Robinson vs. Leonard to claim

[ultimo]

the name sugar ray. there can only be one.

I was talking to a friend of mine today about the merits of Leonard. he said yeah but he could have never stood up to the first sugar ray. I said no you're wrong! then I brought up but leonard took on both Duran and hernz and if that wasn't enough, hagler.

but he overcame with his even vaster knowledge of fisticanery going down the line with one robinson victim after another. Talk about blowouts.

I reluctantly walked away with my head bowed in defeat.

tell me people: isn't it possible that leonard could pull off an upset? If only had had more of a punch. if only he beat Terry Norris it would solidify his position as an all time great.

I didn't see much of robinson except after 1950 when he was already old. it's hard to tell that much about him. I get the feeling he would outgut leonard and hit a little too hard for him.

Roy Jones? Now that's another matter.

[wpink]

Ultimo, you know very little about boxing and it is easy very easy to defeat you in any arguement. If you ever even thought that Leonard was superior to Robinson you need to be shot, Leonard would tell you that himself.

Every single board your on you seem to say the most far fetched things. Who has Roy beaten that makes you think he would even stand up to a Robinson, much less sign the fight.

You rant and rave about the newest fighters as if the newer the betters. You say Leonard was better than Robinson, norris better than Leonard, Roy Jones better than them all. Are you starting to get your fallicy.

Both deserve the name as both were true all time legends. My favorite was Leonard because he got me into boxing during the olympics. I nor nobody else ever saw speed like that, no norris never had speed like leonard had in the 76 Olympics. Roy Jones was fast, but not like Leonard was in the 76 Olmpics. However, I will give Roy this, once Leonard became a professional and Dundee taught him the difference from punching in the amateurs to punching in the pros, he did slow down a tad bit up to 82. Roy was blazing fast, I mean blazing. To me he was the fast ever. However Ultimo fastest DOES NOT mean the best. It is a single attribute. Chin, quality of opposition, power, longivity, defense, combintations, heart.

Once you add all this up, Ray Robinson who lost only once in his first 100 or so fights, never ko'd except for by the heat, beat legend after legend, was the greatest welter of all time, was the greatest middle of all time. Hell he lost some fights at middle after a late age,,Hmmm much after the age of 34, and came back to avenge these losses. Look up Robinson, before you compare him to a fighter who has simply amazing skills, but no chin, no heart, no quality resume at least comparable to Leonard or Jones.

Ultimo have you ever sensed that when you say certain things and your the only person in the universe that thinks the way you think, that quite possibley you have a lot to learn. Hmmmmm? Not to sound rude, but when you repeatedly get on here and discredit fighters that were boxing, and give credit to one hit wonders like norris who beat a shot fighter, and try your hardest to convince people he beat him at his best, but no one yet has agreed with you, or on here you even mention that you argued with someone that Leonard (who i know eveything about, and probably am his number one fan) is better than Robinson. Well that right there shows that any discussion with you will not be a quality one, unless. the key here is unless your willing to accept what the world considered is accepted norms...and apply reasonable logic and then reevaluate your judging of fighters. Then if we all are able to to do, then debate becomes even better. I am not saying change your mind if you have logical and factual support to back you your statments but when you say norris could beat a prime leonard, or leonard is better than Robinson, or that roy is on another planet than robinson and leonard..well. Wow.


Hmmm im wondering...in your opinion beating James Toney, then Bernard Hopkins who ( can you go on Box rec and name one tope middleweight that hopkins ever beat, that was not a blown up welter, and that should be right down your alley of thinking since you discredit duran at welter since he was a lightweight before..ohh by the way so was dlh) ....Name another fighter that was great and in thier prime...IN THEIR PRIME....you can not. And also before you rant and rave that Roy beat a heayyweight champion tooo,,, explain to us the quality of this champion Ruiz..when you begin to mention him, also bring up how he won and mantained the title, and about his 19 sec ko loss, and about his trilogy with a 40 year old Holyfield..then also make sure you dont fail to mention that this heavyweight champion was betten by another middleweight also named Toney, and that the actual champion of the world was Lewis, and any other top fighter that get accolades for moving up and beating a great in a higher division actually beats the true champ not the weakest link.

