View Full Version : Reason s why is Sugars Ray's the best welter to you?

Benny the kid
02-02-2006, 10:43 PM
This may seem a dumb question, but i want to know.
I was looking at the top welterweight list, you all had ray robinson rated #1. Yet when i went to box.rec, rankings he doesn't even show up as a welter, but a middleweight. After i looked at his record, it looked like he spent a very short time there(not that long). He beat guys Like the Kid Gavilin, fritzie Zivic and Marty Servo. And never lost at welterweight. Yet some other guys had long careers there. Many title defenses. I read in another post someone say, he was the best because he never lost at welterweight. If thats the case is laszlo papp the best middleweight and marciano the best heavyweight? Or are you basing it on Kid Gavilin being a true legent. Or saying he had the most ability and promise(upside). What makes him the best over guys who reigh for awhile, What are you guys using to judge your lists the most on?

02-03-2006, 02:10 AM
This is why I say you can't tell anything about a fighter from looking at a record. Ray was a welter for 10 years, world champ for almost 5 of them. He took on all comers and never lost to another welterweight. Lightning, thunder, toughness and heart - all things he had in spades that don't appear on the record.

Plus he could tap dance like hell and thought he could sing too. You won't find that on Boxrec.

old school student
02-03-2006, 03:26 AM
Benny that not a dumb question at all. if fact we should all give it a real answer. That's why Tko11 and me are never on the same page! He's assuming thats' all, were using is the Box.rec. You should not be, like he states. But where me and Tko11, differ the most is you CAN tell ON THE INTERNET, a lot about quality(wins/losses) of opponent, when they fought each other(at what stage in the career) and just how good YOU perceive that opponent to be, based on other fighter's they fought.
if you don't look at the records its dumb not to, like Roberto said.. we all have used it to educate ourselves.
Tko11 is more insterested in judging on abilty and skills(HENCE HEAD TO HEAD)
while i'm more incline to use fact (of what did and didn't happen) A person's resume(how many quality wins they have over the hardest compition level.)
If you Keep avoiding people on purpose, it's hard to assume your better than them. To assume Ray robinson is better than all of murder's row by avoiding them (at LEAST some of them,which EVERYONE backs)
Seems more than contracictory, to more than just you!
Who's doing more assuming me or him? That's what you need to ask yourself.
Ability(Head to head) as opposed to
Quality of win's
is two different ways to judge people.
(ray's Quality of win's gets greatly reduced by me, for avoiding many people, You cant be the best, by not fighting the best,a resume is everything almost, to be clearly)
Unless Tko11 thinks these guys
Gavilin,lamotta,olson,zivic, turpin
are better than these guys
Marshall,moore,burley, charles
That would make his argument work.
Turpin is not in the same class as Burley.
Yet ray loss to him, yet Tko11 clearly thinks ray is better in quality. Clearly you can't hold every loss(espesicially early/late in a career) against a fighter, but what happens in their PRIME, is a MAJOR factor! Robinson was clearly in his PRIME, when he lost to a 22 year old fighter.

Steve McV
02-03-2006, 04:30 AM
I rate him as the best welter and the best p4p all-time because he had it all. He could punch accurately, had good power for a welter, had great defense, the best timing I've ever seen in a boxer, and moved as well as any welter ever.

I use records, sure, and his record at welter is unblemished. Did he duck at least one quality fighter (Burley)? Yes. That's a fight I wish I could have attended, had I access to a time machine and a ton of money (to make it worth ray's while!).

But using records causes one to say Rocky Marciano was the gretest heavyweight ever. Maybe he was; Rock sure as hell has the "slugger's chance" against any heavy who ever lived. But analysis goes beyond statistics; maybe Ali could have danced his way to a victory over Rock, maybe Dempsey or a younger Louis or Foreman or Tyson would have gotten in a hammer harder than anything Rock ever experienced and dropped him for 10.

But the perfect record does not mean a perfect fighter; there's never been any such thing. Has any fighter matched the speed of the fastest in his division, the most accurate puncher and counter-puncher, the greatest power and the best movement, all in one package? If so, I've never heard of him.

So the record is part of the evidence, strong evidence; but not complete. Gee, the record says Joe Frazier lost four out of five against just two opponents, so he must not have been real good, right? Except that the two were Ali (the fastest heavy ever) and Foreman (one of the greatest sluggers ever). We all know that Frazier was one of the best ever in boxing, a true ring warrior if ever there was one, and the record of his defeats be damned!

Anyone who saw the Ali-Frazier set of three bouts knows they were watching two of the greatest, ever, in any weight division.

If we go strictly by the record, without trying to interpret it, well, then whoever beats an all-time great in his last fight must be better, right? After all, they fought, the other guy won.

We all know that's nonsense.

02-03-2006, 09:05 AM
Clearly, you have a bone to pick with me because I refused to agree with you on your thread. So firstly, a few things.

Benny - I didn't call your question stupid, as Old School suggests. You said you come to this question by looking at Boxrec. Boxrec tells no story. That is what I said.

Old School - you sure love the word "dumb", don't you. Yes, you can tell about the quality of opposition by analysing the record, but you have to analyse it. You say Ray ducked the Dixie Kid, but Dixie was well into the downside of his career and shortly after Ray started his pro career was losing to marginal fighters regularly. Was he a terrific fighter? Sure. But if you actually analyze his record, you see there isn't as much there as you suggest.

So. Ray ducked Ezzard, did he? A man who was already fighting as a lightheavyweight when Ray debuted at 147, and who fought there Ray's entire reign as 147 champ? A guy who was heavyweight champion of the world before Ray even LEFt 147? I guess we should have Ray shot for not stepping into the ring with a guy that outweighed him by 30-40 pounds. Because he had such a terrific reason to fight Charles. Lunacy.

Archie at least was still a middleweight when Ray debuted, but he was far from any championship form. Moore really started to show he had something special when he knocked out Lloyd Marshall in 1945, but before that year was over he was a lightheavyweight. So again, by this time, shortly before Robinson got his title shot, he would have been fighting a guy two divisions larger than him, outweighing him by 30 pounds. And he didn't even have the title at 175. What the hell would be the point of Robinson fighting him? This is insane.

You can actually make a valid argument for Burley, but here's the thing: Burley offered absolutely no reward in any risk/reward scenario. The guy was dangerous, but he couldn't draw enough people to a fight to fill a phone booth. His style was systematic and boring as all hell, and nobody cared to watch him. Yes, if Robinson wanted to hit every bump in the road he would have fought him. But nobody hits every bump in the road, and Burley offered nothing as far as advancement or financial reward. Which is why he never got a title shot in ANY division.

So that leaves Marshall (and since I conceded that he COULD HAVE given him a shot, Burley). I will pose the same question to you again - please break down their styles and strengths, as well as Robinson's weaknesses, and show why had he fought these two you fell he would have lost. If you can't do that, you are simply whistling in the breeze about all this.

