View Full Version : Ali is greater than Robinson


Fiasco
03-17-2010, 10:48 PM
1) Ali beat the better fighters, when those fighters were in their primes.

2) You can pick more fighters to beat Robinson than you can for Ali, in fantasy fights.

3) Ali's speed is one of, if not the, best of all-time, on a P4P basis.

4) Ali's title reign was much better than that of Robinson's. He had a better world title record and (in my opinion) beat the better fighters.

The numbers in red are the ranking of the fighter in the "50 Greatest Fighters of All-Time" list by The Ring magazine.

The numbers in blue are the ranking of the fighter in the "The 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years" by The Ring magazine.

Robinson's record in world title fights: 14-7-1

Robinson's world title wins

Tommy Bell
Jimmy Doyle
Chuck Taylor
Bernard Docusen
Kid Gavilan
Charley Fusari
Jake LaMotta (#52 and #28)
Randy Turpin
Bobo Olson
Rocky Graziano
Gene Fullmer
Carmen Basilio (#40)

Ali's record in world title fights: 22-3

Ali's world title wins

Sonny Liston
Floyd Patterson
George Chuvalo
Henry Cooper
Brian London
Karl Mildenberger
Cleveland Williams
Ernie Terrell
Zora Folley
George Foreman (#25 and #20)
Chuck Wepner
Jean-Pierre Coopman
Jimmy Young
Richard Dunn
Ken Norton
Ron Lyle
Joe Bugner
Joe Frazier (#42 and #26)
Alfredo Evangelista
Earnie Shavers
Leon Spinks

HitmanHattonAY
03-17-2010, 11:06 PM
Ali was immense !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/muhammad-ali-291x300.jpg

The Beatles
03-17-2010, 11:20 PM
i would accept a case for any of these 2 greats to be considered the Greatest Ever.....

but you have to understand that Ali himself said that "P4P Sugar Ray Robinson is The Greatest of All TImes"......of course you can say he was being modest & humble

TBear
03-18-2010, 03:00 AM
Both were the greatest. Robinson beat a ton of greats in their prime though.

Jim Jeffries
03-18-2010, 03:29 AM
Ali got too many gifts decisions. Norton II and III, Jimmy Young, that's 3 too many right there. Top two HW, for sure, but not greater than SRR.

Dan...
03-18-2010, 03:41 AM
Ali got too many gifts decisions. Norton II and III, Jimmy Young, that's 3 too many right there. Top two HW, for sure, but not greater than SRR.

You recon those are gifts? I remember finding them very difficult to score, but I'm not sold on gifts.

The Beatles
03-18-2010, 04:18 AM
Ali got too many gifts decisions. Norton II and III, Jimmy Young, that's 3 too many right there. Top two HW, for sure, but not greater than SRR.

pffft.....total bull****e mate.....they were all close fights...do you even know what a gift decision is???

btw i gave Norton II, III and Jimmy Young all to Ali......close fights

Snopkins
03-18-2010, 12:05 PM
To me,Ali doesn't have an argument for being greater than robby.I would argue however that Ali's resume against elite black opposition was far greater than robbies,but so is every other great who didn't duck and avoid elite black opponents the way robby did.



I shall vote Ali just to upset the robby fanboys who think their hero was head and shoulders above every other fighter in this history of this sport.




You recon those are gifts? I remember finding them very difficult to score, but I'm not sold on gifts.



Not really.Ali won the rematch fairly decisively.Although,he really didn't deserve the decision against Young.You would have thought looking so poor against a mediocre talent like Young would have given Ali a kick up the backside and start acting like a professional athlete rather than impersonating one....but sadly,he continued to show up to the ring as a bloated up whale.

Bennett
03-18-2010, 12:51 PM
Ray would have beaten Ali if they were the same size.

The_Demon
03-18-2010, 01:08 PM
ray robinson

Jim Jeffries
03-18-2010, 01:15 PM
You recon those are gifts? I remember finding them very difficult to score, but I'm not sold on gifts.

Robbery is probably a bit too strong for the Norton fights. St Paddy's day yesterday, what can I say. Still too many questionable decisions to call the guy the greatest fighter that ever lived. I still have him as my greatest HW (with Louis a close second,) but that has traditionally been one of the weaker divisions, he has much greater competition for the top overall spot.

T3dBundy
03-18-2010, 01:26 PM
Ray would have beaten Ali if they were the same size.

who knows?
imagine how fast ali would move if he were a welterweight.
speedy gonzales would be nothing compared to that.

Bennett
03-18-2010, 02:16 PM
who knows?
imagine how fast ali would move if he were a welterweight.
speedy gonzales would be nothing compared to that.

ali never faced a fighter who could get down like ray did. ray's combination punching would really fucck ali up. a major reason ali looked so nice is because of his opposition. ray wouldnt lay down like liston did.

TheGreatA
03-18-2010, 02:37 PM
If we go by statistics then it's difficult to beat Robinson.

Borrowing from poster Obama to save myself the trouble:

Undefeated Amateur Featherweight Golden Gloves Champion
Undefeated Amateur Lightweight Golden Gloves Champion
Undefeated & Uncrowned Lightweight Champion
Undefeated Welterweight Champion
5 Time World Middleweight Champion
And Nearly the Light Heavyweight Champion


Amateur Career:


Overall, Robinson had an open record of 85-0, winning both the Featherweight and Lightweight Golden Gloves Championships in the process. 65 of the wins came by KO, 40 of which took place in the first round.


Lightweight Career:


You're probably asking yourself, “What Lightweight career?”. Although a brief one, Robinson did in fact have a substantial Lightweight career. He beat the NBA and soon to be World Lightweight Champion (Sammy Angott) after all, whilst maintaining a record of 21-0 with 18 KOs. His additional notable opponents included Pete Lello and Maxie Shapiro.


Welterweight Career:


As a Welterweight, Robinson was undefeated. Going against the likes of Fritzie Zivic, Henry Armstrong, and Kid Gavilan, this was an impressive feat. Counting Robinson's actual amount of Welterweight fights is rather tricky considering he often mixed it up with Middleweights as well. Nonetheless I have calculated that it was about 58 fights. He won them all without draws, and did so with no real controversial victories, the closest to controversy being the first fight with Kid Gavilan. It's also important to note that whilst still being a natural Welterweight, Robinson had beat Jake LaMotta 4 out of 5 times.


Middleweight Career:


Robinson's MW Record before becoming World Champion for the 1st time
*Includes his winning of the title
*Fighters in bold are notable

Wins:
Jake LaMotta (x5)
Vic Dellicurti (x3)
Lou Woods
Jose Basora
Jimmy Mandell
Tony Riccio
Freddie Flores (x2)
Freddie Wilson (x2)
Vinnie Vines
Artie Levine
Georgie Abrams
Eddie Finazzo
Ossie Harris (x2)
Henry Brimm (x2)
Don Lee (x2)
Earl Turner
Cecil Hudson (x2)
Steve Belloise
Charley Dodson
Aaron Wade
Cliff Beckett (x2)
Ray Barnes
Robert Villemain (x2)
Billy Brown
Joe Rindone
Bobo Olson
Jean Stock
Luc van Dam
Hans Stretz

Losses:
Jake LaMotta II

Draws:
Jose Basora
Henry Brimm

That's 43 Middleweight wins with only 1 loss and 2 draws upon winning the World Championship.


