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?

I think everything you have contributed on this thread is utter nonsense.

Do I really have to quote it all.

WUM

Az, it's things like your blasé dismissal of LEONARD'S OWN WORDS because they contradicted your own argument, which undermine your credibility. That, coupled with the growing regularity with which your posts turn into 'old<new' nonsense.

HumanWindmill wrote:

No1Jonesy wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

No1Jonesy wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

No1Jonesy wrote:Windmill i dont know what point you are trying to get across here? Please explain how me questioning one of the greatest heavyweight fighters being lazy in their biggest fights when it clearly wasn't the case and that is backed up with video footahe of their biggest fights combined with the fact he was never worn down? I dont know what school you went to but theres a difference between dismissing and correcting based on evidence where as this is on Azania's opinion on SRR's opononts and where he places them

Additionally comparing fighting styles between Lewis and Tyson (again on video evidence is clearly shown) and based on factual events of fights on comparison - But not once did i call him names or question his knowledge of the sport or even tell him to shut up - he gave me his opinion on who would win and i gave him mine with my rationale around the decision

Allow me, then, to enlighten you as to the school to which I went.

It was a school which included in its curriculum, the teaching of good manners, respect, tolerance and the principle that nobody should assume the high ground. You presume to be Mr Morality on this thread, ( because you agree with azania in this topic, ) yet routinely and casually dismiss him when your man Lewis is challenged.

Put your own house in order, and don't preach unless you abide by the same principles which you demand of others.

To repeat, azania and I enjoy banter. If you don't, then get ready to pucker up and kiss my behind.

So to speak.

If that was meant to enlighten me fella then you're way off the mark.....

As previously stated - and there was me assuming a 'so called educated man' like yourself would grasp the concept (but I suppose I made the same mistake as you presuming I was being Mr Morality) that I did not dismiss his comments as much as offer my outcome based on Video Evidence, styles and previous fights (rationale if you will) rather then just go nope you're wrong... end of! So that in my eyes is not dismissive but debate.

If somebody challenges me then I will always use rationale as a comeback.... this is the part you pucker up

Well, let's see shall we ?

Point 1 : I did not claim to be educated. Weren't you insisting that we debate according to evidence ? PRACTISE WHAT YOU PREACH.

Point 2 : Yours was a ' blanket ' criticism aimed at those who hold a different opinion of Robinson. It is a two way street. PRACTISE WHAT YOU PREACH.

Point 3 : You insist that we should argue using rationale. I have done so on this thread, and the odd lapse into tail yanking is good natured and something in which both azania and I often indulge - sometimes at his expense, and sometimes at mine. Find ONE post here in which I have been malicious or disrespectful to azania, and then consider your comment concerning the school which I attended. PRACTISE WHAT YOU PREACH.

Now, lips together, eyes closed......................

You're absolutely right you didnt say you were educated and I will agree with you on that point...

Seeing as you like points lets do mine -

1) Not everything is about you - I gather you dont have much of a life seeing at how much time you spend on this forum but it does not mean that every comment is aimed at you.... attention craving much?

2) Please state where I said you should argue with Rationale?? I said I did in my post when you clearly got mixed up in your meanings of dismissing and debate

3) If Bamber cannot grasp a sentence in English before passing it off as another language then I feel he needs to get back on the school line because education has been lost on him (dismissing his comment for the benfit of being lost in translation here)

whilst your there please feel free to wipe the saliva away afterwards

POINT ONE : My reasons for being here, and the means by which I am able to be, are none of your damned business.

POINT TWO : Your sniping at me - and now Bamber - is digging you in deeper, and only underlining the point that your behaviour is inconsistent and hypocritical.

POINT THREE : Given your standard of English it shouldn't be surprising that Bamber might have been confused. This :

whilst your there please feel free to wipe the saliva away afterwards

Should read : Whilst YOU'RE there, etc.

As to your invitation to kiss your behind, I respectfully decline, for fear that I might confuse it for your face.

Do have a nice day.

Point 1 - Please don't cry about it Windmill you will upset me.... and to be quite frank I don't give a damn and apologise if I gave that impression

Point 2 - When someone wants to act like a mug and dig at me then I shall defend myself - there is no inconsistancy nor hypocrisy there dear fellow, that has always been the case with me - please reflect on how Bamber's comments was debating boxing knowledge with me then I will concede... otherwise remove youre head from his rectum

Point 3 - Wow, well picked up there - you sure got me!! You are (you're for your benefit) compeltely right. I wish I could just think about my words more, then my life would be complete

Lumbering_Jack wrote:I think everything you have contributed on this thread is utter nonsense.

