Sugar Ray Robinson

It is almost a crime against humanity (well boxing) to rank SRR anything other than number 1 ATG. Perhaps a closer analysis of his record will suggest that he should not be put on that pedestal.

At Welter weight he was supreme. Something like 110-1. Unbelievable. But who did he beat at that weight who is top 100 ATG?

At middleweight, he was a 5 time world champ. That meant he LOST the strap 5 times. Look at who he lost to at MW also. LaMotta? Basilio? Turpin? Fulmer? Olson? These guys were brawlers (Turpin had his number imo similarly to Norton/Ali). How would Hagler and Monzon fare against him at MW. IMO they would both beat him given that LaMotta et al beat him.

Now lets look WW. Who did he beat? Compare his record to Leonard who lost to another ATG and then comprehensively beat him in the next fight. Losing on points to probably the best pure boxer in the history of the WW division, he came back and won via KO.

Moving up in weight to take on the most fearful and dominant champ for 15 years at any weight, he won a (controversial) split decision.

There is a very strong argument for putting SRL above SRR in the ATG stakes.

Thoughts?

LaMotta was a brawler Az but i think its a bit unfair to class the other guys as such, he fought the guys above numerous times and prevailed. I rate Basilio and Fullmer highly. Apart from the Duran Hagler Hearns and Benitez, who else did Leonard beat.

azania wrote:At Welter weight he was supreme. Something like 110-1. Unbelievable. But who did he beat at that weight who is top 100 ATG?

Do the names Kid Gavilan or Henry Armstrong not mean anything to you, then? Granted, Armstrong was past his best, but had beaten the long-time contender Tippy Larkin not long before fighting Robinson, and still scored a couple of decent wins afterwards. No such 'past his best' accusation can be levelled at Gavilan, by the way, who is clearly a top 100 all time great. In fact, I'd say he's top forty, despite the fact that he fought in the days of black and white TV.

As for his Middleweight tenure, yes he lost the title numerous times, too. But what you don't seem to grasp is that Robinson fought the majority of his Middleweight career while past his best, and so it is a testament to his greatness that he was able to achieve so much at 160 lb in the first place. Also, I can't stand this daft idea that Robinson, somehow, should have been ashamed to lose to the likes of La Motta (in which he was severely outweight and against whom he ended 5-1 up), Basilio and Fullmer; they were all great, great fighters. And what about the fact that he came back to beat all of them after his initial defeats? Nobody beat Robinson twice until he was pushing forty, which again is a testament to the man.

We get it, Azania. You don't like or rate the old timers. But let's be realistic; Ray Leonard's record, fabulous though it is, simply doesn't compare.

The Galveston Giant wrote:LaMotta was a brawler Az but i think its a bit unfair to class the other guys as such, he fought the guys above numerous times and prevailed. I rate Basilio and Fullmer highly. Apart from the Duran Hagler Hearns and Benitez, who else did Leonard beat.

Thats a bit like saying other than Liston, Frazier and Foreman who did Ali beat? SRL like Ali beat ATGs and at their peak.

azania wrote:

The Galveston Giant wrote:LaMotta was a brawler Az but i think its a bit unfair to class the other guys as such, he fought the guys above numerous times and prevailed. I rate Basilio and Fullmer highly. Apart from the Duran Hagler Hearns and Benitez, who else did Leonard beat.

Thats a bit like saying other than Liston, Frazier and Foreman who did Ali beat? SRL like Ali beat ATGs and at their peak.

Depending on the spin we apply we can build up or tear down any record. By way of example :

Leonard lost to Duran, won the return because Duran had a breakdown, was losing to Hearns, ( which is the same as your Walcott / Marciano line, ) beat Hagler in a hotly contested fight when Hagler was cléarly on the slide, and got a gift in the second Hearns fight.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:At Welter weight he was supreme. Something like 110-1. Unbelievable. But who did he beat at that weight who is top 100 ATG?

