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?

fearlessBamber wrote:I sympathise with azania to a degree as I have a tough time 'believing' in fighters pre ~1920 and especially fighters who has their primes pre 1900.

I mean you look at Dempsey on tape and sure it's a bit flickery and the frame rate is weird, but I can see an explosive fighter with impressive technique - look at the combo that floored Tunney in their rematch.

But Corbett and Fitz and other fighters of their era with the fencing master style and the funny stance. Well I just don't believe they have comparable technique with their latter day counterparts and cannot believe they'd have lived with them.

To compare Fitz/Corbett to boxing 20 years after them is akin to comparing pro boxing to amateur boxing. Simply a different sport that look similar.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Graziano
Basilio
Gavilan
Fullmer
LaMotta
Olson
Armstrong

Doesn't outweigh Duran, Hearns, Hagler and Benitez. Not even close. And its nothing to do with old timers etc. Hagler was simply better than all of the above (inc Armstrong at MW).

Why not have a closer look at SRR#s record. After all that is what I am asking for. Won the MW title 5 times. Means he lost it 5 times also. Hardly a sparkling record. I am not going to debate his WW record or argue against it. It speaks for itself.

You seem to be debating the poster as opposed to what is posted. Stay focused young man.

Robinson fought Armstrong at welter, which was Homicide Hank's most successful division. Granted, Armstrong was over the hill, but it can easily be argued that Hagler, at his best, would not have lost - if, indeed, he did lose - to Leonard.

The problem with debating this with you, az, is that the moment I mention EXCELLENT welters such as Angott and Larkin - both of whom are on Robinson's welter resumé - along with Zivic and a few others, you'll scurry back under cover with your ' didn't know what a jab was ' stuff.

Historian Monte Cox names Robinson as one of only five men with a claim to best ever record in pro boxing, and I don't think he's far off.

As I said windy, his resume as WW stands up to scrutiny in every way. But when he went up in weightm, he was found wanting. His achievements alone at ww is enough to make him No1. The reason why I created this OP is that it is almost impossible to question SRR in any way shape or form. Its akin to killing bambi.

Fritz and Larkin were both superb fighters in any era. They knew what a jab was and how to counter effectively

I am not questioning SRR's greatness, just prodding at one of boxing's holy grails.

Joking apart, az, the historian and IBHOF inductor, Tracy Callis, doesn't rate Robinson top either. His choice ? You're gonna love it. It was :























Bob Fitzsimmons.

He was probably smoking something mind altering to come to that conclusion.

I have his e - mail address if you'd like some.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:The point is, he lost to some decidedly average MW and some MWs he would destroy if fought at WW. His MW record is not that good when compared to his talents and achievement at WW.

I hope you're not referring to the likes of Basilio, Fullmer and Pender as 'decidedly average' Middleweights when you say that, Azania. They were superb Middleweights. A fighter who isn't easy on the eye or a defensive artist can still be a great fighter. Even Turpin, when on song, was an excellent 160 lb fighter whose record post-Robinson doesn't do him justice at all. Granted, the loss to Jones is a blotch on Robinson's copy book, but he was thirty-four by then, returning from a near three year layoff and something like 150 fights in to an extremely hard career.

As I said, going 1-1 with Basilio, 1-2-1 with Fullmer (should be 2-2 for me, the 'draw' was a poor verdict in my eyes) and beating the likes of Olson, Graziano and La Motta - all three of whom you seem to underrate - at 160 lb when on the wrong side of thirty (or the wrong side of thirty-five in the cases of Fullmer and Basilio) still entitles Robinson to be seen as a great Middleweight.

I'll repeat - not many fighters can lay claim to be a clear number one of all time in one of boxing's classic divisions, and a certain top ten (top five for me) in another. But Robinson can.

Imo those guys were toughmen but average boxers. The loss to Jones (I saw that fight recently on espn classic) was interesting given the long lay-off he had and his age. But Leonard was coming off a 5 year lay-off when he took on Hagler. Although I believe Hagler deserved the decision, SRL should be given enormous credit for that alone. Something he has not been given when looking at his ATG standing.