Robinson's MW Record from after winning the title for the 1st time to losing it for the last time
*Does not include his first winning of the title
*Does not include his last loss of the title
*Fighters in bold are notable

Wins:
Holley Mims
Don Ellis
Kid Marcel
Jean Wanes
Jan de Bruin
Jean Walzack
Gerhard Hecht (Although declared a NC, for all intensive purposes it's a win)
Cyrille Delannoit
Randy Turpin
Bobo Olson (x3)
Rocky Graziano
Joe Rindone
Johnny Lombardo
Ted Olla
Garth Panter
Rocky Castellani
Bob Provizzi
Gene Fullmer
Carmen Basilio
Bob Young

Losses:
Randy Turpin I
Joey Maxim
Ralph Jones
Gene Fullmer I
Carmen Basilio I


That's 22 Middleweight wins with 5 losses, but 1 was at LHW.

So lets do some math here, 46 + 26 = 72. Robinson essentially had 72 Middleweight fights before you could officially label him as washed up (when he finally lost his MW title for the last time). Of those 72 fights, he won 65, lost 5, and drew twice. One loss came in a fight where he was outweighed by 16 lbs, and three came after he returned from retirement. Randy Turpin's win over Robinson is perhaps the only really meaningful one. Yet when Turpin beat Robinson, Ray had already previously had 132 professional bouts. Everyone who beat Robinson, aside from Tiger Jones (who caught Robinson nearly just out of retirement), was a great fighter. The names on his resume speak for themselves, the man truly was the greatest.


Robinson's Unquantified-but-Detailed Complete Career Resume:

*Info below uses Ring Annual Ratings
*Hall of Famers in bold

Pete Lello (#3 LW – 1940)
Sammy Angott (#1 LW – 1940, LW Champ – 1941, #2 LW – 1943, #8 WW – 1945)
Maxie Shapiro (#8 LW – 1942)
Marty Servo [Undefeated] (WW Champ – 1946)
Fritzie Zivic (WW Champ – 1940, #3 WW – 1941, #8 WW 1942)
Maxie Berger (JWW Champ – 1939, #6 WW – 1940)
Norman Rubio (#10 WW – 1941)
Reuben Shank (#8 MW – 1943)
Tony Motisi (#9 WW – 1942)
Jake LaMotta (#6 MW – 1942, #1 MW – 1943, #2 MW – 1944, #3 MW – 1945, #1 MW – 1946)
(#5 MW – 1947, #3 MW – 1948, MW Champ – 1949 & 1950)
Izzy Janazzo (#2 WW – 1940, #8 WW – 1941 & 1943)
Vic Dellicurti (#10 MW – 1944)
Al Nettlow (couple close fights with Bob Montgomery, beat Maxie Berger)
California Jackie Wilson (#2 WW – 1941, #3 WW – 1942)
Ralph Zannelli (#5 WW – 1943, #4 WW – 1947)
Henry Armstrong (WW Champ – 1938 & 1939, #1 WW – 1940, #2 WW – 1942, #1 WW – 1944)
Sheik Rangel (#10 WW – 1942)
George Martin (beat Ralph Zannelli, Garvey Young, V. Vines, Pedro Montanez, Battling Battalino, Andy Callahan)
Tommy Bell (#1 WW – 1946, #2 WW – 1947)
George Costner (#5 WW – 1947, #2 WW – 1949)
Jimmy McDaniels (#4 WW – 1944)
O'Neill Bell (just beat George Costner, Jackie Wilson, and Fritzie Zivic back to back to back)
Joe Curcio (beat Fritzie Zivic, Cecil Hudson, and Johnny Green)
Vinnie Vines (beat Sam Baroudi and Jackie Alzek)
Ossie Harris (beat Tommy Bell, Reuben Shank, and Fritzie Zivic)
Cecil Hudson (beat Tommy Bell, Fritzie Zivic, Freddie Dixon, Ossie Harris, & Sheik Rangel)
Artie Levine (beat Jimmy Doyle, Marvin Bryant, Vic Dellicurti, Herbie Kronowitz, & Joe Agosta)
Georgie Abrams (#5 MW – 1946)
Jimmy Doyle (#2 WW – 1945, #7 WW – 1946)
Billy Nixon (beat Johnny Green, Buster Tyler, & Johnny Hutchinson)
Chuck Taylor (beat Frankie Abrams, Tony Pellone, and Honeychile Johnson)
Henry Brimm (beat Vic Dellicurti, Holman Williams, Joey DeJohn, Arte Towne, & Tony Elizondo)
Bernard Docusen (#3 WW – 1948 & 1949)
Kid Gavilan (#1 WW – 1948, 1949, 1950, & 1951, WW Champ – 1952 & 1953)
Bobby Lee (beat Livio Minelli, Billy Nixon, Nava Esparza, Dorsey Lay, Honeychile Johnson, Chico Varona, & Gene Burton)
Don Lee (beat Jimmy McDaniels, Vince Foster, Sheik Rangel, Joe Danos, Howard Bleyhl, Billy Tierney)
Earl Turner (beat Sheik Rangel, Fred Apostoli, Cecil Hudson, Cocoa Kid, Don Lee, Jackie Wilson, George Costner, George Duke, etc)
Steve Belloise (#2 MW – 1948, #5 MW – 1949)
Al Mobley (beat Fritzie Zivic, Georgie Benton, Honeychile Johnson, George Martin, Sylvester Perkins, Otis Graham, & Bert Linam)
Aaron Wade (#7 MW – 1945)
Ray Barnes (#7 MW – 1950)
Robert Villemain (#3 MW – 1949, #8 MW – 1950, #9 MW – 1951)
Charley Fusari (#3 WW – 1950, #8 WW – 1951)
Jose Basora (#4 MW – 1943 & 1944)
Joe Rindone (beat Ralph Zannelli, Paul Pender, Bob Murphy, Pierre Langlois, Joe Blackwood, Charley Zivic, & Henry Lee)
Bobo Olson (#3 MW – 1952, MW Champ – 1953 & 1954, #1 MW – 1955)
Bobby Dykes (#2 WW – 1952, #5 MW – 1953)
Jean Stock (beat Randy Turpin, Bobby Dawson, Omar Kouidri, Cyrille Delannoit, Robert Charron, Edouard Tenet)
Luc van Dam (beat Jean Stock, Cyrille Delannoit, Jacques Royer Crecy, Albert Finch, Bep van Klaveren, & Felix Wouters)
Hans Stretz (beat Randy Turpin, Jacques Royer Crecy, Al Mobley, Peter Mueller, Rudi Pepper)
(Carl Schmidt, Heinz Sanger, Alex Buxton, Johnny Sullivan, Franco Festucci)
Holley Mims (#8 MW – 1953, #3 MW – 1954, #6 MW – 1955)
Cyrille Delannoit (#5 MW – 1948)
Randy Turpin (#1 MW – 1951 & 1952, MW Champ – 1951)
Rocky Graziano (#3 MW – 1946, MW Champ – 1947, #10 MW – 1948 & 1951)
Garth Panter (beat Pierre Langlois, Walter Cartier, and Earl Turner)
Rocky Castellani (#1 MW – 1953, #2 MW – 1954, #5 MW – 1955)
Gene Fullmer (#1 MW – 1956, MW Champ – 1957, #2 MW – 1957 & 1958, #1 MW – 1959, 1960, 1961, & 1962)
Carmen Basilio (WW Champ – 1955 & 1956, MW Champ – 1957, #1 MW – 1958)
Denny Moyer (#9 MW – 1961, #6 MW – 1962, JMW Champ – 1963, #9 MW – 1968, #2 MW – 1969)
Ralph Dupas (#2 WW – 1961, #3 WW – 1962, #4 WW – 1963, JMW Champ – 1963)
Yoland Leveque (beat Bennie Briscoe, Jacques Marty, Art Hernandez, & Bo Hogberg)

TheGreatA
03-18-2010, 02:38 PM
Of course Ali had plenty of achievements too.

