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?

How do you rate Gil Clancy Haz?? Is he a good judge??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Galento had a great war with Max Baer....decked Louis......and beat Lou Nova..........

Wouldn't say he was much below Chisora..........

As for Haz's two judges...............Gil Clancy scored it for Leonard...........Much more respected in Boxing than the two you mentioned Kid....

We can play boobie for tat as much as you want as you well know!!............But "Good judges" come on Mate!!

Hugh McIlvanney is one of the greatest boxing writers of all time. Have a read. It'll blow your mind.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1065875/

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:How do you rate Gil Clancy Haz?? Is he a good judge??

As what? A trainer or a blow-by-blow guy?

Larry Merchant scored it a draw.

Mcilvanney is good but would you concede Clancy is more respected worldwide in Boxing circles than him and Bernstein??..

merchant scored it a draw......Bless you Haz... you're reaching!!!

Budd Schulberg, too.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mcilvanney is good but would you concede Clancy is more respected worldwide in Boxing circles than him and Bernstein??..

merchant scored it a draw......Bless you Haz... you're reaching!!!

No.

Hardly reaching -- can't be bothered to traipse through information to argue one of your piddling little points that has jack to do with the original question. Petty.

I asked you to validate your claim that only good judges had Hagler winning..

Complete nonsense and I rebutted it with Clancy..............end of!!

Stupid statement to make..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I asked you to validate your claim that only good judges had Hagler winning..

Complete nonsense and I rebutted it with Clancy..............end of!!

Stupid statement to make..

I didn't make that statement. As a brief, you'd be more Troy McLure than Ironside. I said good judges had Hagler winning (such as McIlvanney, Shculberg and Bernstein).

Most of the British commentators plumped for Hagler, as did Harry Gibbs, Lou Fillipo and around half of the American media ringside.

azania wrote:The fact that SRR blatently ducked Burley is also never held against him. Look at the jack Floyd gets for Manny ducking him.

SRR avoided a fight that wasn't really being called for by many, wouldn't have generated much money, and would have probably been a stinker of a fight. I'm a Burley fan and would use Burley as a black mark against SRR's record but there were reasons that I can understand for the fight not happening.

Completely different to Floyd not fighting Pac which would have have generated both fighters a huge amount of money and was wanted by most if not all boxing fans.

You've edited your post..............You sad sack..

Lets get one thing straight: Sweet Sugar Ray Robinson will always be ranked number 1, even if we never had tape of him 'purists' would shove that down our throats, and we'd either have to believe it or in the words of Roger Mayweather, 'you dont know shirt about boxing'. Its the same with Ali, not a knock on him, but his magnum opus was a against a guy who was shot. These are the same people who will tell you that Martinez has never beaten anyone with a pulse.

Its that logic that ensures SRR remains firmly ensconced as the greatest (Im not saying he isnt, Im just saying its not up for serious discussion)

Haven't a problem with him being number1...........

If one wants to use Mayweathian criteria though.............

One can say he lost out of his comfort zone to Joey Maxim.....He lost to the ordinary lamotta and couldn't figure out Turpin............

Also Jack Solomon accused Robbo off bottling out of a third fight with Turpin....

I don't want to use that criteria though because it isn't fair on anybody...

We should treat all fighters the same...RIGHT ???

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Galento had a great war with Max Baer....decked Louis......and beat Lou Nova..........

Wouldn't say he was much below Chisora..........

As for Haz's two judges...............Gil Clancy scored it for Leonard...........Much more respected in Boxing than the two you mentioned Kid....

We can play boobie for tat as much as you want as you well know!!............But "Good judges" come on Mate!!

Who is better judge- the one that scored to Leonard by 10 rounds to two, or the one that scored it seven five to Haglar? The result split the "expert" opinion just as much as it did the fans' opinions. So clear plenty of good judges scored it for Haglar, just as plenty did for Leonard

I agree entirely Mate....

Genuinely shocked that in his next contrarian standpoint - Az has picked SRR. Is he honestly picking apart the generally accepted #1 P4P ATG?

Lets look at this. When assessing an ATG, we look at talent, he had it in droves. Ali himself said "you call me the greatest but I'm not, Sugar Ray Robinson is" - Ali was not a man who in his prime years would accept that anyone, ever was as good as he besides SRR. I'd say thats some accolade. In terms of talent, we know that he possessed incredible speed, incredible power and an iron chin. He also had great intelligence. For a natural welterweight to go up and knock middleweights out is incredible. If Az ever boxed, he'd understand the difference between the punch power of a WW as opposed to a MW. When I spar (insert jokes) sparring with the lighter weights, it just doesn't hurt as much, and I can hurt them easily, yet put me in with the middleweights and its a different ball game, my punches don't hurt them as much.