I know your thought process ultimo, so before you give one sided, un supported claims to greatness by Roy over Robinson and leoanrd, realize that the excepted rankings by most of the boxing world outside of your dreamland has roy no where near the top, while Robinson is accepted as the greatest fighter ever and leonard soomewhere in the top 20. You have to start looking at everything including substance, quality of wins, etc...Not just the flash.

Remember you can think what ever you would like, as these are only opininons, but just accept the fact that when you say crazy things you will be viewed as one with no credibility and the very reason most get on here, spend their time to debate and go back and forth is because you would like to make your opinion known and accepted as somewhat credible. You much realize from board to board that this is not the case with your statements.

[apollack]

I think this fight would be a pickem, an absolutely beautiful match between two highly skilled, very fast, very determined fighters. I have no pick, but I'd sure pay big bucks to see it.

[ultimo]

I know that. both had the name of sugar in thier own time but if they were both fighting at the same time in the same division for who got to keep that name. that's what i'm talking about.

Pink you seem to think the competition makes the man. I think your competition doesn't make you what you are. it's your talent and the execution of your fight plan devised by your trainers.

A classic case to prove you wrong is Foreman and Frazier. Frazier had all the major wins and all the publicity. Foreman had nobody except for Chuvalo. But based on actual contest you have to say George was the better man. That's just one example of someone that went on to beat a more established champion.

George should have lost according to your point of view. but not according to mine. My view says talent and skill over competition because as you saw with Hopkins, no amount of experience could ever make up for his shortfall in talent to Roy Jones.

i try to argue with my friend "but what about Leonard's wins?" it didn't work though because he didn't win the big one against Norris. a win over Norris would have put him over the top I think. because Norris went on to become one of the greats with wins over the top fighters of the 80's and the blazing fast Taylor. He had an easy time with Taylor even with all that hand speed-probably more than Ray Leonard.

And Norris was the first prototype of the Roy Jones fighting machine to come along, Mayweather the latest.

in fact i don't know how you could knock Roy's chin. he went down once in 15years before his decline. like my good friend hawkins mentioned, it was comparable to when Bob Foster was knocked off by a couple of goons named wassaja and hazleton at 34. but that was after his decline.

My man Roy showed heart against Tarver gutting out the win to prove that at only half his old self he was still better than those tarver types. Roy only went down once before that when he was hit the perfect shot by del valle but he showed incredible heart when he went on to get the decision. In fact, he pitched a shot out except for that kd.

Leonard was always going down or getting hurt. he almost retired after fighting willie freball redriguez. he even said so. and then he retired after getting floored by kevin howard which proves he wasn't that tough because who retires because they got floored in a fight??

that's why i said Leonard was one of the best fighters of the 80's but not the best. he would have been the best had he beat Hagler four or five years earlier, hernz in a 1984 rematch, Julian Jackson, Mike McCallum, Aaron Pryor, Donald Curry, Lloyd honeghan, Micheal Nunn, and then terry Norris. that would have put him over the top against Robinson and on the same level as Roy Jones I think.

[walshb]

Ultimo, what do you mean he would have been the best if he had of beat this guy and that guy. That's crap talk, so who was the best and whoever you say I will say NO, because he didn't beat this guy or that guy. Fact is Ray was in the top 3 fighters of the 80's and my vote for the best welter. Hagler was the best middle blah blah blah. Julian Jackson and Pryor though great were not good enough to beat Ray. There really is no pleasing you!!!!

[ultimo]

Ultimo, what do you mean he would have been the best if he had of beat this guy and that guy. That's crap talk, so who was the best and whoever you say I will say NO, because he didn't beat this guy or that guy. Fact is Ray was in the top 3 fighters of the 80's and my vote for the best welter. Hagler was the best middle blah blah blah. Julian Jackson and Pryor though great were not good enough to beat Ray. There really is no pleasing you!!!!

we all know he could have faced off with Julian, the pride of the Virgin Islands. But instead he opted for Donny Lalonde and Thomas Hernz.

