Sugar Ray Robinson

First topic message reminder :

A concensus number 1 P4P (not mine though). My questions are simple. Will he ever be surpassed? What does a boxer either active, not born yet have to do to be able to claim that fabled mantle? Obviously no semi decent boxer is going to have over 100 fights let alone 200 fights.

What if a boxer has 50 fights and in that time wins titles and dominates his division from lightweight to middleweight and has 2 losses on his record (and avenged). Also have in mind that he beat some very good boxers who themselves can be classed as ATGs along the way. Would that do it?

Robbo got it handed to him by very average fighters yet excuses are generated at every given opportunity. SRL beat far superior boxers than anyone Robbo faced. Dave Boy Green would probably qualify as an ATG had he faced Robbo whilst in all seriousness he is on par with Bobo.

azania wrote:A lot of posters here go scratching for the smallest detail of boxers today and make all sort of wild allegations to use and put them down with. But with Robbo, it's "avoided", "no clamour or money for the fight" etc etc etc.

Bolox. Plain and simple. He ducked Burley because he could. Robbo is not some kind of god where he is beyond reproach for blatantly ducking the best challenge oiut there.

1) Some posters do, but they're often being unreasonable. Most are more even-headed and fair.

2) So how many fighters has Floyd ducked? And Roy Jones? And Ray Leonard? And Tyson? And Pacquiao? And anyone else you care to think of? If simply not fighting a man, regardless of circumstances, who is in or around the same weight class as you constitutes ducking, then surely everyone has always ducked a shed load of fights?

Please enlighten me on which parts of my post in particular was bollox, Az.

He never ducked Burley thats a myth.

The man was the greatest boxer that ever lived. Its official.

Deal with it,

As I have said on countless occasions put modern fighters in a situation where they are fighting once or twice a month and not seeing their opponents beforehand and they will inevitably pick up the odd loss against guys they have no reason to be losing to. Can’t believe people would call this making excuses. Would seem to be fairly common sense to me.

Rowley wrote:As I have said on countless occasions put modern fighters in a situation where they are fighting once or twice a month and not seeing their opponents beforehand and they will inevitably pick up the odd loss against guys they have no reason to be losing to. Can’t believe people would call this making excuses. Would seem to be fairly common sense to me.

Ever get the feling no-one listens to you

Its because Az, you're talking utter shizenhausen.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:A lot of posters here go scratching for the smallest detail of boxers today and make all sort of wild allegations to use and put them down with. But with Robbo, it's "avoided", "no clamour or money for the fight" etc etc etc.

Bolox. Plain and simple. He ducked Burley because he could. Robbo is not some kind of god where he is beyond reproach for blatantly ducking the best challenge oiut there.

1) Some posters do, but they're often being unreasonable. Most are more even-headed and fair.

2) So how many fighters has Floyd ducked? And Roy Jones? And Ray Leonard? And Tyson? And Pacquiao? And anyone else you care to think of? If simply not fighting a man, regardless of circumstances, who is in or around the same weight class as you constitutes ducking, then surely everyone has always ducked a shed load of fights?

Please enlighten me on which parts of my post in particular was bollox, Az.

"Bolox" was exasperation and that many posters use all manner of feeble excuses to put down modern boxers and elevate the oldies.

Fair enough, Az. What about the question I posed to you about basically every world champion in history being, by your own definition (or so it seems!) a ducker, then?

JabMachineMK2 wrote:Its because Az, you're talking utter shizenhausen.

Fair enough. So it means that a kid who has just visited the gym for the first time has no chance of being called the best who ever lived. Guys like Gans who didn't know what a jab was and who thought duck was only a bird and not to get away from a punch will always be looked as better.

Boxing seems the only sport where time stood still after 1950. Even Ali get's marked down and he beat the best HW boxers who ever lived.

88Chris05 wrote:Fair enough, Az. What about the question I posed to you about basically every world champion in history being, by your own definition (or so it seems!) a ducker, then?

They may well have been but excuses and explainations are made for the older guys yet modern boxers get lambasted for it.