His record stands the test of time, he was the main man for so long in divisions absolutely stacked with talent (ATG's) so really, when theres a load of ATG's yet there was a man who beat them all....surely that puts him at the top of the pile right?

I can't see SRR's record being beaten, in terms of talent its subjective, I'm sure there are boxers more talented even today, yet to fight as often in the time period would be impossible and to fit so many ATG's on a resume would be next to impossible in todays economy.

I strongly believe this post was either made to invoke discussion (well done) or to wind people up - Az has already proven how thick headed he is when it comes to Rocky marciano, it'd be an absolute joke if he takes this standpoint with SRR too.

Your points can be made for Mayweather.......although I concede SRR shoul d be higher....

Remember also that Robbo lost to Turpin and Lamotta..........and lost out of his comfort zone to Maxim...A fight nobody pressured him to take..

Unlike Mayweather and Canelo...

Jab- Az is entitled to his opinion, and while I dont strictly agree with him, I dont think its far out for him to say that. You use Ali as an example of why SRR is the greatest, but Im sure 40 years, a swimmer would have said that about Spitz, A racer about Fangio, or a sprinter about Jim Hines. Forty years is an eternity in pro sports.

This article was wrapped up and answered by the poster who left the 2nd comment.

Nothing else to be debated...why is this thread still alive?

It might be interesting to look at what would be required from a single, specific fighter in order to surpass Robinson rather than looking at a uniform rule for all.

Concentrating on fighters who have peaked from 1970 onwards, for instance, seeing as we've been discussing how more modern fighters don't get a fair crack of the whip when it comes to these kind of rankings.

For me, the standout is Ray Leonard. In fact, as I've said before, in terms of pure talent and attributes (both mental and physical), I believe Leonard may have been the 'best' pure pound for pound boxer to have ever lived. Ultra quick in both hand and foot, great reflexes, knockout power in each hand, fantastic chin, neat defence, good on both front and back foot and, on top of that, a very intelligent fighter and an extremely gutsy and brave one, too.

In my eyes, the only thing that's missing from Leonard's record which prevents him very possibly overtaking Robinson is a lack of depth to his record (relatively speaking, of course), some good, solid wins to go with those utterly great ones. From 1982 to 1987, Leonard effectively lost five peak years, from the ages of 26 to 31. Curry and Starling at Welter, McCallum and / or a Hearns rematch at Light-Middle etc.

I'd certainly back him against Curry, Starling and McCallum, though Hearns at 154 around 1982 or 1983 is a tough one to call and Leonard may even be the slight underdog for that one.

If he'd have fitted those kind of wins (along with a few more routine defences against the Colin Jones, Milton McCrory and Gianfranco Rosi types at 147 or 154) in between his first retirement in 1982 and his against-all-odds victory over Hagler in 1987, then could anyone really argue that Robinson would belong ahead of him, given the type of amazing virtuosity Leonard had to his boxing?

Of course, if you don't get the results you don't get the credit, which is why Robinson belongs ahead of Leonard. But if you do have Robinson top and ahead of all the post-seventies greats, who of the past forty-three years is the pick of the bunch, and what exactly are they just missing which keeps them behind Robinson in your estimations? After all, there must be something.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Your points can be made for Mayweather.......although I concede SRR shoul d be higher....

Remember also that Robbo lost to Turpin and Lamotta..........and lost out of his comfort zone to Maxim...A fight nobody pressured him to take..

Unlike Mayweather and Canelo...

Robinson wasn't at his best for the Turpin fight and was giving away weight to LaMotta. The fact that he figured Turpin out in an immediate rematch -- after being badly cut and on the verge of a second defeat -- and then pounded LaMotta four times is outstanding.

The heat beat him against Maxim.

Mayweather backed out of a real challenge against Pacquiao. It doesn't even look as though he'll face Alvarez -- who's barely proven a thing as a pro (other than he's popular).

88Chris05 wrote:It might be interesting to look at what would be required from a single, specific fighter in order to surpass Robinson rather than looking at a uniform rule for all.

Concentrating on fighters who have peaked from 1970 onwards, for instance, seeing as we've been discussing how more modern fighters don't get a fair crack of the whip when it comes to these kind of rankings.

For me, the standout is Ray Leonard. In fact, as I've said before, in terms of pure talent and attributes (both mental and physical), I believe Leonard may have been the 'best' pure pound for pound boxer to have ever lived. Ultra quick in both hand and foot, great reflexes, knockout power in each hand, fantastic chin, neat defence, good on both front and back foot and, on top of that, a very intelligent fighter and an extremely gutsy and brave one, too.

In my eyes, the only thing that's missing from Leonard's record which prevents him very possibly overtaking Robinson is a lack of depth to his record (relatively speaking, of course), some good, solid wins to go with those utterly great ones. From 1982 to 1987, Leonard effectively lost five peak years, from the ages of 26 to 31. Curry and Starling at Welter, McCallum and / or a Hearns rematch at Light-Middle etc.

