Your criminally under rating Gavilian here who is universally considered a better Welterweight than either Duran or Hearns

azania wrote:I am not one of those people who will shamelessly lie to myself to make a point and "win" a debate. Yes SRL didn't grant rematches. When I read and saw the programme about the Duran rematch, it increased my dislike for SRL. I explained in a previous post so will not do so again.

As for not comprehensively beating Duran, I dont know if you have heard of the "no mas" fight. It was like man against boy. SRL elected to box as oppose to brawl as he did in their first fight. If that wasn't comprehensively beating someone to the point that they quit, I dont know what is.

All due respect, az, but I'd advise you to watch the Duran v Leonard rematch again.

The memory can play tricks. I remembered it as a pretty conclusive win by Leonard until I watched it again a year or two ago after not having seen it for an age. The fight was actually nip and tuck until Leonard started showboating and Duran blew a fuse.

The Mighty Atom wrote:That may be so but if Robinson couldn't knock Gavilian out then I don't see Hearns being able to do it

Your criminally under rating Gavilian here who is universally considered a better Welterweight than either Duran or Hearns

Hears was a bigger puncher than SRR. But that is an aside. Hearns still beats Gavilan imo. And no I have not under-rated Gavilan and he is not considered a better WW that Hearns. Try and find his name on the link below if you can.

http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/50_greatest.htm

If you can find a list that places KG ahead of Hearns then kindly post it.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I am not one of those people who will shamelessly lie to myself to make a point and "win" a debate. Yes SRL didn't grant rematches. When I read and saw the programme about the Duran rematch, it increased my dislike for SRL. I explained in a previous post so will not do so again.

As for not comprehensively beating Duran, I dont know if you have heard of the "no mas" fight. It was like man against boy. SRL elected to box as oppose to brawl as he did in their first fight. If that wasn't comprehensively beating someone to the point that they quit, I dont know what is.

All due respect, az, but I'd advise you to watch the Duran v Leonard rematch again.

The memory can play tricks. I remembered it as a pretty conclusive win by Leonard until I watched it again a year or two ago after not having seen it for an age. The fight was actually nip and tuck until Leonard started showboating and Duran blew a fuse.

Believe you me, I've seen that fight too many times and SRL was way ahead until Duran quit. From R4 onwards it was all SRL.

Don't mean this to sound in any way a criticism but do you even know who Beau Jack is?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Don't mean this to sound in any way a criticism but do you even know who Beau Jack is?

Yes. Next question.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:That may be so but if Robinson couldn't knock Gavilian out then I don't see Hearns being able to do it

Your criminally under rating Gavilian here who is universally considered a better Welterweight than either Duran or Hearns

Hears was a bigger puncher than SRR. But that is an aside. Hearns still beats Gavilan imo. And no I have not under-rated Gavilan and he is not considered a better WW that Hearns. Try and find his name on the link below if you can.

http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/50_greatest.htm

If you can find a list that places KG ahead of Hearns then kindly post it.

Did I say pound for pound? No I specifically said Welterweight because that is the weight in question

http://www.ibroresearch.com/?p=434

Very simply done on my part

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Don't mean this to sound in any way a criticism but do you even know who Beau Jack is?

Yes. Next question.

Really so you understand that is held in very high esteem then and would most probably have given Armstrong a tough fight at any stage in his career

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I am not one of those people who will shamelessly lie to myself to make a point and "win" a debate. Yes SRL didn't grant rematches. When I read and saw the programme about the Duran rematch, it increased my dislike for SRL. I explained in a previous post so will not do so again.

As for not comprehensively beating Duran, I dont know if you have heard of the "no mas" fight. It was like man against boy. SRL elected to box as oppose to brawl as he did in their first fight. If that wasn't comprehensively beating someone to the point that they quit, I dont know what is.

All due respect, az, but I'd advise you to watch the Duran v Leonard rematch again.