The bottom line is that SRR has been given more leeway that SRL. So do boxers from that era. A loss nowadays puts many boxers in the "useless" bracket whereas excuses are made for others 60 years ago.

My god - perish the thought if someone has a different opinion to others eh!

After looking at his record it is more then justifiable to question him being number 1 to ever walk the earth. If you disagree with Azania and still place him number one then thats down to you but should you lambast someone for having a different opinion? really?

As read earlier at WW he went 110 - 1?? and yet out of 110 fights its is suggested only 5 or 6 names he has wins against place him above all else?? well thats your perogative...

i for one do have him in my top 10 - ok he's not number 1 and well if you dont like it feel free to pucker up and kiss my behind

I think the whole point Azania put this article up was to discuss the situation, if we are not allowed to question what others say then the debate is dead, and there's also no point in this forum.

"Someone once said there was a comparison between Sugar Ray Leonard and Sugar Ray Robinson. Believe me, there's no comparison. Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest."
—Sugar Ray Leonard

The Galveston Giant wrote:I think the whole point Azania put this article up was to discuss the situation, if we are not allowed to question what others say then the debate is dead, and there's also no point in this forum.

I believe people are now begining to debate the poster and not what is posted. People are also looking to read between the lines and making assumptions based on what they think the poster is writing as opposed to what is actually written. Boxing to me is the greatest sport ever. Opinions will differ and so they should. But when some here tell others to "shut up" insult others because their pinions differ (not this thread I'll add) and claim they dont know what they are talking about, then it becomes a mutual back=slapping board.

Thankfully there is enough differences here and not many insults to make this board hugely entertaining. Lets keep it that way.

TimeBomb wrote:"Someone once said there was a comparison between Sugar Ray Leonard and Sugar Ray Robinson. Believe me, there's no comparison. Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest."
—Sugar Ray Leonard

Boxers say the nicest things. Ali called SRR the greatest also. Most have called SRR the greatest. Most are probably right also.

Some boxers have called Rocky great. We all have our monents of madness too.

TimeBomb wrote:"Someone once said there was a comparison between Sugar Ray Leonard and Sugar Ray Robinson. Believe me, there's no comparison. Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest."
—Sugar Ray Leonard

Ali once said that if Tyson had got in the ring with him that Tyson would have knocked him out - do you believe that?

azania wrote:

TimeBomb wrote:"Someone once said there was a comparison between Sugar Ray Leonard and Sugar Ray Robinson. Believe me, there's no comparison. Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest."
—Sugar Ray Leonard

Boxers say the nicest things. Ali called SRR the greatest also. Most have called SRR the greatest. Most are probably right also.

Some boxers have called Rocky great. We all have our monents of madness too.

So because it doesn't support your opinion you'll dismiss it. Nice going D4. Sorry, Az...

No1Jonesy wrote:My god - perish the thought if someone has a different opinion to others eh!

After looking at his record it is more then justifiable to question him being number 1 to ever walk the earth. If you disagree with Azania and still place him number one then thats down to you but should you lambast someone for having a different opinion? really?

As read earlier at WW he went 110 - 1?? and yet out of 110 fights its is suggested only 5 or 6 names he has wins against place him above all else?? well thats your perogative...

i for one do have him in my top 10 - ok he's not number 1 and well if you dont like it feel free to pucker up and kiss my behind

You mean, that we shouldn't be dismissive of az's opinions ?

Like this, for example ?

No1Jonesy wrote:

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Lewis had a tendancy to be lazy in the ring and alot of the times his jab was nothing more than a range finder. IMO Tyson would just have wore him down and won by late KO.

Two issues with this. Lewis, generally speaking, had no such tendancy to be 'lazy' in the ring when against his biggest rivals / opponents, and when the pressure was on, which would be the case against Tyson. Another thing - Tyson to 'wear Lewis down?' I'd have thought that, given his poor stamina and his tendancy to get frustrated and go in to his shell when things weren't going his way, Tyson would be the worst possible candidate to wear any Heavyweight down. Wearing an opponent down was neither a strength or style of Tyson's.

Tyson would have needed to rely on getting Lewis out of there inside four or five rounds. After that point, Lewis soundly beats him all day long, for me.