I'd certainly back him against Curry, Starling and McCallum, though Hearns at 154 around 1982 or 1983 is a tough one to call and Leonard may even be the slight underdog for that one.

If he'd have fitted those kind of wins (along with a few more routine defences against the Colin Jones, Milton McCrory and Gianfranco Rosi types at 147 or 154) in between his first retirement in 1982 and his against-all-odds victory over Hagler in 1987, then could anyone really argue that Robinson would belong ahead of him, given the type of amazing virtuosity Leonard had to his boxing?

Of course, if you don't get the results you don't get the credit, which is why Robinson belongs ahead of Leonard. But if you do have Robinson top and ahead of all the post-seventies greats, who of the past forty-three years is the pick of the bunch, and what exactly are they just missing which keeps them behind Robinson in your estimations? After all, there must be something.

Would have to put Whitaker up there as the best of recent times but feel he falls to short of where he should be placed due to a couple of fights that didn't go his way when they should have - would still fall short of SRR though. Interestingly found this as well whilst on the subject, I'm sure this has been seen many times before but there are some surprises on this list for me:

http://boxing.about.com/od/history/a/ring_80_best.htm

Mike Tyson not in the top 70 and no mention at all of his namesake 'Prime Mike Tyson'.

Duran is their pick as the best of the recent fighters and although I'm a huge fan I just couldn't place him that high.

88Chris05 wrote:It might be interesting to look at what would be required from a single, specific fighter in order to surpass Robinson rather than looking at a uniform rule for all.

Concentrating on fighters who have peaked from 1970 onwards, for instance, seeing as we've been discussing how more modern fighters don't get a fair crack of the whip when it comes to these kind of rankings.

For me, the standout is Ray Leonard. In fact, as I've said before, in terms of pure talent and attributes (both mental and physical), I believe Leonard may have been the 'best' pure pound for pound boxer to have ever lived. Ultra quick in both hand and foot, great reflexes, knockout power in each hand, fantastic chin, neat defence, good on both front and back foot and, on top of that, a very intelligent fighter and an extremely gutsy and brave one, too.

In my eyes, the only thing that's missing from Leonard's record which prevents him very possibly overtaking Robinson is a lack of depth to his record (relatively speaking, of course), some good, solid wins to go with those utterly great ones. From 1982 to 1987, Leonard effectively lost five peak years, from the ages of 26 to 31. Curry and Starling at Welter, McCallum and / or a Hearns rematch at Light-Middle etc.

I'd certainly back him against Curry, Starling and McCallum, though Hearns at 154 around 1982 or 1983 is a tough one to call and Leonard may even be the slight underdog for that one.

If he'd have fitted those kind of wins (along with a few more routine defences against the Colin Jones, Milton McCrory and Gianfranco Rosi types at 147 or 154) in between his first retirement in 1982 and his against-all-odds victory over Hagler in 1987, then could anyone really argue that Robinson would belong ahead of him, given the type of amazing virtuosity Leonard had to his boxing?

Of course, if you don't get the results you don't get the credit, which is why Robinson belongs ahead of Leonard. But if you do have Robinson top and ahead of all the post-seventies greats, who of the past forty-three years is the pick of the bunch, and what exactly are they just missing which keeps them behind Robinson in your estimations? After all, there must be something.

Ali then Duran, Leonard, Whitaker. JC Chavez started to find himself in the argument at one point, when he'd surpassed 80 fights unbeaten, but that hasty talk soon dwindled out after Randall/Whitaker.

Robinson was a better all-rounder than Leonard. Everything Leonard did, Robinson could do better or at least as well. I mean, one loss in his first 131 fights after an unbeaten amateur career of 85-0 (69). The level of fighters he beat over the period he managed it, and most importantly, the style he did it in is just a sensational feat.

Here's the finale of the list I linked on the Joe Louis thread:

http://www.boxing.com/the_100_greatest_fighters_of_all_time_part_ten_10_1.html

Whitaker just a shade behind Leonard for me, Huw, but I appreciate what you're saying there. I think if Pea had been rewarded properly for what he did to Chavez and treated kinder against Oscar - which he probably should have been - then his CV would be in that same kind of stratosphere, particularly if he hadn't let his outside interests get the better of him by 1996 / 1997. Had it not been for all the fallout between the Duvas and King, as well as King not letting his fighters perform on HBO for so long in the nineties, then Pea would have been allowed to box rings around a young Trinidad anytime between 1993 and 1996 too, which would have helped his legacy.