???For what?!? After Hagler he should have been defending his title against Nunn, McCallum, and Jackson. Isn't that what champions do? Hagler used to do that all the time against #1 contenders. Why should leonard be any different.

As a paying customer, i want to watch only quality fights against the best the sport has to offer, not against anonymities like lalonde and busted up fighters like Hernz?

Wasn't the hagler fight bad enuff? Hadn't we grown tired of watching this type of bs fight? Ray could have done better with his selection of opponents. But instead followed it up with Duran #3. I thought not another one!

But when he signed to fight El terrible terry, the world was finally getting some badly needed new blood. I was elated after all these years to watch leonard with a live opponent to see how he tested against younger, faster breed. as I suspected, the lack of speed by Ray's previous 4 opponents was the main element that led to their defeat just as terry's speed was responsible for leonard's defeat.

still, i don't believe Ray was at his very best for Terry. a younger ray would have still lost but not like that.

[wpink]

Ultimo, you continously contradict yourself then, forgot what you said earlier and then twist it into some unknowledgable post again and again. Prev you said leonard was at his best when he fought hagler, Duran, Hearns,, now you say leonard vs duran was bs, and now you point out that norris was a younger faster fighter age 23 when they fought.

Hmmmm I wonder if your delusional or something. One thing your correct about, Ray's opponents when he came back did lack speed because THEY WERE OLD, as was Ray, which causes you to slow down. I guess in your eyes everyone slows down but not Ray.

Finally you admit that Ray was not at his very best for Norris, hmmm I guess somethign that every other person in the world has been telling you has gotten thru to you. Pretty soon you will realize that norris was never and will never be regarded as half the fighter as Leonard was.

[Crold1]

Has Gor checked IP's to see if Ultimo is really CherryPopperz or one of the other spam asses he's banned in the past?

[ultimo]

Has Gor checked IP's to see if Ultimo is really CherryPopperz or one of the other spam asses he's banned in the past?

Sir please. You are making accusations without knowing the facts. The only problem you should be having is a difference of opinion. lets not make a federal case out of it.

[ultimo]

Ultimo, you continously contradict yourself then, forgot what you said earlier and then twist it into some unknowledgable post again and again. Prev you said leonard was at his best when he fought hagler, Duran, Hearns,, now you say leonard vs duran was bs, and now you point out that norris was a younger faster fighter age 23 when they fought.

Hmmmm I wonder if your delusional or something. One thing your correct about, Ray's opponents when he came back did lack speed because THEY WERE OLD, as was Ray, which causes you to slow down. I guess in your eyes everyone slows down but not Ray.

Finally you admit that Ray was not at his very best for Norris, hmmm I guess somethign that every other person in the world has been telling you has gotten thru to you. Pretty soon you will realize that norris was never and will never be regarded as half the fighter as Leonard was.

No Pink. it's a matter of styles that would lead to his downfall off of what I saw in the first Hernz fight.

In 1991, Leonard was past his prime but just a little. However, in a match against another with reazor sharp reflexes, being off by even a little can lead to disasterous results. Still, Leonard was hardly marciano in the ring and the question must be asked how would leonard have dealt with a moving target like Norris?

He wouldn't. Norris by dec.

I think leonard would have fared better with Robinson because he was a bit more stationary. he wouldn't have had to go looking for him as much.

[apollack]

Leonard was utterly shot when he boxed Norris. He was a goner even after Hagler, but was smart to fight other old fighters (Hearns and Duran) and one so-so guy - Lalonde. As soon as he fought a live young guy in Norris, he got exposed for an old man. But let's be real, the Norris fight is utterly meaningless.