Tyson had stamina issues? He was still going strong against Smith and Tucker which went the distance.

Lewis' jab lacked snap. He had clumsy footword nd wouldn't get out of the way quick enough. Tyson for me within 8 rounds after Lewis taking a sustained beating.

Lewis taking a sustained beating? Are you for real here? But then again i suppose you are basing this on previous fi..... oh wait a minute!

The only way i see a prime tyson beating a prime lewis is connecting with a left hook but the only problem with this is we are using the condtition of prime for both fighters.... Lewis is too big, too powerful and a damn site too technical for a young/middle or old tyson

if any of the two is going to give a sustained beating it'd be Lewis giving one to Tyson from range with long right hands set up from the jab

azania knows perfectly well that some of us were bantering with him in good spirits.

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

TimeBomb wrote:"Someone once said there was a comparison between Sugar Ray Leonard and Sugar Ray Robinson. Believe me, there's no comparison. Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest."
—Sugar Ray Leonard

Boxers say the nicest things. Ali called SRR the greatest also. Most have called SRR the greatest. Most are probably right also.

Some boxers have called Rocky great. We all have our monents of madness too.

So because it doesn't support your opinion you'll dismiss it. Nice going D4. Sorry, Az...

What have I dismissed? Do you agree with Ali's comment above (produced by Jonsey)?

Very True Azania, i don't get involved with the heated arguments that happen between certain posters and agree that nobody should be told to shut up if they are only airing their views, but this is a boxing forum and i suppose we do need moderators. I'm not here to put down or attack anyone, just for a little debate.

HumanWindmill wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:But Corbett and Fitz and other fighters of their era with the fencing master style and the funny stance. Well I just don't believe they have comparable technique with their latter day counterparts and cannot believe they'd have lived with them.

I can understand your point so far as the bigger men go, Bamber, but I believe that the guys in the lower divisions are a different kettle of fish. Footage of Joe Gans v Kid Herman or Driscoll v Robson is a joy to watch, and their styles would easily translate to today's rings, in my opinion.

I've not watched those fights - will take a look.

fearlessBamber wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:But Corbett and Fitz and other fighters of their era with the fencing master style and the funny stance. Well I just don't believe they have comparable technique with their latter day counterparts and cannot believe they'd have lived with them.

I can understand your point so far as the bigger men go, Bamber, but I believe that the guys in the lower divisions are a different kettle of fish. Footage of Joe Gans v Kid Herman or Driscoll v Robson is a joy to watch, and their styles would easily translate to today's rings, in my opinion.

I've not watched those fights - will take a look.

I think you'll enjoy them, mate. I certainly did.

HumanWindmill wrote:

No1Jonesy wrote:My god - perish the thought if someone has a different opinion to others eh!

After looking at his record it is more then justifiable to question him being number 1 to ever walk the earth. If you disagree with Azania and still place him number one then thats down to you but should you lambast someone for having a different opinion? really?

As read earlier at WW he went 110 - 1?? and yet out of 110 fights its is suggested only 5 or 6 names he has wins against place him above all else?? well thats your perogative...

i for one do have him in my top 10 - ok he's not number 1 and well if you dont like it feel free to pucker up and kiss my behind

You mean, that we shouldn't be dismissive of az's opinions ?

Like this, for example ?

No1Jonesy wrote:

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Lewis had a tendancy to be lazy in the ring and alot of the times his jab was nothing more than a range finder. IMO Tyson would just have wore him down and won by late KO.

Two issues with this. Lewis, generally speaking, had no such tendancy to be 'lazy' in the ring when against his biggest rivals / opponents, and when the pressure was on, which would be the case against Tyson. Another thing - Tyson to 'wear Lewis down?' I'd have thought that, given his poor stamina and his tendancy to get frustrated and go in to his shell when things weren't going his way, Tyson would be the worst possible candidate to wear any Heavyweight down. Wearing an opponent down was neither a strength or style of Tyson's.

Tyson would have needed to rely on getting Lewis out of there inside four or five rounds. After that point, Lewis soundly beats him all day long, for me.

