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?

Scottrf wrote: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.

I must admit, I thought to pick the maxim fight as fixed was a bit far fetched, given the nature of the fight. I was reporting Williams' comment.

The idea seems that maxim was throwing the fight by not giving his best, enabling Robinson to win. Srr then double crosses the plan by losing late, protecting his legacy as the public didn't suspect.

Even typing it felt tenuous.

However, Robinson certainly dealt with the underside of the sport - does that harm his legacy?

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote: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.

I must admit, I thought to pick the maxim fight as fixed was a bit far fetched, given the nature of the fight. I was reporting Williams' comment.

The idea seems that maxim was throwing the fight by not giving his best, enabling Robinson to win. Srr then double crosses the plan by losing late, protecting his legacy as the public didn't suspect.

Even typing it felt tenuous.

However, Robinson certainly dealt with the underside of the sport - does that harm his legacy?

I dont think Robinson ever has to fear for his legacy. He was also guilty of many things similar to what fighters today get criticised for. He was not above demanding big money for easy fights, being selective in opponent choices (accused of ducking Burley amongst others), changing his demands to suit him, asking for more money at short notice and threatning to withraw if he didnt get it and similar sorts of carry on that is largely forgotten about in history. He also wasted vast amounts of his fortune on extravagent purchases. I don think it impacts his legacy but is worth revisiting just to remind ourselves he was actually human.

Have to say as a huge Duran fan i'd pick LaMotta to win quite decisively, the fight wouldn't happen any lower than Middleweight where all the physical advantages are held by the raging bull. Duran wasn't particularly great above Welterweight which is understandable for someone starting who started at Bantamweight. I wouldn't pick him to beat any of Fullmer, Basillio, Turpin, LaMotta or Pender at the weight.

We can compare fighters of different eras by comparing them at the top level, this is where i'd argue Charles and Greb should both be up for consideration when choosing the number one whereas Leonard isn't for me.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Have to say as a huge Duran fan i'd pick LaMotta to win quite decisively, the fight wouldn't happen any lower than Middleweight where all the physical advantages are held by the raging bull. Duran wasn't particularly great above Welterweight which is understandable for someone starting who started at Bantamweight. I wouldn't pick him to beat any of Fullmer, Basillio, Turpin, LaMotta or Pender at the weight.

We can compare fighters of different eras by comparing them at the top level, this is where i'd argue Charles and Greb should both be up for consideration when choosing the number one whereas Leonard isn't for me.

LaMotta was a small MW and not particularly skilled either. Duran who beat Davey Moore and took Barkley to another planet would have too much for Jake. I cant see Duran losing to a brawler. Even Hagler had to box him. He was just too good at infighting and dirty tricks. But its all opinions.

Personally I would put SRL above Greb and possibly above Charles.

LaMotta wasn't a small MW, he struggled to make weight.

Scottrf wrote:LaMotta wasn't a small MW, he struggled to make weight.

I stand corrected.

Regardless I would still pick Duran against him.

Perhaps with better diet LaMot...........nah I wont go there.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Have to say as a huge Duran fan i'd pick LaMotta to win quite decisively, the fight wouldn't happen any lower than Middleweight where all the physical advantages are held by the raging bull. Duran wasn't particularly great above Welterweight which is understandable for someone starting who started at Bantamweight. I wouldn't pick him to beat any of Fullmer, Basillio, Turpin, LaMotta or Pender at the weight.

We can compare fighters of different eras by comparing them at the top level, this is where i'd argue Charles and Greb should both be up for consideration when choosing the number one whereas Leonard isn't for me.

LaMotta was a small MW and not particularly skilled either. Duran who beat Davey Moore and took Barkley to another planet would have too much for Jake. I cant see Duran losing to a brawler. Even Hagler had to box him. He was just too good at infighting and dirty tricks. But its all opinions.

Personally I would put SRL above Greb and possibly above Charles.

Duran is my favourite fighter but its generous saying he took Barkley to another planet. The fight was a fairly close contested encounter for me. I also think you should watch the Duran v Leonard II fight agin as theres only a round or two at most in it when the "no mas" happens. Its no way the one sided schooling some people say just because Duran blew a fuse. He was still well in the fight.