[ultimo]

Leonard was utterly shot when he boxed Norris. He was a goner even after Hagler, but was smart to fight other old fighters (Hearns and Duran) and one so-so guy - Lalonde. As soon as he fought a live young guy in Norris, he got exposed for an old man. But let's be real, the Norris fight is utterly meaningless.

i see what you're saying even if I don't completely agree with it but if ray were going to make a comeback wouldn't it have made sense to do it while he were a few younger and when everyone including himself, Hagler, and Hernz-none of them were shot? because marvin and tommy looked shot in comparison with ray. don't ask me how but they did.

the way i recall it, they both asked him for a match and he flatly refused for some reason.

[wpink]

apollack you along with everyone else in the world understands that Leonard was shot when he faced norris. I again have problems understanding the post by ultimo. You post in one case that leonard was at his peak, then later that he was on his downfall, you post in one case that norris was better than leonard, then that leonard was better than robinson, so are you saying in your logic that norris was better than Robinson!!

Heanrs and Hagler both asked Leonard for a rematch..hmmmmmm think about what your non knowing about bosxing self, just posted. Hagler did ask for a rematch, and Leonard did refuse or make weak responses as to why he didnt rematch, but in that case you simply can not detract from Ray his Victory vs Hagler inside the ring. Where your flat out crazy, is the hearns fight was a rematch!!!!!!!!! So what you want to subject the world to Leonard Hearns III. whem they both were clearly beyound their peak years? You said in one post that the world had to sit through Leonard- Duran IIIl now on here you say Leonard should have fought Hearns a 3rd time. \

Finally one other analogy of your ridiculous posts. You say that Leonard-Duran II is not credible and that Duran was not in shape for the fight. Hmmmmm any hater can say these things after a fight is over to try to discredit a victory from a figher that beats their favorite or discredit a fighter they do not like. I wonder do you have footage of Duran pre the New Orleans fitght, I dont think it is on YouTube. I do have this footage. In ever interview et, Diuran and his handlers said that Duran was in the best shape ever. Hmmmm Didn't Duran have to get down to 135 for 71 fights as a professional, and had the same in between fights issue. Since Duran now only had to get to 147 hmmmmmm help me understand how and why fans and people like you who research reasoms to distract Leonard. One thing I think you should realize. Duran was 29, and 5 months ealier he was considered to be in peak form. Part of being a professional fighter is that when you get in the ring or weigh in, you have certain espectations to reach, therefor your lame excuses mean nothing. Duran was in peak condidtion, and simply Leonard's different boxing style was the cause for Duran's frusteration. Since your such a great fan of the sport, go back and research the 1st fight in the rounds 5-7 when leoanard boxed duran and kept him in the middle of the ring (rounds where every judge gave to leonard) then tell me that I guess duran was not in shape for those rouns, or not focused or whatever excuse. Duran simpy won the 1st fight, and leonad won the 2nd fight. You try to say norris beat a prime leonard whe he was not fighting for 7 out of 9 years at age 34 and ray had moved up to 162 then down to 154...but you want to say on the other hand duran was not prime at age 29,or that he was out of shape......What your doing is make excuses for all of Leoanrds victorys's. That is a lot of excuses why he beat Benitex, why he beat duran, why he beat hearns, why he beat hagler.


Ultimo, so why did norris get knocked out by Brown and by Jackson, and beaten by Kelley all during his prime. Hmmm lot of ands.,,,knocked by him AND, HIM AND him..Enough said.

[walshb]

we all know he could have faced off with Julian, the pride of the Virgin Islands. But instead he opted for Donny Lalonde and Thomas Hernz.

???For what?!? After Hagler he should have been defending his title against Nunn, McCallum, and Jackson. Isn't that what champions do? Hagler used to do that all the time against #1 contenders. Why should leonard be any different.

As a paying customer, i want to watch only quality fights against the best the sport has to offer, not against anonymities like lalonde and busted up fighters like Hernz?

Wasn't the hagler fight bad enuff? Hadn't we grown tired of watching this type of bs fight? Ray could have done better with his selection of opponents. But instead followed it up with Duran #3. I thought not another one!