And oh yeah - Robinson was "clearly in his prime" when he lost to Turpin? Circumstances surrounding the fight, Ray's accumulated mileage and his performances in the immediate succeeding fights clearly mean nothing to you, right? Again, the record just don't tell the story here my friend. And you clearly cannot see that obvious point.

old school student
02-03-2006, 12:38 PM
Tko11, i'd like to really sit down and have coffee with you, and really TALK instead of on here. You seem to really "duck", a lot of the points i'm trying to make to you. I do NOT think you are doing, it on purpose. Ray was in his prime in the Turpin fight, any way you want to spin it. Yes ray ducked some fighters( look at the thread, at least half a dozen staff writers list, more names then your spitting out) like carter,lytell, and as i pointed out Yarosz. Your using the dixie kid, as an example against me, who i never brought up, but admit Burley was missed. Ok. We took a step foward. I'm really don't want to Bicker. But clearly your train of thought gives him more credit for what he didn't do, than does mind! Which makes neither of us right or wrong. The fact he missed so many great fighters, which he did! Look at a common opponent's like basora's(who ray may have lost too), he fought murders row in the same time period(and lost to all of them exept rematches w/holman) and Lamotta(who also did). Yet did he(ray) CLEARLY seperate himself from them, those two? If you think Ray was light years ahead of Lamotta, you have your point reenforced. But clearly as a staff writer wrote he MAY, have lost a few more of those fight's than assumed. You need to look at level of opponent(the caliber) MORE, I clearly need to see a list of your fighters and opinions, to really understand where your coming from. Go on the Burley vs Robinson, fantast fight and state, how your hero take's him apart? I PRESENTED MY CASE.
Finally who on Robinson's resume(at welter) was the most impressive to you? Was it Kid gavillin, zivic, or servo. Just answer this i thing, for me Tko11 PLEASE!
Clearly the one thing, i got out of our discussion is, to not give credit for what didn't happen! Hence your's and MANY others, ideas of a head to head competion, over a resume. Clearly other guys have better quality wins than Ray had, at welter, like barney ross. Yet you would feel i'm sure, ray's better. It seems a disservice, to look at it that way, to me.
Just 2 different school's of thought.

02-03-2006, 12:39 PM
old school, you seem to be continually ignoring the arguments of TIME AND WEIGHT CLASS when discussing Robinson and who he avoided. Most of the so-called 'murderor's row' fighters were way past it or way out of Ray's weight class when Robinson won the welterweight title. The clear exception is Burley, and that's it. You had all these guys lined up in your initial argument (Kid, Moore, Charles, Booker) but that argument is muted by the simple fact that these guys were not peaking nor in the same weight range when Ray began peaking as a top fighter at 147.

As for Robinson at welter, I'd say Gavilan and Zivic were his two best wins-his resume isn't as strong as say as Ali at heavyweight or Monzon at middleweight, but people look at his flawless welterweight record (with fairly good opposition) and then what he did as middleweight (again a very good resume of opponents)-see that with all of his greatness at middle, he was even faster and more deadly at welter, look at his intangibles as a fighter, and conclude that he was the best welter ever. Going by a record is only a part of the story. If you go by Cocoa Kid's record, you wouldn't think he was as good as he was, would you? Or Jack Sharkey, Glen Johnson etc. Other factors some into play

old school student
02-03-2006, 01:56 PM
Geez! Sorry! Didn't realize i was offending YOu. Sorry. Yea your right Murder's row was HIGHLY overrated! Ray clearly and EVERYONE can see, avoided no ONE. And would quite clearly beat an over rated Ezzard Charles, NO easily. That's the same off the cuff response's your dishing out. i WAS trying to be specific, But i'm done with this argument.
Ray avoides no -one!
beat's everyone!
And murder's row was HIGHLY overrated.
And sadley charlie Burley was awful.
And yes i Really don't think RAY had the best skills which i stated many times over.
Are you happy now!
I'm done with this, idea of TRYING to be reasonable!
I made my points, without attacking you!
It's in print for everyone to see!
cLEARLY YOU CONVINCED ME OTHERWISE, with your great points!!
(let's agree to leave this for other people, to discuss) i'm out.

02-03-2006, 01:57 PM
If one is conceding that Charles and Moore and others are indeed a stretch, why do they keep getting included in the argument? I'm assuming it's a volume/numbers thing to give the appearance that Robby ducked "all these fighters" even though I read it being conceded that "A,B,C and X,Y Z should be excluded becuase they truly were past their prime or fighting at a higher weight during this time frame". So why include them?

It seems to be the only explanation to them getting brought up agian and agian after the arguement in foavor of including them has been debunked consistently.

And pounding on the Burley point is a bit of a mystery as well. I don't think ANYONE here is saying that they could NOT have met. Or that the two were in different weight classes or at vastly different stages of their careers. Ray could have fought him. And probably SHOULD have. It does not gurantee that Burley wins the bout though.

What IS being said is that unfortunately for Burley, he was a tough fighter to market due to his style (again I'd still like to see an example of a Robinson level fighter that Charley "crushed".).

Risk/reward. Fighting Lamotta, given his superior size and effective style agianst Robby, presented a sizable risk. But given his crowd pleasing style, the popularity of their rivalry and popularity of Lamotta himself (Popularity in a different sense. You knew who he was. He wasn;t necessairly adored.), the risk was worth it given the finacial gains to be made.

Fighters were paid back then based on the tickets that could be sold at the gate. If no one comes, no one get's paid.

Gate reciepts aren't really all that avaialble at Boxrec either.

02-03-2006, 04:08 PM
I'm ducking your points? You mean the points that others have clearly addressed and debunked? And you DIDN'T bring up the Dixie Kid? Have you thrown so many names out there of guys that are going to rip Ray a new asshole that you don't even remember them? Any guys I debunk through weight or time you ignore, and you doon't appear to have read anyone else's posts about your beloved Murderer's Row. You haven't seen anyone say "Robinson's 160 resume isn't the best, but it's awful damned good". Carter, Lytell and for ****'s sake Yarosz are going to smack Ray Robinson around? Basora would have beaten Robinson? I somehow have said that Robinson dominated LaMotta (when I in fact clearly stated the opposite)?

You say I should go read the fantasy fight you put up. YOU go read it. 2 or three replies so far, and they are not in support of your position.

Since you are clearly being hypocritical, using extremely selectivereading techniques and being hyper-aggressive rather than wanted to discuss anything, we're done. Enjoy convincing the members of this board that Robinson is the big fraud you see him as. Best of luck - you'll need all that and more.

Benny the kid
02-03-2006, 04:28 PM
Yes haglar, but he does point out, other fighters in the same time frame, Bosara, and Lamotta. Where fighting, murder's row in the exact same peroid. And Burley who was really almost always the same weight as robinson, was. Your picking him apart on a broad scope, which is unfair. Clearly he's right when, he stated a half dozen, staff writers have listed people who you are not stating. The fact that ray may NOT have put on weight, fast enough, since they were maybe 6 to 8 pounds heavyer, seems like not alot. Since lamotta, who was a little heaver, yet smaller fought many of these people, along with Basora. Which your ignoring. Like he stated. These guys weren't years apart, that much i can tell on the internet. So i'd have to back him on his point. SORRY.
Certainly claiming Ezzard charles would be a strech maybe?, but he gave you a smaller specific scope. Which many others had backed him on.
i can see his point as to two different thought process, being presented here. I really do think, there are two different way to look at it. Not sure which side i'm on..yet
But old school, i will back you on your one statement, that i thought was your STRONGEST. How can you be the best if you don't BEAT the BEST?
Clearly for one reason or another, ray missed a lot of people.
Which i would agree can greatly reduce his stature, as a fighter. I see that point, your making.
To assume he's better than people he avoided, seems wrong.

Roberto Aqui
02-03-2006, 07:03 PM
[[[[How can you be the best if you don't BEAT the BEST?]]]]]