Surely no one has Whittaker above Mayweather...............Especially with his lack of p4p victories (Floyd has three)..lack of longevity compared to Mayweather and his defeats....

and the fact he ran like a thief against Oscar..

hazharrison wrote:Here's the finale of the list I linked on the Joe Louis thread:

http://www.boxing.com/the_100_greatest_fighters_of_all_time_part_ten_10_1.html

Langford at number one. I like it Haz, but suspect some on here may rupture a spleen when they read this.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Surely no one has Whittaker above Mayweather...............Especially with his lack of p4p victories (Floyd has three)..lack of longevity compared to Mayweather and his defeats....

and the fact he ran like a thief against Oscar..

He faced Chavez, though, and beat him despite what the judges recorded.

That was his Pacquiao.

Why is Mayweather any more special than Whitaker?

Rowley wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Here's the finale of the list I linked on the Joe Louis thread:

http://www.boxing.com/the_100_greatest_fighters_of_all_time_part_ten_10_1.html

Langford at number one. I like it Haz, but suspect some on here may rupture a spleen when they read this.

I choked a bit when I first saw it but it's good to see alternative opinions. Ones made sensibly, that is.

Here's his 100:

01 - Sam Langford
02 - Harry Greb
03 - Sugar Ray Robinson
04 - Henry Armstrong
05 - Ezzard Charles
06 - Bob Fitzsimmons
07 - Muhammad Ali
08 - Joe Gans
09 - Joe Louis
10 - Roberto Duran.
11 - Benny Leonard
12 - Mickey Walker
13 - Willie Pep
14 - Barney Ross
15 - Archie Moore
16 - Ray Leonard
17 - George Dixon
18 - Terry McGovern
19 - Packey McFarland
20 - Pernell Whitaker
21 - Tony Canzoneri
22 - Jimmy McLarnin
23 - Sandy Saddler
24 - Stanley Ketchel
25 - Charley Burley
26 - Holman Williams
27 - Billy Conn
28 - Gene Tunney
29 - Roy Jones
30 - Joe Walcott
31 - Carlos Monzon
32 - Jimmy Wilde
33 - Eder Jofre
34 - Marvin Hagler
35 - Julio Cesar Chavez
36 - Tommy Gibbons
37 - Kid Gavilan
38 - Jack Britton
39 - Emile Griffith
40 - Jose Napoles
41 - Alexis Arguello
42 - Michael Spinks
43 - Tommy Loughran
44 - Thomas Hearns
45 - Jimmy Bivins
46 - Ike Williams
47 - Floyd Mayweather
48 - Manny Pacquiao
49 - Tommy Ryan
50 - Jack Dillon
51 - Bernard Hopkins
52 - Carlos Ortiz
53 - Fighting Harada
54 - Ruben Olivares
55 – Evander Holyfield
56 - Young Corbett III
57 - Mike Gibbons
58 – Ted Kid Lewis
59 - Freddie Welsh
60 - Freddie Steele
61 - Lou Ambers
62 - Salvador Sanchez
63 - Wilfredo Gomez
64 - Vicente Saldivar
65 - Rocky Marciano
66 - Abe Attell
67 - Manuel Ortiz
68 - Harold Johnson
69 - Dick Tiger
70 - Luis Manuel Rodriguez
71 - Carmen Basilio
72 - Carlos Zarate
73 - Miguel Canto
74 - Oscar De La Hoya
75 - Azumah Nelson
76 - Mike McCallum
77 - Lary Holmes
78 - Bob Foster
79 - Teddy Yarosz
80 - Jim Driscoll
81 - Panama Al Brown
82 - Pascual Perez
83 - Lloyd Marshall
84 – Jake LaMotta
85 - Juan Manuel Marquez
86 – Wilfred Benitez
87 – Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
88 – Erik Morales
89 – Marco Antonio Barrera
90 - Young Griffo
91 - Fritzie Zivic
92 - Joe Frazier
93 - Pete Herman
94 - Lennox Lewis
95 - Jack “Kid” Berg
96 - Philadelphia Jack O’Brien
97 - James Toney
98 - Nicolino Locche
99 - Jung Koo Chang
100-George Foreman

Langford is controversial and would not be my pick but alongside the likes of Greb and Armstrong he is certainly one of the guys you can make an argument for without being completely out of left field.

Lack of pound for pound victories? McGirt was inside the Ring's top five pound for pound when Whitaker beat him the first time (take a look at their year-end lists for 1991 and 1992). Nelson was inside the Ring's top ten for four consecutive years before Whitaker shut him out in 1990, and was still there as late as 1994. And Chavez was many people's pound for pound number one when Pea handed him that lesson in 1993, and had been since 1990.

Whitaker more than matches Floyd in terms of big pound for pounders, Truss.

88Chris05 wrote:It might be interesting to look at what would be required from a single, specific fighter in order to surpass Robinson rather than looking at a uniform rule for all.

