What happened to Sugar Ray Robinson in the Mayweather Jr GOAT discussion?

I see you recovered from the past days and regained some confidence.
Just wait until I catch you post some bullcrap tough, so I can take that confidence away from you.
Dude. I give zero fucks and I’ll happiky catch a beer with you. From what I read you have zip idea where I live and to be honest I give no fucks these days. I know I can hurt people and that doesn’t let me wear kovalevs man bag. We either hug it out or you walk into an ass kicking. I give zero fucks anyway it happens. Get on the hugger team and we can talk stories about what we do to bayley. I’m not a :eek::eek::eek: and I know what I’m doing, leave it at this and be friends in the forum and talk boxing?
 
As for any ancient or modern champion, his resume can be downplayed, but the bottom line is that he did achieve a lot. There are still many hall of famers, world champions and ranked fighters in his resume if you take out the bums.

Since you accused me of not going deep enough, feel free to post his resume minus the bum of the month club, so we can see how it looks.

I think many people have a misleading image of Robinson. When you take a closer look and ask yourself: Was he defensively the most gifted?
Was he the best inside boxer? Was his resume really all that? I'd argue with no to everything.

Secondly I think that many fans rank him at no. 1 just because they see it elsewhere.

Those are basically my points. I don't say he's vastly overrated, but certainly overrated.
 
Last edited:
I know I can hurt people and that doesn’t let me wear kovalevs man bag. We either hug it out or you walk into an ass kicking

You’re an uncouth imbercile, you can’t get along with people, you can’t function with people. You always try to hurt someone and kill someone. Try to love someone.
 
You’re an uncouth imbercile, you can’t get along with people, you can’t function with people. You always try to hurt someone and kill someone. Try to love someone.
Are you an idiot or are you someone I used to have sexy time with. Take any of my friends and get them to tell you I hurt people. I don’t. I’m a recovering addict who leads a normal life these days. If you want to meet the girl I see these days she’s younger than me and sexier than Sergio. Please stop following me round the forum for no reason. Thanks.
 
Are you an idiot or are you someone I used to have sexy time with. Take any of my friends and get them to tell you I hurt people. I don’t. I’m a recovering addict who leads a normal life these days. If you want to meet the girl I see these days she’s younger than me and sexier than Sergio. Please stop following me round the forum for no reason. Thanks.

What were you addicted to?
 
This is easily the creepiest thread I have ever stumbled upon.

It feels like it's gonna end with one of you missing and the other guy being blamed for it on an episode of Unsolved Mysteries.


Unsolved-Mysteries.jpg
 
Since you accused me of not going deep enough, feel free to post his resume minus the bum of the month club, so we can see how it looks.

I think many people have a misleading image of Robinson. When you take a closer look and ask yourself: Was he defensively the most gifted?
Was he the best inside boxer? Was his resume really all that? I'd argue with no to everything.

Secondly I think that many fans rank him at no. 1 just because they see it elsewhere.

Those are basically my points. I don't say he's vastly overrated, but certainly overrated.

What I said is that lots of people went as deep as you did and drew different conclusions. Don't imply that people are stupid because they do not happen to think like you do. Lots of people do believe that the Earth isn't flat, they just processed the evidence for it.

SRR's resume is extremely deep, and you know it. He may not be the very best in every specific area, but the way he mixed it up as a boxer puncher can be considered as unique.
 
Last edited:
C‘mon, open up a bit.
I don’t care talking about it but I don’t know why you’re interested. I was a functioning alcoholic and I’m not anymore but one day at a time. You fellas are pretty clear from someone like me. When you wake up in the morning and your first thought isn’t how do I get wasted today. It’s not a cool feeling and I know people
Say I lack discipline. If I don’t let if affect me I move along, craving for anything isn’t healthy and you will die young.
 
Joe Louis is way better than 6th... He is widely regarded to be a top 3 GOAT.

In the top 3 heavyweights of all time for sure. But I would say having him at 6th all time is more than reasonable. He was the most dominant Heavyweight champion of all time reigning 11 years but to me he doesn't have the resume like Robinson, Ali, Armstrong and others have.
 
Mayweather isn't really ever in a sensible GOAT discussion. Top 20? Maybe?
 
How come Sugar Ray Robinson is out of the the discussion about Mayweathers jr legacy as greatest of all time or not? Robinson was once 71-1-1 or something like that. Freakish record. And really the inspiration for the term pound for pound.


Anybody know why it's all Ali vs Mayweather nowdays?