LaMotta was a big Middleweight though. I would probably agree though that I would edge towards Duran against LaMotta even at middle. Have never particularly rated LaMotta highly and would back Durans skills up front to be too saavy for the cruder LaMotta. Theres a chance Duran struggles with LaMottas engine and size at the weight but I think he has the skills to cope.

Perhaps I better watch the Duran/Barkley fight again.

As for the No mas fight, it was close up to the end of R5. From 6 onwards, SRL started moving more and showboating as he knew he had Duran where he wanted him.

A Duran/LaMotta fight would be a toe to toe fight with Duran's greater skill winning out. I think the movie has made LaMotta a better boxer than he actually was.

azania wrote:Perhaps I better watch the Duran/Barkley fight again.

As for the No mas fight, it was close up to the end of R5. From 6 onwards, SRL started moving more and showboating as he knew he had Duran where he wanted him.

A Duran/LaMotta fight would be a toe to toe fight with Duran's greater skill winning out. I think the movie has made LaMotta a better boxer than he actually was.

I agree that LaMotta has been glamourised through the movie, his fights with Robinson and his amazing durability to a level probably beyond his talent. I couldnt have him as a top 5 middleweight.

But I dont think Duran is well served engaging him in a toe to toe batle. Duran was a better boxer than hes usually credited for and had great footwork and movement as well as mastering the subtle arts of rolling and slipping punches. He seldom got hit clean despite being in his opponents face most of the time which is very impressive. But against LaMotta he needs t box more and brawl less to come out ahead I think. A slugfest favours the bigger, stronger LaMotta who is all but impossible to stop, have enormous durablity and an outstanding workrate. Duran would need to to box and move more and utitlise all his mastery up front to box his way to a decision.

manos de piedra wrote:

azania wrote:Perhaps I better watch the Duran/Barkley fight again.

As for the No mas fight, it was close up to the end of R5. From 6 onwards, SRL started moving more and showboating as he knew he had Duran where he wanted him.

A Duran/LaMotta fight would be a toe to toe fight with Duran's greater skill winning out. I think the movie has made LaMotta a better boxer than he actually was.

I agree that LaMotta has been glamourised through the movie, his fights with Robinson and his amazing durability to a level probably beyond his talent. I couldnt have him as a top 5 middleweight.

But I dont think Duran is well served engaging him in a toe to toe batle. Duran was a better boxer than hes usually credited for and had great footwork and movement as well as mastering the subtle arts of rolling and slipping punches. He seldom got hit clean despite being in his opponents face most of the time which is very impressive. But against LaMotta he needs t box more and brawl less to come out ahead I think. A slugfest favours the bigger, stronger LaMotta who is all but impossible to stop, have enormous durablity and an outstanding workrate. Duran would need to to box and move more and utitlise all his mastery up front to box his way to a decision.

You're probably correct, but I believe that the Duran who stood with Hagler and fought with Barkley would have too much for Jake. Having said that I believe either way Duran would have won as Jake was simply not good enough. His toughness notwithstanding, Duran was simply the better man and would have too much boxing intelligence for him.

Duran didn't go toe to toe with Hagler, it was an incredibly cagey affair with both seemingly giving the other far too much respect. Duran is better than LaMotta in pound for pound terms but fights aren't fought based on that and LaMotta while limited proved his worth at Middleweight to a far greater degree than Duran did, size is a very important factor in this fight because of the respective styles. Duran could box well but his time at middleweight was very very patchy with a win over Barkley being the only thing of real note.

The film raging bull did more harm to LaMotta than good in my opinion, it often gets forgotten that he was very good at what he did and it was enough for him to achieve several good wins.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Duran didn't go toe to toe with Hagler, it was an incredibly cagey affair with both seemingly giving the other far too much respect. Duran is better than LaMotta in pound for pound terms but fights aren't fought based on that and LaMotta while limited proved his worth at Middleweight to a far greater degree than Duran did, size is a very important factor in this fight because of the respective styles. Duran could box well but his time at middleweight was very very patchy with a win over Barkley being the only thing of real note.

The film raging bull did more harm to LaMotta than good in my opinion, it often gets forgotten that he was very good at what he did and it was enough for him to achieve several good wins.

I dont think size would be too much of a factor. If that were the case a limited fighter like Valuev would still be world champ. Its a question of ability and Duran had that in abundance. More so than LaMotta.

