Sugar Ray Robinson

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?

Robinson's reign at welter ALONE solidifies his position as number 1 of ALL TIME.

There is however no footage of his exploits but his record stands up. He built up an incredible, incredible run of victories that was left people in ore of the man back then.

He then went up in weight and beat a host of ATG fighters and had it not been for the insane heat of a night against Joey Maxim then he could have added light heavy to his impressive roster.

What can a fighter do you say?

Well az its not just about what kind of record they could amass its what type of fighter they turn out to be. Robinson had these noted abilities

1) Tremendous hand speed
2) Could box just as good on the back foot as he could going forward
3) As slick as they come but naturally able to go to WAR with anyone and any style thrown at him.
4) No questions leveled at his heart, just not in question.
5) The greatest chin of them all.How many times did he even hit the canvas in over 200 fights? let alone never ever been knocked out
6) Knockout power in BOTH HANDS.

for anyone to eclipse this guy in his PRIME is going to be tough going.

Well good for him. That wasn't what I asked.

Ive seen tapes of him, he didnt look a head and shoulder above the rest (maybe it wasnt at his ideal weight?).

Lastly, saying youve seen no tape of him, but mentioning

Tremendous hand speed

2) Could box just as good on the back foot as he
could going forward

As slick as they come but naturally able to go to
WAR with anyone and any style thrown at him.

makes you look like a hype-buyer. I admit he did look fast on tape, but everything on his tapes looked faster, the other fighters, the referee, even the crowds hand movements

Will he ever be surpassed?

Doubtful, too many areas he was strong and fought in an era where they were much more active.

What does a boxer either active, not born yet have to do to be able to claim that fabled mantle?

Show that he has superior skills to everyone he faces and fight everyone available at the weight/s he fights at.

Obviously no semi decent boxer is going to have over 100 fights let alone 200 fights.

This will then be an issue.

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?

Again unlikely. If they beat everyone that was in the top 10 at that weight whilst he was active in it he would probably have around 15-20 fights in each division, equating to around 75 fights. Don't think 50 fights would be enough to beat everyone without leaving questions marks.

It is possibly harsh on active boxers but nostalgia is a great thing, or rather it is a good thing now but it used to be great.

why does the amount of fights you have matter...............

Bernard Hopkins has had 50 fights so he should be above Ray Leonard ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:why does the amount of fights you have matter...............

Bernard Hopkins has had 50 fights so he should be above Ray Leonard ??

Had Naz retired before Barrera he would go down as one of the best ever, he didn't and doesn't.

The amount of fights will always favour the older guys as they were fighting everyone (except Burley!).

Leonard had 36 fights compared to around 50 of Hopkins which isn't vastly different. Someone who has had 200 fights compared to 50 is a much bigger difference.

When someone has faced less opponents there are always question marks over who they didn't fight.

You're serious.....about Hamed..

Chavez belongs higher than Leonard then ???

Well it isn’t quite as simple as number of fights Truss as well you know. Brian Neilsen had more fights than Louis, Ali, Holmes and countless other heavies. The level of opposition and results in your fights counts for plenty as well, unless anyone is going to make the case for Peter Buckley to gatecrash the top ten Brit lists.

I'm not arguing with you.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Chavez belongs higher than Leonard then ???

Firstly on Naz:

Naz was rated very highly by a lot of people, had he retired before Barrera he would have had 34 fights no losses and very high KO percentage. Fights against the likes of Barrera and Morales would be talked about and theories put together on the outcomes. A lot of people would have Naz to beat both.

Now on Chavez:

The amount of fights isn't the only consideration though is it so although it is one of the areas that will be looked at.

Do you feel that anyone in the current era would be able to surpass SRR?

Being rated highly and being one of the best ever are two different things as Rowley will tell you...

and fights is a big consideration for you as you put a marker down at 50........

Why stipulate..otherwise!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Being rated highly and being one of the best ever are two different things as Rowley will tell you...

and fights is a big consideration for you as you put a marker down at 50........

Why stipulate..otherwise!

I don't put a marker at 50, you were the one that mentioned 50 for Hopkins.