Tyson had stamina issues? He was still going strong against Smith and Tucker which went the distance.

Lewis' jab lacked snap. He had clumsy footword nd wouldn't get out of the way quick enough. Tyson for me within 8 rounds after Lewis taking a sustained beating.

Lewis taking a sustained beating? Are you for real here? But then again i suppose you are basing this on previous fi..... oh wait a minute!

The only way i see a prime tyson beating a prime lewis is connecting with a left hook but the only problem with this is we are using the condtition of prime for both fighters.... Lewis is too big, too powerful and a damn site too technical for a young/middle or old tyson

if any of the two is going to give a sustained beating it'd be Lewis giving one to Tyson from range with long right hands set up from the jab

azania knows perfectly well that some of us were bantering with him in good spirits.

Windy, you know me well enough to know that I enjoy a good banter and take and say many things with a pinch of salt and to provoke opinions/views/debate. No harm done or meant. And yes I do hold the opinion that boxers of yesteryear could not hold a candle to post war guys. That is my opinion and I stand by it because of many years of watching boxing and being an amateur boxer.

But some here seem to think that because I question one of boxing sacred lambs (SRR No1 ATG standing) that I dont know what I am talking about. Are certain topinc out of bounds? Everyone and their uncle knows how low I hold Rocky and now everyone knows what I think of Floyd Patterson. Those are my views. Like it or lump it, debate it naturally but debate what is written and not who writes it.

HumanWindmill wrote:

No1Jonesy wrote:My god - perish the thought if someone has a different opinion to others eh!

After looking at his record it is more then justifiable to question him being number 1 to ever walk the earth. If you disagree with Azania and still place him number one then thats down to you but should you lambast someone for having a different opinion? really?

As read earlier at WW he went 110 - 1?? and yet out of 110 fights its is suggested only 5 or 6 names he has wins against place him above all else?? well thats your perogative...

i for one do have him in my top 10 - ok he's not number 1 and well if you dont like it feel free to pucker up and kiss my behind

You mean, that we shouldn't be dismissive of az's opinions ?

Like this, for example ?

No1Jonesy wrote:

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:Lewis had a tendancy to be lazy in the ring and alot of the times his jab was nothing more than a range finder. IMO Tyson would just have wore him down and won by late KO.

Two issues with this. Lewis, generally speaking, had no such tendancy to be 'lazy' in the ring when against his biggest rivals / opponents, and when the pressure was on, which would be the case against Tyson. Another thing - Tyson to 'wear Lewis down?' I'd have thought that, given his poor stamina and his tendancy to get frustrated and go in to his shell when things weren't going his way, Tyson would be the worst possible candidate to wear any Heavyweight down. Wearing an opponent down was neither a strength or style of Tyson's.

Tyson would have needed to rely on getting Lewis out of there inside four or five rounds. After that point, Lewis soundly beats him all day long, for me.

Tyson had stamina issues? He was still going strong against Smith and Tucker which went the distance.

Lewis' jab lacked snap. He had clumsy footword nd wouldn't get out of the way quick enough. Tyson for me within 8 rounds after Lewis taking a sustained beating.

Lewis taking a sustained beating? Are you for real here? But then again i suppose you are basing this on previous fi..... oh wait a minute!

The only way i see a prime tyson beating a prime lewis is connecting with a left hook but the only problem with this is we are using the condtition of prime for both fighters.... Lewis is too big, too powerful and a damn site too technical for a young/middle or old tyson

if any of the two is going to give a sustained beating it'd be Lewis giving one to Tyson from range with long right hands set up from the jab

azania knows perfectly well that some of us were bantering with him in good spirits.

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

Azania

Aside from the loss to Ralph Jones after the 3 year layoff, Ray Robinson was competetive with the best middles in the world until just shy of his 40th birthday, at a time when there was only 1 champion. When compared to Roy Jones Jr, who was getting destroyed by average light heavies by the time he was 35, why do you give Robbo a hard time for his later losses at middle?

