The 2 Sugars and Ali

Personally for me they are the best P4P who ever lived. Forget their records, who they fought etc. Stylistically they had it all. Graceful, super fast, wonderful footwork, extremely intelligent, cunning but not the biggest hitters (SRR had a fair whack on him though).

But who was the absolute best? All 3 had one flaw in their game. Swarming aggressive fighters gave they fits. But they prevailed because they were that good. But P4P who was the absolute best? Its a fine line seperating the 2 sugars SRR was the bigger puncher, but SRL was slightly faster. In terms of skill, I cant seperate them.

Ali's one major flaw in his game was his lack of body work. He hardly ever went to the body. But that is also a testimony of his skill as the head is a smaller target and thus harder to hit. But hit it he did and with frightening regularity. He ignored the body because he could.

Would a HW version of the 2 sugars possess the same speed? Ali's speed was the equivalence of a MW. Lets ignore the fact that the great man is in the news because of his birthday. Also try and forget their opponents. We all know that these guys are among the best of the best and have proven it many times over. But who was the absolute best?

Well skillwise it's Robinson by a mile while record wise it's close between him and Ali, Leonard for me falls in a bracket below the pair.

leonard falls short from a career perspective because his prime was so short... though the opponent quality in that prime was exceptional. In terms of ability, i wouldn't say there was a mile between them, i'd say you could measure it in inches. In reality though, you can't argue with robinson's record... it trumps them all.

Robinson by some distance when taking all factors into account in assessing pound for pound greatness (only Greb comes close). Have all three in my top 10, Robinson at 1 with Ali around 6 and Leonard at 9.

Cheers Ghosty. I wouldn't say SRR was ahead by miles. But I dont want to go down the route of analysing their records. Just their skills.

Personally skill wise I'd go for Leonard due to his greater speed.

superflyweight wrote:Robinson by some distance when taking all factors into account in assessing pound for pound greatness (only Greb comes close). Have all three in my top 10, Robinson at 1 with Ali around 6 and Leonard at 9.

The only factor I'm interested in is their skills not their records.

In terms of ability Milky think the two fighters who become the focal point are LaMotta and Duran. Duran was a great lightweight who was able to outgun the welterweight Leonard while the Welterweight Robinson was able to outbox a very good middleweight in LaMotta. In pound for pound terms Duran is streets ahead of LaMotta but think he's the more beatable of the two for a silky welterweight.

azania wrote:Cheers Ghosty. I wouldn't say SRR was ahead by miles. But I dont want to go down the route of analysing their records. Just their skills.

Personally skill wise I'd go for Leonard due to his greater speed.

We have absolutely no way of comparing their speed at their peaks.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:Cheers Ghosty. I wouldn't say SRR was ahead by miles. But I dont want to go down the route of analysing their records. Just their skills.

Personally skill wise I'd go for Leonard due to his greater speed.

We have absolutely no way of comparing their speed at their peaks.

In that case you cant say that SRR was miles ahead in terms of skill seeing as speed is a skill. But from what I've seen of all of them, SRL threw the faster combinations.

But if the 2 sugars were HWs would they be as fast as Ali? What seperated Ali from the rest for me, was his in ring intelligence. I dont believe that the rope-a-dope was a tactic he developed in training. I believe he realised that it was the best way of winning that fight. Just seen the Lyle fight and when the r-a-d failed to lure Lyle, he changed. Plus the way he kept on winning even though his greatest asset (footspeed) had gone makes him out to be probably the most intelligent boxer I have seen.

Skills wise then it's still Robinson - the most rounded of the three. Would be a humdinger of a fight between him and Leonard though and can't rule out Leonard entirely.

superflyweight wrote:Skills wise then it's still Robinson - the most rounded of the three. Would be a humdinger of a fight between him and Leonard though and can't rule out Leonard entirely.

What seperates the two is SRR's punch power and SRL#s speed. Had they fought I'd imagine a bore fest as they both cancel each other out.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:Cheers Ghosty. I wouldn't say SRR was ahead by miles. But I dont want to go down the route of analysing their records. Just their skills.