Do I really have to quote it all.

WUM

Ha. So I see you cant back up what you say. Now there's a surprise. Saying "everything you have contributed on this thread is utter nonsense" is frankly silly when you dont seem to know what I'm saying.

Jonesy your last line was uncalled for. I'll remove it.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Is it a coincidence that several other posters think you're a Kumquat?

So I see you cannot back up your accusations then. Thought so.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Is it a coincidence that several other posters think you're a Kumquat?

You have been previously warned over this type of behaviour. As a result another 24 hour ban is now in operation. Please take this time to read the site rules.

azania wrote:Jonesy your last line was uncalled for. I'll remove it.

I see - so he can confuse my behind with my face however I cannot merely state he is coming across like a man who wasn't hugged enough as a child??

No1Jonesy wrote:

azania wrote:Jonesy your last line was uncalled for. I'll remove it.

I see - so he can confuse my behind with my face however I cannot merely state he is coming across like a man who wasn't hugged enough as a child??

No. Your last line crossed the line as to what is acceptable.

azania wrote:

No1Jonesy wrote:

azania wrote:Jonesy your last line was uncalled for. I'll remove it.

I see - so he can confuse my behind with my face however I cannot merely state he is coming across like a man who wasn't hugged enough as a child??

No. Your last line crossed the line as to what is acceptable.

Seeing as though the person he insulted didn't remove it, why did you?

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

No1Jonesy wrote:

azania wrote:Jonesy your last line was uncalled for. I'll remove it.

I see - so he can confuse my behind with my face however I cannot merely state he is coming across like a man who wasn't hugged enough as a child??

No. Your last line crossed the line as to what is acceptable.

Seeing as though the person he insulted didn't remove it, why did you?

Perhaps because windy is not online at present. Moreover the person offended is often the last one to complain and remove the offending post. Lord knows I know that.

Or maybe he's not the sort to see the need in such a draconian measure.

BALTIMORA wrote:Or maybe he's not the sort to see the need in such a draconian measure.

Not really. I think I have deleted no more that 5 posts and edited less since being a mod. And locked one thread (mine) and deleted another (again mine).

I'm not involving myself further in this conversation.

BALTIMORA wrote:I'm not involving myself further in this conversation.

Not in the direction its going anyway.

azania wrote:
As I said windy, his resume as WW stands up to scrutiny in every way. But when he went up in weight, he was found wanting.

He won the title five times. Hardly 'found wanting', is it?

You annoy me more than D4 does.

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Or maybe he's not the sort to see the need in such a draconian measure.

Not really. I think I have deleted no more that 5 posts and edited less since being a mod. And locked one thread (mine) and deleted another (again mine).

You did lock one of onetwo's threads but we all agreed with that.

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Or maybe he's not the sort to see the need in such a draconian measure.

Not really. I think I have deleted no more that 5 posts and edited less since being a mod. And locked one thread (mine) and deleted another (again mine).

You did lock one of onetwo's threads but we all agreed with that.

That's two threads I've locked then. My memory must be Jack Daniel impaired again.

I just like being picky from time to time. I don't drink so have a great memory.

ChelskiFanski wrote:

azania wrote:
As I said windy, his resume as WW stands up to scrutiny in every way. But when he went up in weight, he was found wanting.

He won the title five times. Hardly 'found wanting', is it?

You annoy me more than D4 does.

Azania, on reflection I think my comment is a bit unnecessary. I also criticised you the other day, which wasn't very constructive either. Sorry.

It's just frustrating as you have a really good knowledge of boxing, which is much better than mine, but you do sometimes go out of your way to argue an indefensible position.

ChelskiFanski wrote:

ChelskiFanski wrote:

azania wrote:
As I said windy, his resume as WW stands up to scrutiny in every way. But when he went up in weight, he was found wanting.

He won the title five times. Hardly 'found wanting', is it?

You annoy me more than D4 does.

Azania, on reflection I think my comment is a bit unnecessary. I also criticised you the other day, which wasn't very constructive either. Sorry.

It's just frustrating as you have a really good knowledge of boxing, which is much better than mine, but you do sometimes go out of your way to argue an indefensible position.

man love

ChelskiFanski wrote:

ChelskiFanski wrote:

azania wrote:
As I said windy, his resume as WW stands up to scrutiny in every way. But when he went up in weight, he was found wanting.