In the Hagler fight, Marvin elected to box and move. Duran was doing the chasing.

At some stage size does become a factor otherwise the most skilled boxer would always be the heavyweight champion. Duran started off at bantamweight something that's often overlooked and fighting a big strong physically imposing fighter like Lamotta would not be easy. Cerdan was without doubt a far better middleweight than Duran and he fell at the hands of the raging bull so while Duran has a chance it's by no means a foregone conclusion.

The Mighty Atom wrote:At some stage size does become a factor otherwise the most skilled boxer would always be the heavyweight champion. Duran started off at bantamweight something that's often overlooked and fighting a big strong physically imposing fighter like Lamotta would not be easy. Cerdan was without doubt a far better middleweight than Duran and he fell at the hands of the raging bull so while Duran has a chance it's by no means a foregone conclusion.

I certainly dont think it would be easy. But Duran's skills edges it for me. Size may come into play as Duran may probably tire, but he would still win a points victory. He was just too good for Jake imo.

Many would have said the same about better middleweights in Robinson, Williams, Cerdan, Bell, Wilson and a host of other skillful ranked contenders.

Give the nod to Lamotta myself, his conditioning would be too much for what would be an overweight Duran.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Many would have said the same about better middleweights in Robinson, Williams, Cerdan, Bell, Wilson and a host of other skillful ranked contenders.

Give the nod to Lamotta myself, his conditioning would be too much for what would be an overweight Duran.

That's the beauty of boxing. We can have endless debates about who would beat who and come up with several different conclusions.

Cheers

All a mute point because Charles would wipe the floor with the lot of them anyway, i'm actually edging towards him for top spot and have always been quite vocal in my criticism of Robinsons avoidance of the black murderers row.

The Mighty Atom wrote:All a mute point because Charles would wipe the floor with the lot of them anyway, i'm actually edging towards him for top spot and have always been quite vocal in my criticism of Robinsons avoidance of the black murderers row.

Your opinion. I'd have SRR as 1, SRL as 2 with Ali at 3.

Who did Sugar Ray Leonard fight six times? Robinson lost to La Motta once, but he defeated him the other 5 times. That a highly respectable win/loss ratio. In those days fighters competed more often over a longer period of time. What happened in Leonards 39th and 40th fights? he was beaten by two LMWs and knocked out. Robinson lost twice in his first 130 matches.

In those days, fighters competed more often. Robinson racked up 202 fights and boxed until he was 45, in a 25 year career. Of course they lost more times than fighters generally do today. Before the Fullmer fights, Robinson had lost 4 times in 140 odd matches, thats an incredible record and win/loss ratio. He avenged two of them, one was after a 2.5 year retirement. In his prime Robinson barely lost, you could say baring in mind the number of bouts, undefeatabale.

Imagine Robinson in his best fight, or his career condensed to 40 contests. Where he would have time to recuperate between fights, train specifically for one or two bouts a year. No regular retirements and comebacks, thats alot of fights to be overweight for or to pick up a minor injury. A fresh, prime Robinson would defeat almost any fighter at WW and MW.

He was 1-1 against Fullmer and Basilio, before taking on Fullmer twice more at the age of about 40. Clearly at this stage he was past it, with an exceedingly lengthy career behind him, still managing a draw in the first bout. 1-1 is a good record, taking into the account the number of fights these guys used to participate in. In the rematch against Fullmer, Robinson knocked him out in five rounds. Not sure I would award the verdict in the first match to Fullmer. He utilised a hustling, charging style - many of these tactics would barely be legal today. For me the points go to Robinson's superior boxing skills. Thats what judges should award points for.

Robinson certainly possessed sublime skills. Speed, defence, knock out record, chin - he was a composite of all the great characteristics that make up a fighter. Robinson is the almost universal no 1 or 2 in any p4p list I have seen.

Charley Burley moved up to MW in about 1942, at this stage Robinson had just started out in his career, himself moving up to MW in 1948 and first holding the title in 1951. That is the same year as Burley's retirement from boxing. The primes of the two fighters did not really coincide. La Motta, Zale and Cerdan are the main culprits in Burley not fighting for a title.

I'd say Robinson competed in enough fights across his very long career. The 4th Fullmer fight was in 1961, a full 21 years after his career began. He still took on top level opposition into his 40s. The fact he regained the MW title 4 times, tells us about the standard of opposition he competed against.