Talk is cheap and all I've heard is a lot of talk. Post the resume that beats Ray. 27 HOF bouts, 20-6-1 HOF record, Career: W 173 (108 ko's) | L 19 | D 6 | Total 200

If Ray is as weak as the few of you think, surely you can find someone CLOSE to that kind of record.

C'mon, put up or shut up!

02-03-2006, 09:16 PM
Conceding a point is obviously something you don't see on ANY message board.

OldSchool, I fail to see the facts you claim are facts as facts at all. In your argument, they are supposition and guesses.

Making your argument no different than anyone else's.

So when you claim everyone else is not ahold of tangible facts, but you are.....it doesn't read quite correctly.

Maybe it's me. No mist or fog here...just a guy who goes right to the skeleton of an argument.

For example....how can anyone beat the best when you have to beat the best to do it? Vague and totally based on the kind of feel and opinion you claim TKO relies upon.

The difference is, his guesses are based on the actual sequences of events.

02-03-2006, 09:57 PM
I'm done with this, idea of TRYING to be reasonable!

I think that was clearly the case way back on the other thread..............

In the 40 years since he fought Joey Archer in Pittsburgh's Civic Arena, who he was fighting so as to obviously avoid matches with Emile Griffith and Nino Benvenuti and Jose Napoles, I've never been engaged in a conversation with one boxing fan or expert that thought Ray was an overrated as an all time great........but now we are all re-educated on the truth......

I guess I'm a charter member of the Sugar Ray Grassy Knoll Club.....probably joined up when he ducked Jose Torres.

02-03-2006, 10:06 PM
And incidentally, who says that the fighters Robinson didn't fight were even better than those he could not have possibly fought 34 years earlier for example?

Where is the evidence that instead of Robinson it ought to be say Burley, or Holman Williams?

The entire if not A then it must be B thing is a runaway train. The absence of a meeting doesn't mean the result of that meeting is clear.

THAT is not factual...that is in fact quite literally not only guesswork, but further a degree added to guesswork.

Gerald Ford never punched me in the mouth, but I doubt that alone makes me better than him.

Benny the kid
02-03-2006, 10:34 PM
So are you all saying ray, was better for not facing them fighters? seems if he avoided some people, he knew what his limitations were. You all are acting like he avoided no-one, yet assume, he SO far superior, he didn't even need to prove it. Clearly many staff, writers agreed, he used his Marketing and appeal to maybe skirt a few. Seem redundant, to assume he's better or worse. Killer instinct must mean something. I mean some people seem to be showing a real bias in this argument, toward sugar ray. I checked his record, and he did loss, last i looked. Yet no one is answering my question. What fights at welterweight makes him so great? Is the kid Gavilin some sort of legent, or what? And if he was so great, how come he lost so much?

02-03-2006, 11:06 PM
I am saying you seem to have gone from asking to telling.

I haven't read one person say that him not fighting makes him better. I am reading a few people sayign him not fighting certain guys makes the guys he didn;t fight better than he was.

Which doesn't follow at all.

Also, the theory that Ray Robinson not fighting equals he knew he would lose not only doesn't make sense, but makes a case for Robinson being the only person in history to know what would happen in the future with certainty.

Which again would be guessing on the part of those making such an argument.

You seem to not only agree with OldSchool, but type like; and have the same grammatics as he does.

What does lost so much mean? He lost at middleweight, after one of the great winning stretches of all time.

The only person showing a bias...is you in trying to contend that no one answers you, when in reality many have answered and you do not choose to consider disagreement and supporting evidence as answers for your own convenience.

If you stopped intimating and adding motivations to eveyone else, perhaps you could craft some supporting evidence for your own argument....for continually denying other points of view does not make for a point of view in itself.

I for one will wait for your evidence on whom you think is the best fighter ever... this way, you can stop hyperbolizing everyone else's claims... stop ignoring what anyone else says by trying to twist it into some larger vague, baseless deficiency.... and get to work convincing us that you are correct.

02-03-2006, 11:25 PM
oldschool and bennythekid, if you are not one an the same, why do you guys have a hard-on for SRR who most everybody thinks he was one of the top 5 p4p of all times, i myself have him # 2 all time p4p

Benny the kid
02-03-2006, 11:49 PM
sorry i was just wondering. I have no clue as your intent. It seems an argument that makes it hard to find a winner. I am Not old school, nor i do i think any fighter is above questions. This post was suppose to be one what ingredents, makes a person great to you. That question has had little thread time. how can i sound like anymore, in print. I don't follow taht.

02-04-2006, 01:49 AM
Sharkey - cutting to the chase as always, eh? You must be a hell of a lawyer. And Ford kicks your ass. Or accidentally falls down a flight of stairs, dragging you with him.

Kid Achilles
02-04-2006, 06:03 AM
Sugar Ray Robinson is the best welter of all time because he has the best record, and while a natural middleweight moved up to middleweight to beat some of the best fighters of that weightclass.

Charley Burley was a feared and respected fighter and who knows, maybe he was Robinson's equal or even superior, but he didn't haveRay's record and so he doesn't deserve to be ranked higher.

Whether or not it is fair that Burley was unable to face top fighters who avoided him is a moot point. You're using speculation and assuming that Robinson avoided Burley because he was a superior fighter and he feared that he would lose to him. That's not the most stable of arguments because it depends almost entirely on opinion.

Our argument is that Robinson had the better professional record and therefore deserves to be ranked higher. Maybe Burley would have beaten Ray and those other fighters who avoided him if they met in the ring, but that's still open for debate. What isn't open for debate is Ray Robinson's record, which speaks for itself.

I have no problem with you ranking Robinson lower than the rest of us, but your inability to see why we rate him as we do is frustrating.

02-04-2006, 10:31 AM
I love Time Lines. I think they tell a whole lot. The Following timeline came from the Sugar ray robinson was overrated Thread:

From Old School Student:

40 starts career
41 servo and zivic, great wins i have servo 10 @ welterweight!
42 servo, lamotto, jannazzo Great Lamotta a trophy! He's rollin
43 gets evened by lamotta, beats him, a faded 5'1'' armstong
44 a weak year Jannazzo
45 Bell, lamotta and AHH a step up, his first outside of jake and bam a controverly draw with Basora. Showing just which levels he's at @ the time, not able to win.
46 Promptly retreats back in class while others are going foward at the time!! fight lamotta again(a known quanity), jannazzo once again and yes bell, clearly going backwards where he started from. LOOK IT UP! It's fact!
47 a great win abrams!(look at the level he's in, but at least he fought him!)
48 again may have lost a close descion with Henry brimm(thanks Rocky111) a complete stiff, further indicating how liitle he's really come> A kid gavilin win (Gavilin is one of my most overated fighters no less)
49 Belloise
50 the faded aaron WADE 3 years out of retirement!, Bosora! Great finally! this is his first big win in years look at his level.
Olson nice! improving
51 Jake again, a bad matchup in styles. Mims; ok good
BAM exposed again on the next step up in class with a VERY GREEN turpin, FAR les experienced than ray, yet a systimatic demolishone job. Turpin became better latter in his career, he was green at this point!
52 Olson again, gRAZIANO(overated again), beats maxim!(benefit), That was somepeople's carreer's end. Enough to judge a career on, excluding all his other losses, this is a huge concession to put him this far based on that weak resume! It's really just his jake wins that earns it for him, to think he'd beat Burley is unthinkable. accord with who he struggled against, Maybe might beat Holman, but i doubt it really. REALLY!
Marcel Cerdan (To me he's just on the heals of Sugar ray, i'm not convinced, he may have been better, should have fought each other, would have been VERY CLOSE, far better than Basora, who he struggled with)
Eddie Booker ( The least developed and maybe raw of them, but a real killer)

What I am planning to do (Give me until Monday) is to use the same time line but to illustrate exactly at what point in thier career, what weight class and the difference or closeness to one's prime and expereince, each of the the "muderer's row" fighters were at in comparison to SRR.