Personally skill wise I'd go for Leonard due to his greater speed.

We have absolutely no way of comparing their speed at their peaks.

In that case you cant say that SRR was miles ahead in terms of skill seeing as speed is a skill. But from what I've seen of all of them, SRL threw the faster combinations.

But if the 2 sugars were HWs would they be as fast as Ali? What seperated Ali from the rest for me, was his in ring intelligence. I dont believe that the rope-a-dope was a tactic he developed in training. I believe he realised that it was the best way of winning that fight. Just seen the Lyle fight and when the r-a-d failed to lure Lyle, he changed. Plus the way he kept on winning even though his greatest asset (footspeed) had gone makes him out to be probably the most intelligent boxer I have seen.

Ali is a slight anomaly in that you're comparing him to other heavyweights, his speed for a heavyweight was sublime but I wouldn't say he was speedy middleweight quick.

Speed isn't a skill it's an attribute, big difference, from what i've seen of Robinson at middleweight he still had more skill than Leonard albeit on lesser legs.

Not necessarily, Az. Same could be said for Hearns v Leonard 1 and that was hardly a borefest!

For me I can't look past Robinson as the stand out king. His record before he lost to Turpin was silly. I think he was a one off.

superflyweight wrote:Not necessarily, Az. Same could be said for Hearns v Leonard 1 and that was hardly a borefest!

True. But It became more of a boxer v slugger fight when SRL realised that he couldn't outbox Hearns. Poor Hearns. If only he had a chin he would be described as the best ever.

Well if you can harness and utilise that speed it becomes more than an attribute. But I get your point. Footwork is all important. I believe Ali had the best out of the 3 of them. It is acknowledged that SRR was better at WW, so it seems that you are taking a leap of faith given that you say he had lesser legs at MW. I take this to believe that he had better legs at WW. If so, how much better? He was a pro dancer or a trained dancer (lindihip) so I'd imagine he had very good footwork.

azania wrote:Well if you can harness and utilise that speed it becomes more than an attribute. But I get your point. Footwork is all important. I believe Ali had the best out of the 3 of them. It is acknowledged that SRR was better at WW, so it seems that you are taking a leap of faith given that you say he had lesser legs at MW. I take this to believe that he had better legs at WW. If so, how much better? He was a pro dancer or a trained dancer (lindihip) so I'd imagine he had very good footwork.

Taking into account the opinions of many boxing experts they almost all say Robinson was head and shoulders above everyone else, during his best years he was able to outbox the best brawler he faced in LaMotta, as he started to lose his speed he was beatable as Basilio and Turpin showed.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

azania wrote:Well if you can harness and utilise that speed it becomes more than an attribute. But I get your point. Footwork is all important. I believe Ali had the best out of the 3 of them. It is acknowledged that SRR was better at WW, so it seems that you are taking a leap of faith given that you say he had lesser legs at MW. I take this to believe that he had better legs at WW. If so, how much better? He was a pro dancer or a trained dancer (lindihip) so I'd imagine he had very good footwork.

Taking into account the opinions of many boxing experts they almost all say Robinson was head and shoulders above everyone else, during his best years he was able to outbox the best brawler he faced in LaMotta, as he started to lose his speed he was beatable as Basilio and Turpin showed.

I'm not discounting what those experts say. Unfortunately there isn't anything much on him at WW for us to make an informed opinion. The only we can have an opinion (I speak for myself here) is to look at his early MW fights where he weighd 154 and imagine how he would have moved at 147. I dont think he was as fleetfooted as Ali or SRL, but that's not to say his footwork wasn't as effective if not more.

Even at middleweight a few years past his best he was able to things that neither Leonard or Ali could do, namely that left hook against Fullmer, it is unfortunate that we can't see the best of him and he does sometimes get marked down by judging him on we do have to go on.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Even at middleweight a few years past his best he was able to things that neither Leonard or Ali could do, namely that left hook against Fullmer, it is unfortunate that we can't see the best of him and he does sometimes get marked down by judging him on we do have to go on.