But when he signed to fight El terrible terry, the world was finally getting some badly needed new blood. I was elated after all these years to watch leonard with a live opponent to see how he tested against younger, faster breed. as I suspected, the lack of speed by Ray's previous 4 opponents was the main element that led to their defeat just as terry's speed was responsible for leonard's defeat.

still, i don't believe Ray was at his very best for Terry. a younger ray would have still lost but not like that.

To be honest Ultimo, as much as a fan of Leonard I am, I do not rate his career after 1987. It was all well protected and the belts he won mean nothing against Lalonde and Duran 3. So I agree with you that yes he should have been facing the cream, but who can blame him taking the easy option. It is the toughest sport in the world and make as much money as you can with the least effort possible. It's his career from the start of the decade and at his best, he was the top fighter of the decade. Nobody would have touched him at Welter or JM at his peak in these early years, disregarding Duran 1.

[ultimo]

To be honest Ultimo, as much as a fan of Leonard I am, I do not rate his career after 1987. It was all well protected and the belts he won mean nothing against Lalonde and Duran 3. So I agree with you that yes he should have been facing the cream, but who can blame him taking the easy option. It is the toughest sport in the world and make as much money as you can with the least effort possible. It's his career from the start of the decade and at his best, he was the top fighter of the decade. Nobody would have touched him at Welter or JM at his peak in these early years, disregarding Duran 1.

I do rank leonard highly at welter but unlike you i don't discount the loss to duran. why would I? that would be painting an innacurate picture of him and besides, it shows he was beatable. It's interesting that people include the hagler fight but don't want to count the Norris fight because it puts him at a lesser status.

I includethe norris fight because I prefer to see the entire picture. I wonder "why did he take that fight with hagler so late when this match made much more sense years earlier"?

Because of the duran loss and the fact he almost lost to hernz, you cant just proclaim that no one would have touched ray in two divisions. ray only had one fight at 154 and looked average. and if you count the hagler fight, how do you explain that performance against howard? that raises a big question mark in my mind.

I'm not saying leonard would have lost mind you, I just wouldn't be as confident especially if money was on the line.

The hernz fight also came too late.

Pink says that hernz rematch was good enough. But he doesn't seem to have noticed that hernz had been knocked out again by Iran and ignores the performance in the kinchen fight. yet he suddenly becomes all too sensitive, almost imagining things when it comes to leonard.

From what i saw on youtube, hernz was at his strongest, fastest at least 4 years before. they show it all the time on there.

he absolutely will not acknowledge fight three with duran where leonard was up on his toes for most of the fight. so how could ray be shot?

hernz being shot i could see. hagler i could also see. but ray had most of what he had had been preserved and that he just ran into the wrong guy. It's the same problem with other great champs like Tyson and Frazier. they tell me Frazier was over the hill, etc. I think there is some truth to all this but its hard to say exactly.

with Joe, i heard he had been hospitalized so who knows what happened in two years. Still, he looked like he was in top form before he took on big George. They say Iron Mike had been floored with Page in sparring before the fight with Douglas even tho he blew out some guy just before that.

So who knows? I can't completely discount that leonard, Tyson, and smoking joe had some kind of vulnerability that wasn't apparent.

All I look at is what they did in their last fight.

[sweet_scientist]

the name sugar ray. there can only be one.

I was talking to a friend of mine today about the merits of Leonard. he said yeah but he could have never stood up to the first sugar ray. I said no you're wrong! then I brought up but leonard took on both Duran and hernz and if that wasn't enough, hagler.

but he overcame with his even vaster knowledge of fisticanery going down the line with one robinson victim after another. Talk about blowouts.

I reluctantly walked away with my head bowed in defeat.

I feel for you mate, you must have been devastated to lose that argument.

[kikibalt]

[starlingstomp]

A pity Leonard's Barbershop Quartet look did not catch on.

[raylawpc]

A pity Leonard's Barbershop Quartet look did not catch on.

LOL!!!