BTW yes I have spotted some spelling mistakes above and quite frankly do not care before jump on the whole 'he mispelled some words' bandwagon

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 nothing else, you do get a good laugh sometimes.

wow_junky wrote:Azania

Aside from the loss to Ralph Jones after the 3 year layoff, Ray Robinson was competetive with the best middles in the world until just shy of his 40th birthday, at a time when there was only 1 champion. When compared to Roy Jones Jr, who was getting destroyed by average light heavies by the time he was 35, why do you give Robbo a hard time for his later losses at middle?

RJJ was finished at 35. Age in boxing is relative. Holy is still going relatively at 95. Bhop at 78. The point I was making is that excuses are made for SRR in his comeback fight yet people seem to forget SRL was out of the ring for 5 years prior to fighting Hagler. Plus Hagler was the unified champ.

I dont think I'm giving SRR a hard time. In fact I didn't mention his loss to Jones until it was brought up. Such losses I dismiss anyway.

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

Az

Well, you seem to be putting Robbo down based on his middleweight tenure passed his prime? I thought that was the gist of why you feel he is overrated?

Personally I'd have him in the 6-10 bracket for middles, when considering his pre-retirement form at the weight and subsequent results up until his late 30s he put together enough of a record to be ranked comfortably ahead of the likes of RJJ at the weight. Would you say you don't rate him as high because you don't rate the likes of Basilo, Turpin, LaMotta, Graziano & Olson?

No1Jonesy wrote:...
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

This reads like one of those Nigerian Fraudster emails.

WRITE ME BACK AND I WILL FURNISH YOU WITH ALL DETAILS,

YOUR GOOD FRIEND MR OKORIE DECENCY.

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......................

fearlessBamber wrote:

No1Jonesy wrote:...
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

This reads like one of those Nigerian Fraudster emails.

WRITE ME BACK AND I WILL FURNISH YOU WITH ALL DETAILS,

YOUR GOOD FRIEND MR OKORIE DECENCY.

Absolutely brilliant. Much better than mine.

wow_junky wrote:Az

Well, you seem to be putting Robbo down based on his middleweight tenure passed his prime? I thought that was the gist of why you feel he is overrated?

Personally I'd have him in the 6-10 bracket for middles, when considering his pre-retirement form at the weight and subsequent results up until his late 30s he put together enough of a record to be ranked comfortably ahead of the likes of RJJ at the weight. Would you say you don't rate him as high because you don't rate the likes of Basilo, Turpin, LaMotta, Graziano & Olson?

I am not. His MW tenure is over-rated when compared to his WW reign. That he lost to sub standard fighters speaks for itself. He would still be an STG based on his MW reign alone but top 15 and certainly not No1. But I would put question marks because of his losses to those guys. At WW he stands on top. SRL and him would have been a purist fight and one for the ages. I seriously would not seperate them and pick a winner. On any given day either would win.

The likes of Hagler, Monzon, RJJ, Hop would absolutely school Olson, LaMotta et al imo.

I take it i missed a previous thread where some of the above was posted, Azania has his opinion, which he is entitled to, but knows this subject would be debated against him by most, i don't see where the problem is, he argues his case, others argue theirs. He reckons a lot of robinsons opponents weren't up to scratch, others do.

The Galveston Giant wrote:I take it i missed a previous thread where some of the above was posted, Azania has his opinion, which he is entitled to, but knows this subject would be debated against him by most, i don't see where the problem is, he argues his case, others argue theirs. He reckons a lot of robinsons opponents weren't up to scratch, others do.

One thing I have found out about boxing is that there are certain untouchables. 1) You cannot question Rocky's alleged greatness.
2) Never refer to SRR as anything but No1 ATG.
3) Boxing is never as good as it was way back when.

1) IMO Rocky would be a fringe contender TODAY.
2) SRR is probably rightfully No1, but based on his WW exploits.
3) Next decade we will be saying the same thing.

Azania, a simple question which I've prodded at once or twice before. How many other fighters in history, who are generally considered number one in a 'classic' division, can claim to be an automatic top ten in another of them, and in many cases top five?

I did see the Rocky one go a bit crazy Az but missed the start so stayed clear.

88Chris05 wrote:Azania, a simple question which I've prodded at once or twice before. How many other fighters in history, who are generally considered number one in a 'classic' division, can claim to be an automatic top ten in another of them, and in many cases top five?