The memory can play tricks. I remembered it as a pretty conclusive win by Leonard until I watched it again a year or two ago after not having seen it for an age. The fight was actually nip and tuck until Leonard started showboating and Duran blew a fuse.

Believe you me, I've seen that fight too many times and SRL was way ahead until Duran quit. From R4 onwards it was all SRL.

Fair enough, az. I had it pretty even, but scoring a fight is a subjective thing.

Out of interest, the IBRO have Gavilan 6th. best welter of all time, with Hearns 8th.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:That may be so but if Robinson couldn't knock Gavilian out then I don't see Hearns being able to do it

Your criminally under rating Gavilian here who is universally considered a better Welterweight than either Duran or Hearns

Hears was a bigger puncher than SRR. But that is an aside. Hearns still beats Gavilan imo. And no I have not under-rated Gavilan and he is not considered a better WW that Hearns. Try and find his name on the link below if you can.

http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/50_greatest.htm

If you can find a list that places KG ahead of Hearns then kindly post it.

Did I say pound for pound? No I specifically said Welterweight because that is the weight in question

http://www.ibroresearch.com/?p=434

Very simply done on my part

Good shout. I'd have Griffiths above him. It begs the question as to which ranking system is better. Universal P4P or divisional p4p?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I am not one of those people who will shamelessly lie to myself to make a point and "win" a debate. Yes SRL didn't grant rematches. When I read and saw the programme about the Duran rematch, it increased my dislike for SRL. I explained in a previous post so will not do so again.

As for not comprehensively beating Duran, I dont know if you have heard of the "no mas" fight. It was like man against boy. SRL elected to box as oppose to brawl as he did in their first fight. If that wasn't comprehensively beating someone to the point that they quit, I dont know what is.

All due respect, az, but I'd advise you to watch the Duran v Leonard rematch again.

The memory can play tricks. I remembered it as a pretty conclusive win by Leonard until I watched it again a year or two ago after not having seen it for an age. The fight was actually nip and tuck until Leonard started showboating and Duran blew a fuse.

Believe you me, I've seen that fight too many times and SRL was way ahead until Duran quit. From R4 onwards it was all SRL.

Fair enough, az. I had it pretty even, but scoring a fight is a subjective thing.

Out of interest, the IBRO have Gavilan 6th. best welter of all time, with Hearns 8th.

Just seen it. All other rankings place Hearns above him in p4p rankings. Go figure.

Well divisional rankings provide a better indication of a fighter at a given weight rather than just for name value

Leonard beating a divisionally ranked Hearns means far more than beating some rated higher pound for pound like Jofre for instance.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I am not one of those people who will shamelessly lie to myself to make a point and "win" a debate. Yes SRL didn't grant rematches. When I read and saw the programme about the Duran rematch, it increased my dislike for SRL. I explained in a previous post so will not do so again.

As for not comprehensively beating Duran, I dont know if you have heard of the "no mas" fight. It was like man against boy. SRL elected to box as oppose to brawl as he did in their first fight. If that wasn't comprehensively beating someone to the point that they quit, I dont know what is.

All due respect, az, but I'd advise you to watch the Duran v Leonard rematch again.

The memory can play tricks. I remembered it as a pretty conclusive win by Leonard until I watched it again a year or two ago after not having seen it for an age. The fight was actually nip and tuck until Leonard started showboating and Duran blew a fuse.

Believe you me, I've seen that fight too many times and SRL was way ahead until Duran quit. From R4 onwards it was all SRL.

Fair enough, az. I had it pretty even, but scoring a fight is a subjective thing.

Out of interest, the IBRO have Gavilan 6th. best welter of all time, with Hearns 8th.

Just seen it. All other rankings place Hearns above him in p4p rankings. Go figure.

Not by any means ' all. ' I've seen a few with Gavilan edging Hearns, but of itself I'm not sure we should read too much into it, anyway. Robinson's two dozen plus HOF fights seem to be one of the most significant and decisive factors here.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Well divisional rankings provide a better indication of a fighter at a given weight rather than just for name value

Leonard beating a divisionally ranked Hearns means far more than beating some rated higher pound for pound like Jofre for instance.