He won the title five times. Hardly 'found wanting', is it?

You annoy me more than D4 does.

Azania, on reflection I think my comment is a bit unnecessary. I also criticised you the other day, which wasn't very constructive either. Sorry.

It's just frustrating as you have a really good knowledge of boxing, which is much better than mine, but you do sometimes go out of your way to argue an indefensible position.

But I dont see what's indefensible about saying that SRR is not head and shoulders above all other boxers who ever lived. The P4P #1 maybe, but its not a given by any stretch of logic.

Btw apology accepted.

prettyboykev wrote:

ChelskiFanski wrote:

ChelskiFanski wrote:

azania wrote:
As I said windy, his resume as WW stands up to scrutiny in every way. But when he went up in weight, he was found wanting.

He won the title five times. Hardly 'found wanting', is it?

You annoy me more than D4 does.

Azania, on reflection I think my comment is a bit unnecessary. I also criticised you the other day, which wasn't very constructive either. Sorry.

It's just frustrating as you have a really good knowledge of boxing, which is much better than mine, but you do sometimes go out of your way to argue an indefensible position.

man love

Less of the please

prettyboykev wrote:I just like being picky from time to time. I don't drink so have a great memory.

You dont say!!!

azania wrote:
But I dont see what's indefensible about saying that SRR is not head and shoulders above all other boxers who ever lived. The P4P #1 maybe, but its not a given by any stretch of logic.

Nothing at all indefensible in that. However you started off saying...

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

...and your latest comment changes the argument to the (very reasonable) claim that SRR is not head and shoulders above everyone else.

ChelskiFanski wrote:
you do sometimes go out of your way to argue an indefensible position.

Because you never admit the first comments are wrong it makes your later (reasonable) comments seem like they are trying to back up the original (ludicrous) comments.

ChelskiFanski wrote:

azania wrote:
But I dont see what's indefensible about saying that SRR is not head and shoulders above all other boxers who ever lived. The P4P #1 maybe, but its not a given by any stretch of logic.

Nothing at all indefensible in that. However you started off saying...

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

...and your latest comment changes the argument to the (very reasonable) claim that SRR is not head and shoulders above everyone else.

ChelskiFanski wrote:
you do sometimes go out of your way to argue an indefensible position.

Because you never admit the first comments are wrong it makes your later (reasonable) comments seem like they are trying to back up the original (ludicrous) comments.

My point in the first comment is also correct in that there is a strong argument in putting Leonard above him given who they beat ie their top 4 victories. SRL's best wins stands up to SRR's best. In terms of who they beat then Leonard's stacks up. At MW SRR's record is not one of an ATG #1 imo. He was THE MAN at WW and so was SRL.

I dont buy the argument that you cannot talk about certain boxers unless you are full of wholesome praise. SRR should be scrutinised as any other boxer. His record should be looked at and debated.

For me he IS the #1. But not by far. That is what I was trying to get to. And of course there is a strong argument in putting Ali, Armstrong and Leonard above him. No doubt. Its all subjective.

Personally have the records of both Greb and Charles ahead of that of Robinson but in some cases when the talent of someone at his best is so obvious i'll make an acception. This is where Leonard falls short for me despite his talent he lost to an albeit awesome lightweight in Duran (my favourite fighter for the record) and was getting beaten on points by Hearns at the time of the stoppage.

At his peak and at his optimum weight (he was still a small welterweight) Robinson was unbeatable whereas Leonard wasn't.

My rankings change from day to day but at the present time i'd have Leonard at the tail end of a top ten but wouldn't disagree with him being as high as four but any higher is ignoring his flaws. Robinson would not have been out brawled by a smaller man nor would he have had trouble knocking Hearns out before the 14th.

Robinson, Greb, Armstrong, Fitzsimmons and Charles are in the elite top 5 places with both Duran and Leonard comfortably in the next 5 alongside Tunney, B. Leonard, Pep, Jofre and an ever changing tenth most probably Langford, Ali or Wilde.

The comparitive merits of Gavilan and Hearns are minimal but I have to favour Gavilans superior longevity at Welterweight.

I'm going to be controversial and say - what happens to SRR's ranking if he took a dive.

Cheating in boxing is unacceptable.