That was his power which I acknowledged in the first post. I dont think either Sugars could rope-a-dope or even think of that as a tactic.

In terms of all round skill, I'd say that Ali was the weakest due to his lack of body punching. But in terms of boxing intelligence, he was miles ahead of the others. Now would his intelligence overcome the strengths of the others (a hypothetical HW SRR and SRL)? Will skill win out of will intelligence win. Look at it as a boxing "deadliest warrior".

leonard's ego got the better of him in duran 1, which was still a very close fight. duran 2, wasn't one way traffic either but one in which leonard fought his fight. Notwithstanding

I'm playing devil's advocate here, because my answer to the original question is robinson, but we can all cherry pick examples to prove our points. I could say that leonard had a very impressive record against his contemporaries many of whom are also considered all time greats... and that robbo, if you discount an ageing armstrong only really has gavilan as a standout opponent in his prime... and ducked the bmr.

I vigorously defended robbo when the 'robinson ducks bmr' debate cropped up a while back, but despite that, for whatever reasons he didn't fight some of the very best of his era... burley being the obvious candidate. In Ali and leonard's favour is that they fought in times considered to be talent-laden, and fought them all. All of that still doesn't tip the balance against robbo's amazing record when fighting so frequently, but if the focus is on skills and attributes, the margins here are very slim... as they should be when you're discussing the very best

milkyboy wrote:leonard's ego got the better of him in duran 1, which was still a very close fight. duran 2, wasn't one way traffic either but one in which leonard fought his fight. Notwithstanding

I'm playing devil's advocate here, because my answer to the original question is robinson, but we can all cherry pick examples to prove our points. I could say that leonard had a very impressive record against his contemporaries many of whom are also considered all time greats... and that robbo, if you discount an ageing armstrong only really has gavilan as a standout opponent in his prime... and ducked the bmr.

I vigorously defended robbo when the 'robinson ducks bmr' debate cropped up a while back, but despite that, for whatever reasons he didn't fight some of the very best of his era... burley being the obvious candidate. In Ali and leonard's favour is that they fought in times considered to be talent-laden, and fought them all. All of that still doesn't tip the balance against robbo's amazing record when fighting so frequently, but if the focus is on skills and attributes, the margins here are very slim... as they should be when you're discussing the very best

I wouldn't say his ego made his stand there with Duran. I'd say Duran's skills at cutting the ring left him with no choice.

Same here - was exactly the same in the second fight - a narrow tight fight before Duran lost his nut.

Robinson certainly had the more complete skill set of that trio, in fact I'd go so far as to say that there is a fair amount of daylight between him and Leonard / Ali in that respect. You allude to none of them being huge punchers, Azania, but Robinson as a Welterweight was verging on that status. And up at 160 lb, he turned out the granite-chinned Fullmer's lights with a single shot. No way on God's green earth that Ali could do that to the teak-tough Chuvalo, for instance, and equally the second Sugar Ray would never have felled a Middleweight of Fullmer's stature and endurance with a single left.

Ali and Leonard are well matched in terms of skill set; Leonard the more clean cut and technical boxer with fewer flaws, perhaps, but Ali's freakish speed and reflexes were something of an equalizer.

shah, az. it's sometime since i watched both leonard duran fights. But my memory of them is as i described. Both fights were close, but the first was a brawl and the second wasn't, which led to duran's increaing frustration.

Seems like you too must be putting this down to duran's prep then rather than leonard's tactics. SRL is on record himself as saying he wanted to prove he could fight duran's fight in the first fight. Now he was a man prone to b/s, but i'm fairly sure that was the consensus opinion.