Granted. But Hearns is universally ranked higher in p4p steaks. He is ranked highly mainly based on his achievement at WW.

Regardless, I do rate KG highly and reckon hearns would beat him. Hearns imo had the best jab in all boxing. Well the best I have ever seen. The way he turns the jab into a tripple hook from head to body is awesome.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I am not one of those people who will shamelessly lie to myself to make a point and "win" a debate. Yes SRL didn't grant rematches. When I read and saw the programme about the Duran rematch, it increased my dislike for SRL. I explained in a previous post so will not do so again.

As for not comprehensively beating Duran, I dont know if you have heard of the "no mas" fight. It was like man against boy. SRL elected to box as oppose to brawl as he did in their first fight. If that wasn't comprehensively beating someone to the point that they quit, I dont know what is.

All due respect, az, but I'd advise you to watch the Duran v Leonard rematch again.

The memory can play tricks. I remembered it as a pretty conclusive win by Leonard until I watched it again a year or two ago after not having seen it for an age. The fight was actually nip and tuck until Leonard started showboating and Duran blew a fuse.

Believe you me, I've seen that fight too many times and SRL was way ahead until Duran quit. From R4 onwards it was all SRL.

Fair enough, az. I had it pretty even, but scoring a fight is a subjective thing.

Out of interest, the IBRO have Gavilan 6th. best welter of all time, with Hearns 8th.

Just seen it. All other rankings place Hearns above him in p4p rankings. Go figure.

Not by any means ' all. ' I've seen a few with Gavilan edging Hearns, but of itself I'm not sure we should read too much into it, anyway. Robinson's two dozen plus HOF fights seem to be one of the most significant and decisive factors here.

I'm not going to argue too much against that. But all boxing records should be scrutinised and the unfair advantage many older generation fighters have should also be put into context.

SRR had 160+ fights compared to SRL's 38. So when comparing who is p4p the better, one should look at who they beat, how they beat them and who and how they lost. Taking away Camacho and Norris fights, SRL's records stands up in comparison to any boxer in history. He is the only boxer to beat 4 top 100 fighters, something SRR did not do. Imo SRL should be placed on the same pedestal as SRR, if not slightly below.

To be fair, Leonard has wins three guys with strong claims to be top 5 of all time in the Lighweight, Welterweight and Middleweight division in Duran, Hearns and Hagler. I honestly dont believe Robinson has as good a win at Middle and Hearns/Gavilan can be argued each way (I would take Hearns).

The Duran wins happened at Welter/Middle so can be picked at but so can Robinsons over Armstrong for similar reasons.

Robinson easily has the longetivity but the mix he faced varied massively in quality and if you you are talking 110 odd welter fights then I think its fair to say there is generous padding and a bit heavy in quantity v quality.

Obviously the context is important as are the eras. Leonard fought in an era where fights were less regular and also suffered from legitimate serious injuries which cut even that short. Even so, Duran x 3, Hearns x 2, Hagler and Benetiz isnt half bad.

Robinson for me does enough to earn his number 1 spot but Ive never been comfortable with the pedestal hes placed on and I think its fair to apply an appropriate level of scrutiny for someone if they are being considered essentially untouchable in the sport. In real terms I dont really think the gap in ability and acheivement between Robinson and whoever is deemed worthy of 2nd spot is as gigantic as is commonly held. Potential fights with a Hearns or a Leonard at Welter would be by no means givens for me.

Excellent post as always manos.

Manos, Armstrong was clearly at his dominant best at Welterweight

With all due respect to Duran and Hearns they wouldn't be ranked nearly as highly as there are based solely on their lightweight or Welterweight resumes, they made their names at those weights but proved their greatness outside of their comfort zone. For me Gavilian proved himself to a greater extent at Welterweight than either so for that reason I consider it to be the most impressive win by the pair at the weight.