ArchBritishchris, the point with Burley is that SRR couldve moved up to Middleweight long before he did to fight him. Boxrec doesnt reflect everything.

The 200 fight career is impressive but you have to account for the quality of opposition faced in general. Ray Leonad for my money is more than capable of going 110-1 at welterweight against Robinsons opposition. He didnt though, so we will never know.

However Leonards wins over Hearns at welter and Hagler at middle are better than any of Robinsons wins at the respective weights in my opinion.

I have Robinson at number 1 and even if I didnt I would acknowledge his claim is as good as anyones, however its not straight forward to compare different eras and post Robinson I think Leonard has as good a claim as anyone to rival him accounting for the change in eras.

Out of interest Manos could you remind who Robinson lost to at Welterweight because last time I checked he was never beaten at the weight, I don't see Leonard replicating that record as Duran wasn't as good at Welterweight as either Gavilan or Zivic and would still struggle with the version of Armstrong he beat.

ArchBritishchris wrote:Charley Burley moved up to MW in about 1942, at this stage Robinson had just started out in his career, himself moving up to MW in 1948 and first holding the title in 1951. That is the same year as Burley's retirement from boxing. The primes of the two fighters did not really coincide. La Motta, Zale and Cerdan are the main culprits in Burley not fighting for a title.

I'd say Robinson competed in enough fights across his very long career. The 4th Fullmer fight was in 1961, a full 21 years after his career began. He still took on top level opposition into his 40s. The fact he regained the MW title 4 times, tells us about the standard of opposition he competed against.

Woah there - whilst Burley was fighting at MW - he could still make WW. He was weighing in at about 151 for a lot of his fights and lied about the weight for commissions (or so he claims later). And even BEFORE SRR won the title - there was huge acclaim for him to fight the still-good Burley. Acclaim that SRR declined. He was signed to fight Burley; he declined as his "manager couldn't make fights for him". But 6 months on "only his manager could make fights for him".

Burley didn't play ball with Robbo's handlers. We could argue all century to whom the blame truly lies for the fight not being made - but my point is this - the fight SHOULD have been made and Burley had a damn site more right to a shot than half the wastrels that SRR was given to whip.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Out of interest Manos could you remind who Robinson lost to at Welterweight because last time I checked he was never beaten at the weight, I don't see Leonard replicating that record as Duran wasn't as good at Welterweight as either Gavilan or Zivic and would still struggle with the version of Armstrong he beat.

I thought the 2nd fight with LaMotta he lost was a welter fight, but maybe its middle so if thats the case I stand corrected.

How Leonard wold fare against Robinsons opposition is purely speculation however I personally start him as favourite against every one of Robinsons opponents, Zivic, Gavilan and Armstrong included. I accept you cant credit him with wins he doesnt have but by the same token you cant credit Robinson with wins over Hearns, Duran or Hagler. It works both ways.

All the LaMotta fights were at middleweight

The big difference between the two is it's safe to assume that Robinson would cope quite easily fighting 40/50 times over his whole career, he proved he could do it over 200 times remember, whereas seeing Leonard lose to Duran it's safe to assume he would not go unbeaten in over 100 fights at Welterweight in a 6/7 year timespan.

It's easier to transport someone from 200 fights to 40 fights than it is the other way round.

The Mighty Atom wrote:All the LaMotta fights were at middleweight

The big difference between the two is it's safe to assume that Robinson would cope quite easily fighting 40/50 times over his whole career, he proved he could do it over 200 times remember, whereas seeing Leonard lose to Duran it's safe to assume he would not go unbeaten in over 100 fights at Welterweight in a 6/7 year timespan.

It's easier to transport someone from 200 fights to 40 fights than it is the other way round.

At the end of the day Duran is a quality operator even at welter. Leonard lost a pretty close decision fighting arguably poor tactics. I would suggenst Leonard beats Duran 8/9 times out of 10 at welter. Im happy to accept Robinson would cope just fine in a 40 fight career but I still dont think this translates to beating Duran, Hearns or Hagler. Alot of Robinsons welter record is against mediocrity which is natural in 110 odd fights. Where do you see Leonard dropping a decision out of curiosity? I presume you mean Armstrong or Gavilan? Leonard wins these fights for me although obviously they are tough. Just like I think Duran or Hearns is a seriously tough fight for Robinson. If you can speculate that Leonard is capable of losing to Gavilan or Armstrong then the same applies to Robinson with Duran or, more importantly Hearns.