Concentrating on fighters who have peaked from 1970 onwards, for instance, seeing as we've been discussing how more modern fighters don't get a fair crack of the whip when it comes to these kind of rankings.

For me, the standout is Ray Leonard. In fact, as I've said before, in terms of pure talent and attributes (both mental and physical), I believe Leonard may have been the 'best' pure pound for pound boxer to have ever lived. Ultra quick in both hand and foot, great reflexes, knockout power in each hand, fantastic chin, neat defence, good on both front and back foot and, on top of that, a very intelligent fighter and an extremely gutsy and brave one, too.

In my eyes, the only thing that's missing from Leonard's record which prevents him very possibly overtaking Robinson is a lack of depth to his record (relatively speaking, of course), some good, solid wins to go with those utterly great ones. From 1982 to 1987, Leonard effectively lost five peak years, from the ages of 26 to 31. Curry and Starling at Welter, McCallum and / or a Hearns rematch at Light-Middle etc.

I'd certainly back him against Curry, Starling and McCallum, though Hearns at 154 around 1982 or 1983 is a tough one to call and Leonard may even be the slight underdog for that one.

If he'd have fitted those kind of wins (along with a few more routine defences against the Colin Jones, Milton McCrory and Gianfranco Rosi types at 147 or 154) in between his first retirement in 1982 and his against-all-odds victory over Hagler in 1987, then could anyone really argue that Robinson would belong ahead of him, given the type of amazing virtuosity Leonard had to his boxing?

Of course, if you don't get the results you don't get the credit, which is why Robinson belongs ahead of Leonard. But if you do have Robinson top and ahead of all the post-seventies greats, who of the past forty-three years is the pick of the bunch, and what exactly are they just missing which keeps them behind Robinson in your estimations? After all, there must be something.

Great Post Chris,

It actually brings me back round to Mayweather perfectly. He has much of what you look for in all time great. He has possibly the greatest defence in history (certainly Top 3), stunning punch variety, at the peak of his powers supreme hand speed and a perfect jab which could set up every punch going. In terms of pure talent I would honestly but him on a par with everyone mentioned i.e. SRRM, SRL and Ali.

He has the weight hopping, although a little easier these days given the expansion in weight classes, but still winning World Titles in 5 weight classes and stepping up from Super-Featherweight all the way up to Light-Middleweight is no mean feat at all. The names on his record read like a whose who in the modern day boxing fraternity:

Oscar De La Hoya, Shane Mosely, Jose Luis Castillo, Juan Manuel Marquez, Diego Corrales, Zab Judah, Miguel Cotto, Arturo Gatti, Ricky Hatton

A pretty incredible list of names. Yet when you take into consideration the timing when fighting each person or the weight where he fought them at he just doesn't have that huge stellar stand out name on the list. In my opinion to date Diego Corrales and Jose Luis Castillo remain his best victories. He gave Corrales an absolute boxing clinic whilst being a half stone lighter and the smaller fighter. He learnt from his first fight with Castillo and in the rematch made him look ordinary. In all of the other fights he has always looked very good, and whilst some would argue he is not always entertaining if you wanted to show someone how boxing should be done you could pick out any of his contests.

If he had fought Pacman back in 2009-2010 and perhaps fought either Cotto at Welterweight or Hatton at Light-Welterweight or maybe even Mosely a few years earlier then I would be talking about him as a Top 3 ATG (and I am not even his biggest fan). What frustrates me the most, as it does many people, is that post-Hatton I felt he was really entering his peak yet he wasted the subsequent years fighting good but not great opponents. I wouldn't say he cherry picked to the degree some would have you believe, if he did he wouldn't have Cotto, Mosely, Marquez on his record, but he did ensure he always had the advantage in terms of weight or catching them at the right time.

huw wrote:

azania wrote:The fact that SRR blatently ducked Burley is also never held against him. Look at the jack Floyd gets for Manny ducking him.

SRR avoided a fight that wasn't really being called for by many, wouldn't have generated much money, and would have probably been a stinker of a fight. I'm a Burley fan and would use Burley as a black mark against SRR's record but there were reasons that I can understand for the fight not happening.

Completely different to Floyd not fighting Pac which would have have generated both fighters a huge amount of money and was wanted by most if not all boxing fans.

There you have it. More excuses for SRR ducking someone. Now it's called avoided. Floyd didn't "avoid" Manny. He set his stall out. Take the test. Simple.

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Your points can be made for Mayweather.......although I concede SRR shoul d be higher....

Remember also that Robbo lost to Turpin and Lamotta..........and lost out of his comfort zone to Maxim...A fight nobody pressured him to take..

Unlike Mayweather and Canelo...