With any old timer they do of course have more fights against lesser fighters but at the same time they also have more fights against the top level.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Manos, Armstrong was clearly at his dominant best at Welterweight

With all due respect to Duran and Hearns they wouldn't be ranked nearly as highly as there are based solely on their lightweight or Welterweight resumes, they made their names at those weights but proved their greatness outside of their comfort zone. For me Gavilian proved himself to a greater extent at Welterweight than either so for that reason I consider it to be the most impressive win by the pair at the weight.

With any old timer they do of course have more fights against lesser fighters but at the same time they also have more fights against the top level.

When he fought Robinson though? I dont think he was at his best. Ive also always rated Armstrong at his best as a lightweight and even at the peak of prowess at welter he seldom weighed at more than 140ish. Either way I dont think its a significantly better win than Duran. Fundementally I rate them as both at their best at lightweight and both somewhat past their best at the respective fights.

I rate Hearns ahead of Gavilan both in pound for pound terms and at welterweight so I rate that as a bigger win for Leonard especially as its a bang on form young and unbeaten Hearns. Again though, there will be those who make the case for Gavilan.

The version of Benetiz he fought was also a very dangerous one at the time.

Hagler is a better win at middle than any of Robinsons for me and while it can be argued Robinson was ageing at middle, Leonard was also not coming in a peak condition after a significant lay off.

I dont know how you go about accounting for the kind of padding that Robinson has and Leonard lacks. Obviously its an advantage for Robinson and just reflective of the times. This just doesnt translate really so not much you can do about it.

Ultimately I accept Robinsons place atop the pile but Im just reluctant to embrace the head and shoulders above everyone status hes assumed to have nowadays. It also bothers me that nobody can really rival that spot nowadays or in the future as its just not really possible and to me this is a flaw.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Manos, Armstrong was clearly at his dominant best at Welterweight

With all due respect to Duran and Hearns they wouldn't be ranked nearly as highly as there are based solely on their lightweight or Welterweight resumes, they made their names at those weights but proved their greatness outside of their comfort zone. For me Gavilian proved himself to a greater extent at Welterweight than either so for that reason I consider it to be the most impressive win by the pair at the weight.

With any old timer they do of course have more fights against lesser fighters but at the same time they also have more fights against the top level.

He was also past his best when he fought SRR.

Hearns proved his greatnbess, as you said, by fighting out of his comfort zone whereas KG was at WW. But on the whole, Hearns was the better fighter by virtue of the fact that he is generally ranked higher in the p4p stakes. Ditto Duran. On that basis I would pick both of them to beat KG at WW. Ergo I would also put SRL's best wins on par with SRRs.

Even though he had fewer of them. His "best win" over Duran - as has been pointed out, was not the 1-sided drubbing you imagine it to be. Scorecards were 68-66 (x2) and 67-66.

He still wasn't comprehensively defeating a fat, bloated, lightweight. He started showboating and Duran blew a gasket. Not exactly a glorious redemption. Hearns was a good win. Benitez a slightly less good, but still good win. That's it. Doesn't match up with Armstrong et al for SRR at WW

For you, Az, the greatest strength SRL had was that he fought in the days of colour TV.

Once again, I hope you're on the windup

oxring wrote:Even though he had fewer of them. His "best win" over Duran - as has been pointed out, was not the 1-sided drubbing you imagine it to be. Scorecards were 68-66 (x2) and 67-66.

He still wasn't comprehensively defeating a fat, bloated, lightweight. He started showboating and Duran blew a gasket. Not exactly a glorious redemption. Hearns was a good win. Benitez a slightly less good, but still good win. That's it. Doesn't match up with Armstrong et al for SRR at WW

For you, Az, the greatest strength SRL had was that he fought in the days of colour TV.

Once again, I hope you're on the windup

Once again????? Am I ever on a wind up trip?