Ike Williams alleges that SRR took a dive against Maxim in the LHW contest - and it was a double cross. Maxim was supposed to take a dive so SRR could win a third title.

Williams quoted the New York Journal American and Bill Corum as saying "Ray Robinson, the greatest fighter that I've seen in 35 years of watching fights, took a dive against Joey Maxim. Maybe his friends will tell him to sue me, but he won't".

Ike continued

"I heard that Ray Robinson double-crossed the Negroes in Harlem in New York and they told him to get out of New York or "we're gonna kill you". So you see, Ray wound up living in California.

Williams was always a huge fan of Sugar Ray's and accounted him the greatest fighter who'd ever lived.

2 questions.

1. Do we believe the account? Seems a bit convenient to me; although there is an argument. The idea that SRR was "too good" to need to deal with the mob is ludicrous - Burley was as good as anyone and what happened to his shot?

2. If the account is true and SRR threw a few fights and had fights thrown for him - what happens to his status?

Why did he take so long to pull out if it was a dive?

If Maxim was supposed to dive why hadn't he done it already?

The referee had to be replaced. Have you seen the fight? He was practically out on his feet the round before. If he was faking he deserves an Oscar.

I'd be more surprised if none of his fights were fixed than some, but don't see that one as suspicious personally.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Personally have the records of both Greb and Charles ahead of that of Robinson but in some cases when the talent of someone at his best is so obvious i'll make an acception. This is where Leonard falls short for me despite his talent he lost to an albeit awesome lightweight in Duran (my favourite fighter for the record) and was getting beaten on points by Hearns at the time of the stoppage.

At his peak and at his optimum weight (he was still a small welterweight) Robinson was unbeatable whereas Leonard wasn't.

My rankings change from day to day but at the present time i'd have Leonard at the tail end of a top ten but wouldn't disagree with him being as high as four but any higher is ignoring his flaws. Robinson would not have been out brawled by a smaller man nor would he have had trouble knocking Hearns out before the 14th.

Robinson, Greb, Armstrong, Fitzsimmons and Charles are in the elite top 5 places with both Duran and Leonard comfortably in the next 5 alongside Tunney, B. Leonard, Pep, Jofre and an ever changing tenth most probably Langford, Ali or Wilde.

The comparitive merits of Gavilan and Hearns are minimal but I have to favour Gavilans superior longevity at Welterweight.

SRL falling short against Duran is a fight he decided to brawl is no shame. Who did SRR lose his first fight to and why is that not held against him as you hold the DDuran fight against SRL. This for me is another example where old timers get special treatment. I would also argue that SRR would not have an easy night against Hearns. Hearns for me would be in the top 5 ATG had he possessed a decent chin. He would outbox any boxer and doubt very much is SRR or anyone else would have an easy night knocking him out.

I'm suprised you have Ali at 10 or below. Many have him as their No1.

I'd go with what scott said. If he were to take a dive, there are better situations to do so. The report seems a little far fetched to me.

I dont agree that SRR was unbeatable at WW. No fighter has ever been unbeatable and I think this idea is what causes problems with Robinson.

Hearns is an absolute monster at Welterweight. I dont think his durability was quite there to become a massive force above say Lightmiddle but at Welterweight its hard to imagine a more imposing fighter. I would be reluctant to bet against Hearns against virtually any Welterweight in history and that includes Robinson. I fully accept Robinson has the career but in a pure head to head it would be so close to call. I would not have tipped Leonard to beat him in a rematch at Welter either for that matter. But Robinson wasnot a particularly big Welter and Hearns was huge at the weight with awesome power and a great skillset.

Theres mileage out of the argument tht he was beating Leonard at the fight up to a point although I think you have to give full credit to Leonard for finding the win. This was a peak, unbeaten Hearns at his best weight for me which I think is a tougher match than the Gavilan Robinson faced.

Certainly agree with that, manos.

Though I played Devil's Advocate in the subject of Gavilan and Hearns and their rankings at welter, I actually share yours and azania's views that Hearns is worthy of being a notch or two higher than Gavilan.

HumanWindmill wrote:Certainly agree with that, manos.

Though I played Devil's Advocate in the subject of Gavilan and Hearns and their rankings at welter, I actually share yours and azania's views that Hearns is worthy of being a notch or two higher than Gavilan.

I'm gonna pass out.

azania wrote:

SRL falling short against Duran is a fight he decided to brawl is no shame. Who did SRR lose his first fight to and why is that not held against him as you hold the DDuran fight against SRL.