Number of fights is a big consideration for most when rating fighters and I'm sure I'm not alone in this however the main factor when looking at the number of fights is who they have fought. For the greats they tended to fight the best and usually a high number of the best. This will obviously be reduced if they had fought fewer people.

Calzaghe is a good example here, his number of fights gets broken down to number of good fights which is usually around 3-5 depending who is discussing him.

Do you feel the amount of fights is not important when rating a fighter?

"Don't think 50 fights would be enough without leaving question marks"

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"Don't think 50 fights would be enough without leaving question marks"

That was a marker placed by the original poster and I don't think that would be enough to displace SRR at the top.

So in short, it's impossible to be rated higher than SRR even if you're a far superior boxer and beaten all before you. Let's remember that in SRR's time all you had to do was stand up to be called a fighter. Know how to duck and you're an ATG.

The boxers then were no better than UFC fighters fighting a "stand up" fight.

I have him number 2 behind Ali..............

Still think it's who you beat rather than a stipulation of fights you have that defines you and time at the top etc........

Leonard is top 5 in my list............Benitez, Hearns, Hagler, Duran..all greats...

Some ledger that ..

azania wrote:So in short, it's impossible to be rated higher than SRR even if you're a far superior boxer and beaten all before you. Let's remember that in SRR's time all you had to do was stand up to be called a fighter. Know how to duck and you're an ATG.

The boxers then were no better than UFC fighters fighting a "stand up" fight.

Unlike now where we have such cultured and skilled practitioners as Vinny Maddalone plying their trade. Am sure there would be many an old timer scratching their heads wondering how they could ever hope to reach majestic levels.

I have him behind SRL. He never beat anyone as good as those 4.

Vinny Mad is better than Galento. Two ton was considered good enough to fight for the HW title. And deck the supposed best ever at HW (by some).

Two ton Tony was the Butterbean of his day.............

azania wrote:So in short, it's impossible to be rated higher than SRR even if you're a far superior boxer and beaten all before you. Let's remember that in SRR's time all you had to do was stand up to be called a fighter. Know how to duck and you're an ATG.

The boxers then were no better than UFC fighters fighting a "stand up" fight.

Not impossible, just very tough and would involve a lot more than most of the current fighters would be prepared to / need to do.

Couldn't disagree more about the current fighters being no better than the UFC, these people probably had more ring time than current boxers would have ring time during training and fighting. You don't get that much practice at something without getting better.

So what can make it possible? We have SRL beating 4 nailed on ATG and still not ranked in some people's top 10. What could SRL have done to be ranked higher?

I disagree about ring time. Modern fighters train specifically for each fight and each fighter faced. They spar endlessly. Many of SRR's fights were glorified sparring sessions when fighting for weekly wages.

Unless there's a massive shift in the way boxers are judged historically and the way fighters from older generations are presented by the media etc, then I do fear that it would be virtually impossible for any other fighter to gain the universal acclaim that Robinson has, unfortunately.

When I say "unfortunately", it doesn't mean that I think Robinson is undeserving of that acclaim, far from it! But I do feel that it's a wee bit unhealthy that his position as the untouchable pound for pound number one is force-fed to nearly all boxing followers down the generations, and that questioning just how far ahead of everyone else he is often gets taken as an admission of not knowing anything about boxing history, or not understanding it.

I genuinely think that, if a boxing fanatic's memory was washed so that they knew nothing of how highly regarded Robinson is and how many times he's topped pound for pound lists, but they were left with records of all fighters, as well as tape of them where available, they'd still end up concluding that Robinson was at the very least a contender for the all-time number one spot anyway, so no need to go over the top in trumpeting his claims, as people sometimes do.

There's no doubt that fighters from the past two or three decades or so do get a slightly raw deal in this sense. The very same historians who are effusive about Robinson's 128-1-2 record compiled between 1940 and 1951 are the often the same who'd bemoan fellas such as Mayweather, Jones and Whitaker if they fought an additional six or seven fighter per year (in between their significant bouts) to pad out their record.