88Chris05 wrote:Robinson certainly had the more complete skill set of that trio, in fact I'd go so far as to say that there is a fair amount of daylight between him and Leonard / Ali in that respect. You allude to none of them being huge punchers, Azania, but Robinson as a Welterweight was verging on that status. And up at 160 lb, he turned out the granite-chinned Fullmer's lights with a single shot. No way on God's green earth that Ali could do that to the teak-tough Chuvalo, for instance, and equally the second Sugar Ray would never have felled a Middleweight of Fullmer's stature and endurance with a single left.

Ali and Leonard are well matched in terms of skill set; Leonard the more clean cut and technical boxer with fewer flaws, perhaps, but Ali's freakish speed and reflexes were something of an equalizer.

I have acknowledged that SRR had a whack on him. Either in my first post or second. But at WW probably SRL had the greater speed. Would that offset the power? If SRL could stand up to Hearns, I dare say he would stand up to SRR also (although if he got hit cleanly he will go).

Agreed with your claim about Ali/SRL skillset. Ali was very unconventional but he had the greatest ring intelligence. Again, would that offset the greater skillset and power the others had?

milkyboy wrote:shah, az. it's sometime since i watched both leonard duran fights. But my memory of them is as i described. Both fights were close, but the first was a brawl and the second wasn't, which led to duran's increaing frustration.

Seems like you too must be putting this down to duran's prep then rather than leonard's tactics. SRL is on record himself as saying he wanted to prove he could fight duran's fight in the first fight. Now he was a man prone to b/s, but i'm fairly sure that was the consensus opinion.

When any boxer after losing claim they lost because they wanted to prove their machismo and fought the other guy's fight, I smell BS a mile off. It takes credit away from the opponent (eliberately). SRL couldn't handle the type of fight Duran brought to Montreal. Duran imposed his style on him.

.... so why didn't he in the rematch az

re srr's amazing ko power... i've acknoweldged he was the biggest 1 punch hitter, but his record doesn't really set him apart from the others in that respect chris. He had the capacity to produce a great shot, but we're not talking julian jackson here.

I think the whole world and its sister knew Duran was patying like its 1999 after the montreal fight. His management team arranged a rematch too soon. The rapid weight loss cost him and he couldn't impose his style as he could have done. I personally hold the opinion that Duran was the clove oil to SRL.

well they knew that afterwards... sounds like bs to take credit away from the opponent.

duran partied between fights full stop. its srl who pedals the story that he pushed for an early rematch because he knew duran would party... but then leonard liked the world to think he was clever.

the reality is likely somwhere between the two... leonard learned from duran 1, fought differently, probably assisted by duran being unable to match the intensity of the first fight. How big an effect did that have? i don't know... and neither do you or anyone else az.

Personally think the last three rounds of their first fight are instructive in how any rematch was likely to go, think you can see in those rounds Leonard realising the folloy of brawling with Duran and shifting his tactics a little with notably more success, personally don't think it matters when they rematch or what Duran does in the interim think Leonard had him sussed by then.

milkyboy wrote:well they knew that afterwards... sounds like bs to take credit away from the opponent.

duran partied between fights full stop. its srl who pedals the story that he pushed for an early rematch because he knew duran would party... but then leonard liked the world to think he was clever.

the reality is likely somwhere between the two... leonard learned from duran 1, fought differently, probably assisted by duran being unable to match the intensity of the first fight. How big an effect did that have? i don't know... and neither do you or anyone else az.

This is more believable bs than SRL's excuse.

rowley wrote:Personally think the last three rounds of their first fight are instructive in how any rematch was likely to go, think you can see in those rounds Leonard realising the folloy of brawling with Duran and shifting his tactics a little with notably more success, personally don't think it matters when they rematch or what Duran does in the interim think Leonard had him sussed by then.