Look at SRL/Hagler. Now many are marking it down because Hagler was off his peak. Yet excuses are easily made for SRR losing to a joker like LaMotta, Turpin, Carmen and a poor man's Dave Green on Bobo.

Hagler being off his peak is equalised by SRL not fighting for 5 years. Name me a single opponent of SRR who was better than any of the Fab 4 SRL beat. Save your time. Not one of his opponents can lace the boots of Hearns, Hagler, Duran or Benitez.

You COULD in theory be the best who ever lived Az - you'd just need to match SRR's record in terms of dominance, have the talent he had to beat these people and to also have the respect and adoration of the critics.

Floyd is close, Ali was closer - if Floyd took on Pacquiao in 2010, Mosely in 2008, and had been beating the best in the division while moving up to face Canelo/Martinez (we're talking what a 15 fight record between 2008 and now?) that had the likes of Margarito, Cotto, Pacquiao, Canelo, Martinez, Williams, Pavlik, Chavez Jr, etc Then we could call Floyd the best, I'd go with that.

Ok if we're going to argue this like childrens lets apply childish logic, if every potential opponent that did not happen when it should is a duck Robinson ducked Burley, one fighter.

Mayweather ducked Williams, Margarito, Kostya and Manny. 4 fighters

Robinson ducked one fighter, Floyd ducked 4. Robinson is better.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:You COULD in theory be the best who ever lived Az - you'd just need to match SRR's record in terms of dominance, have the talent he had to beat these people and to also have the respect and adoration of the critics.

Floyd is close, Ali was closer - if Floyd took on Pacquiao in 2010, Mosely in 2008, and had been beating the best in the division while moving up to face Canelo/Martinez (we're talking what a 15 fight record between 2008 and now?) that had the likes of Margarito, Cotto, Pacquiao, Canelo, Martinez, Williams, Pavlik, Chavez Jr, etc Then we could call Floyd the best, I'd go with that.

Fine. SRR dominated one division only. Fact is Ali dominated his division better than SRR at WW because he had stiffer competition and had the lay off. SRR's record at MW was patchy at best. First man to reclaim the title 5 times. Means he lost it 5 times also.

Asking Floyd to dominate the 154 division is akin to asking SRR to dominate the LHW division. He tried against a plodder and came up short. Don't blame the heat. Maxim did't capitulate and he fought in the same heat. But it's all forgiven because its SRR.

Rowley wrote:Ok if we're going to argue this like childrens lets apply childish logic, if every potential opponent that did not happen when it should is a duck Robinson ducked Burley, one fighter.

Mayweather ducked Williams, Margarito, Kostya and Manny. 4 fighters

Robinson ducked one fighter, Floyd ducked 4. Robinson is better.

SRR ducked everyone at LHW. Hearns beat a better fighter than Maxim for the LHW title. And beat Andries who would be classed as a great fighter in the 1950s.

Actually, reclaiming five times means he lost it four times.
Win it
Lose it
Win it
Lose it
win it
Lose it
Win it
lose it
Win it
win 5, lose four. Dont mean to be pedantic, but in ATG discussions, the margins are fine

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Fair enough, Az. What about the question I posed to you about basically every world champion in history being, by your own definition (or so it seems!) a ducker, then?

They may well have been but excuses and explainations are made for the older guys yet modern boxers get lambasted for it.

Look at SRL/Hagler. Now many are marking it down because Hagler was off his peak. Yet excuses are easily made for SRR losing to a joker like LaMotta, Turpin, Carmen and a poor man's Dave Green on Bobo.

Hagler being off his peak is equalised by SRL not fighting for 5 years. Name me a single opponent of SRR who was better than any of the Fab 4 SRL beat. Save your time. Not one of his opponents can lace the boots of Hearns, Hagler, Duran or Benitez.