That's the thing it's not about fights in isolation, I seriously don't see Leonard being able to cope with fighting that many times as he did after all struggle after 38 fights. Leonard lost to Duran plain and simple whether he used poor tactics or not is irrelevant should also be noted that above Lightweight Duran was very hit and miss when he was he damm good but when he was he could be really bad that doesn't translate to giving Robinson a seriously tough fight, he just wasn't good enough at Welterweight. Hearns would be a good fight for as long as it lasted but again don't see someone with Hearns chin lasting til the 14th round against Robinson.

Gavilan in my view would be the most likely to cause an upset, he had everything but was unfortunate to have Robinson around at the time. Do you not agree it's easier to win against top quality opposition when your fighting so sparingly?

The Mighty Atom wrote:That's the thing it's not about fights in isolation, I seriously don't see Leonard being able to cope with fighting that many times as he did after all struggle after 38 fights. Leonard lost to Duran plain and simple whether he used poor tactics or not is irrelevant should also be noted that above Lightweight Duran was very hit and miss when he was he damm good but when he was he could be really bad that doesn't translate to giving Robinson a seriously tough fight, he just wasn't good enough at Welterweight. Hearns would be a good fight for as long as it lasted but again don't see someone with Hearns chin lasting til the 14th round against Robinson.

Gavilan in my view would be the most likely to cause an upset, he had everything but was unfortunate to have Robinson around at the time. Do you not agree it's easier to win against top quality opposition when your fighting so sparingly?

Truth is I dont know. Im not sure where the line is between fighting regularly and having sufficient recovery is drawn. Many argue that fighting only a couple of times a year does not keep you sharp enough. Certainly Leonards hiatus for the Hagler fight could not be considered ideal.

I dont really see why couldnt have the same record as Robinson against his opponents. He had the talent to do so and the question is then does he have the durability? I can only speculate but I would still lean towards the conclusion that he beats everyone Robinson beats. Hes obviously capable of dropping a loss to someone like Gavilan but no more so than I feel Robinson is to dropping a loss to Hearns. The point being really that if its ok to specualte on Leonard losing to a certain opponent then the same applies to Robinson.

I think that at welterweight Hearns was a machine. I would make him favourite over any other welter and that includes Leonard and Robinson. If Leonard fought Hearns 6 times I would say Hearns wins 4 times. His durability was a bigger factor higher up the weights for me and obviously while Robinson is more than capable of winning by either points or KO I still think I would give Hearns a small edge.

Who did Hearns beat at Welterweight to be deserving of such lofty praise? Cuevas? He's best remembered for losing to Leonard, Hagler and Barkley, considering they were all by knockout I have to assume that Robinson is more than likely to do the same thing.

Using the evidence we have I can only come to the conclusion that Robinson would beat all of Leonards opposition at the respective time in his career whereas Leonard would eventually slip up at Welterweight. There is nothing to suggest otherwise, on paper Robinson never loses but we know that's not the case so it's the same for Leonard under the same conditions.

Consider also that over 12 round Robinson would have beaten Maxim quite decisively up at light heavyweight but who knows what would have happened against Hagler over 15 rounds, can't just apply modern standards of just fully preparing for 40 fights.

Its not that black and white for me. Hearns lost to Leonard but in doing so he convinced me that he had the beating of him and that his loss to Leonard would be the exception rather thn rule. Over a series I dont think Leonard could rely on finding a late KO and the second fight I thought Hearns won.

Considering all the weapons Hearns had and his size, power and skill at the weight I consider him immensely formidable. No fighter in unbeatable and Leonard beat him but in general I think Hearns beats Leonard.

I think your looking at the records too rigidly. Leonard lost a close decision to Duran at welterweight. Duran may not have been as formidable at welter but I still consider him better than 95% of Robinsons welterweight opponents. Leonard also avenged the defeat and in my opinion is the better fighter at welter and would win over a series.

Robinson was not unbeatable at welter and the fact I consider Hearns better than any of his opponents means that I dont think its possible to just assume Robinsons beats him based on the fact Hearns lost to Leonard and Robinson didnt lose at welterweight.