Was Robinsons opposition too weak?
That's debatable. It's between Benny "The Ghetto Wizard" Leonard & Sugar Ray Robinson. Ali was never truly viewed as the P4P #1 fighter of his era, either. This is a good read.
Pound-For-Pound: A History

Most associate the origin of the "pound-for-pound" title with Sugar Ray Robinson in the 1940s and indeed, to this day most recognize Robinson as the best fighter ever to tie on a pair of gloves. The lore is that the newspaper guys needed a way to distinguish Robinson as the best fighter of the day as Joe Louis, a giant even then, was clearly the sport's emperor. Yes, Louis was the heavyweight champion, a national icon and beloved figure, the king of sport. But pound for pound, Robinson was better.

Some historians trace the concept of a pound-for-pound best back farther, to the teens and '20s, when the great lightweight champion Benny Leonard was one of the kings of the game, even as Jack Dempsey was making his legend at heavyweight.

The greatest heavyweights are never recognized as the best in the game, pound-for-pound. There are two reasons: first, the very designation is a means to separate heavyweight champions, typically the most popular and most watched fighters in the game, from the smaller, harder-working, under-rewarded guys. Secondly, even the best heavyweights are not as skilled, as fast, as good as the smaller guys. There could never be a heavyweight Willie Pep, even on Pep's worst day.

No heavyweight champion - not Dempsey, not Louis or Marciano or Frazier or Ali or Foreman or Tyson - was considered by anyone to be the best fighter in the business pound-for-pound during his reign, because he wasn't. In any era you can name, there was a smaller guy who was better. Faster, smarter, more skilled, you name it.

When in its January 1990 issue The Ring magazine for the first time published its ranking of the best fighters in the world pound-for-pound, it introduced to fight aficionados a whole new realm in which to debate fighters' merits. But fans knew all along that the best fighters in the world, pound-for-pound, were the littler guys. There wasn't as much formal consensus or attention on it as there is now, but real fight fans knew.

While Ali was grabbing all the headlines in the 1960s, it was two smaller guys, Carlos Ortiz and Eder Jofre, who jockeyed for unofficial status as the pound-for-pound best. Ortiz, a marvelous boxer-puncher and brilliant combination hitter, won the world lightweight and junior welterweight titles and defended the lightweight belt nine times over two reigns, including seven title fight wins over future Hall of Famers.

Jofre won his first 53 fights and ruled the bantamweight division from '61 to '65, retired in '67, came back as a featherweight in '69, won the title at that weight and ultimately lost just two of 78 career fights. You can throw into the mix too Pascual Perez, the dynamite punching Argentine who reigned as the flyweight world champ for better than five years.

It got no better in a pound-for-pound sense for Ali in the '70s, even as he grew into the sport's biggest star. Long-reigning lightweight champion Roberto Duran was viewed by many as the best in the sport regardless of size, and he had the record to prove it. He ruled the lightweight division for six solid years and went - get this - 53-1 in the decade.

As great as Duran was, some recognized middleweight champion Carlos Monzon as the sport's best, pound-for-pound. Not as flashy as Duran or as exciting, Monzon nonetheless rode a 56-fight, six-year undefeated streak into the decade, went 26-0 between '70 and '77, made 14 title defenses, and hadn't lost a fight since '64. Ali couldn't touch that.

Dempsey had it even worse than did Ali. Not only did he have Leonard establishing himself as perhaps the greatest lightweight ever, he also had Harry Greb raising hell at middleweight. Greb held the title for three years and tore through the best middleweights and light heavyweights of the era. Many rate him among the three or four best 160-pounders ever.

If Greb wasn't the best in the game pound-for-pound in the era, maybe it was Jimmy Wilde, possibly the best flyweight in history, or Tony Canzoneri or Barney Ross, a pair of wonderful three-division champions. Either way, you can be sure it wasn't Dempsey, as great as he was.

Dempsey wasn't the first heavyweight champ to be outshone by the smaller guys. The great Jack Johnson fared no better. While he was establishing his legacy at the turn of the century on the way to becoming the first black world heavyweight champion, "Terrible" Terry McGovern was winning the bantamweight and featherweight titles and staking his claim as the best all-around fighter there was.

Unfortunately for Greb, so was the brilliant lightweight champion Joe Gans, over whom McGovern claimed a kayo victory that was a clear fix. Gans, the first native-born black American to win a world title at any weight, won the lightweight title in 1902 and defended it 13 times over two reigns. "The Dancing Master" was universally recognized as the best 135-pounder ever until Leonard came along and even then the old-timers still preferred Gans, who has a legitimate claim to being the best fighter pound-for-pound of his era.