That's why I tend to turn a blind eye, relatively speaking, to those kind of statistics. Robinson fought more than 200 times across his whole career, but how many of them were big, significant fights, or fights which really meant much? Did he really box that many more important or testing fights against genuinely ranked opposition than the names above? Well yes, he did, but not by that much, and certainly not by a wide enough margin to put him on an untouchable pedestal which those others couldn't even see with a telescope, at least in my opinion.

Nope, much fairer to evaluate fighters of how they did against the better fighters of their era which they faced. And in this respect, Robinson is still obviously an absolutely phenomenal fighter in any case. An uninterrupted title reign at Welter in which he bested a consensus top five all-time 147 lb man, many times over a Middleweight champion in a strong era at 160 and during which he was perhaps on the slide a little, a wonderful record in rematches when avenging defeats (La Motta, Turpin, Fullmer etc) showing that he had a tremendous boxing brain and an ability to adapt, never legitimately stopped throughout all of this and, of course, the film we do have of him still clearly shows that he was a fantastic all-round boxer.

The Fullmer knockout, for instance. Fullmer was iron-chinned and had never been stopped before his second fight with Robinson. Moreover, Robinson wasn't even meant to be a spectacular, devastating hitter at 160 (although he certainly hit hard enough at the weight to get anyone's respect and had very, very good accumulative power). To turn out Fullmer's lights with a single hook like that is nothing short of incredible. Could Ali have done it to Frazier? Duran to Ray Leonard? Mayweather to someone like Zoomy at Super-Feather?

So while I do think that a modern fighter could be greater than Robinson, this kind of stuff shows that they're really going to have to go some to do it. Some have great longevity and consistency, some have beaten great opposition, some were extremely good all-rounders who could do it all, some had remarkable chins and toughness, some have defied what should have been possible in the ring at one stage or another - but Robinson did all of the above.

I'd like to think I'm not bigoted when it comes to giving 'modern' fighters their dues and I accept that it's unfair that Robinson's position is often made out to be unquestionable, but all things being fair and equal I genuinely don't think any fighter from the past three decades can quite match him overall. I do concede, again, that they are a lot closer than some would have us believe, though. Had Mayweather beaten Pacquiao in 2010 and maybe produced one complete, awe-inspiring 'wow' moment like Robinson's against Fullmer, then I genuinely wouldn't take any umbrage to anyone putting him as the greatest pound for pounder of the lot. Ditto for Whitaker had he been more favourably treated against Oscar and managed to squeeze a couple more years out of himself rather than succumbing to the Colombian marching powder, ditto for Jones had he whacked out Dariusz and perhaps someone like McClellan before retiring right after Ruiz or Tarver I.

It's will be tough.

Robinson is the ultimate top trump. Perfect fighting machine that could do absolutely everything well (few fighters could, even Ali). His record is outstanding, he has everything you'd look for when measuring a great fighter.

I'm not sure he'll ever be surpassed.

Had Ray Leonard's eye not packed in on him, he might have been able to enter the argument but he'd have needed to have been more eager to tackle Hagler and Hearns earlier than he did.

Robinson faced LaMotta twice in both '43 and '45, for example (and twice in 3 weeks). He not only dominated welterweight, he became a five-time middleweight champion. A welterweight that could knock middleweights man sausage-eyed with one shot. An astonishing fighter who for me is a good way ahead of the rest.

I'm sure I read somewhere that when Robinson fought, the talent pool was enormous (welterweight had the active fighters).

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/sugar-ray-robinson-revisited--part-one

azania wrote:So what can make it possible? We have SRL beating 4 nailed on ATG and still not ranked in some people's top 10. What could SRL have done to be ranked higher?

I disagree about ring time. Modern fighters train specifically for each fight and each fighter faced. They spar endlessly. Many of SRR's fights were glorified sparring sessions when fighting for weekly wages.

SRL would also rank in many people's top 10.

For me if he had just been more active against some of the better (not best) fighters and had a few more fights he would rank higher (his is top 10). This is however completely subjective and others would say beating 4 ATG's is enough.

Others would pick holes and say that he beat Hagler at the right time and won his second fight against Duran due to the timing.

hazharrison wrote:It's will be tough.