Essentially, ALl of this has already been covered by other posters here, but I'll attempt to consolidate it all into one post and each fighter will be discussed in each year comapred to where Robinson was (40-52) as was used previously.

Hopefully it sheds light on the subject, whihc I still feel is NOT taboo, but certainly needs some more open mindedness and ability to listen to other opinions.

02-04-2006, 12:26 PM
No offense, because I know Gor likes to keep it civil, but old scool student is either
a) a board troll
b) someone who was once BANNED here
c) Full of it
He goes after TKO stating that Ray avoided "Marshall,moore,burley, charles" Are you KIDDING ME? There is a case for Burley indeed, but let's look at history.

Ray turned pro in 1940 at 134; Charles in the same year at 160 and by the LLoyd Marshall fight in 1943 both men were at light heavy, weighing over 160. Marshall, who turned pro in 1936, never fought under 160 AFTER 1940 and was an established light heavy THE BULK OF HIS CAREER (and over 160 was light heavyweight until 1984). Charles returned from the War in 1946 and never fought anywhere near 160 again. The closest Ray got to Charles was about 15 pounds and he was a welterweight. CHARLES AND MARSHALL were light heavyweights...period. Welterweights avoiding light heavyweights is an invalid criticism...period.

Moore turned pro in 1936 and was a big middleweight by 1940 and a consistent light heavyweight by the time Ray won his first title against Bell. See closing comments on Charles and Marshall. You earlier brought up Cocoa Kid, but by the time Ray won his first title, Kid was a middle winning as many as he lost. And it was Moore that blew off a light heavyweight superfight with ray late in their careers.

Finally, while we know Ray auctioned out of a Burley fight, we also know that when he turned pro in 1940, Burley was about 15 pounds bigger than him. He was firmly ansconce at 160 by about 1943 and was a leading middle contender at 160 when Ray beat Bell. Know who ducked Marshall, Burley, Moore and Charles? All the MIDDLEWEIGHT AND LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONS. Not the EVENTUAL but not yet crowned welterweight.

One last thing...got any press clips where EZZ CHARLES nRay were woofing at each other? Where it was even a single sperm of thought?

Like I said before, this is just a chance to say Ray didn't fight the best black fighters. But that's not true. He did, at 147. The best black welterweight avaialble to Ray was probably Gavilan and he fought him twice.

02-04-2006, 03:55 PM
I respect anyone's opinion on Robby whom I really admire as having the best and flashiest skills ever of any fighter in any weight class.
But having the best skills does not necessarily make one the greatest fighter, or the greatest welterweight ever.
I know I am in the minority here, but a prime Napoles beats the guy in fifteen rounds.

02-04-2006, 04:02 PM
I think cliff has fingered the guy.
Sounds like someone who was once banned here as well.
I can't recall the chap's name, but he was in the process of writing a book about Harry Greb and was very insolent with everyone here before bucket kicked him out.
He always used the word "CLEARLY" in uppercase like the chap does as well which leads me to beleive it's him.

02-04-2006, 04:38 PM
I believe School and Benny are the same guy. Which amounts to arguing in one persona and then supporting yourself against your common foes of theory with the other. AKA: Cyber-Sybil.

I also believe that children are the future.

old school student
02-04-2006, 05:29 PM
First i wasn't banned here, ever before, nor i'm i using a two person battle. This is a rather factless based assumption. Was i being insenitive to anyone? I never remember attacking anyone verbally. It should not seem like a taboo subject, who some people seem a bit 'thin skinned' on. Your broad assumpition's seem really unwarranted. it's not as if i'm attacking everyone, claiming their option's are faceless. Where did i state this. Sharkey you seem to be taking it to a personal level with me, what prevoked this? I am of the belief everything can be argued. can we discuss things with common sense, and not a general paranoia. I'm not here to attack anyone, if you look at this thread, it seems rather courteous to me. It seems your doing for more personal "attacks" than me. Are we going to remain dignified or what? did i claim your thoughts were, ever ignorant?, or do you just disagree with pure distain? I am not here to create enemy and somepeople many think differently, as others. I no like to me called a troll, no matter how bad they look.

02-04-2006, 05:48 PM
Karl - if you mean Klompton (the guy writing the Greb book), no way old school is him. No way. Klomp, while abrasive and judgemental, knew his stuff inside out most of the time.

02-04-2006, 07:47 PM
thought you were out.

Nothing personal can happen in cyberspace, can it? More inferrence perhaps.

02-05-2006, 12:05 PM
Crold gave the prefect answer to my questions...it was a fair question to start off with...it was simply a matter of how the times matched up the men...if all that Crold posted is correct, the argument is fairly answered in detail.

02-05-2006, 05:12 PM
It all checks out He. Just because someone knows lots of names doesn't mean they can correlate them to logical arguments. Never let the facts get in the way of a bad argument I guess.

Benny the kid
02-05-2006, 08:31 PM
Fine! i may or may not be old school?
I took the name to attempt to sound older.
My name is Benny, I am a 15 year old kid.
Who lives in brooklyn.
My dad works a a gym in a low class part of town.
which will remain nameless.
Anyone who knows me, would describe me as a jackass, and liar and a theif. (Some may be true)
Hey Brooklyn's tough!
But who's gonna have any respect for a 15 year old kid.
Among you guys!
SORRY! for this i will apologize.
Ok, but i HAVE spent 200 hours on the internet, learning about what i love Boxing. that and being 15, doesn't make me too smart nor to dumb.
I have seen a lot of boxing both live and tv, although it's NOT world class, maybe not even close.
I watched espn classic religiously.
and I read, what more can i do?
BUt talk.
Sorry, really i am.
There no point in lieing to anyone at this point.
But i bet i know as MUCH, as many of you did.. at 15.
Sorry i didn't attempt to offend anyone.
My guess is No one's want's to hear from me, at this point so i'll just read instead of post.
I sorry, but i am a jackass, i told you!
But being 15, doesn't make me dumb, like the cats down at the gym would like to think.
No more lying ok, bye.
Ray did lose alot ok?
I like Burley better (at welter or middle in rankings, it's not crazy notion.
And sadly, it does take me hourst to spell and write in a complete sentence. Thtas for spell check.

02-05-2006, 09:31 PM
Sugar Ray Robinson fought the following fighters
during the 1940s: Sammy Angott, Jake LaMotta
(five times?), Henry Armstrong, Jimmy Doyle,
Tommy Bell, California Jackie Wilson, Kid Gavilan,
Jose Basora, Bernard Docusen, Marty Servo, Fritzie
Zivic, and a large number of other good fighters.
In other words, Robbie wasn't fighting soft
opposition at the time. Can anyone find any
current fighter who fought such good opposition?
No, it is due to the fact that there was much
more qualitative depth in just about every weight
division at the time.