On film I'd argue that Robinson was the more complete fighter although Ali for a heavyweight was equally as talented.

Tuggers1986
03-18-2010, 02:43 PM
http://hitchwriter.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/joe_frazier_ali.jpg

T3dBundy
03-18-2010, 03:18 PM
http://hitchwriter.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/joe_frazier_ali.jpg

http://ibankcoin.com/jakegint/wp-content/imagescaler/99441b25c0262acaaea8a057a8fa5600.jpg

..

cameronpaul
03-18-2010, 04:17 PM
lol , best post , thats why i stand around saying sugar ray is head and heels above ali. ali in my opinion was over rated as a fighter and especialy late on in his career he relied on being super tough rather than being a talented fighter, (foreman, joe fraser, spinks)

and when people say ali would beat tyson prime vs prime, i persuade that if ali struggled with joe fraser who stays low/bob weaves/throws power hooks/ that mike tyson does all those things better than fraser and has a good right hand and uppercuts too. i cant see ali winning it more than 1 out of 5 fights if they fought over and over...and thats if his fighting like his cassius clay days.

iv got nothing personal with ali, in perspective i would rate him top 5 of all time, but can you see him beating a david tua/vitali klitchko/tyson/marciano/james toney....

Fiasco
03-18-2010, 06:23 PM
If we go by statistics then it's difficult to beat Robinson.

Borrowing from poster Obama to save myself the trouble:

Undefeated Amateur Featherweight Golden Gloves Champion
Undefeated Amateur Lightweight Golden Gloves Champion
Undefeated & Uncrowned Lightweight Champion
Undefeated Welterweight Champion
5 Time World Middleweight Champion
And Nearly the Light Heavyweight Champion


Amateur Career:


Overall, Robinson had an open record of 85-0, winning both the Featherweight and Lightweight Golden Gloves Championships in the process. 65 of the wins came by KO, 40 of which took place in the first round.
Amateur careers have nothing to do with how you're rated in your professional career.

Lightweight Career:

You're probably asking yourself, ***8220;What Lightweight career?***8221;. Although a brief one, Robinson did in fact have a substantial Lightweight career. He beat the NBA and soon to be World Lightweight Champion (Sammy Angott) after all, whilst maintaining a record of 21-0 with 18 KOs. His additional notable opponents included Pete Lello and Maxie Shapiro.
One good lightweight win. Next..

Welterweight Career:

As a Welterweight, Robinson was undefeated. Going against the likes of Fritzie Zivic, Henry Armstrong, and Kid Gavilan, this was an impressive feat. Counting Robinson's actual amount of Welterweight fights is rather tricky considering he often mixed it up with Middleweights as well. Nonetheless I have calculated that it was about 58 fights. He won them all without draws, and did so with no real controversial victories, the closest to controversy being the first fight with Kid Gavilan. It's also important to note that whilst still being a natural Welterweight, Robinson had beat Jake LaMotta 4 out of 5 times.
Should we choose to ignore the reality in which Zivic and Armstrong were past their best? Or do we give the likes of Joe Calzaghe full credit for beating Roy Jones and any of the club fighters Robinson lost to at the end of his career full credit?

I'll give you Gavilan and LaMotta (who's also slightly overrated).

Middleweight Career:

Robinson's MW Record before becoming World Champion for the 1st time
*Includes his winning of the title
*Fighters in bold are notable

Wins:
Jake LaMotta (x5)
Vic Dellicurti (x3)
Lou Woods
Jose Basora
Jimmy Mandell
Tony Riccio
Freddie Flores (x2)
Freddie Wilson (x2)
Vinnie Vines
Artie Levine
Georgie Abrams
Eddie Finazzo
Ossie Harris (x2)
Henry Brimm (x2)
Don Lee (x2)
Earl Turner
Cecil Hudson (x2)
Steve Belloise
Charley Dodson
Aaron Wade
Cliff Beckett (x2)
Ray Barnes
Robert Villemain (x2)
Billy Brown
Joe Rindone
Bobo Olson
Jean Stock
Luc van Dam
Hans Stretz

Losses:
Jake LaMotta II

Draws:
Jose Basora
Henry Brimm

That's 43 Middleweight wins with only 1 loss and 2 draws upon winning the World Championship.
When you're an elite fighter fighting average opposition, I'm sure you can gather up a lot of wins. How about we point to the important fights of his career, instead of men who only fought to put food onto the table?

Also, only one of them are considered to be great, and that's LaMotta. You know? The same LaMotta that was known for ballooning up in weight in between every fight.

Robinson's MW Record from after winning the title for the 1st time to losing it for the last time
*Does not include his first winning of the title
*Does not include his last loss of the title
*Fighters in bold are notable

Wins:
Holley Mims
Don Ellis
Kid Marcel
Jean Wanes
Jan de Bruin
Jean Walzack
Gerhard Hecht (Although declared a NC, for all intensive purposes it's a win)
Cyrille Delannoit
Randy Turpin
Bobo Olson (x3)
Rocky Graziano
Joe Rindone
Johnny Lombardo
Ted Olla
Garth Panter
Rocky Castellani
Bob Provizzi
Gene Fullmer
Carmen Basilio
Bob Young

Losses:
Randy Turpin I
Joey Maxim
Ralph Jones
Gene Fullmer I
Carmen Basilio I

That's 22 Middleweight wins with 5 losses, but 1 was at LHW.
Again.. we're looking for the important fights. Graziano, Olson, Fullmer, Basilio and Turpin.

So lets do some math here, 46 + 26 = 72. Robinson essentially had 72 Middleweight fights before you could officially label him as washed up (when he finally lost his MW title for the last time). Of those 72 fights, he won 65, lost 5, and drew twice. One loss came in a fight where he was outweighed by 16 lbs, and three came after he returned from retirement. Randy Turpin's win over Robinson is perhaps the only really meaningful one. Yet when Turpin beat Robinson, Ray had already previously had 132 professional bouts. Everyone who beat Robinson, aside from Tiger Jones (who caught Robinson nearly just out of retirement), was a great fighter. The names on his resume speak for themselves, the man truly was the greatest.