As has been covered here, Armstrong was past his best when he was defeated by SRR. Compare career wins and they both stack up against one another.

azania wrote:
Once again????? Am I ever on a wind up trip?

Heaven forbid eh, az ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:
Once again????? Am I ever on a wind up trip?

Heaven forbid eh, az ?

Absolutely. Now I'm glad the whole board is in agreement with me that SRR is the ATG No 2 :run1:

With the required diet, he would be No1.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:
Once again????? Am I ever on a wind up trip?

Heaven forbid eh, az ?

Absolutely. Now I'm glad the whole board is in agreement with me that SRR is the ATG No 2 :run1:

With the required diet, he would be No1.

You forgot the rowing machine.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:
Once again????? Am I ever on a wind up trip?

Heaven forbid eh, az ?

Absolutely. Now I'm glad the whole board is in agreement with me that SRR is the ATG No 2 :run1:

With the required diet, he would be No1.

And he'd need colour footage as well. And a highlight reel to some rap or other. (Rap is a type of music Windy; probably after your time? )

Azania, you are an oxygen thief.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:
Once again????? Am I ever on a wind up trip?

Heaven forbid eh, az ?

Absolutely. Now I'm glad the whole board is in agreement with me that SRR is the ATG No 2 :run1:

With the required diet, he would be No1.

And he'd need colour footage as well. And a highlight reel to some rap or other. (Rap is a type of music Windy; probably after your time? )

Windy thinks rap is something you put presents in.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:
Once again????? Am I ever on a wind up trip?

Heaven forbid eh, az ?

Absolutely. Now I'm glad the whole board is in agreement with me that SRR is the ATG No 2 :run1:

With the required diet, he would be No1.

And he'd need colour footage as well. And a highlight reel to some rap or other. (Rap is a type of music Windy; probably after your time? )

And there was I thinking you'd left off a ' c ' oxy. Anyway, speaking of a ' c ' it's good to see that you are in your usual form, az.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Azania, you are an oxygen thief.

I beg your pardon?

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:
Once again????? Am I ever on a wind up trip?

Heaven forbid eh, az ?

Absolutely. Now I'm glad the whole board is in agreement with me that SRR is the ATG No 2 :run1:

With the required diet, he would be No1.

And he'd need colour footage as well. And a highlight reel to some rap or other. (Rap is a type of music Windy; probably after your time? )

Windy thinks rap is something you put presents in.

Can't think why, az, but I was more leaning towards what you do to the heads of people who annoy you. Wonder what made me think of that ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:
Once again????? Am I ever on a wind up trip?

Heaven forbid eh, az ?

Absolutely. Now I'm glad the whole board is in agreement with me that SRR is the ATG No 2 :run1:

With the required diet, he would be No1.

And he'd need colour footage as well. And a highlight reel to some rap or other. (Rap is a type of music Windy; probably after your time? )

And there was I thinking you'd left off a ' c ' oxy. Anyway, speaking of a ' c ' it's good to see that you are in your usual form, az.

As I said before, its almost sacreligious to put anyone near SRR on the perch. No-one questions his record. It's about time someone actually did. He probably is the no1, but he certainly is not head and shoulders above all contenders. SRL pushes him all the way and it would be interesting to have a hypothetical h2h between the two (with the loser dropping the Sugar nickname - chair shots not allowed). As mentioned earleir, the Ring gave it to SRR via SD discussing their relative strengths and weaknesses. From memory they gave speed to SRL, punch power to SRR and I believed SRR nicked it on ring generalship.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:
Once again????? Am I ever on a wind up trip?

Heaven forbid eh, az ?

Absolutely. Now I'm glad the whole board is in agreement with me that SRR is the ATG No 2 :run1:

With the required diet, he would be No1.

And he'd need colour footage as well. And a highlight reel to some rap or other. (Rap is a type of music Windy; probably after your time? )

And there was I thinking you'd left off a ' c ' oxy. Anyway, speaking of a ' c ' it's good to see that you are in your usual form, az.