Do the names Kid Gavilan or Henry Armstrong not mean anything to you, then? Granted, Armstrong was past his best, but had beaten the long-time contender Tippy Larkin not long before fighting Robinson, and still scored a couple of decent wins afterwards. No such 'past his best' accusation can be levelled at Gavilan, by the way, who is clearly a top 100 all time great. In fact, I'd say he's top forty, despite the fact that he fought in the days of black and white TV.

As for his Middleweight tenure, yes he lost the title numerous times, too. But what you don't seem to grasp is that Robinson fought the majority of his Middleweight career while past his best, and so it is a testament to his greatness that he was able to achieve so much at 160 lb in the first place. Also, I can't stand this daft idea that Robinson, somehow, should have been ashamed to lose to the likes of La Motta (in which he was severely outweight and against whom he ended 5-1 up), Basilio and Fullmer; they were all great, great fighters. And what about the fact that he came back to beat all of them after his initial defeats? Nobody beat Robinson twice until he was pushing forty, which again is a testament to the man.

We get it, Azania. You don't like or rate the old timers. But let's be realistic; Ray Leonard's record, fabulous though it is, simply doesn't compare.

My main point being that SRR's greatness should not be based on his achievements at MW. Armstrong was a lightweight at best and as you say he was also past it. I forgot Gavilan which is a great win. This is not about me rating old fighters lowly etc. This is about SRR and the manner in which no-one suggests that he is anything other than No1 ATG. There is a good shout for Armstrong holding that honour.

Can you compare Carmen, Fulmer et al to Hagler or Monzon? If SRR loses to Basillio et al he also loses to Hagler and monzon more decisively.

A matchup between the 2 Sugars would have been interesting and in many ways, I would go for Leonard via close decision.

True Az but Ray Robinson was beating ATG's while way past his best, Ray Leonard was a great fighter no doubt about that, but if we are looking at records Robinson wipes the floor with Leonard, apart from fab four and Benitez, his resume isn't that great.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

The Galveston Giant wrote:LaMotta was a brawler Az but i think its a bit unfair to class the other guys as such, he fought the guys above numerous times and prevailed. I rate Basilio and Fullmer highly. Apart from the Duran Hagler Hearns and Benitez, who else did Leonard beat.

Thats a bit like saying other than Liston, Frazier and Foreman who did Ali beat? SRL like Ali beat ATGs and at their peak.

Depending on the spin we apply we can build up or tear down any record. By way of example :

Leonard lost to Duran, won the return because Duran had a breakdown, was losing to Hearns, ( which is the same as your Walcott / Marciano line, ) beat Hagler in a hotly contested fight when Hagler was cléarly on the slide, and got a gift in the second Hearns fight.

Cripes, you have more spin that Ali Cambell windy.

SRL caused Duran to have his meltdown by clowning with him. Yes he was losing to Hearns who I described as the best pure boxer in the ww division. With a better chin Hearns would probably be the No 1 ATG imo. But the point being that great champions find a way to win. Yep, Hagler was on the slide. But that version of Hagler was better that the guys SRR lost to imo.

Plus in their first fight SRL tried to brawl against probably the best brawler in history. I for one, being a massive Duran fan was over joyed that SRL used that tactic and lost. I also question SRL for asking for a rematch and Duran's management team agreeing to one so soon after their first fight knowing Duran would blow up in weight and probably be ill prepared for a rematch.

azania wrote:Can you compare Carmen, Fulmer et al to Hagler or Monzon? If SRR loses to Basillio et al he also loses to Hagler and monzon more decisively.

If only if things were that simple, Azania. Anyone could easily flip that statement and say that if Hagler loses to Watts and Monroe, then he doesn't stand a snowball in hell's chance of beating a legend such as Robinson. The truth is, claims like that are fanciful at best, and you should know better than to use such ones.

Also, why should we not be allowed to take in to account Robinson's Middleweight exploits when evaluating his greatness? To suggest that we should forget a division in which he won the title five times is ludicrous, but that seems to be what you're indicating. Nobody basis his whole standing on what he did at 160 lb, as ninety-nine percent of people acknowledge that he did his best work at Welterweight. But what he achieved at 160 lb is still more than anyone else but a select few can boast, and of course it only adds to his legacy which, as you say, is untouchable at Welterweight.