Robinson's Unquantified-but-Detailed Complete Career Resume:

*Info below uses Ring Annual Ratings
*Hall of Famers in bold

Pete Lello (#3 LW ***8211; 1940)
Sammy Angott (#1 LW ***8211; 1940, LW Champ ***8211; 1941, #2 LW ***8211; 1943, #8 WW ***8211; 1945)
Maxie Shapiro (#8 LW ***8211; 1942)
Marty Servo [Undefeated] (WW Champ ***8211; 1946)
Fritzie Zivic (WW Champ ***8211; 1940, #3 WW ***8211; 1941, #8 WW 1942)
Maxie Berger (JWW Champ ***8211; 1939, #6 WW ***8211; 1940)
Norman Rubio (#10 WW ***8211; 1941)
Reuben Shank (#8 MW ***8211; 1943)
Tony Motisi (#9 WW ***8211; 1942)
Jake LaMotta (#6 MW ***8211; 1942, #1 MW ***8211; 1943, #2 MW ***8211; 1944, #3 MW ***8211; 1945, #1 MW ***8211; 1946)
(#5 MW ***8211; 1947, #3 MW ***8211; 1948, MW Champ ***8211; 1949 & 1950)
Izzy Janazzo (#2 WW ***8211; 1940, #8 WW ***8211; 1941 & 1943)
Vic Dellicurti (#10 MW ***8211; 1944)
Al Nettlow (couple close fights with Bob Montgomery, beat Maxie Berger)
California Jackie Wilson (#2 WW ***8211; 1941, #3 WW ***8211; 1942)
Ralph Zannelli (#5 WW ***8211; 1943, #4 WW ***8211; 1947)
Henry Armstrong (WW Champ ***8211; 1938 & 1939, #1 WW ***8211; 1940, #2 WW ***8211; 1942, #1 WW ***8211; 1944)
Sheik Rangel (#10 WW ***8211; 1942)
George Martin (beat Ralph Zannelli, Garvey Young, V. Vines, Pedro Montanez, Battling Battalino, Andy Callahan)
Tommy Bell (#1 WW ***8211; 1946, #2 WW ***8211; 1947)
George Costner (#5 WW ***8211; 1947, #2 WW ***8211; 1949)
Jimmy McDaniels (#4 WW ***8211; 1944)
O'Neill Bell (just beat George Costner, Jackie Wilson, and Fritzie Zivic back to back to back)
Joe Curcio (beat Fritzie Zivic, Cecil Hudson, and Johnny Green)
Vinnie Vines (beat Sam Baroudi and Jackie Alzek)
Ossie Harris (beat Tommy Bell, Reuben Shank, and Fritzie Zivic)
Cecil Hudson (beat Tommy Bell, Fritzie Zivic, Freddie Dixon, Ossie Harris, & Sheik Rangel)
Artie Levine (beat Jimmy Doyle, Marvin Bryant, Vic Dellicurti, Herbie Kronowitz, & Joe Agosta)
Georgie Abrams (#5 MW ***8211; 1946)
Jimmy Doyle (#2 WW ***8211; 1945, #7 WW ***8211; 1946)
Billy Nixon (beat Johnny Green, Buster Tyler, & Johnny Hutchinson)
Chuck Taylor (beat Frankie Abrams, Tony Pellone, and Honeychile Johnson)
Henry Brimm (beat Vic Dellicurti, Holman Williams, Joey DeJohn, Arte Towne, & Tony Elizondo)
Bernard Docusen (#3 WW ***8211; 1948 & 1949)
Kid Gavilan (#1 WW ***8211; 1948, 1949, 1950, & 1951, WW Champ ***8211; 1952 & 1953)
Bobby Lee (beat Livio Minelli, Billy Nixon, Nava Esparza, Dorsey Lay, Honeychile Johnson, Chico Varona, & Gene Burton)
Don Lee (beat Jimmy McDaniels, Vince Foster, Sheik Rangel, Joe Danos, Howard Bleyhl, Billy Tierney)
Earl Turner (beat Sheik Rangel, Fred Apostoli, Cecil Hudson, Cocoa Kid, Don Lee, Jackie Wilson, George Costner, George Duke, etc)
Steve Belloise (#2 MW ***8211; 1948, #5 MW ***8211; 1949)
Al Mobley (beat Fritzie Zivic, Georgie Benton, Honeychile Johnson, George Martin, Sylvester Perkins, Otis Graham, & Bert Linam)
Aaron Wade (#7 MW ***8211; 1945)
Ray Barnes (#7 MW ***8211; 1950)
Robert Villemain (#3 MW ***8211; 1949, #8 MW ***8211; 1950, #9 MW ***8211; 1951)
Charley Fusari (#3 WW ***8211; 1950, #8 WW ***8211; 1951)
Jose Basora (#4 MW ***8211; 1943 & 1944)
Joe Rindone (beat Ralph Zannelli, Paul Pender, Bob Murphy, Pierre Langlois, Joe Blackwood, Charley Zivic, & Henry Lee)
Bobo Olson (#3 MW ***8211; 1952, MW Champ ***8211; 1953 & 1954, #1 MW ***8211; 1955)
Bobby Dykes (#2 WW ***8211; 1952, #5 MW ***8211; 1953)
Jean Stock (beat Randy Turpin, Bobby Dawson, Omar Kouidri, Cyrille Delannoit, Robert Charron, Edouard Tenet)
Luc van Dam (beat Jean Stock, Cyrille Delannoit, Jacques Royer Crecy, Albert Finch, Bep van Klaveren, & Felix Wouters)
Hans Stretz (beat Randy Turpin, Jacques Royer Crecy, Al Mobley, Peter Mueller, Rudi Pepper)
(Carl Schmidt, Heinz Sanger, Alex Buxton, Johnny Sullivan, Franco Festucci)
Holley Mims (#8 MW ***8211; 1953, #3 MW ***8211; 1954, #6 MW ***8211; 1955)
Cyrille Delannoit (#5 MW ***8211; 1948)
Randy Turpin (#1 MW ***8211; 1951 & 1952, MW Champ ***8211; 1951)
Rocky Graziano (#3 MW ***8211; 1946, MW Champ ***8211; 1947, #10 MW ***8211; 1948 & 1951)
Garth Panter (beat Pierre Langlois, Walter Cartier, and Earl Turner)
Rocky Castellani (#1 MW ***8211; 1953, #2 MW ***8211; 1954, #5 MW ***8211; 1955)
Gene Fullmer (#1 MW ***8211; 1956, MW Champ ***8211; 1957, #2 MW ***8211; 1957 & 1958, #1 MW ***8211; 1959, 1960, 1961, & 1962)
Carmen Basilio (WW Champ ***8211; 1955 & 1956, MW Champ ***8211; 1957, #1 MW ***8211; 1958)
Denny Moyer (#9 MW ***8211; 1961, #6 MW ***8211; 1962, JMW Champ ***8211; 1963, #9 MW ***8211; 1968, #2 MW ***8211; 1969)
Ralph Dupas (#2 WW ***8211; 1961, #3 WW ***8211; 1962, #4 WW ***8211; 1963, JMW Champ ***8211; 1963)
Yoland Leveque (beat Bennie Briscoe, Jacques Marty, Art Hernandez, & Bo Hogberg)
Okay.. now let us do the important math. Which elite prime fighters did Robinson beat?

Gavilan
LaMotta
Graziano
Fullmer
Basilio
Turpin
Olson
Angott

Now compare those 7 with the 7 most prime elite fighters on Ali's resume:

Foreman
Frazier
Liston
Patterson
Norton
Terrell
Ellis
Quarry

I think it's safe to say that, overall, the majority of the people on Ali's resume are better than the ones on Robinson's resume.

Also, quick question: did Robinson ever beat 2 of the hardest punchers in the history of his division, while being past his prime?