Robinson lost his first fight to Jake LaMotta. It was their second fight in a series of six fights, and the only one of the six which LaMotta won. Going 5-1 suggests a certain degree of dominance was asserted on Robinson's behalf. Lamotta also wasn't a blown-up lightweight. Perhaps these are some of the reasons?

I think it was Windy who pointed out earlier that it's relatively easy to pick apart a boxer's record, should one have the motivation.

SRL lost to the aforementioned lightweight, wanted the immediate rematch because he knew of Duran's Hatton-like propensity to balloon, and the detrimental effect this would have on Duran in a rematch, ducked Hagler until he was confident Hagler was past his best, and was losing to Hearns the first time until he 'got lucky',and gifted a draw the second time. At least, that's what a cynic could say...just look at how SOME people accuse Mayweather of ducking when he retires; SRL is open to the same criticism, no?

azania wrote:I'm suprised you have Ali at 10 or below. Many have him as their No1.

Ali didn't.

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

SRL falling short against Duran is a fight he decided to brawl is no shame. Who did SRR lose his first fight to and why is that not held against him as you hold the DDuran fight against SRL.

Robinson lost his first fight to Jake LaMotta. It was their second fight in a series of six fights, and the only one of the six which LaMotta won. Going 5-1 suggests a certain degree of dominance was asserted on Robinson's behalf. Lamotta also wasn't a blown-up lightweight. Perhaps these are some of the reasons?

I think it was Windy who pointed out earlier that it's relatively easy to pick apart a boxer's record, should one have the motivation.

SRL lost to the aforementioned lightweight, wanted the immediate rematch because he knew of Duran's Hatton-like propensity to balloon, and the detrimental effect this would have on Duran in a rematch, ducked Hagler until he was confident Hagler was past his best, and was losing to Hearns the first time until he 'got lucky',and gifted a draw the second time. At least, that's what a cynic could say...just look at how SOME people accuse Mayweather of ducking when he retires; SRL is open to the same criticism, no?

azania wrote:I'm suprised you have Ali at 10 or below. Many have him as their No1.

Ali didn't.

Yes but very few if any have Ray Leonard as this invincible fighter who is head and shoulders above any other fighter, which is the context of the argument.

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

SRL falling short against Duran is a fight he decided to brawl is no shame. Who did SRR lose his first fight to and why is that not held against him as you hold the DDuran fight against SRL.

Robinson lost his first fight to Jake LaMotta. It was their second fight in a series of six fights, and the only one of the six which LaMotta won. Going 5-1 suggests a certain degree of dominance was asserted on Robinson's behalf. Lamotta also wasn't a blown-up lightweight. Perhaps these are some of the reasons?

I think it was Windy who pointed out earlier that it's relatively easy to pick apart a boxer's record, should one have the motivation.

SRL lost to the aforementioned lightweight, wanted the immediate rematch because he knew of Duran's Hatton-like propensity to balloon, and the detrimental effect this would have on Duran in a rematch, ducked Hagler until he was confident Hagler was past his best, and was losing to Hearns the first time until he 'got lucky',and gifted a draw the second time. At least, that's what a cynic could say...just look at how SOME people accuse Mayweather of ducking when he retires; SRL is open to the same criticism, no?

azania wrote:I'm suprised you have Ali at 10 or below. Many have him as their No1.

Ali didn't.

You said it. Its easy to pick holes in any boxer's record. Regardless I would still pick Duran to beat LaMotta at any weight. Duran was simply better than him. But that does not detract from SRR's record and losing to Duran should not detract from SRL's record.

Ducked Hagler? He was out of the ring for 5 years and his comeback fight was against Hagler. That was a huge risk. Although I thought Hagler won that fight, again SRL should be praised for that and not accused of ducking.

I dont put Ali as No1 either but many others do. Its all subjective.

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

SRL falling short against Duran is a fight he decided to brawl is no shame. Who did SRR lose his first fight to and why is that not held against him as you hold the DDuran fight against SRL.

Robinson lost his first fight to Jake LaMotta. It was their second fight in a series of six fights, and the only one of the six which LaMotta won. Going 5-1 suggests a certain degree of dominance was asserted on Robinson's behalf. Lamotta also wasn't a blown-up lightweight. Perhaps these are some of the reasons?

I think it was Windy who pointed out earlier that it's relatively easy to pick apart a boxer's record, should one have the motivation.