I think that the assertion that Robbie was a
lightweight or a welterweight at the time
fighters such as Ezzard Charles, Charley Burley,
Holman Williams, Eddie Booker, Lloyd Marshall
were middleweights or light-heavies is a valid
point. One also keep in mind there is a
business end to boxing. In other words, there
were a lot of fighters who fought less capable
fighters who also were tremendous gate

Reading Harry Otty's biography of Charley
Burley, one is struck by the following:

1. Burley fought only ONE time in New York
City, the center of boxing during the sport's
golden age.

2. It appears that Burley's biggest purse was

3. It appears that Burley made less than
$100,000. in purses during his career.

Looking at Burley's record, I don't have any
doubt that he was a great fighter, much
better than Rocky Graziano. Think of this...
..Tony Zale was past his peak after World
War II. In other words, Zale had to make
some big paydays very quickly. If you
were Zale's manager, would you choose
Burley or Graziano for your next bout?

- Chuck Johnston

Benny the kid
02-05-2006, 09:43 PM
thank you! Chuck.
That was the kind of response, i was looking for.

Benny the kid
02-05-2006, 10:16 PM
Burley's Biggest purse was only $4,500!
That makes me so sad i could cry.
A person with his talent.
Living in the ghetto SUCKS!!
everyday, it doesn't go away!
Then you got the cocky prima-donna rock star,
sugar ray, who pulls out, wanting more money.
When charley's the one who's poor and living in the ghetto.
He deservered that chance! he earned it.
Yet the rock star,is all the wiser, and so much BETTER.
yea right!!
God pity the poor.

Kid Achilles
02-06-2006, 12:35 AM
I can't argue with that Benny. Life isn't fair today, and it certainly wasn't fair in the racist climate of America during the 40's-50's. No one will argue with you on that point; what happened to Burley was not fair at all.

02-06-2006, 08:35 AM
Hey Chuck, Thanks for mentioning the book, but I have to call one small correction - which will make Benny even more sad - Burley received $3,000 for his largest purse - the second Oakland Billy Smith fight (not $4,500).

Even then his manager tried to rip him off by attempting to get Charley to pay expenses out of his end. Needless to say that guy was gone soon after.

Benny (and anyone else interested in Burley), may like my website. If you visit please sign the guest book. It is a work in progress, but there is some interesting stuff there.


CharleyBurley.com (http://CharleyBurley.com)

Bad result for the reds yesterday hey Chuck!!

Roberto Aqui
02-06-2006, 11:10 AM
[[[[A person with his talent.
Living in the ghetto SUCKS!!
everyday, it doesn't go away!
Then you got the cocky prima-donna rock star,
sugar ray, who pulls out, wanting more money.
When charley's the one who's poor and living in the ghetto.
He deservered that chance! he earned it.
Yet the rock star,is all the wiser, and so much BETTER.
yea right!!]]]]]

Look, nothing wrong with being 15.

I would just add in that I don't think Oldschool and Benny are the same person, although they did seem to show up at the same time and use similar arguments.

Nobody ever claimed Ray was a nice guy all the time. Being such a talent and a draw and having fans fawning all over him from his amateur days onward gave him a swelled ego that any one of us in his shoes might have. Ray was not in the social works business, he was in the hurt business.

Everyone agrees that Burley was a fine fighter, but he was beatable all through his career and you have not advanced many points that would leave others to conclude he was superior over Ray, nor have you advanced many points that Ray was ducking this list of black fighters you created.

What you've done is common, you had a theory, did a little research, and tried to arrange the facts to support your theory. Thing is, you've misapplied the facts as any congruent timeline of weights and records would reveal.

I agree, most do, Ray should have fought Charley. Usually fighters in those days would talk or have their people talk about that desirability and make the fight happen. Maybe there was a personal animas between the fighters, I really don't know, but the fight never finalized. Maybe Ray did "duck" him, but given the full quality of Ray's record and the fact that he competed so long against the best when he was clearly past his own best, it's hard to imagine him "ducking" anyone. More likely it was just a business decision with him mixed in with a little bit of "jerk."

I'm surprised more people haven't zeroed in on Burley's political philosophies. He seems to have been either a communist or socialist and probably had some strong attitudes on race and politics that would round out that fuzzy picture of him that we all seem to have.

02-06-2006, 06:26 PM
Here is the timeline I promised. You can easily see based on weight and prime and being active who in the Murderer's Row group of fighters who Robinson could have feasibly faced and who he could not. Again, I am using the orginal Time frame OLD School used and also give MY synopsis for what Ray accomplished during these years and WHO he could have faced over the years.

Here you go:

1940 SRR starts career as a Ligtweight in October of 1940.

Cocoa Kid- 10th year as a pro (1930), fighting at Welterweight
Holman Williams-8th year as a pro (1932) fighting at Welter and slightly above. 1-1-1 with Izzy Jannanzo
Jack Chase-turned pro in1936 fighting at Middlweight. Inactive in 38, 39 and 40.
Charley Burley- 4th year as a pro (1936)-fighting at Middleweight. Lost to Bivins in Jimmy’s first year as a pro.
Lloyd Marshall –4th year as a pro(1936), fighting at and above Middleweight limit.
Ezzard Charles- Began Pro Career in March as a Middleweight.
Archie Moore-4th year (1936) as a pro fighting at Middlweight
Jimmy Bivins-Began pro Career in January as a Middlweight
Bert Lytell-Didn’t turn pro until 1944
Aaron TIGER Wade –5th year as a pro Figgting at welter and Middle
Kid Tunero-11th year as a pro (1929), fighting at Middlweight
Joe Carter-Didn’t trun pro until 1942
Eddie Booker- 5th year as a pro (1935), fighting at Middlweihgt.

Possible opponent? No one.

1941- Sammy Angott, Marty Servo and Fritzie Zivic (The same Zivic who won the Welterweight crown From Armstrong in the main event on Ray’s pro debut. A year and 27 days later)

Cocoa Kid-12-3-1 with 1 ND. Welter and Middleweight. Lost to Izzy Jananzzo for the second time. D with Holman Williams
Holman Williams-13-1 Wleter and Middle. Wins over Basora and a D with Cocoa Kid
Jack Chase- Returned after 3 ½ year layoff.
Charley Burley-8-0 all at middleweight.
Lloyd Marshall –4-1 all at or above 160
Ezzard Charles-8-1 all at or over Middleweight limit
Archie Moore-Middleweight
Jimmy Bivins-Competing at LH & Heavy
Bert Lytell- Not a pro yet
Aaron TIGER Wade –2-2 Welter and Middle
Kid Tunero-a win over Basora
Joe Carter-Not yet a pro
Eddie Booker-went 1-1-1 with Shorty Hogue

Possible Opponent? No One.

1942- Wins over Zivic again (stops him), Angott again, Servo agian, Lamotta (began Career 5 month’s after Robby’s pro debut in Mar 1941), Jannazzo Twice,

Cocoa Kid-13-2 Welter and Middle. Loss to Jackie Wilson and 3 wins over Holman Williams
Holman Williams-8-5. 3 losses to Burely and 2 to Cocoa Kid as well as a single win over both Burley and Kid
Jack Chase-Lost to Archie Moore
Charley Burley-13-4. 3-1 with Holman Williams, Lost to Llyod Marshall. 02 with Ezzard Charles, Ko’d heavyweight JD Turner, who was a .500 pug. All fights were at Middle.
Lloyd Marshall –7-1 Loss to Booker win over Burley.
Ezzard Charles-12 fights. All but 1 (one of his two wins over Burley) were over 160 pounds.
archie moore-Middleweight
Jimmy Bivins LH & Heavy
Bert Lytell-Not a pro yet
Aaron TIGER Wade –10-0 at Middle against moderate comp.
Kid Tunero-2 losses to Holman Williams and a win over 19 bout Ezzard Charles. Tunero who had been a pro 13 years to Ez’s 2,had ……………….114 bouts under his belt when he faced Charles.
Joe Carter-turned pro at Middleweight
Eddie Booker-beat Hogue and Jannazo drew with Archie Moore. All at Middle or slightly above.