Robinson is the ultimate top trump. Perfect fighting machine that could do absolutely everything well (few fighters could, even Ali). His record is outstanding, he has everything you'd look for when measuring a great fighter.

I'm not sure he'll ever be surpassed.

Had Ray Leonard's eye not packed in on him, he might have been able to enter the argument but he'd have needed to have been more eager to tackle Hagler and Hearns earlier than he did.

Robinson faced LaMotta twice in both '43 and '45, for example (and twice in 3 weeks). He not only dominated welterweight, he became a five-time middleweight champion. A welterweight that could knock middleweights man sausage-eyed with one shot. An astonishing fighter who for me is a good way ahead of the rest.

I'm sure I read somewhere that when Robinson fought, the talent pool was enormous (welterweight had the active fighters).

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/sugar-ray-robinson-revisited--part-one

But still managed to lose to several face first fighters who SRL would have had a field day over.

azania wrote:So what can make it possible? We have SRL beating 4 nailed on ATG and still not ranked in some people's top 10. What could SRL have done to be ranked higher?

I disagree about ring time. Modern fighters train specifically for each fight and each fighter faced. They spar endlessly. Many of SRR's fights were glorified sparring sessions when fighting for weekly wages.

Leonard was accused of being highly calculating in his match-making.

He didn't seem to want anything to do with Hearns after their first fight (until Tommy looked an easy night's work up at 168). He waited for Hagler to slip before facing him. He didn't face Aaron Pryor. He rematched Duran quickly after the Panamanian went overboard with his victory celebrations.

That isn't necessarily a knock against him -- Robinson, too, was manipulative -- but more so in terms purse negotiations.

Leonard had a relatively short career with huge highs. His wins against Benitez and Hearns mark him out as one of the greatest welterweights in history (behind Robinson). Without the detached retina, he'd no doubt have accomplished even more.

azania wrote:Vinny Mad is better than Galento. Two ton was considered good enough to fight for the HW title. And deck the supposed best ever at HW (by some).

How would you know?

Galento had a distinguished amateur pedigree, he was also sneaky and adaptable as a pro. He stopped durable me such as Don Red Barry a guy who not been stopped in 40 odd fights.

Ps Louis glove scraped the floor, he got up so quick the ref didn't even administer a count.

Guys watch 3 mins of you tube footage and start name dropping g into articles, when in fact you probably could t tell us a great deal about Galento.
Terribly conditioned this is true , but probs make a mint today.

Cheers Rodders

huw wrote:

azania wrote:So what can make it possible? We have SRL beating 4 nailed on ATG and still not ranked in some people's top 10. What could SRL have done to be ranked higher?

I disagree about ring time. Modern fighters train specifically for each fight and each fighter faced. They spar endlessly. Many of SRR's fights were glorified sparring sessions when fighting for weekly wages.

SRL would also rank in many people's top 10.

For me if he had just been more active against some of the better (not best) fighters and had a few more fights he would rank higher (his is top 10). This is however completely subjective and others would say beating 4 ATG's is enough.

Others would pick holes and say that he beat Hagler at the right time and won his second fight against Duran due to the timing.

So if he padded out his record more with stiffs he would have been rated higher. So basically it's quantity over quality. How many nailed on ATGs did SRR beat?

Rodney wrote:

azania wrote:Vinny Mad is better than Galento. Two ton was considered good enough to fight for the HW title. And deck the supposed best ever at HW (by some).

How would you know?

Galento had a distinguished amateur pedigree, he was also sneaky and adaptable as a pro. He stopped durable me such as Don Red Barry a guy who not been stopped in 40 odd fights.

Ps Louis glove scraped the floor, he got up so quick the ref didn't even administer a count.

Guys watch 3 mins of you tube footage and start name dropping g into articles, when in fact you probably could t tell us a great deal about Galento.
Terribly conditioned this is true , but probs make a mint today.

Cheers Rodders

Here we go. Big up the older lot. He was cute and savvy are words I hear a lot. He could parry a jab as if that is something special. Galento was a fat forker who couldn't do much. He wouldn't be ranked today given how poor the division currently is.

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:It's will be tough.