I dont see why all this paper record and assumptions based on them is applicable to Leonard losing to one of Robinsons opponents at some point yet Robinson v Hagler is a "who knows" when its easy to assume he loses to Hagler based on the same assumptions of record. He lost to fighters worse than Hagler and didnt beat any better than Hagler. So is it fair to say Hagler beats him as a result?

The thing is their records aren't comparable, your seeing things as purely both fighters in the modern era under modern conitions, in that situation Robinson doesn't lose at either Welterweight or Middleweight, Robinson does better in the modern era whereas Leonard does worse in the 40's and 50's. Hearns was always going to be vulnerable to someone with a punch which was proven on 3 seperate occassions, he had the skills but as soon as he was tagged it was goodnight, Gavilan and Armstrong both beat him for me, they have been outboxed for periods but they'd reach him sooner rather than later.

I meant to say who knows what would have happened between Leonard and Hagler over 15 rounds, I look at Leonards record and don't see anyone Robinson loses to at Welterweight whereas Leonard is more than likely to lose at some point during the course of 100+ fights at the weight considering he could only manage 40 in his whole career. Personally think Leonard is a borderline top ten guy who never really comes into consideration for top spot that's reserved for the likes of Robinson, Armstrong, Ali, Greb and Charles who proved themselves to a far greater degree.

Leonard may have had the talent to be up but just like Jones he didn't prove it

The Mighty Atom wrote:The thing is their records aren't comparable, your seeing things as purely both fighters in the modern era under modern conitions, in that situation Robinson doesn't lose at either Welterweight or Middleweight, Robinson does better in the modern era whereas Leonard does worse in the 40's and 50's. Hearns was always going to be vulnerable to someone with a punch which was proven on 3 seperate occassions, he had the skills but as soon as he was tagged it was goodnight, Gavilan and Armstrong both beat him for me, they have been outboxed for periods but they'd reach him sooner rather than later.

I meant to say who knows what would have happened between Leonard and Hagler over 15 rounds, I look at Leonards record and don't see anyone Robinson loses to at Welterweight whereas Leonard is more than likely to lose at some point during the course of 100+ fights at the weight considering he could only manage 40 in his whole career. Personally think Leonard is a borderline top ten guy who never really comes into consideration for top spot that's reserved for the likes of Robinson, Armstrong, Ali, Greb and Charles who proved themselves to a far greater degree.

Leonard may have had the talent to be up but just like Jones he didn't prove it

I think the short of it is that I just tend to be more generous in the allowances for modern circumstances. Leonard proved pretty much all that he could do given the modern era. Wins over 3 guys who are top ten all timers in their respective divisions across several weights is pretty hard to rival in the era of 40 fight careers. I think if one adopts the aproach that there is little or no room or allowance made for eras with less fights then its pretty much pointless to have these kind of lists at all because its nigh on impossible to envisage fighters having 100 fight careers these days. Whats the point of comparing Leonard and Robinson if there is no real attempt to translate circumstances?

If you go into the big wins territory then Leonards wins over Duran, Benitez, Hearns and Hagler are very capable of rivaling Robinsons big wins I think. After that it becomes how much scope you attach to the lesser fights Robinson had. Leonards defeat to Duran indicates hes capable of beaten alright but I dont think its enough to assume he loses to guys Robinson faced. Even if he did lose a fight somewhere in there I still dont think its a crippling blow as long as he retains his big wins.

I have Robinson at 1 because I think its too generous to assume someone like Leonard could equal his record at Welter. However I allow enough scope to feel that its likely that he would potentially if given the chance.

On a side note, I think Leonards claim is at the very least equal to that of Ali, who is more comparable career wise. Greb and Charles would just go into the same problems as with Robinson on trying to compare very different careers.

I'm giving allowances for Leonard fighting less but it's reasonable to say it's easier to win consistently if your fighting less regularly, despite this Leonard still lost at Welterweight and Robinson didn't, can't see any argument for Duran being better at the weight then Gavilan or Armstrong myself. Hearns is questionnable but he failed to back up his obvious talent with results of equal measure.

Ali has a far more consistent career than Leonard, fought the best far more and although he fought over matched opponents from time to time his top level wins far exceed that of Leonard.