As I said before, its almost sacreligious to put anyone near SRR on the perch. No-one questions his record. It's about time someone actually did. He probably is the no1, but he certainly is not head and shoulders above all contenders. SRL pushes him all the way and it would be interesting to have a hypothetical h2h between the two (with the loser dropping the Sugar nickname - chair shots not allowed). As mentioned earleir, the Ring gave it to SRR via SD discussing their relative strengths and weaknesses. From memory they gave speed to SRL, punch power to SRR and I believed SRR nicked it on ring generalship.

I was only yanking your tail, az.

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Azania, you are an oxygen thief.

I beg your pardon?

An oxygen thief is what we refer to in Newcastle as wasters. Basically, people who don't deserve oxygen because of the guff they come out with.

Your refusal to accept the old fighters could actually box is tiresome and boring.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Azania, you are an oxygen thief.

I beg your pardon?

An oxygen thief is what we refer to in Newcastle as wasters. Basically, people who don't deserve oxygen because of the guff they come out with.

Your refusal to accept the old fighters could actually box is tiresome and boring.

It seems you are one of those who makes their mind up without reading what is written. In short debating the poster as opposed to the post. Because if you actually take the time and read what was written and you still come to the same conclusion, then I would question your comprehension skills.

So now I get criticism because I dont agree that SRR is head and shoulders above everyone who ever fought. Unbelievable.

I can't believe this thread's still going.

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Azania, you are an oxygen thief.

I beg your pardon?

An oxygen thief is what we refer to in Newcastle as wasters. Basically, people who don't deserve oxygen because of the guff they come out with.

Your refusal to accept the old fighters could actually box is tiresome and boring.

It seems you are one of those who makes their mind up without reading what is written. In short debating the poster as opposed to the post. Because if you actually take the time and read what was written and you still come to the same conclusion, then I would question your comprehension skills.

So now I get criticism because I dont agree that SRR is head and shoulders above everyone who ever fought. Unbelievable.

I did read it, and frankly, it was utter shyte.

Maybe can can tell us how Ortiz was weight drained again.

Lumbering Jack - Do not abuse other members or use language intended to get past the profanity filter

"So now I get criticism because I dont agree that SRR is head and shoulders above everyone who ever fought. Unbelievable."

No Az, you receive criticism because your argument doesn't hold water and you're turning into a bit of a D4 in the way you'll dismiss any evidence which doesn't suit your claim. Bit harsh, I know, but it had to be said.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Azania, you are an oxygen thief.

I beg your pardon?

An oxygen thief is what we refer to in Newcastle as wasters. Basically, people who don't deserve oxygen because of the guff they come out with.

Your refusal to accept the old fighters could actually box is tiresome and boring.

It seems you are one of those who makes their mind up without reading what is written. In short debating the poster as opposed to the post. Because if you actually take the time and read what was written and you still come to the same conclusion, then I would question your comprehension skills.

So now I get criticism because I dont agree that SRR is head and shoulders above everyone who ever fought. Unbelievable.

I did read it, and frankly, it was utter shyte.

Maybe can can tell us how Ortiz was weight drained again.

OK, fair enough. I'm sure you can precis the reasons why you think its shyte.

As for Ortiz being drained. Another thread but seeing as you asked, it stands to reason as he came into the fight weighing 161lbs. How he ever made 140 I'll never know. But you reckon he wasn't drained making 140. All power to you.

BALTIMORA wrote:"So now I get criticism because I dont agree that SRR is head and shoulders above everyone who ever fought. Unbelievable."

No Az, you receive criticism because your argument doesn't hold water and you're turning into a bit of a D4 in the way you'll dismiss any evidence which doesn't suit your claim. Bit harsh, I know, but it had to be said.

I've asked you on this thread and I'll ask again. What have I said on this thread that doesn't hold water? You seem to be under the impression that I am critical of SRR. Actually I dont know what or why you are saying what you say particularly in relation to this thread.