T3dBundy
03-18-2010, 06:47 PM
iv got nothing personal with ali, in perspective i would rate him top 5 of all time, but can you see him beating a david tua/vitali klitchko/tyson/marciano/james toney....

u r right, ali did beat any heavyweight he faced in the 60s and 70s by accident :D.

TheGreatA
03-18-2010, 08:23 PM
One good lightweight win. Next..

One very, very good lightweight win over a reigning champion and two wins over top ranked contenders.


Should we choose to ignore the reality in which Zivic and Armstrong were past their best? Or do we give the likes of Joe Calzaghe full credit for beating Roy Jones and any of the club fighters Robinson lost to at the end of his career full credit?

I'll give you Gavilan and LaMotta (who's also slightly overrated).

Zivic was not past his best, he had recently been the welterweight champion and only lost the title due to an unjust decision against 'Red' Cochrane, who also chose not to fight Ray Robinson. Robinson was one of the few men to ever stop Zivic. If not for the decision against Cochrane going against Fritzie, Robinson would have won the title from Zivic during his first year as a pro. Incredible.

http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-article/7719/second-god-war-sugar-ray-robinson/

Armstrong, while past his peak, was still the number 1 ranked welterweight contender with recent wins over Zivic, Angott, Zurita, Joyce, Larkin, Shapiro. Clearly this man was no push-over.

Neither Zivic or Armstrong were 40+ years old as Roy Jones and Robinson were. Armstrong was 30, Zivic was 28.

Robinson also faced plenty of other top welterweights such as Marty Servo (undefeated, future WW champ who didn't give Robinson a title shot), top ranked California Jackie Wilson, the talented "Sugar" George Costner, the tough Tommy Bell, the game Bernard Docusen which makes for a great welterweight resume. I'd argue that all of these men were every bit as good the likes of Quarry, Lyle, Shavers, maybe even better although less heralded.

When you're an elite fighter fighting average opposition, I'm sure you can gather up a lot of wins. How about we point to the important fights of his career, instead of men who only fought to put food onto the table?

Also, only one of them are considered to be great, and that's LaMotta. You know? The same LaMotta that was known for ballooning up in weight in between every fight.

What you're ignoring that many of those men were top ranked contenders, in Olson's case a world champion, and not tomato cans but the majority likely haven't heard of most of the names because it takes time to get into an era of which we do not have a lot of film about. I can say that Belloise, Basora, Villemain, Levine, Abrams out of the lot were very good, notable fighters. There were a couple of others who were top 10 ranked in the division.

Again.. we're looking for the important fights. Graziano, Olson, Fullmer, Basilio and Turpin.

Plenty of important fights there for a 30+ year old fighter.

Okay.. now let us do the important math. Which elite prime fighters did Robinson beat?

Gavilan
LaMotta
Graziano
Fullmer
Basilio
Turpin
Olson
Angott

Now compare those 7 with the 7 most prime elite fighters on Ali's resume:

Foreman
Frazier
Liston
Patterson
Norton
Terrell
Ellis
Quarry

I think it's safe to say that, overall, the majority of the people on Ali's resume are better than the ones on Robinson's resume.


I'd say that Gavilan is pound for pound the best fighter of either list. Zivic and Armstrong should be added to Robinson's list. Terrell, Ellis, Quarry were not elite in my opinion, neither were Olson, Turpin or Graziano although they were legitimate world champions unlike the former of whom Terrell and Ellis held partial titles.

Ali's opposition gets a boost simply for having fought Ali.

Foreman, Frazier, Liston are legitimately top 10 among all-time great heavyweights. Patterson and Norton are maybe top 25 at heavyweight.

Gavilan is a top 10 welterweight, Basilio arguably top 10 at welterweight, had middleweight accomplishments as well, LaMotta top 10 at middle, Fullmer top 20, Angott top 15 at lightweight. Robinson beat top ranked all-time fighters in their division across lightweight, welterweight and middleweight. That's quite an accomplishment.

Also, quick question: did Robinson ever beat 2 of the hardest punchers in the history of his division, while being past his prime?

Did Ali beat 3 hall of famers while in his late 30's? Did Ali have 200 fights? Did Ali have 4 more losses in 60 fights than Robinson did in 130? Did Ali go to the body and possess one punch KO power in both hands? Did or did not Ali say that Ray Robinson was the greatest pound for pound fighter of all time?

ILLuminato
03-18-2010, 08:56 PM
I completely agree that Ali is greater than Robinson. Ali beat Geroge Foreman and those other GREAT fighters. Jake Lamotta was not a GREAT ifghter.

T3dBundy
03-18-2010, 09:03 PM
Did Ali beat 3 hall of famers while in his late 30's? Did Ali have 200 fights? Did Ali have 4 more losses in 60 fights than Robinson did in 130? Did Ali go to the body and possess one punch KO power in both hands? Did or did not Ali say that Ray Robinson was the greatest pound for pound fighter of all time?


just because u have tons of fights - most of them not even on film - doesnt mean u r that much better.
also getting hit by killer punchers like sonny liston and foreman doesnt allow u to have a successfully career with tons of fights like robinson.

i really think if they were in the same weight class, head 2 head ali could beat him.
ali could have accomplish as much as ray did had he fought at the ww div. the same guys robinson did, maybe with a better record than 173-19.

u have to admit its harder for a heavyweight to be p4p best, u cant move up and down to face fighters in other weight classes as a heavyweight.
look at wladimir, dominating since years any1 he faced, but still is not even recognized as a top 5 p4p of today by some idiots.
they even question if he is a HOFer or not.

Fiasco
03-18-2010, 09:37 PM
Zivic was not past his best, he had recently been the welterweight champion and only lost the title due to an unjust decision against 'Red' Cochrane, who also chose not to fight Ray Robinson. Robinson was one of the few men to ever stop Zivic. If not for the decision against Cochrane going against Fritzie, Robinson would have won the title from Zivic during his first year as a pro. Incredible.
Zivic's career downfall, not long after, suggests that your theory is wrong.

Armstrong, while past his peak, was still the number 1 ranked welterweight contender with recent wins over Zivic, Angott, Zurita, Joyce, Larkin, Shapiro. Clearly this man was no push-over.

Neither Zivic or Armstrong were 40+ years old as Roy Jones and Robinson were. Armstrong was 30, Zivic was 28.
I thought a boxing historian would know that age has nothing to do with how good a fighter is. Fighters age differently.

Robinson also faced plenty of other top welterweights such as Marty Servo (undefeated, future WW champ who didn't give Robinson a title shot), top ranked California Jackie Wilson, the talented "Sugar" George Costner, the tough Tommy Bell, the game Bernard Docusen which makes for a great welterweight resume. I'd argue that all of these men were every bit as good the likes of Quarry, Lyle, Shavers, maybe even better although less heralded.
Go ahead and ask some other historians if they agree with you.

What you're ignoring that many of those men were top ranked contenders, in Olson's case a world champion, and not tomato cans but the majority likely haven't heard of most of the names because it takes time to get into an era of which we do not have a lot of film about. I can say that Belloise, Basora, Villemain, Levine, Abrams out of the lot were very good, notable fighters. There were a couple of others who were top 10 ranked in the division.

That fact is that they were contenders and/or journeymen and not in any elite position. You may think they're good second-rate fighters, but their accomplishments and records clearly suggest that they don't belong with the elites.