In a head to head match up, granted, Leonard may have won (although I'd side with Robinson just as often). But to make a claim for Leonard to be ranked higher in the all-time scheme of things, as you've suggested, would mean Leonard's record is comparable, which it simply isn't.

Azania

You're really starting to sound a bit of a something i can't say on here.

SRL > SRR

Are you mad, on the WUM or both?

Apologies, but there is no comparison between the two.

Graziano
Basilio
Gavilan
Fullmer
LaMotta
Olson
Armstrong

They outweigh by quite a distance all of SRL's wins. I think you're going to find yourself on your own on this debate.

Sorry, but you're so far off the mark you're showing yourself up a bit. You don't have any solid reasoning to be honest, his record is beyond comparison which is why most sensible fans have him firmly instilled as their #1 P4P fighter of all time. Leonard wouldn't make most peoples top 10.

It's simply a case of your being ignorant of the old school fighters in favour of modern ones because you appear to have no appreciation for the history of the sport. Sorry to break this to you but boxing didn't begin in 1975.

Apologies for the acid tongued nature of my post, but your frequent bashing of the old timers has become tiresome and beyond patience when you start saying SRL is in reality the best fighter the world has ever seen. Because that's what you're saying.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Can you compare Carmen, Fulmer et al to Hagler or Monzon? If SRR loses to Basillio et al he also loses to Hagler and monzon more decisively.

If only if things were that simple, Azania. Anyone could easily flip that statement and say that if Hagler loses to Watts and Monroe, then he doesn't stand a snowball in hell's chance of beating a legend such as Robinson. The truth is, claims like that are fanciful at best, and you should know better than to use such ones.

Also, why should we not be allowed to take in to account Robinson's Middleweight exploits when evaluating his greatness? To suggest that we should forget a division in which he won the title five times is ludicrous, but that seems to be what you're indicating. Nobody basis his whole standing on what he did at 160 lb, as ninety-nine percent of people acknowledge that he did his best work at Welterweight. But what he achieved at 160 lb is still more than anyone else but a select few can boast, and of course it only adds to his legacy which, as you say, is untouchable at Welterweight.

In a head to head match up, granted, Leonard may have won (although I'd side with Robinson just as often). But to make a claim for Leonard to be ranked higher in the all-time scheme of things, as you've suggested, would mean Leonard's record is comparable, which it simply isn't.

I hear what you're saying. But Hagler lost (and avenged - Briscoe not Monroe) those defeats before he was champion and many have said that both losses were hometown decisions.

If you look at SRR's MW record, it would warrant a place in anyone's top 10. But not number 1. His WW record speaks for itself but outside of Gavilan it doesn't hold much water. But for me, his greatness stems from his WW record as even though he didn't beat many ATG at that weight, he completely dominated the division and comprehensively beat everyone until he literally ran out of opposition. He was not a natural MW either.

In a H2H match with SRL, I'd pick SRL today. Tomorrow is anyone's guess.

azania wrote:In a H2H match with SRL, I'd pick SRL today.

Yeah, well, Robinson is dead.

Graziano
Basilio
Gavilan
Fullmer
LaMotta
Olson
Armstrong

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

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

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

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:In a H2H match with SRL, I'd pick SRL today.

Yeah, well, Robinson is dead.

So no comeback then?

azania wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:In a H2H match with SRL, I'd pick SRL today.

Yeah, well, Robinson is dead.

So no comeback then?

Wasn't arguing with you. Why do I need a comeback?

azania wrote:

Graziano
Basilio
Gavilan
Fullmer
LaMotta
Olson
Armstrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

azania wrote:

Graziano
Basilio
Gavilan
Fullmer
LaMotta
Olson
Armstrong

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

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

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

You do talk some rubbish. Besides which, a boxer can win a title five times while only losing it four.

Forgot about Zivic, another geat fighter and one who knew Charley Burley well, Robinsons resume is a who,s who in terms of world boxing, a lot of the people on his record will be comfortably in many people's top 100 ATG's list.

Doesn't outweigh Duran, Hearns, Hagler and Benitez. Not even close

Then why does probably 90% of boxing fans rate SRR as the greatest of all time and SRL never even gets a look-in on that accolade?