[mike 5150]

Both were great. But there is no way Robinson could have fought in the more modern era for over 20 years, and could have continued to win one fight after another. This isn't the heavyweight division where virtually everybody's slow anyway. The divisions below heavy are built for speed. And there is no way some guy in his late 30s or early 40s could dominate a lower weight class today. Especially fighting several times a year. Maybe fighting once a year and gearing for one big fight. But not repeatedly. Did you ever notice that even in his later years he still had a decided speed advantage over his opponents? That's not natural in the lower weight classes when your that old. Ali still had a speed advantage on his opponents in later years. But it wasn't the huge gap that it was earlier in his career. Imagine Mayweather 10 years from now still much faster than his opponents. Wouldn't you think something was up? I'm not trying to knock Robinson. But I think it's more of an indictment of his opposition. Some were great fighters. But anyone who ever even looked remotely good against him gets hailed as an alltime great. He basically created legends. If you just looked good in there with him, your image was made. He had a huge record, sure. But you don't think Leonard couldn't have done the same thing back then? I do. There's no way Graziano, Lamotta, Turpin, Olson or anyone else that Robinson fought, Leonard wouldn't have looked equally as good against. He would have looked awesome to against slow moving guys that lacked a punch. It doesn't matter that Robinson had a much better record and dominated his time more that Leonard dominated his. This is about who would have beat who. Robinson was no faster than Leonard. That's how he won, speed. Robinson didn't hit as close to as hard as Hearns or Hagler. Neither of those guys knocked him out. Speed even, and he doesn't hit nearly as hard as some Leonard fought. Leonard had the will to win like Ali. So how does Robinson beat him without the speed advantage or the power to knock him out? He doesn't. If he had come along in 30 or 40 years there is no way he could have fought that long and effectively.

[PeteLeo]

Wow, how did we ever get along on this site before you, guy? And here's me thinking that Robinson was one of the hardest-hitting pound for pound men to ever step into the ring, surely as hard-hitting as Hector Camacho, Terry Norris, or Kevin Howard.

But, since we've now been informed that Graziano and Turpin had no power, Dempsey would have been killed by Foreman's first punch, Tyson never quit on his ass (Kevin McBride-Kevin McBride-Kevin McBride), Sullivan was an old, fat, white slob who threw punches like an arthritic robot (I want to see the films that revealed this tidbit to you), and no natural middleweight of today could ever compete with real heavyweights (so just stop pretending that you could, Jones and Toney), I suppose we might as well simply wipe the "Old-Timers" section from the slate, as they all sucked donkey balls.

Glad that's cleared up. PeteLeo.

[TKO11]

"there is no way some guy in his late 30s or early 40s could dominate a lower weight class today"

Wasn't there some cat named Hopkins recently? I seem to recall.....


"Did you ever notice that even in his later years he still had a decided speed advantage over his opponents? That's not natural in the lower weight classes when your that old"

Um... Ray maintained his speed advanatge because he was always so fast. As far as "not natural", that's why we don't call him a run-of-the-mill fighter. He was the best ever.


"I'm not trying to knock Robinson. But I think it's more of an indictment of his opposition"

Yeah, the 20 or so HOFers he fought sucked. Mayweather has much more on his resume with Judah, Corrales and Castillo (who beat him).


"There's no way Graziano, Lamotta, Turpin, Olson..... slow moving guys that lacked a punch."

Good God.


"Robinson didn't hit as close to as hard as Hearns or Hagler."

Hearns, I'll agree. P4P, there aren't many that hot as hard as Hearns. Hags? Robbie hit every bit as hard. And while very laterally mobile, which saps the oomph on your shots.


I'm with Pete here. Insulting the true greats, even in favor of another great (Leonard) won't win you any friends around here.

[wpink]

We will never know, and I have not seen that much footage if any of Ray Robinson at Welter. However, the footage I did see, the speed and power, and the chin and jaw,,,combined with the record, and frequency of fights...I have to lean towards Robinson over my favorite.