Well regardless of whether or not some posters give more leeway to older fighters - which side of the fence are you actually on? Are they all duckers for failing to meet every single ranked fighter or title holder in their division during their pomp, or is this an unreasonable request and therefore they're not automatically all duckers? You're not really setting your stall out either way. You'd have a hissy fit if someone said that Floyd ducked Williams but you're then lambasting Robinson for not taking the Burley fight, when there are at least a couple of similarities in circumstance.

You won't catch me ever degrading Leonard's win over Hagler. A remarkable achievement that only a truly special specimen like Leonard could have done. I've been vocal in the past in saying that, if we went on a fighter's elite wins and concentrated solely on the very tip of their personal ice berg, then Leonard leaves just about everyone trailing in his wake, Robinson included.

A bit of context helps. Gavilan is a higher-rated Welterweight than both Benitez and Duran, for instance. I'd say that Robinson's wins over the 'Keed' probably outstrip Leonard's over Benitez and Duran, but not his victories against Hagler and Hearns. Surely you can accept that as a fair and reasonable balance?

Robinson never lost to Bobo, by the way!

Its nothing like asking SRR to dominate at LHW.

147 (naturally SRR's dominant weight class)

175 (LHW by todays standards)

Thats 28lbs.

Its generally accepted that Floyd's perfect weight is Welterweight. If not, then lets say SFW (as you no doubt will). Thats 130. So, push up 28lbs from there and we get 158. He's yet to test himself at that weight and looks unlikely to. Get what I mean here?

azania wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:You COULD in theory be the best who ever lived Az - you'd just need to match SRR's record in terms of dominance, have the talent he had to beat these people and to also have the respect and adoration of the critics.

Floyd is close, Ali was closer - if Floyd took on Pacquiao in 2010, Mosely in 2008, and had been beating the best in the division while moving up to face Canelo/Martinez (we're talking what a 15 fight record between 2008 and now?) that had the likes of Margarito, Cotto, Pacquiao, Canelo, Martinez, Williams, Pavlik, Chavez Jr, etc Then we could call Floyd the best, I'd go with that.

Fine. SRR dominated one division only. Fact is Ali dominated his division better than SRR at WW because he had stiffer competition and had the lay off. SRR's record at MW was patchy at best. First man to reclaim the title 5 times. Means he lost it 5 times also.

Asking Floyd to dominate the 154 division is akin to asking SRR to dominate the LHW division. He tried against a plodder and came up short. Don't blame the heat. Maxim did't capitulate and he fought in the same heat. But it's all forgiven because its SRR.

Not really Az, since the weight divisions are completely different these days. SRR started out down at 134 should have won lightweight world title against sammy angot but title wasn't on the line, he fought all the way up to Light Heavyweight where he challenged for the title. Ok he lost but he still sought out the challenge! Imagine they had as many divisions back then as they do and its safe to say SRR would have cleaned out all the way through 5 divisions! I don't think Floyd needs to dominate 154 division...but to avoid fighting the consensus other best guy at the weight would be a travesty...given he has done that once already with Pacman down at Welterweight.

The sheer lunacy of some the arguments against Robinson have compelled me to ask a few questions.

1. When could Robinson realistically have fought Burley? It's all well and good saying he ducked him but you need to at least back it up with some evidence.

2. When the hell did he lose to Olsen and Graziano? Last time I checked he was 5-0 against the pair

3. How is a former lightweight moving up to face the only world champion there was at light heavyweight anything like a former super featherweight moving up to light middleweight?

A few points to add

1. Robinson was cut badly in the rematch with Turpin but was ahead at the time of the stoppage.

2. He was in his late 30's by the time he was losing to Basilio and Fullmer, having fought the best of the best over a up to then 175 fight career.

3. Gavilan, Armstrong and Angott were all fit to lace the boots of the fab four, Benitez and Duran don't come into consideration at welterweight compared to the kid. Add in Turpin, Wade and Olsen who were certainly not face first brawler and you have a very impressive pre retirement career, what happens after Maxim is akin to Leonard losing to Norton and Camacho, it's not a massive consideration because they were years removed from their best.