And i know full well who SRL fought so don't patronise me.

I'm not debating the poster either, i'm debating the fact that you're basically saying SRL is greater than SRR which puts him at the #1 spot. Which he's not even close to. By all means go and have a look at every single respected top 10 ATG list by various publications/journalists and then you might start to realise that your somewhat biased views are totally and utterly out of kilt with everyone elses.

Hagler greater than all the fighters i've listed? Give me a break sunshine. He wasn't even better than SRR at his preferred weight ffs! Proof is in the pudding sunshine, http://www.ibroresearch.com/?p=424 among hundreds of other examples i could give to back my point up.

By all means go and find all the historians, all the current boxing writers who say SRL is greater than SRR. Because you're on your own, which is based purely and solely on your ignorant refusal to acknowledge our great sport existed prior to 1975.

So there we have it, you think SRL is the greatest boxer who ever lived. Which to be honest makes me want to lose the will to live.

Robinson also beat the reigning lightweight champ Sammy Angott 3 times prior to his welterweight reign, albeit slightly over the lightweight limit. I would say Angott was pretty prime, as he went on to take Willie Pep's '0' a couple of fights later!

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

In fairness though Azania, you keep stating that Robinson's Welterweight record speaks for itself, but then in your very next comment say things such as "It doesn't hold much water outside of Gavilan, who did he really beat at the weight?" You either rate Robinson's Welterweight record as the phenomenal one that it is, or you don't. Which one is it?

The simple fact of the matter is that Robinson's record at 147 lb establishes him as, without doubt, the greatest Welterweight of all time. Being the greatest of all time in one of boxing's top four best ever divisions on it's own is usually enough to guarantee an all-time top ten spot (see Duran / Benny Leonard, Harry Greb and Ezzard Charles for further proof). Now surely you can understand that while his Middleweight traits aren't THE reason he's rated so highly, it still adds massively to his standing? He was not the greatest Middleweight of all time, that's for sure. But he was still a great, great Middleweight all the same. So why then, do you have such a problem with us taking his 160 lb exploits in to account when we discuss how great he was? His losses to Basilio and Fullmer don't mean that his wins over them become meaningless all of a sudden.

I don't see what the big issue is. Robinson was virtually untouchable as a Welterweight, and a truly superb Middleweight, too. Very few others can lay claim to being the finest ever in one of boxing's classic divisions and amongst the top five in another - and of those who can, Ray Leonard, despite how much I love him and how highly I rate him, isn't one of them.

wow_junky wrote:Robinson also beat the reigning lightweight champ Sammy Angott 3 times prior to his welterweight reign, albeit slightly over the lightweight limit. I would say Angott was pretty prime, as he went on to take Willie Pep's '0' a couple of fights later!

Nice shout there Junky.

Now we're on the subject Az, be nice to see your top 10 ATG list on the other thread.

The Galveston Giant wrote:Now we're on the subject Az, be nice to see your top 10 ATG list on the other thread.

Probably be something like

01) Sugar Ray Leonard
02) Roy Jones Jr
03) Oscar de la Hoya
04) Tito Trinidad
05) Kostya Tyszu
06) Manny Pacquiao
07) Lennox Lewis
08) Marvin Hagler
09) Mike Tyson
10) Chavez

Don't expect to see any names from before 1985!

The Galveston Giant wrote:Now we're on the subject Az, be nice to see your top 10 ATG list on the other thread.

I'll do it for him, Galveston. It'll be something like this :

1. Leonard
2. Robinson
3. Hopkins
4. Jones Jnr.
5. Hagler
6. Duran
7. Hearns
8. Pavlik
9. Vitali Klitschko
10.Mayweather

Just missing the cut, Berto, Haye, Ortiz and Khan.

Right, az ? Or is Robinson too ' black and white ' to be number two ?

Great minds, coxy, or fools not differing ?

Coxy/Windy

To my suprise there's a few on there already which aren't too different to those

HumanWindmill wrote:Great minds, coxy, or fools not differing ?

I'd be amazed if he didn't have Ortiz in there. And then say he'd smack SRR around.