Possible Opponent? Burley, Williams and Cocoa Kid. However, all three held a significant experience advantage AND they were at Middleweight. Ray faced a middleweight in Lamotta, true, but his experience was equal given when he started his career. Bigger fighter, but not bigger and significantly more expereinced.

1943-Year cut short (Aug) due to Military service. Lost to LaMotta and then gained revenge over him later that month, Jackie Wilson (who holds wins over Cocoa Kid, Ceferino Garcia and Tommy Bell) and a 5’5 1/2 “ faded Henry Armstrong (Ray took the fight to get Hank a decent payday)

Cocoa Kid-9-3-1 A draw Burley and a loss to second year pro Joe Carter.
Holman Williams-11-3-0 with 1 NC. 2 Wins over 2nd year pro Carter and wins over Booker and Belloise. Loses to Tunero, Basora and ……………………………Cocoa Kid
Jack Chase- Went 1-0-1 with Lloyd Marshall, 1-2 with Archie Moore, beat Eddie Booker and Aaron Wade, lost to Burley.
Charley Burley-4-0-1 with 1 NC Drew with Cocoa Kid and NC with Williams. Beat wade and Chase.
Lloyd Marshall – 8-3-1 all at middle or LH. Wins over Charles, Losses to Bivins, Chase and Williams
Ezzard Charles-0-2 Losses to Bivins and Marshall at Lightheavy (served in military until 46’)
archie moore-Middleweight Lost to Wade And Chase
Jimmy Bivins LH & Heavy
Bert Lytell-Not a pro yet
Aaron TIGER Wade –7-2 Losses to Burley and Chase and a Win over Archie Moore at Middle. Caught Moore on the right night.
Kid Tunero-Antother win over Williams at Middle.
Joe Carter-2nd year pro. Lost to Williams, Beat slowing down Cocoa kid.
Eddie Booker-Lost to Chase and Willams. Ko’d Harry kid Matthews . Fighting over the Middleweight limit.

Possible Opponents? Same three as 1942 in Cocoa Kid, Burley and Williams. Robby had more expereience, however the militarty duty did limit his activity that year and he was trying to get big paying bouts before serving his country in. See Armstrong.

1944 (Discharged from the military.) First bout in 14 months was against Janannzo again.

Cocoa Kid-2-1-1 1NC. Discharged from Military D with Williams and a Loss to Wade. Beginning of the end.
Holman Williams- 14-2-3 wins over Marshall, Basora, Tunero and 2 over Chase. Draws with Carter, Basora and Kid, Losses to Booker and ……………………………..Marshall
Jack Chase-19 fights Middle or above, Lost 9 , 4 times to Holman Williams, to Burley, Cocoa Kid and Lloyd Marshall . beat and drew …………………………………with Wade.
Charley Burley-8-0 wins over Chase, Wade and his big win over Archie Moore.
Lloyd Marshall –11-1. Loss to Williams. Wins over Lamotta, Williams, Maxim, Chase and Carter. All at Middle or LH.
Ezzard Charles-Military duty
archie moore-Middle Lihgt Heavy. Lost Burley and Booker
Jimmy Bivins-Heavy
Bert Lytell-Pro debut at Middleweight
Aaron TIGER Wade –2-4-1. The wheels start coming off. Losses to Burley, Chase, Willams and Carter and a draw against Chase. Win …………………….Cocoa Kid who was beginning his slide as well.
Kid Tunero- and L at Middle to Williams.
Joe Carter—Lost twice to Lloyd Marshall, beat Aaaron Wade, Drew with Williams and beat Cocoa Kid
Eddie Booker-fighting at LH. KO’d Archie Moore and Decisioned Holman Williams. Retired in 44 due to EYE issues.

Possible opponents? Given that he had been out of the ring for 14 mos and returned in Oct, I say no one.

1945- Tommy Bell, George Costner, Lamotta again, a Draw with Basora (very close bout) and a win over Lamotta again

(Jose Basora began his career in 1939 fighting at both Welterweight and Middleweight. In 45, he was a full fledged Middle. Basora held a win over Lamotta and held him to a draw when Jose had roughly 40 bouts under his belt and Lamotta had been a pro for a year and 2 and 3 mos. Respectively. Other than Lamotta, with whom Ray had a profitable rivalry with, Ray was not consistently facing middleweights by 1945. After the Basora bout, you saw Robby taking on more middleweights while at the same time angling for a shot at the Welterweight crown.)

Cocoa Kid-6-6 with 1 NC. Ko’d by Archie Moore, 2-3 with Carter. 1-1 with Willams
Holman Williams-15-2-1 fghting at Middle and Light heavy. Wins over Moore, Carter, Kid, Lytell and Burley. Losses to Moore and Kid
Jack Chase-1-3
Charley Burley-6-1. Loss to Willams wins over Wade and Carter
Lloyd Marshall – 5-2 Now campaigning exclusively at Light heavy. Two losses to Moore.
Ezzard Charles-Military duty
archie moore-Light heavy. Lost to Willams and Bivins who was already at Heavyweight.
Jimmy Bivins-Heavy
Bert Lytell 2nd Year as a pro.lost to Lamotta at Middle. Lost and drew with Williams
Aaron TIGER Wade –3-1 Loss to Burley and a win over 2nd year pro Lytell
Kid Tunero-no significant fights
Joe Carter- went 1-2 with Cocoa Kid, lost to Wilams and Burely.
Eddie Booker-retired

Possible Opponents? Cocoa Kid was done. Williams was fighting closer to LH, but the fight could have been made and Burley.

1946- Angott again, Janannzo again, Levine and FINALLY a shot at the welterweight crown where Servo BLATANTLY avoided Ray and vacated the title. Ray decisioned Tommy Bell to win the vacant crown. Not sure how FINALLY getting a title shot is “taking steps backwards”, but…….

Cocoa Kid-4-3, 2 losses to Lytell.
Holman Williams-7-4. Loses to Lamotta, Baroudi, Cerdan and Lytell. Win over 2nd year pro Satterfield
Jack Chase-5-2 against soft opp at lightheavy outside of a Draw with Archie Moore.
Charley Burley-5-0 win over Lytell
Lloyd Marshall –1-2 KO’d by Charles LH
Ezzard Charles-returned from military duty. All future fights are at LH or above.
archie moore-LH-lost to Charles
Jimmy Bivins-heavy
Bert Lytell- beats faded versions of Williams and Cocoa Kid Loses to Burley
Aaron TIGER Wade 0-1 Loss to Williams by Ko that set off short retirement.
Kid Tunero-no significant bouts
Joe Carter-didn’t fight.
Eddie Booker-Retired

Only Burley and WIllaims and Possibley Lytell, who was only in his 3rd year as a pro.

1947-Georgie Abrams, Defenses against Chuck Taylor and Jimmy Doyle and a non title bout against Jackie Wilson.