4. The Armstrong win is thoroughly dismissed by some claiming him to be finished, he wasn't at his absolute best but a finished fighter wont have beaten Angott months beforehand and then gone on to beat Zanelli twice.

The moment anybody starts at lightweight gets frozen out of the title scene but still beats the champion twice, goes on to win the bonafide world title at welterweight and middleweight then comes up just short of his light heavyweight title tilt. If anybody does that having faced the quality Robinson did they can come up for serious consideration as the best of all time.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Fair enough, Az. What about the question I posed to you about basically every world champion in history being, by your own definition (or so it seems!) a ducker, then?

They may well have been but excuses and explainations are made for the older guys yet modern boxers get lambasted for it.

Look at SRL/Hagler. Now many are marking it down because Hagler was off his peak. Yet excuses are easily made for SRR losing to a joker like LaMotta, Turpin, Carmen and a poor man's Dave Green on Bobo.

Hagler being off his peak is equalised by SRL not fighting for 5 years. Name me a single opponent of SRR who was better than any of the Fab 4 SRL beat. Save your time. Not one of his opponents can lace the boots of Hearns, Hagler, Duran or Benitez.

Well regardless of whether or not some posters give more leeway to older fighters - which side of the fence are you actually on? Are they all duckers for failing to meet every single ranked fighter or title holder in their division during their pomp, or is this an unreasonable request and therefore they're not automatically all duckers? You're not really setting your stall out either way. You'd have a hissy fit if someone said that Floyd ducked Williams but you're then lambasting Robinson for not taking the Burley fight, when there are at least a couple of similarities in circumstance.

You won't catch me ever degrading Leonard's win over Hagler. A remarkable achievement that only a truly special specimen like Leonard could have done. I've been vocal in the past in saying that, if we went on a fighter's elite wins and concentrated solely on the very tip of their personal ice berg, then Leonard leaves just about everyone trailing in his wake, Robinson included.

A bit of context helps. Gavilan is a higher-rated Welterweight than both Benitez and Duran, for instance. I'd say that Robinson's wins over the 'Keed' probably outstrip Leonard's over Benitez and Duran, but not his victories against Hagler and Hearns. Surely you can accept that as a fair and reasonable balance?

Robinson never lost to Bobo, by the way!

I don't think they're all duckers.

I will not having a hissy fit if anyone accused Floyd of ducking PW. Lets hope they don't throw a wobbly when I claim SRR ducked Burley and every LHW after he lost. Lets hope they don't mention the face first so called greats who he beat.

I'd pick Benitez and Duran over KG.

Fo rme SRL is the untouchable best ever. His record in beating the best active fighters is only matched by Ali. Robbo is probably 4th for me behind Armstrong.

Mark II wrote:The sheer lunacy of some the arguments against Robinson have compelled me to ask a few questions.

1. When could Robinson realistically have fought Burley? It's all well and good saying he ducked him but you need to at least back it up with some evidence.

2. When the hell did he lose to Olsen and Graziano? Last time I checked he was 5-0 against the pair

3. How is a former lightweight moving up to face the only world champion there was at light heavyweight anything like a former super featherweight moving up to light middleweight?

A few points to add

1. Robinson was cut badly in the rematch with Turpin but was ahead at the time of the stoppage.

2. He was in his late 30's by the time he was losing to Basilio and Fullmer, having fought the best of the best over a up to then 175 fight career.

3. Gavilan, Armstrong and Angott were all fit to lace the boots of the fab four, Benitez and Duran don't come into consideration at welterweight compared to the kid. Add in Turpin, Wade and Olsen who were certainly not face first brawler and you have a very impressive pre retirement career, what happens after Maxim is akin to Leonard losing to Norton and Camacho, it's not a massive consideration because they were years removed from their best.

4. The Armstrong win is thoroughly dismissed by some claiming him to be finished, he wasn't at his absolute best but a finished fighter wont have beaten Angott months beforehand and then gone on to beat Zanelli twice.