Many of the fighters who have over time been seen as the best pound-for-pound have been, like Gans, more boxer than puncher (though Gans did end up with 85 career knockout wins). Same with Leonard. The great Pernell Whitaker, who spent nearly an entire decade (the '90s) at the top of most pound-for-pound ratings, was his era's Pep, a defensive genius. Mayweather falls solidly in this category. He's the slickest fighter in the business today.

A few pound-for-pound guys have been great punchers. Robinson, for one. Wilde certainly was - he ended up with 101 career kayo wins. Duran belongs in this category (though his skills were criminally underrated) and so does long-time junior middleweight titleholder Terry Norris, who spent some time on the pound-for-pound list. Norris was a crippling puncher when he wanted to be.

The great Sam Langford was a hitter too, who fought in Johnson's era and, as a welterweight, routinely knocked out heavyweights. While not a devastating puncher, Julio Cesar Chavez, who was at the top of the pound-for-pound ratings for several years and is the most accomplished Mexican fighter ever, also qualifies as a great puncher. Ask Meldrick Taylor.

Still, for the most part, the fighters who have spent the longest stretches on the pound-for-pound lists have been efficient boxer/punchers. Think Sugar Ray Leonard, who, at the height of his career, in the early '80s, was the best boxer/puncher in the game. Same with Roy Jones, who was untouchable in his prime primarily for his great speed, but never was enamored of the knockout. Monzon wasn't a great puncher, but he did everything well. Same with the mature Bernard Hopkins, and Oscar De La Hoya and Shane Mosley, all recent pound-for-pound entrants.

As great and as exciting as he was, Kostya Tszyu never got close to the top of the pound-for-pound ratings until he stopped relying so much on the right hand. Marco Antonio Barrera wouldn't be there today if he were still the gun slinging left-hooker that he was 10 years ago. He's a calmer, more complete fighter.

Either way, you don't get called the best fighter in the world pound-for-pound without being special, no matter what the era. The ghosts of the best prizefighters ever will be watching Mayweather on November 4. He's got a lot of history to live up to.
Pound-For-Pound: A History
 
A good read, but one sentence stands out for me:

The Dancing Master" was universally recognized as the best 135-pounder ever until Leonard came along and even then the old-timers still preferred Gans

Sounds familiar? The guy who from the past is usually preferred. It's still the same today.

I read severel names in that article that could be called the best ever, Robinson is one of them, but he absolutely doesn't stand out.

And I stand by the opinion that severel boxers who came after Marvin Hagler could potentially beat him.

Think about this: If Leonard never returned to fight Hagler, what would people say today if you asked them if Leonard could have pulled it off?

You'd read and hear things like "Are you crazy? Leonard was three years out, Hagler would have killed him" ... "Hagler was too strong, he would've finished Leonard inside of 5-6 rounds" ... "It would've been a mismatch".
 
A good read, but one sentence stands out for me:



Sounds familiar? The guy who was viewed as the best before, is usually preferred. It's still the same today.


I read severel names in that article that could be called the best ever, Robinson is one of them, but he absolutely doesn't stand out.

And I stand by the opinion that severel boxers who came after Marvin Hagler could potentially beat him.

Think about this: If Leonard never returned to fight Hagler, what would people say today if you asked them if Leonard could have pulled it off?

You'd read and hear things like "Are you crazy? Leonard was three years out, Hagler would have killed him" ... "Hagler was too strong, he would've finished Leonard inside of 5-6 rounds" ... "It would've been a mismatch".

I get your point. You can chalk that trend up to nostalgic preference.

Gans was universally recognized as the best ever 135'er at the time as Leonard's predecessor. However, the origin of the term "Pound-for-Pound" wasn't traced back to Gans, it was traced back to Leonard (another one of the best ATGs in the division but also P4P recognized). I'm not arguing GOAT here but with which fighter the P4P/PFP term originated, and that's Leonard or Sugar Ray Robinson depending on which historian you ask. Leonard predates Robinson with the term but Robinson had the P4P accolade in a more formal capacity.
 
Last edited:
I saw a few rounds of the Carmen Bastillio fight and it was pretty boring/unremarkable by todays standards. Was Robinson a "boring" fighter style-wise?
Not at all.
 
I think Hagler would have wrecked Robinson at 160.
 
I think Hagler would have wrecked Robinson at 160.

Hagler has a shot, I guess, if he walks down Robinson and makes it a brawl. If he makes it a boxing fight, he's in trouble. He didn't like taller guys who could box.

A key factor is that Robinson has one hell of a chin and he hits pretty hard, while Hagler is a bleeder. I think he may stop Marvin on cuts before Hagler chops him down.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top