Robinson wasn't at his best for the Turpin fight and was giving away weight to LaMotta. The fact that he figured Turpin out in an immediate rematch -- after being badly cut and on the verge of a second defeat -- and then pounded LaMotta four times is outstanding.

The heat beat him against Maxim.

Mayweather backed out of a real challenge against Pacquiao. It doesn't even look as though he'll face Alvarez -- who's barely proven a thing as a pro (other than he's popular).

Any more excuses?

Turpin was miles ahead in the rematch until SRR threw the hail Mary punch.

Also wasn't Randy partying like its 1999 after he beat SRR? Never held against SRR is it?

azania wrote:

huw wrote:

azania wrote:The fact that SRR blatently ducked Burley is also never held against him. Look at the jack Floyd gets for Manny ducking him.

SRR avoided a fight that wasn't really being called for by many, wouldn't have generated much money, and would have probably been a stinker of a fight. I'm a Burley fan and would use Burley as a black mark against SRR's record but there were reasons that I can understand for the fight not happening.

Completely different to Floyd not fighting Pac which would have have generated both fighters a huge amount of money and was wanted by most if not all boxing fans.

There you have it. More excuses for SRR ducking someone. Now it's called avoided. Floyd didn't "avoid" Manny. He set his stall out. Take the test. Simple.

That's your evidence? A post from another user?

hazharrison wrote:Here's his 100:

01 - Sam Langford
02 - Harry Greb
03 - Sugar Ray Robinson
04 - Henry Armstrong
05 - Ezzard Charles
06 - Bob Fitzsimmons
07 - Muhammad Ali
08 - Joe Gans
09 - Joe Louis
10 - Roberto Duran.
11 - Benny Leonard
12 - Mickey Walker
13 - Willie Pep
14 - Barney Ross
15 - Archie Moore
16 - Ray Leonard
17 - George Dixon
18 - Terry McGovern
19 - Packey McFarland
20 - Pernell Whitaker
21 - Tony Canzoneri
22 - Jimmy McLarnin
23 - Sandy Saddler
24 - Stanley Ketchel
25 - Charley Burley
26 - Holman Williams
27 - Billy Conn
28 - Gene Tunney
29 - Roy Jones
30 - Joe Walcott
31 - Carlos Monzon
32 - Jimmy Wilde
33 - Eder Jofre
34 - Marvin Hagler
35 - Julio Cesar Chavez
36 - Tommy Gibbons
37 - Kid Gavilan
38 - Jack Britton
39 - Emile Griffith
40 - Jose Napoles
41 - Alexis Arguello
42 - Michael Spinks
43 - Tommy Loughran
44 - Thomas Hearns
45 - Jimmy Bivins
46 - Ike Williams
47 - Floyd Mayweather
48 - Manny Pacquiao
49 - Tommy Ryan
50 - Jack Dillon
51 - Bernard Hopkins
52 - Carlos Ortiz
53 - Fighting Harada
54 - Ruben Olivares
55 – Evander Holyfield
56 - Young Corbett III
57 - Mike Gibbons
58 – Ted Kid Lewis
59 - Freddie Welsh
60 - Freddie Steele
61 - Lou Ambers
62 - Salvador Sanchez
63 - Wilfredo Gomez
64 - Vicente Saldivar
65 - Rocky Marciano
66 - Abe Attell
67 - Manuel Ortiz
68 - Harold Johnson
69 - Dick Tiger
70 - Luis Manuel Rodriguez
71 - Carmen Basilio
72 - Carlos Zarate
73 - Miguel Canto
74 - Oscar De La Hoya
75 - Azumah Nelson
76 - Mike McCallum
77 - Lary Holmes
78 - Bob Foster
79 - Teddy Yarosz
80 - Jim Driscoll
81 - Panama Al Brown
82 - Pascual Perez
83 - Lloyd Marshall
84 – Jake LaMotta
85 - Juan Manuel Marquez
86 – Wilfred Benitez
87 – Nonpareil Jack Dempsey
88 – Erik Morales
89 – Marco Antonio Barrera
90 - Young Griffo
91 - Fritzie Zivic
92 - Joe Frazier
93 - Pete Herman
94 - Lennox Lewis
95 - Jack “Kid” Berg
96 - Philadelphia Jack O’Brien
97 - James Toney
98 - Nicolino Locche
99 - Jung Koo Chang
100-George Foreman

Some of those guys better than Ali? Seriously

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:

huw wrote:

azania wrote:The fact that SRR blatently ducked Burley is also never held against him. Look at the jack Floyd gets for Manny ducking him.

SRR avoided a fight that wasn't really being called for by many, wouldn't have generated much money, and would have probably been a stinker of a fight. I'm a Burley fan and would use Burley as a black mark against SRR's record but there were reasons that I can understand for the fight not happening.