I doubt that. Duran seems the type of fighter who had SRL sussed. I dont think SRL had the power to deter him and Duran had the type of footwork and subtle head movement that went against SRL's strengths.

you are a contrary old soul az... you start a thread labeling leonard in your top 3 alltime p4p, grouping him with ali and robinson for all round ability, intelligence, speed, footwork etc... and then... on your own thread... label him an excuse maker, incapable of dictating his terms or imposing his ability, or coming up with a plan b, against the smaller duran (admittedly an atg himself, but below srl according to you).

milkyboy wrote:you are a contrary old soul az... you start a thread labeling leonard in your top 3 alltime p4p, grouping him with ali and robinson for all round ability, intelligence, speed, footwork etc... and then... on your own thread... label him an excuse maker, incapable of dictating his terms or imposing his ability, or coming up with a plan b, against the smaller duran (admittedly an atg himself, but below srl according to you).

No contradiction whatsoever. You can argue that Turpin had SRR's number and Norton had Ali's number. But it doesn't mean they were better fighters. My point of this thread was to discuss their respective skillsets and who came up best.

azania wrote:

milkyboy wrote:you are a contrary old soul az... you start a thread labeling leonard in your top 3 alltime p4p, grouping him with ali and robinson for all round ability, intelligence, speed, footwork etc... and then... on your own thread... label him an excuse maker, incapable of dictating his terms or imposing his ability, or coming up with a plan b, against the smaller duran (admittedly an atg himself, but below srl according to you).

No contradiction whatsoever. You can argue that Turpin had SRR's number and Norton had Ali's number. But it doesn't mean they were better fighters. My point of this thread was to discuss their respective skillsets and who came up best.

you can argue mitigating circumstances for ali and robinson az, which aren't there for leonard. Whichever, styles make fights, people have nemeses. i get it. However, if you can't see a little irony in starting a thread about the sublime skills of the greatest pound for pound fighters (in your opinion) and then, showcase an example where one of them demonstrated few of those skills. You then buck popular opinion and fail to give him any credit for perhaps demonstrating those skills, (that you were waxing lyrical about in your orginal post), in the return.

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Robinson certainly had the more complete skill set of that trio, in fact I'd go so far as to say that there is a fair amount of daylight between him and Leonard / Ali in that respect. You allude to none of them being huge punchers, Azania, but Robinson as a Welterweight was verging on that status. And up at 160 lb, he turned out the granite-chinned Fullmer's lights with a single shot. No way on God's green earth that Ali could do that to the teak-tough Chuvalo, for instance, and equally the second Sugar Ray would never have felled a Middleweight of Fullmer's stature and endurance with a single left.

Ali and Leonard are well matched in terms of skill set; Leonard the more clean cut and technical boxer with fewer flaws, perhaps, but Ali's freakish speed and reflexes were something of an equalizer.

I have acknowledged that SRR had a whack on him. Either in my first post or second. But at WW probably SRL had the greater speed. Would that offset the power? If SRL could stand up to Hearns, I dare say he would stand up to SRR also (although if he got hit cleanly he will go).

Agreed with your claim about Ali/SRL skillset. Ali was very unconventional but he had the greatest ring intelligence. Again, would that offset the greater skillset and power the others had?

We can safely that Robinson had more power than either in a pound for pound sense but there is no way of knowing who was the quicker of the two Sugars as we simply don't have any footage of Robinson at Welterweight. Power, Stamina and rate can be described but speed you do need to see, with there being such a vast difference in terms of power any negligible difference in speed wouldn't make up for it in my opinion.

i think we're all agreeing that robbo has the alround package and a likely edge in power... but what do you base this 'vast power difference' on ghosty... its an opinion but not one that the knock out percentages for example would support

Has the milkybar kid kept you up all night? You aren't normally so argumentative . Think SRR's timing was exceptional - the power just worked from there. Ali may not have hit hard enough but I think his speed was freakish - even outspeeding Patterson who was bloody quick. Subjective I know - but Ali at a lower weight would fight at a pace unmatched - and I don't think either Leonard or Ray Robinson could beat him. Against varying styles though - perhaps SRR would come out on top. Leonard is probably 3rd in this group.