The moment anybody starts at lightweight gets frozen out of the title scene but still beats the champion twice, goes on to win the bonafide world title at welterweight and middleweight then comes up just short of his light heavyweight title tilt. If anybody does that having faced the quality Robinson did they can come up for serious consideration as the best of all time.

Hello Ghosty

Which light heavyweights actively sought to face Robinson?

owen10ozzy wrote:

azania wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:You COULD in theory be the best who ever lived Az - you'd just need to match SRR's record in terms of dominance, have the talent he had to beat these people and to also have the respect and adoration of the critics.

Floyd is close, Ali was closer - if Floyd took on Pacquiao in 2010, Mosely in 2008, and had been beating the best in the division while moving up to face Canelo/Martinez (we're talking what a 15 fight record between 2008 and now?) that had the likes of Margarito, Cotto, Pacquiao, Canelo, Martinez, Williams, Pavlik, Chavez Jr, etc Then we could call Floyd the best, I'd go with that.

Fine. SRR dominated one division only. Fact is Ali dominated his division better than SRR at WW because he had stiffer competition and had the lay off. SRR's record at MW was patchy at best. First man to reclaim the title 5 times. Means he lost it 5 times also.

Asking Floyd to dominate the 154 division is akin to asking SRR to dominate the LHW division. He tried against a plodder and came up short. Don't blame the heat. Maxim did't capitulate and he fought in the same heat. But it's all forgiven because its SRR.

Not really Az, since the weight divisions are completely different these days. SRR started out down at 134 should have won lightweight world title against sammy angot but title wasn't on the line, he fought all the way up to Light Heavyweight where he challenged for the title. Ok he lost but he still sought out the challenge! Imagine they had as many divisions back then as they do and its safe to say SRR would have cleaned out all the way through 5 divisions! I don't think Floyd needs to dominate 154 division...but to avoid fighting the consensus other best guy at the weight would be a travesty...given he has done that once already with Pacman down at Welterweight.

What difference. LHW has always been 175. LMW always 154.

Mark II wrote:Which light heavyweights actively sought to face Robinson?

Robbo never chased them. Therefore he ducked them all. Hey, lets apply the same logic across the board.

A similarity would be Mayweather moving up to 168lbs to face Ward not Canelo at 154lbs.

The Armstrong win is thoroughly dismissed by some claiming him to be finished, he wasn't at his absolute best but a finished fighter wont have beaten Angott months beforehand and then gone on to beat Zanelli twice.

That's because he was finished.

Mark II wrote:A similarity would be Mayweather moving up to 168lbs to face Ward not Canelo at 154lbs.

He still didn't fight more than one fight at LHW where he lost badly. They say the heat beat him. Nonsense. He got hit and couldn't take it. Getting hit in the face and body knackered him out.

The referee Ruby Goldstein wilted in the heat too, Az, and I don't remember him getting hit much in the fight, or having to do as much moving as Robinson! Just sayin'....

Mark II wrote:The sheer lunacy of some the arguments against Robinson have compelled me to ask a few questions.

1. When could Robinson realistically have fought Burley? It's all well and good saying he ducked him but you need to at least back it up with some evidence.

2. When the hell did he lose to Olsen and Graziano? Last time I checked he was 5-0 against the pair

3. How is a former lightweight moving up to face the only world champion there was at light heavyweight anything like a former super featherweight moving up to light middleweight?

A few points to add

1. Robinson was cut badly in the rematch with Turpin but was ahead at the time of the stoppage.

2. He was in his late 30's by the time he was losing to Basilio and Fullmer, having fought the best of the best over a up to then 175 fight career.

3. Gavilan, Armstrong and Angott were all fit to lace the boots of the fab four, Benitez and Duran don't come into consideration at welterweight compared to the kid. Add in Turpin, Wade and Olsen who were certainly not face first brawler and you have a very impressive pre retirement career, what happens after Maxim is akin to Leonard losing to Norton and Camacho, it's not a massive consideration because they were years removed from their best.