None. Perhaps Charles though.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm having a dig at SRR. I am not. Just putting some perspective into things. Who knows what SRR could have achieved at MW if he hung around a little.

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Azania, a simple question which I've prodded at once or twice before. How many other fighters in history, who are generally considered number one in a 'classic' division, can claim to be an automatic top ten in another of them, and in many cases top five?

None. Perhaps Charles though.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm having a dig at SRR. I am not. Just putting some perspective into things. Who knows what SRR could have achieved at MW if he hung around a little.

I know you're not having a dig so to speak at Robinson, mate, I'm just highlighting that seldom has there been a professional record that can compare to his, and even if there has been, then it certainly isn't boasted by Ray Leonard, brilliant though his career was. And seeing as you were directly making the case (or at least asking if it's viable) for Leonard to be above Robinson in the grand scheme of things, I think that's a fair point for me to bring up.

Another crux of the argument is this; you keep stressing that Robinson, very probably, is a worthy all-time number one. But equally, you keep stressing that his Middleweight record shouldn't be the reason for this. But my gripe is that I haven't seen anyone claim that his Middleweight record makes him so in the first place. Ninety-nine percent of people acknowledge that his peak came at 147 lb. If you can provide evidence of someone saying that his Middleweight record alone is what puts him at top spot, then fair one, show me and I'll find your continued argument a little more understandable. But I'm pretty sure nobody has posted anything like that, in which case I'm not sure why you keep trying to drill the point about his Middleweight exploits not matching his Welterweight ones home to us all. We all know that already.

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

because education has been lost on him

Just a minor point, but there's a few spelling/grammatical errors in your post....

Just so you know....

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.

I'm slightly confused by this all to be honest in much the same way as Chris is

Robinson is rated so highly because of his Welterweight days where he coincidentally was never beaten like you've suggested, his middleweight tenure adds to his legacy but in no way makes it. LaMotta, Fullmer, Basillio, Turpin, Olson, Graziano are all rated more highly at the weight than 98% of the opposition that Hopkins, Hagler and Jones beat with the only exception being Hopkins for Jones aside from that.

Robinsons Welterweight reign by itself is head and shoulders above that of Leonards, if we're using defeats against him then surely we should mention Leonard losing to the naturally smaller Duran someone who himself is a top ten ATG but someone i'd give little chance of beating Robinson at Welterweight.

Gavillian, Zivic, Angott, Armstrong, Wilson and Zanelli is a stronger set of wins that Duran, Benitez and Hearns for me

There are a so many different aspects to debate in this question.

Part of the problem is you are judging Robinson against the backdrop of this ridiculously high pedestal he is placed on, which I believe is too high. If the pedestal hes going to be placed in is that high then I think its only fair his career his looked at in that context, and therefore a high level of srutiny is applied.

I struggle enough at comparing and ranking fighters but I do agree that its next to boxing heresy to consider SRR anything other thn the comfortable number 1 of all time. And i do think the chasing pack are too far behind. Even if we assume Robinson is in fat the best ever I dont think the next best guy is light years behind. The margins tend to fine at the top anyway between the greats and I dont think Robinsons career has done enough to suggest otherwise. I see something like SRL v SRR as a highly competitive fight. I wouldnt give either fighter more than a 60% edge. But if you are to go off rankings then it would seem Leonard barely deserves to share the ring. This is incorrect.

Many of the various points made against Robinson have already been made here and while they might look a bit weak in the ordinary course of evaluating a fighter, I think they carry more weight given the magnitude of Robinsons status.

His Middleweight reign WAS a bit patchy, his Welterweight career MAY be seen to be a bit thin on quality and his overall career DOES contain plenty of padding. It isnt that big a deal if you are talking about regular greats as his career and talents are blatantly enough to warrant ATG tatus. But if you are talking about him as a fighter that is supposedly quite litterally unparralleled and unrivaled then I think its fair game.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Azania, a simple question which I've prodded at once or twice before. How many other fighters in history, who are generally considered number one in a 'classic' division, can claim to be an automatic top ten in another of them, and in many cases top five?