Completely different to Floyd not fighting Pac which would have have generated both fighters a huge amount of money and was wanted by most if not all boxing fans.

There you have it. More excuses for SRR ducking someone. Now it's called avoided. Floyd didn't "avoid" Manny. He set his stall out. Take the test. Simple.

That's your evidence? A post from another user?

Are those not excuses? Would a newbie allowed such a wide lattitude?

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Your points can be made for Mayweather.......although I concede SRR shoul d be higher....

Remember also that Robbo lost to Turpin and Lamotta..........and lost out of his comfort zone to Maxim...A fight nobody pressured him to take..

Unlike Mayweather and Canelo...

Robinson wasn't at his best for the Turpin fight and was giving away weight to LaMotta. The fact that he figured Turpin out in an immediate rematch -- after being badly cut and on the verge of a second defeat -- and then pounded LaMotta four times is outstanding.

The heat beat him against Maxim.

Mayweather backed out of a real challenge against Pacquiao. It doesn't even look as though he'll face Alvarez -- who's barely proven a thing as a pro (other than he's popular).

Any more excuses?

Turpin was miles ahead in the rematch until SRR threw the hail Mary punch.

It's called context. Turpin was not ahead.

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:

huw wrote:

azania wrote:The fact that SRR blatently ducked Burley is also never held against him. Look at the jack Floyd gets for Manny ducking him.

SRR avoided a fight that wasn't really being called for by many, wouldn't have generated much money, and would have probably been a stinker of a fight. I'm a Burley fan and would use Burley as a black mark against SRR's record but there were reasons that I can understand for the fight not happening.

Completely different to Floyd not fighting Pac which would have have generated both fighters a huge amount of money and was wanted by most if not all boxing fans.

There you have it. More excuses for SRR ducking someone. Now it's called avoided. Floyd didn't "avoid" Manny. He set his stall out. Take the test. Simple.

That's your evidence? A post from another user?

Are those not excuses? Would a newbie allowed such a wide lattitude?

I've no idea what that sentence means.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Your points can be made for Mayweather.......although I concede SRR shoul d be higher....

Remember also that Robbo lost to Turpin and Lamotta..........and lost out of his comfort zone to Maxim...A fight nobody pressured him to take..

Unlike Mayweather and Canelo...

Robinson wasn't at his best for the Turpin fight and was giving away weight to LaMotta. The fact that he figured Turpin out in an immediate rematch -- after being badly cut and on the verge of a second defeat -- and then pounded LaMotta four times is outstanding.

The heat beat him against Maxim.

Mayweather backed out of a real challenge against Pacquiao. It doesn't even look as though he'll face Alvarez -- who's barely proven a thing as a pro (other than he's popular).

Any more excuses?

Turpin was miles ahead in the rematch until SRR threw the hail Mary punch.

It's called context. Turpin was not ahead.

How come such context is never applied to modern boxers?

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Your points can be made for Mayweather.......although I concede SRR shoul d be higher....

Remember also that Robbo lost to Turpin and Lamotta..........and lost out of his comfort zone to Maxim...A fight nobody pressured him to take..

Unlike Mayweather and Canelo...

Robinson wasn't at his best for the Turpin fight and was giving away weight to LaMotta. The fact that he figured Turpin out in an immediate rematch -- after being badly cut and on the verge of a second defeat -- and then pounded LaMotta four times is outstanding.

The heat beat him against Maxim.

Mayweather backed out of a real challenge against Pacquiao. It doesn't even look as though he'll face Alvarez -- who's barely proven a thing as a pro (other than he's popular).

Any more excuses?

Turpin was miles ahead in the rematch until SRR threw the hail Mary punch.

It's called context. Turpin was not ahead.

How come such context is never applied to modern boxers?

It is. For example: Floyd Mayweather beat Oscar De la Hoya, however, Oscar De la Hoya was over the hill when this occurred.

azania wrote:

huw wrote:

azania wrote:The fact that SRR blatently ducked Burley is also never held against him. Look at the jack Floyd gets for Manny ducking him.

SRR avoided a fight that wasn't really being called for by many, wouldn't have generated much money, and would have probably been a stinker of a fight. I'm a Burley fan and would use Burley as a black mark against SRR's record but there were reasons that I can understand for the fight not happening.

Completely different to Floyd not fighting Pac which would have have generated both fighters a huge amount of money and was wanted by most if not all boxing fans.

There you have it. More excuses for SRR ducking someone. Now it's called avoided. Floyd didn't "avoid" Manny. He set his stall out. Take the test. Simple.

There is many people that would say once Manny agreed to the tests Floyd changed his tune and started demanding more. Nobody will truly know why that fight didn't take place but there should be no excuse for it from either party - it should have happened and it should be held against both fighters.