Robinson is the ultimate top trump. Perfect fighting machine that could do absolutely everything well (few fighters could, even Ali). His record is outstanding, he has everything you'd look for when measuring a great fighter.

I'm not sure he'll ever be surpassed.

Had Ray Leonard's eye not packed in on him, he might have been able to enter the argument but he'd have needed to have been more eager to tackle Hagler and Hearns earlier than he did.

Robinson faced LaMotta twice in both '43 and '45, for example (and twice in 3 weeks). He not only dominated welterweight, he became a five-time middleweight champion. A welterweight that could knock middleweights man sausage-eyed with one shot. An astonishing fighter who for me is a good way ahead of the rest.

I'm sure I read somewhere that when Robinson fought, the talent pool was enormous (welterweight had the active fighters).

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/sugar-ray-robinson-revisited--part-one

But still managed to lose to several face first fighters who SRL would have had a field day over.

Leonard faced precisely one middleweight in Hagler. Good judges felt he lost that one and so it's a stretch to believe that he would have had a field day back then. Robinson was a better fighter than Leonard, and so I struggle with that.

Good judges???? .......................

azania wrote:

huw wrote:

azania wrote:So what can make it possible? We have SRL beating 4 nailed on ATG and still not ranked in some people's top 10. What could SRL have done to be ranked higher?

I disagree about ring time. Modern fighters train specifically for each fight and each fighter faced. They spar endlessly. Many of SRR's fights were glorified sparring sessions when fighting for weekly wages.

SRL would also rank in many people's top 10.

For me if he had just been more active against some of the better (not best) fighters and had a few more fights he would rank higher (his is top 10). This is however completely subjective and others would say beating 4 ATG's is enough.

Others would pick holes and say that he beat Hagler at the right time and won his second fight against Duran due to the timing.

So if he padded out his record more with stiffs he would have been rated higher. So basically it's quantity over quality. How many nailed on ATGs did SRR beat?

Kid Gavilan, Jake LaMotta, Carmen Basilio, Henry Armstrong, Gene Fullmer, Fritzie Zivic, "Bobo" Olsen, Rocky Graziano, Sammy Angott are either all hall-of-famers or close to it.

Robinson not only beat them, he beat them repeatedly.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:It's will be tough.

Robinson is the ultimate top trump. Perfect fighting machine that could do absolutely everything well (few fighters could, even Ali). His record is outstanding, he has everything you'd look for when measuring a great fighter.

I'm not sure he'll ever be surpassed.

Had Ray Leonard's eye not packed in on him, he might have been able to enter the argument but he'd have needed to have been more eager to tackle Hagler and Hearns earlier than he did.

Robinson faced LaMotta twice in both '43 and '45, for example (and twice in 3 weeks). He not only dominated welterweight, he became a five-time middleweight champion. A welterweight that could knock middleweights man sausage-eyed with one shot. An astonishing fighter who for me is a good way ahead of the rest.

I'm sure I read somewhere that when Robinson fought, the talent pool was enormous (welterweight had the active fighters).

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/sugar-ray-robinson-revisited--part-one

But still managed to lose to several face first fighters who SRL would have had a field day over.

Leonard faced precisely one middleweight in Hagler. Good judges felt he lost that one and so it's a stretch to believe that he would have had a field day back then. Robinson was a better fighter than Leonard, and so I struggle with that.

Yes just one MW. Probably the best ever middleweight also.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:

huw wrote:

azania wrote:So what can make it possible? We have SRL beating 4 nailed on ATG and still not ranked in some people's top 10. What could SRL have done to be ranked higher?

I disagree about ring time. Modern fighters train specifically for each fight and each fighter faced. They spar endlessly. Many of SRR's fights were glorified sparring sessions when fighting for weekly wages.

SRL would also rank in many people's top 10.

For me if he had just been more active against some of the better (not best) fighters and had a few more fights he would rank higher (his is top 10). This is however completely subjective and others would say beating 4 ATG's is enough.

Others would pick holes and say that he beat Hagler at the right time and won his second fight against Duran due to the timing.

So if he padded out his record more with stiffs he would have been rated higher. So basically it's quantity over quality. How many nailed on ATGs did SRR beat?