Leonard simply never got to fight during the years he would have been at his physical best. Remember he beat hears at the age of 25 then sat out for the most part of ages 26-31....These are the years that most fighters are at their physical and mental peaks combined. All the legendary clashes we saw of Ray L. were either before this or after this. IMO believe that short of fighting Hearns at Jr. Middleweight, he would have went on to beat Pryor, then beaten Hagler at Middleweight (easily outpointing him). Then he would have fought and loss to Hearns at Jr. Middleweight, but came back and beaten Curry, and Honeyghan, before having a great tussle with McCallum.

As for Nunn and others coming up, I dont think Ray would have stuck around much after 5 years or so if he was active, and thus he would not have had to face Nunn at Middleweight. I think had he not retired we may have had Leonard going out with a 3rd fight vs Hearns at Jr. Middleweight around the year of 1987 or 1988. This is just my opinion. Thuse we could have even had a better group of fights to really compare Leonard to Robinson, but based off what we do have, we have to give the edged to Robinson in a Head to Head match up. However, Leonard would not be easily beaten, but I still go with Robinson at Welter, and Hearns at Jr Middleweight, and Roy at Middleweight at fighters that would be Ray leonard, simply because of matchup problems.

[raylawpc]

Hi mike 5150! Welcome to the board. I look forward to your contributions.

About Ray Robinson, I think you are dead wrong.

In a nutshell:

1. Record: 173-19-6 with 108 kayos (Robinson fought 40 professional bouts before he lost for the first time to Jake LaMotta; He did not lose again until his 132nd professional fight against Joey Maxim. The remaining 17 losses came toward the end of his career after he was no longer the greatest fighter on the planet, but merely a great fighter, and, finally just a very good fighter).

2. One-time world welterweight champion; 5-time world middleweight champion.

3. Has 12 IBHOFers on his record and defeated them all at least once except for two (Joey Maxim and Joey Giardello Hmmm . . . maybe he should have avoided guys named Joey? ).

[kikibalt]

Hi mike 5150! Welcome to the board. I look forward to your contributions.

About Ray Robinson, I think you are dead wrong.

In a nutshell:

1. Record: 173-19-6 with 108 kayos (Robinson fought 40 professional bouts before he lost for the first time to Jake LaMotta; He did not lose again until his 132nd professional fight against Joey Maxim. The remaining 17 losses came toward the end of his career after he was no longer the greatest fighter on the planet, but merely a great fighter, and, finally just a very good fighter).

2. One-time world welterweight champion; 5-time world middleweight champion.

3. Has 12 IBHOFers on his record and defeated them all at least once except for two (Joey Maxim and Joey Giardello).

I Agree with you tom

[raylawpc]

Thanks Frank. Coming from someone with your background in the game, that means a lot!

[mike 5150]

Hopkins at an older age didn't fight several times a year. He was one of those guys who sat around and geared up for that big fight each year. When I said that no middleweight today could step in the ring with a good heavyweight, I meant it. You did know the context I was talking about. I meant as is. I meant a guy only weighing 160 on fight night, taking on some world class 230 pound heavyweight. Not some guy taking several years to balloon up to heavyweight. If it's even a mediocre heavy taking on some guy weighing only 160, the 160 pounder gets killed. You know that. Decades ago it was nothing to hear of some true middleweight not putting on a pound, and stepping in the ring with some heavy who outweighed him by 40-60 pounds. It doesn't happen today because the fighters are simply better. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what would have happened if Dempsey met Foreman. Foreman was gigantic in comparsion, hit much harder and had an even better chin. Easy win. As for Sullivan. Yeah, your right no fight films just reading. But where did you see the film to conclude he was some great, in shape fighting machine. I didn't mean to slight Robinson. But you guys slight fighters all the time. Just in a more subtle way. I know Robinsons record and all about the Hall of Famers he beat. But I think someone would have gotten the point. People point out that some of the fighters that gave Ali trouble get hyped up for being better than they are. Why? Because when he got older was when these guys gave him trouble. So some people have doubted if a guy like Norton should be in the HOF. I didn't say it, but I've read it several times. Others that didn't make the HOF have gotten ridiculed a bit for supposedly being overrated, because they gave an older Ali problems. That's what I meant about some of those HOFers on Robinson's resume. If he fought some of them in his prime and destroyed them, would they be revered the way they are? Yes, his record was amazing, but that doesn't mean he beats Leonard. Didn't mean to make enemies here but I got annoyed. It was because of these hypothetical matchups. Leonard and Robinson type matchups are very believable. But some of the ones on this site defy logic. I got annoyed seeing people hype up fighters from 70 or 80 years ago, that would be at unbelievable disadvantages over more modern fighters and picking them to win. Don't believe me then check the one with Michael Grant vs. Fitzsimmons. They picked at 170 pd. guy to run through Grant. I know Grant sucks. But still he would have walked through Fitzsimmons. You and I know that. It was constant post like that got to me. People just being ridiculous. I will refrain from knocking on the alltime greats so much, if you guys stop picking fighters to win that you know would get destroyed. Also try not to get so ticked when someone picks against a giant like Ali or Robinson.