None. Perhaps Charles though.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm having a dig at SRR. I am not. Just putting some perspective into things. Who knows what SRR could have achieved at MW if he hung around a little.

I know you're not having a dig so to speak at Robinson, mate, I'm just highlighting that seldom has there been a professional record that can compare to his, and even if there has been, then it certainly isn't boasted by Ray Leonard, brilliant though his career was. And seeing as you were directly making the case (or at least asking if it's viable) for Leonard to be above Robinson in the grand scheme of things, I think that's a fair point for me to bring up.

Another crux of the argument is this; you keep stressing that Robinson, very probably, is a worthy all-time number one. But equally, you keep stressing that his Middleweight record shouldn't be the reason for this. But my gripe is that I haven't seen anyone claim that his Middleweight record makes him so in the first place. Ninety-nine percent of people acknowledge that his peak came at 147 lb. If you can provide evidence of someone saying that his Middleweight record alone is what puts him at top spot, then fair one, show me and I'll find your continued argument a little more understandable. But I'm pretty sure nobody has posted anything like that, in which case I'm not sure why you keep trying to drill the point about his Middleweight exploits not matching his Welterweight ones home to us all. We all know that already.

I'm glad you added "very probable". Whilst I believe that SRR is in all lilelihoon probably the No1 ATG, there is a very good shout for SRL given his phenomenal achievement at WW and beating Hagler who imo is a far better boxer (even at his sliding stage) that all other MW SRR faced.

Also boxer in that era had the added advantage of fighting more frequently, so people can say that at 110-1, SRR will always be the best ever regardless of what Floyd (for example ) may ever achieve or even Cashflow Mayweather (google him up - cashflow - what a name). But take his best 3 opponents at WW. Do they beat or equal Duran, Hearns and Benitez?

Manos there are a few boxers who's standing compares to that of Robinson but sadly Sugar Ray isn't one of them, supremely talented yes but you can't judge a whole career on solely four fights beyond that there is nothing to his record.

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

The Mighty Atom wrote:I'm slightly confused by this all to be honest in much the same way as Chris is

Robinson is rated so highly because of his Welterweight days where he coincidentally was never beaten like you've suggested, his middleweight tenure adds to his legacy but in no way makes it. LaMotta, Fullmer, Basillio, Turpin, Olson, Graziano are all rated more highly at the weight than 98% of the opposition that Hopkins, Hagler and Jones beat with the only exception being Hopkins for Jones aside from that.

Robinsons Welterweight reign by itself is head and shoulders above that of Leonards, if we're using defeats against him then surely we should mention Leonard losing to the naturally smaller Duran someone who himself is a top ten ATG but someone i'd give little chance of beating Robinson at Welterweight.

Gavillian, Zivic, Angott, Armstrong, Wilson and Zanelli is a stronger set of wins that Duran, Benitez and Hearns for me

I disagree with your last sentence. Gavilan is the main stand-out there. Zivic whilst good, was no great. Adgott like Duran was a natural lightweight, Armstrong was past it, Zanelli and Wilson were just good and not great. Hearns beats them all as does Duran as WW. Benitez would have struggled against KG and beat the rest. I suggest that SRL's record against the very best that his era had to offer stands well in comparosin to SRR's.

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.

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.

Gavillian would have beaten Duran and Hearns for me, he had an iron chin was a beautifully balanced fighter who would have outboxed Duran and knocker Hearns out.

Duran and Benitez were both greats without doubt but they weren't as great at Welterweight as their overall standing suggests.

2 great wins and 4 very good wins beats 3 great wins and a lose for me.

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.

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.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Gavillian would have beaten Duran and Hearns for me, he had an iron chin was a beautifully balanced fighter who would have outboxed Duran and knocker Hearns out.

Duran and Benitez were both greats without doubt but they weren't as great at Welterweight as their overall standing suggests.

2 great wins and 4 very good wins beats 3 great wins and a lose for me.

Everythng is subjective, but I believe Hearns if ranked above Gavilan and I doubt very much he would have had enougg for Duran. Regardless of how high iron chinned he was, if Hearns catches you, its goodnight.