Kid Gavilan, Jake LaMotta, Carmen Basilio, Henry Armstrong, Gene Fullmer, Fritzie Zivic, "Bobo" Olsen, Rocky Graziano, Sammy Angott are either all hall-of-famers or close to it.

Robinson not only beat them, he beat them repeatedly.

And none of them are as good as the fab 4. Armstrong was old and finished. Carmen was no better than Kalule.

azania wrote:

Rodney wrote:

azania wrote:Vinny Mad is better than Galento. Two ton was considered good enough to fight for the HW title. And deck the supposed best ever at HW (by some).

How would you know?

Galento had a distinguished amateur pedigree, he was also sneaky and adaptable as a pro. He stopped durable me such as Don Red Barry a guy who not been stopped in 40 odd fights.

Ps Louis glove scraped the floor, he got up so quick the ref didn't even administer a count.

Guys watch 3 mins of you tube footage and start name dropping g into articles, when in fact you probably could t tell us a great deal about Galento.
Terribly conditioned this is true , but probs make a mint today.

Cheers Rodders

Here we go. Big up the older lot. He was cute and savvy are words I hear a lot. He could parry a jab as if that is something special. Galento was a fat forker who couldn't do much. He wouldn't be ranked today given how poor the division currently is.

I don't need to big him up, considering the drivel we have today. He'd prob have had 3 shots at the title, No worse than Chisora.

Cheers Rodders

Chisora would have beaten him....easily. So would Audley. Eben Funso Banjo would have strung him along for fun.

On what theory , you no nothing about him.

Chisora is a fat plodder, who can't even parry a jab.

The same Harrison who couldn't figure out a novice taxi driver?

I'm not sure if they'd beat him or no one knows, but you think you do and it makes your judgement frankly child like.

Cheers Rodders

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Good judges???? .......................

Hugh McIlvanney is about as good as it gets. Al Bernstein, too. There are plenty more.

Galento was a chump. Fat and useless with a dig and nothing else. Had he trained he would have been a MW. Even then he would be ranked outside the top 20 today.

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:It's will be tough.

Robinson is the ultimate top trump. Perfect fighting machine that could do absolutely everything well (few fighters could, even Ali). His record is outstanding, he has everything you'd look for when measuring a great fighter.

I'm not sure he'll ever be surpassed.

Had Ray Leonard's eye not packed in on him, he might have been able to enter the argument but he'd have needed to have been more eager to tackle Hagler and Hearns earlier than he did.

Robinson faced LaMotta twice in both '43 and '45, for example (and twice in 3 weeks). He not only dominated welterweight, he became a five-time middleweight champion. A welterweight that could knock middleweights man sausage-eyed with one shot. An astonishing fighter who for me is a good way ahead of the rest.

I'm sure I read somewhere that when Robinson fought, the talent pool was enormous (welterweight had the active fighters).

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/sugar-ray-robinson-revisited--part-one

But still managed to lose to several face first fighters who SRL would have had a field day over.

Leonard faced precisely one middleweight in Hagler. Good judges felt he lost that one and so it's a stretch to believe that he would have had a field day back then. Robinson was a better fighter than Leonard, and so I struggle with that.

Yes just one MW. Probably the best ever middleweight also.

Not at his best, though.

Who was at their best when SRR beat them. I mean great fighters not face first brave men.

azania wrote: Carmen was no better than Kalule.

What absolute tut. Where do you pull these theories from?

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!!

azania wrote:Galento was a chump. Fat and useless with a dig and nothing else. Had he trained he would have been a MW. Even then he would be ranked outside the top 20 today.

His record is no worse than Chisoras, but carry on since you're the on with the power of being able to tell us who'd definitely beat who throughout eras.
But like I said you know nothing about him
Cheers Rodders

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

azania wrote:Who was at their best when SRR beat them. I mean great fighters not face first brave men.

Have a look through his record. It stands for itself. Kid Gavilan, have you heard of him? He's black and white, mind.

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.

I'd be interested to hear your theory on how Robinson "blatantly" ducked him. If you can't respect Robinson's record, you can't respect anybodys.