Plenty of important fights there for a 30+ year old fighter.
Yes, and Ali being over 30 and winning against the likes of Frazier, Norton and two of the hardest punchers in heavyweight history history in Foreman and Shavers is not a big deal, right?

I'd say that Gavilan is pound for pound the best fighter of either list. Zivic and Armstrong should be added to Robinson's list. Terrell, Ellis, Quarry were not elite in my opinion, neither were Olson, Turpin or Graziano although they were legitimate world champions unlike the former of whom Terrell and Ellis held partial titles.

Ali's opposition gets a boost simply for having fought Ali.

Foreman, Frazier, Liston are legitimately top 10 among all-time great heavyweights. Patterson and Norton are maybe top 25 at heavyweight.

Sorry, but as great a fighter as Gavilan was, he's not the best of either list. I think most people would agree with me.

Zivic and Armstrong weren't in their primes. If you wish to count past-prime fighters as full credited wins, you can leave me out of that.

Robinson beat top ranked all-time fighters in their division across lightweight, welterweight and middleweight. That's quite an accomplishment.

In case you didn't know, it's kind of hard for a natural heavyweight to win titles in more than one division.

Did Ali beat 3 hall of famers while in his late 30's? Did Ali have 200 fights? Did Ali have 4 more losses in 60 fights than Robinson did in 130?

Ali didn't have 200 hundred fights, because he didn't need to, in his time. Elite fighters in Ali's era and eras after made enough money by just fighting 2 or 3 times a year. And in those 2 or 3 fights a year, they face top opposition, rather than lightly regarded journeymen or club fighters.

And don't act like all of Robinson's 200 fights were against champions, hall of famers and top contenders.

Did Ali go to the body and possess one punch KO power in both hands?

Since when does a fighter's style make him better than another fighter? Tyson and Frazier went to the body. Are they greater than Ali?

Did or did not Ali say that Ray Robinson was the greatest pound for pound fighter of all time?

Robinson was Ali's idol. It's understandable that he would say that. And since when is everything Ali says 100% fact? It's an opinion.

TheGreatA
03-18-2010, 10:58 PM
Zivic's career downfall, not long after, suggests that your theory is wrong.

His real downfall was in 1945, 4 years after the Robinson fights when he was 32-33, the age when many fighters start declining. Before that he was only losing to top fighters, always giving them hard fights and beating some good fighters. Also it's very possible that the beatings Robinson gave to him may have taken something away from him as he was coming straight from being a world champion (losing the title on an unjust decision) to the two Sugar Ray fights. I just don't think that a solid case can be made for Zivic being washed up against Robinson.

Sonny Liston got knocked out cold by Leotis Martin 4 years after the second Ali fight. Terrell was no good after Ali beat him and lost to inferior fighters. Ellis soon turned into a journeyman after Ali beat him. Were they washed up?

I thought a boxing historian would know that age has nothing to do with how good a fighter is. Fighters age differently.

I think a boxing historian would also know that Armstrong and Zivic were competing against and beating great fighters at the time while Jones was KO'd in one by a nobody and Robinson was losing to clubfighters at the very end.

Go ahead and ask some other historians if they agree with you.

What kind of a response is that? Are you waiting for someone else to prove me wrong for you?

Go ahead and ask other historians if they agree with you on Ali being better than Robinson. Do you now see the flaws in that statement?

This is a discussion between me and you, if you want to prove my statements wrong or feel you disagree then make your case.


That fact is that they were contenders and/or journeymen and not in any elite position. You may think they're good second-rate fighters, but their accomplishments and records clearly suggest that they don't belong with the elites.

Steve Belloise had wins over 33-0 Robert Villemain, stopped the ultra-durable Georgie Abrams, KO'd future light heavyweight title holder Anton Christoforidis, KO'd former middleweight title holder Al Hostak, beat former middleweight champion Ceferino Garcia, KO'd Coley Welch, beat Tommy Bell was top 5 ranked in the division for 10 years. He must have been pretty good.

That's only one example. I advise you to look into the records of these fighters a little more. They were excellent fighters. I don't care to do all your homework here.

Yes, and Ali being over 30 and winning against the likes of Frazier, Norton and two of the hardest punchers in heavyweight history history in Foreman and Shavers is not a big deal, right?

Where did I claim it wasn't a big deal? It was a big deal for both fighters.


Sorry, but as great a fighter as Gavilan was, he's not the best of either list. I think most people would agree with me.

Who is then? Who can match the sheer amount of contenders that Gavilan beat?

Walter Cartier (Middleweight)
Gene Burton (Middleweight)
Tommy Bell
Ike Williams
Rocky Castellani (Middleweight)
Beau Jack
Laurent Dauthille (Middleweight)
Billy Graham x 2
Robert Villemain (Middleweight)
Gene Hairstone (Middleweight)
Tony Janiro x 2 1KO (Middleweight)
Paddy Young (Middleweight)
Johnny Bratton x 2
Fitzie Pruden x 2
Bobby Dykes
Gil Turner
Chuck Davey
Tiger Jones
Carmen Basilio
Gaspar Ortega
Chico Vejar
Eduardo Lausse

Contenders that Foreman beat:

Frazier
Norton
Moorer
Lyle
Chuvalo
Peralta
Kirkman
Old Cooney?
Blown up Qawi?

Contenders that Frazier beat:

Ali
Quarry
Bonavena
Ellis
Bugner
Chuvalo
Machen
Mathis
D. Jones

Contenders that Liston beat:

Patterson
Folley
Machen
Harris
Williams
DeJohn
Clark
Wepner?

Zivic and Armstrong weren't in their primes. If you wish to count past-prime fighters as full credited wins, you can leave me out of that.

Who is to say that Patterson was "in his prime"? Was Liston in his prime because he was never the same after? Ellis? All I know is that none of these fighters were as great as Armstrong.


In case you didn't know, it's kind of hard for a natural heavyweight to win titles in more than one division.

In case you didn't know, it's kind of hard for a someone starting at lightweight to win titles at welterweight and middleweight too. I'm not criticizing Ali for not having won more titles, I'm giving credit to Robinson for doing it. It's an accomplishment no matter how you spin it.

Ali didn't have 200 hundred fights, because he didn't need to, in his time. Elite fighters in Ali's era and eras after made enough money by just fighting 2 or 3 times a year. And in those 2 or 3 fights a year, they face top opposition, rather than lightly regarded journeymen or club fighters.


And don't act like all of Robinson's 200 fights were against champions, hall of famers and top contenders.

He still didn't face as many ranked opponents as Robinson did.


Since when does a fighter's style make him better than another fighter? Tyson and Frazier went to the body. Are they greater than Ali?

Robinson could do a lot of what Ali did but he could also do more. It's not a fighter's style to go to the body or to have punching power, it's simply a part of their ability and skill. It's like saying that Carlos Baldomir having no speed or a jab is a part of his style. Ali disregarded going to the body and it cost him somewhat against fighters who could be vulnerable to the body such as Ken Norton. His lack of one punch KO power is why he had troubles with Norton and Frazier, he couldn't hurt them like Foreman.

Robinson was Ali's idol. It's understandable that he would say that. And since when is everything Ali says 100% fact? It's an opinion.

No but along with all the other evidence I've brought up, it indicates that Robinson was in fact the better fighter.