[Husker]

"You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what would have happened if Dempsey met Foreman. Foreman was gigantic in comparsion, hit much harder and had an even better chin. Easy win."

Jack Dempsey 6'1", 190 lbs.

George Foreman 6'3", 218 lbs.(vs. Joe Frazier KO2)

Poor Jack might get murdered. I have all-new respect for Evander Holyfield putting his life on the line weighing in at about 208-212 against Foreman at approx. 250-260.

[TKO11]

Add to that the fact that Dempsey at his best was a defnsive whiz with every punch in the book, not to mention quick as a cat. I did a lengthy breakdown on Dempsey/Foreman once and concluded that Jack would be connecting every time he saw Foreman load up. Not quick, not easy, but a systematic breakdown resulting in a KO win for Dempsey.

If little Mikey here had ANYTHING to argue other than "he was so much bigger" this wouldn't be a complete waste of time, right? Size means shit if the other tangibles (not to mention intangibles) are taken into account. Styles.

So mike - if you want to plead a case, everyone would welcome it. But tell WHY the size differential means something, not just that it does. 'Cause as Husker said in one thread, Valyuev would otherwise destroy every fight prior to him (except for Buster Douglas, post-title. 300 pounds at least).

[mike 5150]

Thanks for starting something again after I tried to apologize. Dempsey was in the 180 pd. range. Foreman may have only weighed 218, but no one who didn't know that would have believed it. They guy looks like he weighed alot more than that. And it was all muscle back then. For some reason weight does not matter as much to heavyweights as it does to the classes where you have to make weight. It's nothing to see a good 215 pound heavyweight walk through a good 260 pounder. I didn't claim to know the exact reason why weight matters. Ali and Robinson were evenly matched skill wise right? Difference was Robinsons best weights were between 147 and 160. Ali's weight fluctuated. Early days something close to 210, later days 220 plus. Now go out and ask the experts, you know people who train fighters for a living or boxing scribes, who would win head to head. None of this talk of Ray gaining weight, just as is. No brainer. You wouldn't find one credible boxing expert would tell you that Robinson at 160 could beat Ali at somewhere between 210 to 225. Holyfield was fighting a fat, out of shape old man. So no smart guy his life wasn't in peril. The bottom line is for some reason a big weight difference doesn't seem to matter as much to heavyweights, as it does to other weight classes. Barerra is a great fighter. For most of his career he was far more skilled than these bum heavyweights were used to seeing. According to your train of thought, since he was so far more more skilled, then he should easily be able to beat the best heavyweights in the world. I'm no Roy Jones fan. But even he realized he couldn't fight a decent heavyweight weighing only 160 or 178. Dempsey was no defensive wiz by the way. I think your assumption he would have beat Foreman is laughable. You guys say you welcome opinions. You do just as long as they back yours up. As soon as they don't let the crying begin. Fitzsimmons over Grant......ha, ha, ha.