I'll take the great minds please.

The Galveston Giant wrote:Coxy/Windy

To my suprise there's a few on there already which aren't too different to those

Wonder how many accounts azania has, Galveston ?

The Galveston Giant wrote:Coxy/Windy

To my suprise there's a few on there already which aren't too different to those

Who admitted their knowledge on history wasn't that great.

People on here complain when noone debates but someone that doesn't tow the line and post a list the same as everyone elses gets shot down.

Scottrf wrote:

The Galveston Giant wrote:Coxy/Windy

To my suprise there's a few on there already which aren't too different to those

Who admitted their knowledge on history wasn't that great.

People on here complain when noone debates but someone that doesn't tow the line and post a list the same as everyone elses gets shot down.

C'mon, Scott, we're only yanking azania's tail. There's no malice in this.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

The Galveston Giant wrote:Coxy/Windy

To my suprise there's a few on there already which aren't too different to those

Who admitted their knowledge on history wasn't that great.

People on here complain when noone debates but someone that doesn't tow the line and post a list the same as everyone elses gets shot down.

C'mon, Scott, we're only yanking azania's tail. There's no malice in this.

I know, and I'm not saying everyone is like that. But some people get over angry if someone has an opinion which doesn't fit, and I just wonder what sort of debate they are after.

I know, and I'm not saying everyone is like that. But some people get over angry if someone has an opinion which doesn't fit, and I just wonder what sort of debate they are after.

Scott, it's not anger but rather exasperation as when it's the board vs one poster i find their opinion hard to take on board.

And if we all agreed on everything the world would be very boring. But Az's still wrong

And it's created a boxing debate, which out of all the 606's (including old) here is the only place where we've got most of the old members talking about boxing. Which doesn't appear to be the case involving any of the other forums who appear to have disolved into a WUM infected, dummed down version of a boxing forum.

I'm certainly not one to complain Scott, people can say and debate about what they like, i was just suprised many said that because they hadn't seen older fighters fight, they wouldn't be on there list.

I know it's only because he always dismisses the old timers with az, but I've seen it on other threads too. Just saying, there are people who have been on and only posted a few times, and it might be because they don't want to get jumped on. All about opinions, and most of the regulars have similar ones so would be nice to have others.

Galveston, I think it's more reasonable than guessing with fighters they don't know about. Not everyone has put loads of time into studying the past, so they go on what they know.

Anyway, I'll quit my bitching.

Not a problem Scott, i'm certainly not going to be jumping on anyone but i know what your saying.

While we're at it Scott, are you not putting a list up.

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:In a H2H match with SRL, I'd pick SRL today.

Yeah, well, Robinson is dead.

So no comeback then?

Wasn't arguing with you. Why do I need a comeback?

Grrr, no SRR comeback!

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Graziano
Basilio
Gavilan
Fullmer
LaMotta
Olson
Armstrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

azania wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:In a H2H match with SRL, I'd pick SRL today.

Yeah, well, Robinson is dead.

So no comeback then?

Wasn't arguing with you. Why do I need a comeback?

Grrr, no SRR comeback!

Yes, SRR made at least two comebacks, az. ( Quickly adjusts colour on TV and puts on ' Pet Shop Boys ' CD. )

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

Graziano
Basilio
Gavilan
Fullmer
LaMotta
Olson
Armstrong

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

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

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

You do talk some rubbish. Besides which, a boxer can win a title five times while only losing it four.

Instead of just saying I talk rubbish, perhaps you can expand on my rubbish and clean it up a little. The point is, he lost to some decidedly average MW and some MWs he would destroy if fought at WW. His MW record is not that good when compared to his talents and achievement at WW.

Good grief. Have you all have a rough easter or something? No comeback = no comeback from the grave. nevermind.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Graziano
Basilio
Gavilan
Fullmer
LaMotta
Olson
Armstrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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























Bob Fitzsimmons.

coxy0001 wrote:

Doesn't outweigh Duran, Hearns, Hagler and Benitez. Not even close

Then why does probably 90% of boxing fans rate SRR as the greatest of all time and SRL never even gets a look-in on that accolade?