TheGreatA
03-18-2010, 11:02 PM
just because u have tons of fights - most of them not even on film - doesnt mean u r that much better.
also getting hit by killer punchers like sonny liston and foreman doesnt allow u to have a successfully career with tons of fights like robinson.

i really think if they were in the same weight class, head 2 head ali could beat him.
ali could have accomplish as much as ray did had he fought at the ww div. the same guys robinson did, maybe with a better record than 173-19.

u have to admit its harder for a heavyweight to be p4p best, u cant move up and down to face fighters in other weight classes as a heavyweight.
look at wladimir, dominating since years any1 he faced, but still is not even recognized as a top 5 p4p of today by some idiots.
they even question if he is a HOFer or not.

There are probably more fights of Robinson than Ali on film. I'm not saying that his sheer amount of fights make him better than Ali, I'm saying that what he accomplished during all of those fights is what makes him better than Ali. If my only argument was that Robinson had more fights and thus is better than Ali then you would have a point. Len Wickwar had more fights than anybody, but no one rates him, because he beat nobody of note.

It may be difficult for a heavyweight to be rated pound for pound but I look at all factors, not just weight jumping. I don't degrade Ali for not doing what's not possible. I rate his career next to Robinson's and see Robinson's as simply better. Both were dominant, both had longevity, both had great opposition, both had great ability, Robinson just slightly more in all categories in my opinion. It's fine if you disagree.

Fiasco
03-18-2010, 11:57 PM
His real downfall was in 1945, 4 years after the Robinson fights when he was 32-33, the age when many fighters start declining. Before that he was only losing to top fighters, always giving them hard fights and beating some good fighters. Also it's very possible that the beatings Robinson gave to him may have taken something away from him as he was coming straight from being a world champion (losing the title on an unjust decision) to the two Sugar Ray fights. I just don't think that a solid case can be made for Zivic being washed up against Robinson.

Just to move on with the topic, which isn't about Zivic, I'll say that he was in his absolute physical prime. No man or machine could've possibly beaten him.

Sonny Liston got knocked out cold by Leotis Martin 4 years after the second Ali fight. Terrell was no good after Ali beat him and lost to inferior fighters. Ellis soon turned into a journeyman after Ali beat him. Were they washed up?

If you believe Liston wasn't in his prime against Ali, tell me what he didn't do as good as he did before. I'll await your answer, which I suspect to be ridiculous.

As for Terrell, I think it's safe to say that the "what's my name?" fight with Ali had a big mental effect on his career. Wouldn't you be effected if you were beaten in an absolutely one-sided fight, while your opponent is shouting at you and embarrassing you, in a huge stadium and on national TV?

I think a real boxing historian would also know that Armstrong and Zivic were competing against and beating great fighters at the time while Jones was KO'd in one by a nobody and Robinson was losing to clubfighters at the very end.

A real boxing historian would know that Armstrong was retired by the age of 32, while Jones at 32 was dominating in his division and had yet to go on and win a heavyweight title two years later.

But like I said, only real boxing historians would know that.

What kind of a response is that? Are you waiting for someone else to prove me wrong for you?

Go ahead and ask other historians if they agree with you on Ali being better than Robinson? Do you now see the flaws in that statement?

You see the funny thing is, I did ask historians whether or not Ali is better than Robinson. That was the meaning of this thread. I aim to get opinions on the matter in order to discuss it with them.

I asked you to do the same for your little theory, but you got very defensive about it. Which leads me to believe that you're not so confident others will agree with you.

Steve Belloise had wins over 33-0 Robert Villemain, stopped the ultra-durable Georgie Abrams, KO'd future light heavyweight title holder Anton Christoforidis, KO'd former middleweight title holder Al Hostak, KO'd Coley Welch, was top 5 ranked in the division for 10 years. He must have been pretty good.

That's only one example. I advise you to look into the records of these fighters a little more. They were excellent fighters. I don't care to do all your homework here.

Good, but not elite-worthy.

Where did I claim it wasn't a big deal? It was a big deal for both fighters.
So then don't only concentrate on one fighter and try to make it seem like he was the only one who did it. If you knew it was a big deal for both fighters, you would've mentioned the other fighter, as well.

Who is then? Who can match the sheer amount of contenders that Gavilan beat?

Walter Cartier (Middleweight)
Gene Burton (Middleweight)
Tommy Bell
Ike Williams
Rocky Castellani (Middleweight)
Beau Jack
Laurent Dauthille (Middleweight)
Billy Graham x 2
Robert Villemain (Middleweight)
Gene Hairstone (Middleweight)
Tony Janiro x 2 1KO (Middleweight)
Paddy Young (Middleweight)
Johnny Bratton x 2
Fitzie Pruden x 2
Bobby Dykes
Gil Turner
Chuck Davey
Tiger Jones
Carmen Basilio
Gaspar Ortega

Contenders that Foreman beat:

Frazier
Norton
Moorer
Lyle
Chuvalo
Peralta
Kirkman
Old Cooney?
Blown up Qawi?

Contenders that Frazier beat:

Ali
Quarry
Bonavena
Ellis
Bugner
Chuvalo
Machen
Mathis
D. Jones

Contenders that Liston beat:

Patterson
Folley
Machen
Harris
Williams
DeJohn
Clark
Wepner?

It doesn't only have to do with records. Accomplishments and skills add into a fighter's greatness, as well.

I'll use Foreman, as an example:

Foreman is considered to be not only one of the greatest punchers in heavyweight history, but on a P4P basis, as well. Is Gavilan one of the best punchers in the history of his division?

Foreman retired and came back to win a heavyweight world title at 45 years old. The oldest to do so. Did Gavilan do something similar to that?

Who is to say that Patterson was "in his prime"? Was Liston in his prime because he was never the same after? Ellis? All I know is that none of these fighters were as great as Armstrong.
Except they were considered by many to have been in their primes (or very close to it), while Armstrong wasn't.

In case you didn't know, it's kind of hard for a someone starting at lightweight to win titles at welterweight and middleweight too. I'm not criticizing Ali for not having won more titles, I'm giving credit to Robinson for doing it. It's an accomplishment no matter how you spin it.
If it can't physically be done by both fighters, then don't try to bring it up in hopes to make a comparison.

He still didn't face as many ranked opponents as Robinson did.

Like I said, fighters had to fight to make a decent living, in those days. They fought more than any of the more modern generations of fighters.

Robinson could do a lot of what Ali did but he could also do more. It's not a fighter's style to go to the body or to have punching power, it's simply a part of their ability and skill. It's like saying that Carlos Baldomir having no speed or a jab is a part of his style. Ali disregarded going to the body and it cost him somewhat against fighters who could be vulnerable to the body such as Ken Norton. His lack of one punch KO power is why he had troubles with Norton and Frazier.
He was a head hunter and that was part of his strategy. Not every fighter is the same. So I'm sorry that Ali doesn't match up to your perfect idea of how a fighter should be. We just have to accept them as they are.

No but along with all the other evidence I've brought up, it indicates that Robinson was in fact the better fighter.
Evidence? Not everything you state is evidence. A lot of it is just opinion and not fact. Don't confuse them.

You're very far from winning this debate.

KILLA RIGHT
03-19-2010, 12:34 AM
Srr and honestly i don't think it's that close

rskumm21
03-19-2010, 12:57 AM
1) Ali beat the better fighters, when those fighters were in their primes.