milkyboy wrote:i think we're all agreeing that robbo has the alround package and a likely edge in power... but what do you base this 'vast power difference' on ghosty... its an opinion but not one that the knock out percentages for example would support

More down to the men he could knock out, Fullmer, Turpin, Olson and Graziano weren't exactly known for being taken out with one punch in comparison Leonards list of victims isn't nearly as impressive. It takes some pretty special power to fight LaMotta to a standstill as well.

milkyboy wrote:

azania wrote:

milkyboy wrote:you are a contrary old soul az... you start a thread labeling leonard in your top 3 alltime p4p, grouping him with ali and robinson for all round ability, intelligence, speed, footwork etc... and then... on your own thread... label him an excuse maker, incapable of dictating his terms or imposing his ability, or coming up with a plan b, against the smaller duran (admittedly an atg himself, but below srl according to you).

No contradiction whatsoever. You can argue that Turpin had SRR's number and Norton had Ali's number. But it doesn't mean they were better fighters. My point of this thread was to discuss their respective skillsets and who came up best.

you can argue mitigating circumstances for ali and robinson az, which aren't there for leonard. Whichever, styles make fights, people have nemeses. i get it. However, if you can't see a little irony in starting a thread about the sublime skills of the greatest pound for pound fighters (in your opinion) and then, showcase an example where one of them demonstrated few of those skills. You then buck popular opinion and fail to give him any credit for perhaps demonstrating those skills, (that you were waxing lyrical about in your orginal post), in the return.

Maybe I'm somewhat biased as I cant tolerate the sugary nonsense that accompanied SRL and the added factor that next to Ali, Duran is my favourite fighter. But in this sense, its a case of styles and fights. Duran would always cause SRL problems in the same way he would never get near Hearns. I believe he would also give SRR the same type of problems he gave SRL. The guy was just an animal.

They demonstrated few of those p4P skills because their opponent had the antidote to that in a way they didn't or couldn't to other fighters with lesser skills than the P4P guys I mentioned. Hope I'm making sense.

I'd agree with Gjosty that SRR had superior power. The guys he took out at a weight he wasn't at his best proves that.

shah... no, but my tax return did... might explain a little tetchiness... doesn;t mean i'm not right of course


fair enough ghosty... i think I could point out a few leonard stoppages of guys who hadnt been stopped before and not all of the guys you mentioned as robinson victims were so averse to hitting the canvas, (and most had been softened up before the ko) ...but i'm not going to argue the toss, though... despite being argumentative today!

fair enough az...despite appearances to the contrary, i was cheering for duran in the leonard fights, i still think that the second fight had much to do with leonard opting not to engage rather than, that decision being taken for him.

I agree duran would always cause him problems.. he still did in the second fight

milkyboy wrote:fair enough az...despite appearances to the contrary, i was cheering for duran in the leonard fights, i still think that the second fight had much to do with leonard opting not to engage rather than, that decision being taken for him.

I agree duran would always cause him problems.. he still did in the second fight

Perhaps he did change tactics. I also believe that Duran allowed that to happen to an extent.

... be careful az... that sounds like a compromise... you have your reputation to consider

milkyboy wrote:... be careful az... that sounds like a compromise... you have your reputation to consider

Hence the "perhaps".

milkyboy wrote:fair enough az...despite appearances to the contrary, i was cheering for duran in the leonard fights, i still think that the second fight had much to do with leonard opting not to engage rather than, that decision being taken for him.

I agree duran would always cause him problems.. he still did in the second fight

Don't think either fight gives a true reflection of either fighter really, in the first fight Leonard did fight the wrong way, he was dragged into a brawl almost immediately while Duran looked less interested in the rematch.

azania wrote:

milkyboy wrote:... be careful az... that sounds like a compromise... you have your reputation to consider

Hence the "perhaps".

phew, normal service resumed

milkyboy wrote:

azania wrote:

milkyboy wrote:... be careful az... that sounds like a compromise... you have your reputation to consider

Hence the "perhaps".

phew, normal service resumed