SRL lost to the aforementioned lightweight, wanted the immediate rematch because he knew of Duran's Hatton-like propensity to balloon, and the detrimental effect this would have on Duran in a rematch, ducked Hagler until he was confident Hagler was past his best, and was losing to Hearns the first time until he 'got lucky',and gifted a draw the second time. At least, that's what a cynic could say...just look at how SOME people accuse Mayweather of ducking when he retires; SRL is open to the same criticism, no?

azania wrote:I'm suprised you have Ali at 10 or below. Many have him as their No1.

Ali didn't.

You said it. Its easy to pick holes in any boxer's record. Regardless I would still pick Duran to beat LaMotta at any weight. Duran was simply better than him. But that does not detract from SRR's record and losing to Duran should not detract from SRL's record.

Ducked Hagler? He was out of the ring for 5 years and his comeback fight was against Hagler. That was a huge risk. Although I thought Hagler won that fight, again SRL should be praised for that and not accused of ducking.

I dont put Ali as No1 either but many others do. Its all subjective.

Sure, SRL was out of the ring prior to fighting Hagler, but one could also postulate: why did Leonard not return from his retirement to fight Hagler earlier? At least part of the reason is because he waited until he thought hecould beat Hagler. If I'm not wrong Leonard is on record as saying something to that effect. I believe it was after Hagler-Mugabe, and Leonard stated "I watched the fight and I saw Mugabe out-boxing Hagler, and I thought "if John Mugabe can out-box Hagler, then I can""*.

Didn't SRL also press for the fight to be twelve not fifteen rounds? For the sake of argument; suppose the first Hearns fight had been 12 rounds, and the Hagler fight had been fifteen-SRL would arguably not won either. I know this means jack diddly in the real world, but a pedant could take these very minor things to chip away at Leonard.

*Found the quote, although I'm not sure how accurate Wikipedia is:

"I was ringside," Leonard said. "I'm watching John 'The Beast' Mugabi outbox Hagler. Of all people, John 'The Beast' Mugabi." It was then that Leonard decided to come back and fight Hagler. He called Mike Trainer and said, "I can beat Hagler."

azania wrote: I dont put Ali as No1 either but many others do. Its all subjective.

My point about that was that both Ali and SRL put Robinson as #1. Are they both wrong?

BALTIMORA wrote:My point about that was that both Ali and SRL put Robinson as #1. Are they both wrong?

Why can't they be? Do you agree with Ali when he speaks about Dempsey being useless? He's hardly a boxing scholar, he's a fighter.

Scottrf wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:My point about that was that both Ali and SRL put Robinson as #1. Are they both wrong?

Why can't they be? Do you agree with Ali when he speaks about Dempsey being useless? He's hardly a boxing scholar, he's a fighter.

It's a different context though, isn't it. Ali was renowned for downplaying others, not for praising them. Imagine if Bob Arum came out and said "yeah, I admit that (a fight he'd put on) was rubbish and a poor match-up". People would sit up and take notice because it's out-of-character for him. Same thing with Ali.

The list of boxers and their incorrect or innaccurate quotes is endless.

In all honesty they mean little in the vast majority of cases. Holmes didnt rate Marciano - do we take this as a given then?

Mayweather said hes better than Robinson, so should we take his word for it?

Leonard also picked Hatton to beat Mayweather if Im not mistaken so yes, boxers can of course be wrong about boxing related matters.

But I'm not sure he knew that much about boxing history, so it doesn't really matter if he was genuine. He likely appreciated his flashiness/entourage etc as much as his record. Other experts have named other #1s so not like his opinion holds weight over Arcel for example.

He also said Tyson would knock him out but people are happy to dismiss that.

SRL picked thumbless gloves also knowing Hagler disliked them. You can argue that he is an early version of Pac with his numerous stipulations to give him an advantage etc. He also chose a huge ring against Hagler. And yes he didn't rematch Hearns immediately and went for Duran for reasons you mention above.

Its easy to say that had the fight gone 12 rounds Hearns would have won. Had it been a 12 round fight, Leonard may have applied the pressure earlier and got the same result. But that isn't the context here. The point being that I also agree that SRR is #1. But he most definately not so far ahead that others are chasing shadows and eating dust behind him.

Also whatever holes you can pick against SRL, many can be picked against SRR. Losing to average middleweights and running out of gas against Maxim. But why should they be held against him? Likewise why should losing against Duran be held against Leonard.