4. The Armstrong win is thoroughly dismissed by some claiming him to be finished, he wasn't at his absolute best but a finished fighter wont have beaten Angott months beforehand and then gone on to beat Zanelli twice.

The moment anybody starts at lightweight gets frozen out of the title scene but still beats the champion twice, goes on to win the bonafide world title at welterweight and middleweight then comes up just short of his light heavyweight title tilt. If anybody does that having faced the quality Robinson did they can come up for serious consideration as the best of all time.

Mayweather is in his mid/late thirties now but people want him to fight the young Canelo...

Hearns beats everyone robbo beat at welter and probably at middle too............

Robbo won his first title at 147.........Mayweather at 130...................147-175 is only four pounds different to 130-154..............

If you 're going to accept the Armstrong win then give full credit to Floyd for beating Mosley and DelaHoya.........

azania wrote:

Mark II wrote:Which light heavyweights actively sought to face Robinson?

Robbo never chased them. Therefore he ducked them all. Hey, lets apply the same logic across the board.

What logic? The logic that Mayweather is a 147lb and 154lb belt holder so should in theory be fair game for anybody in those divisions or I could say he's ducking Ward because he's not chasing him or even Martinez or more realistically Pacquiao, Tzuyu and Cotto, I won't include Mosley because that was certainly Mr Toothaches doing.

Mark II wrote:The sheer lunacy of some the arguments against Robinson have compelled me to ask a few questions.

1. When could Robinson realistically have fought Burley? It's all well and good saying he ducked him but you need to at least back it up with some evidence.

2. When the hell did he lose to Olsen and Graziano? Last time I checked he was 5-0 against the pair

3. How is a former lightweight moving up to face the only world champion there was at light heavyweight anything like a former super featherweight moving up to light middleweight?

A few points to add

1. Robinson was cut badly in the rematch with Turpin but was ahead at the time of the stoppage.

2. He was in his late 30's by the time he was losing to Basilio and Fullmer, having fought the best of the best over a up to then 175 fight career.

3. Gavilan, Armstrong and Angott were all fit to lace the boots of the fab four, Benitez and Duran don't come into consideration at welterweight compared to the kid. Add in Turpin, Wade and Olsen who were certainly not face first brawler and you have a very impressive pre retirement career, what happens after Maxim is akin to Leonard losing to Norton and Camacho, it's not a massive consideration because they were years removed from their best.

4. The Armstrong win is thoroughly dismissed by some claiming him to be finished, he wasn't at his absolute best but a finished fighter wont have beaten Angott months beforehand and then gone on to beat Zanelli twice.

The moment anybody starts at lightweight gets frozen out of the title scene but still beats the champion twice, goes on to win the bonafide world title at welterweight and middleweight then comes up just short of his light heavyweight title tilt. If anybody does that having faced the quality Robinson did they can come up for serious consideration as the best of all time.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

To go back to one of the original arguments in this thread I can't see any argument for Floyd not fighting Canelo, including the 'Canelo is huge for the weight' when we are discussing in comparison a guy in SRR who went from Lightweight up to Light-Heavyweight beating the best on the way, except for Burley (not getting into that) and when stepping in the ring to face Maxim was at an almost 20lb disadvantage and had neither a height or reach advantage. Two things which Mayweather would hold over Canelo!

Robbo won his world title at welter...........leave it out..

If Robbo was a lightweight he wins his first world title there..................

There's no reason a modern fighter cannot be regarded as the best ever, he just needs some monumental balls to take the best fights available. If De La Hoya won more of his biggest fights I'd have no problems making him P4P number 1, his record has the quality to be ahead of Robinson as he actually fought the best around.

Mayweather, Pacquiao, Trinidad, Hopkins, Mosley x2 and Whitaker must all have been top 10 P4P when De La Hoya fought them, if he wins more than he loses against that lot added to the rest of his very good but not great wins like Vargas, Gatti, Quartey, Sturm and Mayorga as well as his reigns at Lightweight and Super Featherweight then why not have him as the best?

The opportunity is there it just needs someone with De La Hoya's attitude and Mayweathers talent to make it possible.