Cocoa Kid-6-5 A complete shell.
Holman Williams -3-4-1. Clearly past his prime now. Losses to Brimm and Basora.
Jack Chase- 0-3-0 1 NC. Ko’s by Archie Moore at Light heavy
Charley Burley-1-1 Loss to Lytell
Lloyd Marshall 1-2 Ko’d again by Charles. LH
Ezzard Charles-LH & Heavy
archie moore-LH & Heavy lost to Charles
Jimmy Bivins-Heavy
Bert Lytell-11-1 lost to Moore. Beats fading Burley.
Aaron TIGER Wade –return in late 47 and goes 1-2. Retires for next three years
Kid Tunero-no significant bouts 4 losses 1 to Cyrille Delannoit
Joe Carter 0-1 retired
Eddie Booker-retired

Possible Opponenets? Lytell really seems like the only possible scenario. Burley had faded from the scene.

1948-Defense against Docusen. Non title win over Brimm. (let’s remember, Brimm did hold a win over that stiff Holman Williams a year earlier) and a win over the some-how “overrated” Kid Gavilan. A step back I suppose?

Cocoa Kid- 0-1. retired.
Holman Williams 0-2 ko’d by Basora retired.
Jack Chase-retired while fighting at Lightheavy.
Charley Burley-1-0
Lloyd Marshall –2-0
Ezzard Charles-LH & Heavy
archie moore-Lh & Heavy. Lost to Charles
Jimmy Bivins-Heavy
Bert Lytell-12-2-1 win over Basora
Aaron TIGER Wade -retired
Kid Tunero- 1 loss, 1 drw and he retired
Joe Carter-retired
Eddie Booker-retired

Possible Oppenents?

Only Lytell. But Ray had his hands full with that overrated Gavilan, so he was taking it easy in 48 I guess.

1949- A close bout Draw with Brimm (fighters do have off nights or how else do we explain all of the losses suffered by the Murder’s row fighters?) Non title win over Belloise, A defense against that “stiff” Kid Gavilan.

Cocoa Kid-Retired
Holman Williams –retired
Jack Chase-retired
Charley Burley-1-1
Lloyd Marshall –3-3 Ko’d by Bob Murphy. LH
Ezzard Charles-Heavy
archie moore- LH & Heavy
Jimmy Bivins-Heavy
Bert Lytell-7-5-2 over Middleweight limit bouts Lost to Harold Johnson
Aaron TIGER Wade-retired
Kid Tunero-retired
Joe Carter-retired
Eddie Booker-retired

Possible Opponents? None. Lytell had passed his prime.

1950 -Easy Ko over comebacking Aaron Wade, (who in truth had been a pretty much shot fighter the last 3 years of his career before retiring in 47. His only significant win was over an equally shot Cocoa Kid.), easy Ko over Costner again, , Defense over Charlie Fusari, Wins Penn State Middle title with win over Villemain, defense of that title with easy ko over Basora, which put the “shot” stamp on him. A Ko of Bobo Olsen, another win over Villemain via KO and the Van Dam body blow.

Cocoa Kid-Retired
Holman Williams retired
Jack Chase-retired
Charley Burley-3-0 retired
Lloyd Marshall –5-3-1. Fighting at LH and heavy. Ko’d by Cockell
Ezzard Charles-Heavy
archie moore LH & Heavy
Jimmy Bivins-heavy
Bert Lytell –3-3 1 NC Loss to Moore Over middleweight limit fights
Aaron TIGER Wade –Ko’d by SRR. retired
Kid Tunero-retired
Joe Carter-retired
Eddie Booker-retired

Possible Opponents? None.

1951-Wins World Middleweight title form Jake Lamotta, Holly Mims, The European tour, a loss to Turpin (clearly Robby took him light and it cost him the win.) Return bout 2 months later, Ray Ko’d him in 10.

Cocoa Kid-Retired
Holman Williams-retired
Jack Chase-retired
Charley Burley-retired
Lloyd Marshall –0-3 ko’d in each bout. One bout at LH against Olson, in which he was ko’d in 5. Retired
Ezzard Charles-Heavy
archie moore LH & Heavy
Jimmy Bivins-Heavy
Bert Lytell-2-1 LH retired.
Aaron TIGER Wade -retired
Kid Tunero-retired
Joe Carter-retired
Eddie Booker-retired

Possible Oppenents? None

1952 –Defense against Bobo Olson, 3rd round ko over former champ Graziano, and the Maxim loss at 175. Ray retired for 2 and ½ years following that loss.

Cocoa Kid-Retired
Holman Williams-retired
Jack Chase-Retired
Charley Burley-retired
Lloyd Marshall -retired
Ezzard Charles-Heavy
archie moore Light heavy and Heavy Beats Maxim one bout removed form Robinson losing to Maxim.
Jimmy Bivins-Heavy
Bert Lytell-Retired
Aaron TIGER Wade- retired
Kid Tunero-retired
Joe Carter-retired
Eddie Booker-retired

Possible Opponents? If Ray had defeated Maxim and NOT retired for 2 and a half years, then a strong possiblity of a meeting with Archie Moore would have been talked up and about.

Well there you go. Of the 13 fighters mentioned and in the span of just over 11 years, there were only a handful of meetings that could have happened. Obviously the Burely bout could have happened had the bout been a bit more marketable. And Williams had a few years where things could have happened and other than Lytell and a worn down Cocoa Kid, there isn't much to discuss form this group.

Weight and Time HAVE to be considered. For most of you, I think I've probably wasted alot of time and space here as you probably are saying to yourself, that his is what you have been saying all along. Well now we have a visual.

To state that Robinson habitually ducked and avoided all 13 of these fighters and consistently over this time period is Wrong. Hopefully this opens some view points to what has been discussed here.

02-06-2006, 10:59 PM
Harry- Thanks for the correction. In regards
to thoughts about Charley Burley's politics, I
would like to point out that he appeared to be
a very stable family man whe also was a steady
worker. For example, Burley worked as a garbageman
in the Pittsburgh area for a number of decades.
Think of it.....Burley held down this physically
punishing job even when he was a middle-aged
man in a place where the weather could be bad.
In other words, Burley was a man with a strong

- Chuck Johnston

02-06-2006, 11:00 PM
Actually, you're right. I am famous for the synaptic misfire - I contined to write Dixie Kid when I meant Cocoa Kid. Shit happens, and when I asked if you couldn't even remember who you were claiming would rip Ray a new one, I was the one making the mistake not you.

Holman Williams was no plug, but a very good defensive boxer with a style basically destined to make any opponent look bad. I wouldn't put him on a par with LaMotta, but he's such a different kind fo fighter that it's hard to compare the two. LaMotta achieved far more and against at least as good opposition, so he has to get the nod in my book. That, of course, may be only because he had the opportunity where Williams never did. Though Jake had to go through hell to get his shot as well.

There's no hard feelings here kid. My issue had to do with the apparently deliberate ignoring of every counter-point made to you. That to me says that the person I'm 'discussing' with isn't looking to discuss anything, he's looking for someone to agree with him. It gets under my skin.

02-06-2006, 11:22 PM

your doing fine man and your right i knew less than you at 15. in those days i got three boxing mags a month, went to the gyms and followed the local fight stars in L.A. we did not have the luxury of the internet. if this is your passion, you just stick with it....someday when you are a crusty old codger like some of us here you will remember our seemingly gruff critism. don't mean nothin'.

as far as the ghetto is concerned...i think in a few years you will get out...just use the moxy you have shown here. time goes by faster than you will someday care to realize.