Who do you think would win; Duran of LaMotta? Has duran ever lost to a brawler?

azania wrote:Also whatever holes you can pick against SRL, many can be picked against SRR. Losing to average middleweights and running out of gas against Maxim. But why should they be held against him?

Well, Leonard had the benefit of modern nutrition and training techniques...

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:Also whatever holes you can pick against SRL, many can be picked against SRR. Losing to average middleweights and running out of gas against Maxim. But why should they be held against him?

Well, Leonard had the benefit of modern nutrition and training techniques...

Good heavens Balti. Is that what you think this is about? Old timers vs modern guys? Seriously I dont get your point anyway. Is (iyo) SRR head and shoulders above all other fighters in history?

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:Also whatever holes you can pick against SRL, many can be picked against SRR. Losing to average middleweights and running out of gas against Maxim. But why should they be held against him?

Well, Leonard had the benefit of modern nutrition and training techniques...

Good heavens Balti. Is that what you think this is about? Old timers vs modern guys? Seriously I dont get your point anyway. Is (iyo) SRR head and shoulders above all other fighters in history?

Wow. I thought you had a sense of irony. I was wrong. This article started out implying that Robinson's record is a triumph of quantity over quality, criticising the perceived validity of his most acclaimed wins, and stating that "There is a very strong argument for putting SRL above SRR in the ATG stakes". Your stance on the matter has gone from being somewhat matter-of-fact to being almost apologist. There clearly can't be THAT strong an argument for putting Leonard above Robinson (presumably you mean in 1st position), as the vast majority of people simply don't consider it to be the case. Do you not think that this has been discussed for DECADES? We aren't the first people to discuss it. If there WERE a strong case for it, as you suggest, then we'd be hearing that more often.

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:Also whatever holes you can pick against SRL, many can be picked against SRR. Losing to average middleweights and running out of gas against Maxim. But why should they be held against him?

Well, Leonard had the benefit of modern nutrition and training techniques...

Good heavens Balti. Is that what you think this is about? Old timers vs modern guys? Seriously I dont get your point anyway. Is (iyo) SRR head and shoulders above all other fighters in history?

Wow. I thought you had a sense of irony. I was wrong. This article started out implying that Robinson's record is a triumph of quantity over quality, criticising the perceived validity of his most acclaimed wins, and stating that "There is a very strong argument for putting SRL above SRR in the ATG stakes". Your stance on the matter has gone from being somewhat matter-of-fact to being almost apologist. There clearly can't be THAT strong an argument for putting Leonard above Robinson (presumably you mean in 1st position), as the vast majority of people simply don't consider it to be the case. Do you not think that this has been discussed for DECADES? We aren't the first people to discuss it. If there WERE a strong case for it, as you suggest, then we'd be hearing that more often.

So SRR's record is simply beyond scrutiny or is it the person scrutinising it that you disagree with?

There is a very strong case for putting Ali above SRR. Do you dispute that? Have you heard that case?

My stance is not matter-of-fact. I am looking at their respective records and raising issues for debate and giving an opinion. I am not rubbishing SRR whatsoever. Yes his record at MW is very patchy at best. I said that. So have others. So do historians. His reign at WW is what seperates him from the rest. My main point is that is he that far ahead and yes there is a strong argument for putting Leonard ahead given their career best wins.

But as you should know, ATG is not as simple as that.

Leonard really only has a case depending on the allowances you make for the more modern era of less fights. Obviously most people would back Leonard to beat anything on SRR welterweight resume but without actually doing it its makes it difficult to measure.

If you are inclined to make no allowances for the changes in era's then it becomes very difficult for a guy like Leonard to compare because he just doesnt have the extensive 110 fights (at which point its worth considering is there any point trying to compare at all then?).

If you make allowances in depending on the degree and focusing mainly on big wins then he has a stronger claim as I personally would take Duran, Benitez and Hearns as stronger than Robinsons best wins at the weight. But the next question is then how fo you evaluating everything in between those wins? I find it immensely difficult to draw a balance.

Its probably easier to use somebody like Charles as a potential rival because you are comparing similar eras. I actually think Charles on paper has a very strong argument when you consider his record against arguably the strongest era of light heavies and his results against them. Not to mention his abilty to capture a heavyweight title. Robinsons natural talent, glamour and personality probably thrust him ahead of Charles but the gap isnt gigantic and on pure c.v there isnt much in it.