Saying this though it won't be possible for all fighters as some will be ducked if they don't bring enough to the table, no one ducked De La Hoya as it was the biggest pay day going so more doors were open to him. I honestly think Mayweather had the fights available to him to make a genuine claim to be the best ever but choose not to take them.

He should of won the Lightweight title, history tells us that. Regardless he started out his career as a lightweight and went up to fight (regardless of whether it was one fight or not) at Light-Heavyweight. That's a 30lb difference....no different to Mayweather stepping all the way up to Middleweight if were being pedantic.

Even if we are to use the Mayweather is in his 30's and shouldn't be fighting a young, unbeaten prospect argument then that's his own fault. As has been said, had he met Pacman 3/4 years ago when he was by all accounts at his peak then people wouldn't particularly care about the Canelo fight....but he didn't.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You've edited your post..............You sad sack..

It tells you when the post has been edited. Nice one Troy.

owen10ozzy wrote:He should of won the Lightweight title, history tells us that. Regardless he started out his career as a lightweight and went up to fight (regardless of whether it was one fight or not) at Light-Heavyweight. That's a 30lb difference....no different to Mayweather stepping all the way up to Middleweight if were being pedantic.

Even if we are to use the Mayweather is in his 30's and shouldn't be fighting a young, unbeaten prospect argument then that's his own fault. As has been said, had he met Pacman 3/4 years ago when he was by all accounts at his peak then people wouldn't particularly care about the Canelo fight....but he didn't.

Aye True - I reckon he would have battered pacquiao as well, so the more fool him. I think though that mayweathers main problem is that none of his opponents have gone on to be considered legendary ala Duran, Leonard, Hagler or hearns - So I'll think i'll take MDP's stance and wait till the dust gathers on his career. Top 15 for now (just because) and a proper evaluation after he retires. He might fight canelo and Martinez and end up battering em both (unlikely of course) and that might propel him quite high depending on Canelo's success in the future.

Communicating with an Asperger's/ADHD etc sufferer is like throwing a ball against a wall, it keeps coming back.

No matter how hard you throw the ball at the wall it will never penetrates it.

Who is that particularly crass and rude remark aimed at Strongback?! You may wish to think a little more before putting such remarks!

I understand that some on here worship Floyd -- hell I absolutely love Tommy Hearns -- but I can still evaluate him rationally.

Every post seems to be about how fighters who fought in black and white are inferior to Floyd. Better to argue that you love Floyd and possibly can't see his faults, due to the level of amore you're feeling toward him.

Hearns kills Floyd at welterweight by the way.

Floyd kills hearns (tommy nor Barry) at sfw.

azania wrote:Floyd kills hearns (tommy nor Barry) at sfw.

How by starving him to death?

So what? What's wrong with a bit of weight hopping? Then Tommy can move up to hw.

Tommy fought at cruiser.

88Chris05 wrote:The referee Ruby Goldstein wilted in the heat too, Az, and I don't remember him getting hit much in the fight, or having to do as much moving as Robinson! Just sayin'....

Maxim was ok though. He was a true pro. The better fighter won.

Strongback wrote:Tommy fought at cruiser.

He must be the best then.

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:Tommy fought at cruiser.

He must be the best then.

Nah......he's no Duran.

Strongback wrote:

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:Tommy fought at cruiser.

He must be the best then.

Nah......he's no Duran.

Never been faced down after 4 minutes without landing a punch..........you mean??

Strongback wrote:Communicating with an Asperger's/ADHD etc sufferer is like throwing a ball against a wall, it keeps coming back.

No matter how hard you throw the ball at the wall it will never penetrates it.

Interesting theory, Strongy. Never considered that Az might have asperger's. I just thought he was a dick.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Strongback wrote:

azania wrote:

Strongback wrote:Tommy fought at cruiser.

He must be the best then.

Nah......he's no Duran.

Never been faced down after 4 minutes without landing a punch..........you mean??

Not like Tommy was never face down. By much lesser fighters than Duran.