Benny the kid
02-07-2006, 01:39 AM
Thank you so much, hawk.
Thats' the niceest thing anyone done for me this year.
I like your subtle humor, your great.
I wanted my dad, to do this for me for a long time.
I asked him many times, sugar ray is his favorite.
I made this argument to him many times before.
Instead of taking the time like you did, he'd say thing's like..
Things ain't always as they appear boy!
Yea, bet you didn't know you were arguing with a 15 year old.
Just the same, i always took it as,
ray aint as great as he might seem.
Hawk, i always will never show bias,
i want to write a book, and represent, the sport.
Me showing favorite's, is unfair to history,
the way i look at it, so i won't do it.
i just want to represent, the little less heralded guys,
with an as equal playing field.
My dad is almost 60 years old;
this may not seem that old to you.
But we are jewish, and poor.(although getting better)
In ghetto years thats alot, like almost 80!
Try eating your dinner out of a can.
But i have mowed lawns, and now have cable t.v,
the internet(i tell my dad, i'm doing homework)
it is in a way. and the libary, the best since it's free!
i can't box, i'm only 5'1 and would get my ass kicked by anyone and have, (my sister), on a daily basis.
But i can duck a punch with the best of em'.
Even sugar would be proud.
My sister 16, now want's to be a boxer.
We work/help at the gym.
She's 5'5 with lots of muscle.
i think my parent's, aren't telling the whole story here.
Try living with being told layla Ali, is THE BEST BOXER EVER!
Daily. It sucks.
She pits her against tiny men, on titlebout, and she wins!
She then claims women are far superior to men. Yeah.
Had a few questions for you, if you can find the time.
Everytime, i get new info, new questions arise.
So lytell and holman, maybe cocoa(i can see big experience, differences here, easy to see why this didn't happen)
My wrong view point, was Burley who was a welter, just like ray was fighting much bigger men than him, at a time.
Guys like bivins, moore, charles.
Yet ray didn't, which is where i made my mistake of assuming he should of...but he did have all the marketing leverage,
so why would he want to take that chance.
Is it wrong to think, less of him, if you look at it from the point of veiw, that others did face larger men and may have streched more out of their skills, for being forced to do it the hard way. That's kind of how i see, not taking real risks, like ray didn't may have hampered him. He was really great, but could he have really been much better, if he took the hard road? That's REALLY what makes me think, he would (fall short) in a tough fight with a real hellbent buzzsaw.(who those guys are, im still learning) Seems a fair question.
#2 Is holman Williams a real stiff?
I had him on par with lamotta, am i way off?
#3 I really do think kid gavilin MAY have been overrated.
I had him on par with an underrated marty Servo.
am i way off?
you don't need to tell if i'm right or wrong, just if i'm boardering on insanity, thats all.
Gavilin is the one guy i couldnt figure why was so high on people lists.
I think an old school guy like the demon joe walcott, would
really inflict a real beating.
Thanks for all you time Hawk.
Maybe tko11, is right, you can't tell everthing from the internet, i see long list of fights on the internet, yet i have no spare money, can't afford expensive pay per view.(although, my dads freind tapes a lot of them)
But it's not like i'm a novice, i had opinions developed for many years, i knew of joe walcott was went i was 11.
Our library has lots of books.
and i know who charley mitchell is (the lightest man to fight for the title at 158lbs).
I'm sorry i sent tko11, off the deep end!
He sounded pissed.
But if you looked on the interenet, more, you'd know Dixie kid
fought in the 20's not the 40's.
Sorry to be a jackass, tko11, but you said it, not me!
your thinking cocoa kid, i know that! Sorry Anyway.
still fond of you, even though you may not be.

Benny the kid
02-07-2006, 01:52 AM
I forgot the most important thing...
Ramblin on.
Could Teddy Yarosz had been, a canditidate, early in rays career and could Cerdan have been one late? Maybe?

02-07-2006, 07:55 AM
Having trawled through Hawks impressive time/weight line of possible SRR opponents - and Benny's response to the same - I would just like to point out that although Burley is listed as 'middleweight' and was mostly fighting in that division, he was weighing around 151-155 and was able - he claimed - able to get down to 147 for a title fight if required.

One of the reasons he was fighting at the higher weight was that Zivic had bought out his contract and he had no hope of a welterweight fight while Fritzie was champion or looking to get a title shot himself.

Burley's weight often fluctuated depending on whom he was fighting and he probably would have preferred to stay in the lighter division for longer as he had serious hand trouble and often struggled to punch with his full power against naturally bigger men. Of course as time passed and he matured naturally the 147 limit would have been too much.

As for politics, I think Chuck has it - (though he has read my book on Burley). Burley was brought up in rough coal-mining towns and was but a boy when his father died. Being the only male in a family of seven he had a moral responsibility to his family and worked accordingly. His mother (and earlier his father), instilled a strong work-ethic into young Charley and this never left him.

He also had an extremely strong notion of self-worth and did not suffer fools, sycophants or hangers on. He knew what he wanted and knew what he was worth. He may not have had the 'showbiz' personality of a Sugar Ray Robinson, but he was infinately more respected as a fighter and as a man - even if his 'attitude' didn't suit everyone.

CharleyBurley.com (http://CharleyBurley.com)

02-07-2006, 12:50 PM
Interested to see if there were any different points of views regarding the conclusions I came to regarding who was and wasn't a possible/probable opponent as I summed up after each year between 40-52.

And I would like to apologize for any errors or omissions made by me re the weight/time line. My eyes were going batty by the end. You always seem to catch the obvious flubs....AFTER you post something lengthy like that.

I do admit, that essentially the only tool I used for this was Boxrec and a few other records books. The reason being for that, was I was trying to break down what posible matchusp were feasible, solely by using the same resource that Old School was referencing.

IE you can get a clearer picture and ultimately a different conclusion using the same exact resources. Now factoring other informational material, gives us an even clearer picture once you take into account econimics etc. etc. But I intentionally tried to limit that and focus only on the records, weights, primes and experience.

I'm very interested in hearing other interpretations of the same material.


Dan Gunter
02-07-2006, 03:41 PM
Impressive analysis, Hawk.

I am reminded of a great seminar on Herman Melville that I took when I was in graduate school at Southern Illinois University. The seminar was taught by Howard Webb, a very thoughtful professor. There were probably 12 or 15 of us in the class, a bunch of English lit type smarties. Webb taught by directing us to a passage in whatever text we were reading and then asking one of us to comment on that passage. Usually he'd say something like, "What do you make of this passage, Mr. Gunter?"

We were all used to vaporing on about what we saw in the things we read: literary analysis as Rorschach test. But whenever anyone got a bit "creative" in an analysis in the Melville seminar, Webb would ask, "Where do you see that in the text?"

I learned a lot from that. Webb respected differing opinions--provided that they were supported by the text. We (or at least some of us . . .) learned that our interpretations had to be grounded in what was on the page in front of us.

Same thing here: there is room for alternate opinions about the various fighters discussed here--even about SRR. Hawk has done an admirable job of showing how to ground such opinions in good, verifiable data. There's still room for differing opinions--but opinions based on this approach are informed opinions.

Steve McV
02-07-2006, 03:58 PM
Bravo, Mr. Gunter!

One should always be willing to say where opinions begin. I've posted the sources for my opinions and my experiences with boxing, just to let people know where I'm coming from.

And I must add, somewhat off the topic of boxing, that a good teacher is worth his/her weight in gold. Of course, come to think, a good teacher of boxing literally might be worth his/her weight in gold, if it leads to a big enough pay day!