SRR had reasonable reasons for not fighting Burley from it being high risk low reward to Burley getting into contention and then losing etc. Would have been considered just another SRR fight had it happened whereas Maywether vs Pac was THE fight for a few years and they both made excuses and avoided it.

As most on here will know I bow to few people on here in my admiration or love for Burley but to say he was ducked by Robinson is not as simple as all that. Whilst Robinson was welter champion Burley was always well ranked he was rarely if ever consensus number one. Frequently this was out of his hands because he struggled to secure fights at the weight and often had to fight outside his weight class. This is unfortunate on his part but did mean he was never a clear number one contender and thus unavoidable. Also fighting outside his weight class meant having to go up against fighters as good as Charles, Bivins and Marshall who frequently outweighed him which meant in a strictly wins and losses sense he was frequently one step forward two steps back in terms of pushing his claims of the shot.

He was also fond of changing managers with a regularity that would make Chelsea under Abramovich balk, again he frequently had good reason but did mean there were long periods where his career could stall or mean he frequently did not have people representing him as he needed and in a manner that would have really underpinned his claims for a fight. Add into that an unfortunate hand injury and the second world war when he really was in his welter pomp and it all conspires to mean that Burley was often derailed by circumstances beyond his control or unfortunate in the extreme.

Am not for a minute suggesting Burley should not have got a shot at Robinson. He was ranked in either the top ten with the ring at middle or welter for a full ten year period unbroken and was obviously more than qualified for any champion in either weight you’d care to mention, but let’s not compare this to the Manny Floyd situation. There was never a situation where they were the clear number one and two in their division or their sport for a two/three year period as was the case for Manny and Floyd.

He ducked Burley. Lets apply today's maxim on all boxers.

azania wrote:He ducked Burley. Lets apply today's maxim on all boxers.

The same maxims are being applied. I, for one, have never thought that Mayweather, for example, "ducked" fighters like Margarito, Williams or Clottey (!) as some of his critics have claimed. Those kind of cases are a little more similar to the Robinson-Burley case than Mayweather-Pacquiao is. There was no massive demand for Ray to fight Charley in general, it wasn't a money spinner, they never truly overlapped in the same division for a long time etc. Likewise, Mayweather against Margarito, Williams or Clottey was a fight which failed to meet some (or all) of the above criteria.

On the other hand, Mayweather-Pacquiao was the single fight that everyone wanted to see for at least two years, would have generated stupid amounts of money and the pair of them were also both flossing Welterweight belts at the same time for a prolonged period. Talk of whether or not they'd fight completely dominated the boxing media and publications for the longest time.

Robinson-Burley, for me, doesn't qualify as a clear case of avoidance, just as Mayweather-Williams / Margarito etc doesn't. Mayweather-Pacquiao, on the other hand, is different.

azania wrote:He ducked Burley. Lets apply today's maxim on all boxers.

Only in the same way Mayweather ducked:

Paul Williams (before he had lost)
Cotto (before he was passed it)
Mosley (as above)

These are fights he could have taken but didn't, not too controversial but legitimate fights.

Pacquiao is a different situation.

huw wrote:

azania wrote:He ducked Burley. Lets apply today's maxim on all boxers.

Only in the same way Mayweather ducked:

Paul Williams (before he had lost)
Cotto (before he was passed it)
Mosley (as above)

These are fights he could have taken but didn't, not too controversial but legitimate fights.

Pacquiao is a different situation.

If that's what you believe, then it's cool. But lets not start making excuses for Robbo who avoided Burley and now people claim that LaMotta was too big for him which in essense is just another excuse to cover the loss. He lost to a face first tough man like Carmen, Bobo, Fulmer, Grazzy and others. Turpin was no better than Sibson or Minter yet schooled Robbo until the lucky punch rescued him.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:He ducked Burley. Lets apply today's maxim on all boxers.

The same maxims are being applied. I, for one, have never thought that Mayweather, for example, "ducked" fighters like Margarito, Williams or Clottey (!) as some of his critics have claimed. Those kind of cases are a little more similar to the Robinson-Burley case than Mayweather-Pacquiao is. There was no massive demand for Ray to fight Charley in general, it wasn't a money spinner, they never truly overlapped in the same division for a long time etc. Likewise, Mayweather against Margarito, Williams or Clottey was a fight which failed to meet some (or all) of the above criteria.

On the other hand, Mayweather-Pacquiao was the single fight that everyone wanted to see for at least two years, would have generated stupid amounts of money and the pair of them were also both flossing Welterweight belts at the same time for a prolonged period. Talk of whether or not they'd fight completely dominated the boxing media and publications for the longest time.

Robinson-Burley, for me, doesn't qualify as a clear case of avoidance, just as Mayweather-Williams / Margarito etc doesn't. Mayweather-Pacquiao, on the other hand, is different.

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.