I'll ask. Is SRR head and shoulders above all other boxers (p4p that is).

Davie wrote:Lumbering Jack - Do not abuse other members or use language intended to get past the profanity filter

OK, Dad.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Davie wrote:Lumbering Jack - Do not abuse other members or use language intended to get past the profanity filter

OK, Dad.

Believe me son, if I were your dad I'd have your computer removed from your bedroom and put pepper spray on the box of kleenex you keep next to your keyboard.

Take your warning like a man or be treated like a child. Your choice

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:"So now I get criticism because I dont agree that SRR is head and shoulders above everyone who ever fought. Unbelievable."

No Az, you receive criticism because your argument doesn't hold water and you're turning into a bit of a D4 in the way you'll dismiss any evidence which doesn't suit your claim. Bit harsh, I know, but it had to be said.

I've asked you on this thread and I'll ask again. What have I said on this thread that doesn't hold water? You seem to be under the impression that I am critical of SRR. Actually I dont know what or why you are saying what you say particularly in relation to this thread.

I'll ask. Is SRR head and shoulders above all other boxers (p4p that is).

If you re-read pretty much everything you have contributed to this thread then you will see.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:"So now I get criticism because I dont agree that SRR is head and shoulders above everyone who ever fought. Unbelievable."

No Az, you receive criticism because your argument doesn't hold water and you're turning into a bit of a D4 in the way you'll dismiss any evidence which doesn't suit your claim. Bit harsh, I know, but it had to be said.

I've asked you on this thread and I'll ask again. What have I said on this thread that doesn't hold water? You seem to be under the impression that I am critical of SRR. Actually I dont know what or why you are saying what you say particularly in relation to this thread.

I'll ask. Is SRR head and shoulders above all other boxers (p4p that is).

If you re-read pretty much everything you have contributed to this thread then you will see.

No. I know what I wrote. You made an accusation (or an assumption) and you should simply back it up. Or manup and withdraw it.

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:"So now I get criticism because I dont agree that SRR is head and shoulders above everyone who ever fought. Unbelievable."

No Az, you receive criticism because your argument doesn't hold water and you're turning into a bit of a D4 in the way you'll dismiss any evidence which doesn't suit your claim. Bit harsh, I know, but it had to be said.

I've asked you on this thread and I'll ask again. What have I said on this thread that doesn't hold water? You seem to be under the impression that I am critical of SRR. Actually I dont know what or why you are saying what you say particularly in relation to this thread.

I'll ask. Is SRR head and shoulders above all other boxers (p4p that is).

If you re-read pretty much everything you have contributed to this thread then you will see.

No. I know what I wrote. You made an accusation (or an assumption) and you should simply back it up. Or manup and withdraw it.

Of you dont think that it is rubbish then you are beyond help.

Balti is right, you're turning into a bit of a D4 type character.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:"So now I get criticism because I dont agree that SRR is head and shoulders above everyone who ever fought. Unbelievable."

No Az, you receive criticism because your argument doesn't hold water and you're turning into a bit of a D4 in the way you'll dismiss any evidence which doesn't suit your claim. Bit harsh, I know, but it had to be said.

I've asked you on this thread and I'll ask again. What have I said on this thread that doesn't hold water? You seem to be under the impression that I am critical of SRR. Actually I dont know what or why you are saying what you say particularly in relation to this thread.

I'll ask. Is SRR head and shoulders above all other boxers (p4p that is).

If you re-read pretty much everything you have contributed to this thread then you will see.

No. I know what I wrote. You made an accusation (or an assumption) and you should simply back it up. Or manup and withdraw it.

Of you dont think that it is rubbish then you are beyond help.

Balti is right, you're turning into a bit of a D4 type character.

What have I said that is rubbish.. Throwing wild accusations without substantiating them is churlish. Unless you can back it up, you should do the adult thing and apologise and withdraw it.