And i know full well who SRL fought so don't patronise me.

I'm not debating the poster either, i'm debating the fact that you're basically saying SRL is greater than SRR which puts him at the #1 spot. Which he's not even close to. By all means go and have a look at every single respected top 10 ATG list by various publications/journalists and then you might start to realise that your somewhat biased views are totally and utterly out of kilt with everyone elses.

Hagler greater than all the fighters i've listed? Give me a break sunshine. He wasn't even better than SRR at his preferred weight ffs! Proof is in the pudding sunshine, http://www.ibroresearch.com/?p=424 among hundreds of other examples i could give to back my point up.

By all means go and find all the historians, all the current boxing writers who say SRL is greater than SRR. Because you're on your own, which is based purely and solely on your ignorant refusal to acknowledge our great sport existed prior to 1975.

So there we have it, you think SRL is the greatest boxer who ever lived. Which to be honest makes me want to lose the will to live.

I think you should quit the booze coxy. Or at least stop your neighbour's wife.

I am aware that 99.99% would put SRR as no1. So would I in all honesty. That is based on his WW record.

If LaMotta, Basillio et all could beat SRR at MW, so could Hagler and Monzon. They were better than Basillio et al imo. Does that make Hagler/Monson better boxers than SRR? Absolutely not.

But I would rank SRL easily in my top 5 ATG and on any given day in a H2H, he could beat SRR at WW. They both had it all and equally matched. I recall a Ring article years back making SRR a winner via SD.

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

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

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

88Chris05 wrote:

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

In fairness though Azania, you keep stating that Robinson's Welterweight record speaks for itself, but then in your very next comment say things such as "It doesn't hold much water outside of Gavilan, who did he really beat at the weight?" You either rate Robinson's Welterweight record as the phenomenal one that it is, or you don't. Which one is it?

The simple fact of the matter is that Robinson's record at 147 lb establishes him as, without doubt, the greatest Welterweight of all time. Being the greatest of all time in one of boxing's top four best ever divisions on it's own is usually enough to guarantee an all-time top ten spot (see Duran / Benny Leonard, Harry Greb and Ezzard Charles for further proof). Now surely you can understand that while his Middleweight traits aren't THE reason he's rated so highly, it still adds massively to his standing? He was not the greatest Middleweight of all time, that's for sure. But he was still a great, great Middleweight all the same. So why then, do you have such a problem with us taking his 160 lb exploits in to account when we discuss how great he was? His losses to Basilio and Fullmer don't mean that his wins over them become meaningless all of a sudden.

I don't see what the big issue is. Robinson was virtually untouchable as a Welterweight, and a truly superb Middleweight, too. Very few others can lay claim to being the finest ever in one of boxing's classic divisions and amongst the top five in another - and of those who can, Ray Leonard, despite how much I love him and how highly I rate him, isn't one of them.

Its the manner in which he beat them at WW. I dont really hold much water with his Armstrong win. He was simply head and shoulders above anyone else at WW. He had too much of everything and made fighting look easy.

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

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

coxy0001 wrote:

The Galveston Giant wrote:Now we're on the subject Az, be nice to see your top 10 ATG list on the other thread.

Probably be something like

01) Sugar Ray Leonard
02) Roy Jones Jr
03) Oscar de la Hoya
04) Tito Trinidad
05) Kostya Tyszu
06) Manny Pacquiao
07) Lennox Lewis
08) Marvin Hagler
09) Mike Tyson
10) Chavez

Don't expect to see any names from before 1985!

ha. Only the first 2 would be on my top 10 list. RJJ made fighting look easy and was head and shoulders above everyone else. On his day he would be a match for anyone above mid and below cruiser.

Had he gone up and won/lost titles 5 times how would people percieve him? There is an imbalance when viewing some boxers. SRR gets credit for regaining the title, so does Lewis in avenging his defeats. Others get questioned for losing regardless of who they lose to. Hearns is a prime example.

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

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

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

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

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Graziano
Basilio
Gavilan
Fullmer
LaMotta
Olson
Armstrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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























Bob Fitzsimmons.

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