2) You can pick more fighters to beat Robinson than you can for Ali, in fantasy fights.

3) Ali's speed is one of, if not the, best of all-time, on a P4P basis.

4) Ali's title reign was much better than that of Robinson's. He had a better world title record and (in my opinion) beat the better fighters.

The numbers in red are the ranking of the fighter in the "50 Greatest Fighters of All-Time" list by The Ring magazine.

The numbers in blue are the ranking of the fighter in the "The 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years" by The Ring magazine.

Robinson's record in world title fights: 14-7-1

Robinson's world title wins

Tommy Bell
Jimmy Doyle
Chuck Taylor
Bernard Docusen
Kid Gavilan
Charley Fusari
Jake LaMotta (#52 and #28)
Randy Turpin
Bobo Olson
Rocky Graziano
Gene Fullmer
Carmen Basilio (#40)

Ali's record in world title fights: 22-3

Ali's world title wins

Sonny Liston
Floyd Patterson
George Chuvalo
Henry Cooper
Brian London
Karl Mildenberger
Cleveland Williams
Ernie Terrell
Zora Folley
George Foreman (#25 and #20)
Chuck Wepner
Jean-Pierre Coopman
Jimmy Young
Richard Dunn
Ken Norton
Ron Lyle
Joe Bugner
Joe Frazier (#42 and #26)
Alfredo Evangelista
Earnie Shavers
Leon Spinks

After reading #2 I really couldn't take anything else you said serious.

The Beatles
03-19-2010, 12:59 AM
interesting discussion.....i liked Fiasco's points, although some knocking Robinson's achievements i dont agree with......

and to those who claim 'Sugar Ray, its not even close', you guys are just idiots who dont know ****e...

Ali's resume alone goes up against any fighter in history, FACT

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 01:41 AM
After reading #2 I really couldn't take anything else you said serious.

I can't recall ever favoring anyone south of Light-Heavyweight over Robinson in a fantasy fight.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 01:56 AM
Zivic's career downfall, not long after, suggests that your theory is wrong.

I believe GreatA addressed this.


I thought a boxing historian would know that age has nothing to do with how good a fighter is. Fighters age differently.

He never said otherwise.


Go ahead and ask some other historians if they agree with you.

Most boxing historians in fact DO agree with him as Robinson is the consesus choice as greatest p4p fighter among boxing historians.


That fact is that they were contenders and/or journeymen and not in any elite position. You may think they're good second-rate fighters, but their accomplishments and records clearly suggest that they don't belong with the elites.

Please. As great as Ali's resume is he still fought his share of lesser lights.


Yes, and Ali being over 30 and winning against the likes of Frazier, Norton and two of the hardest punchers in heavyweight history history in Foreman and Shavers is not a big deal, right?

And being damn near 40 and reclaiming the Middleweight crown is chopped liver?


Sorry, but as great a fighter as Gavilan was, he's not the best of either list. I think most people would agree with me.

Apparently you and they know very little about Gavilan. You don't watch any fights in black and white and can't be arsed to do any research huh?


Zivic and Armstrong weren't in their primes. If you wish to count past-prime fighters as full credited wins, you can leave me out of that.

Neither was Frazier in Manila nor was Liston for either fight nor was Patterson for either fight. And Williams was past it. And Folly. Archie Moore was damn near 50 ffs.


In case you didn't know, it's kind of hard for a natural heavyweight to win titles in more than one division.

Not the issue.


Ali didn't have 200 hundred fights, because he didn't need to, in his time. Elite fighters in Ali's era and eras after made enough money by just fighting 2 or 3 times a year. And in those 2 or 3 fights a year, they face top opposition, rather than lightly regarded journeymen or club fighters.

Again, he's not making that argument.


And don't act like all of Robinson's 200 fights were against champions, hall of famers and top contenders.

No was Ali's 60 some odd fights.


Since when does a fighter's style make him better than another fighter? Tyson and Frazier went to the body. Are they greater than Ali?

He isn't making a judgement about styles. Most fighters who aren't "body punchers" per say still through to the body as a matter of course.


Robinson was Ali's idol. It's understandable that he would say that. And since when is everything Ali says 100% fact? It's an opinion.

Did it ever occur to you he was Ali's idol for a reason?

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 02:00 AM
look at wladimir, dominating since years any1 he faced, but still is not even recognized as a top 5 p4p of today by some idiots.
they even question if he is a HOFer or not.

Getting KTFO by an over-the-hill pro-golfer (not to mention Ross Fvcking Purrity) disbars a fighter from being considered great (not to mention a p4p canditate). In a real hall of fame (as opposed to the fan club that currently exists) Wlad would have to buy a ticket to get in.

Poet

them_apples
03-19-2010, 02:07 AM
Ali was incredible. Robinson is just programed into historians brains as the default answer.

Fact is, you put him beside Ray Leonard and he looks like a poor mans version. Don't get me wrong, Robinson is great, but he get's worshipped like a god on this forum.

Robinson get's rated so high because he went something like 90-0 at one point, but to me that isn't as important as who you beat. Ali fought and beat the best. The best measured against all time currently..unless we run into a huge crop of amazing Hw's again.

Robinson never fought Leonard, Hearns, Duran, Mosely, DLH, Trinidad or even Benitez at WW.

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 02:15 AM
Ali was incredible. Robinson is just programed into historians brains as the default answer.

Fact is, you put him beside Ray Leonard and he looks like a poor mans version. Don't get me wrong, Robinson is great, but he get's worshipped like a god on this forum.

Robinson get's rated so high because he went something like 90-0 at one point, but to me that isn't as important as who you beat. Ali fought and beat the best. The best measured against all time currently..unless we run into a huge crop of amazing Hw's again.

Robinson never fought Leonard, Hearns, Duran, Mosely, DLH, Trinidad or even Benitez at WW.

I've watched both Robinson and Leonard many times of course, but as much as I respect Leonard's ability anything he could do Robinson could do better.

Poet

T3dBundy
03-19-2010, 08:52 AM
Getting KTFO by an over-the-hill pro-golfer (not to mention Ross Fvcking Purrity) disbars a fighter from being considered great (not to mention a p4p canditate). In a real hall of fame (as opposed to the fan club that currently exists) Wlad would have to buy a ticket to get in.

Poet

where u already in church, praying for wladimirs defeat tomorrow?
fact is wladimir is the heavyweight champ since 5 years, with more title denfenses than many great heavys from the past.
i dont think he will have to buy a ticket to get in the HOF, they will roll out a red carpet just for him after his boxing career is over.
i want a picture of your face expression at that moment, would bet too funny to see it :D

The Beatles
03-19-2010, 08:56 AM
Getting KTFO by an over-the-hill pro-golfer (not to mention Ross Fvcking Purrity) disbars a fighter from being considered great (not to mention a p4p canditate). In a real hall of fame (as opposed to the fan club that currently exists) Wlad would have to buy a ticket to get in.

Poet

didn't Joe Louis get knocked the **** out by an unknown German and an overrated Italian???

you're an ignorant fool if you think Wlad is not HOF material......get your head out your ass and give the man the credit he deserves........Wlad has been dominating his so called 'weak' era and that is more than enough to get you into the HOF

Fiasco
03-19-2010, 09:24 AM
After reading #2 I really couldn't take anything else you said serious.
I can't recall ever favoring anyone south of Light-Heavyweight over Robinson in a fantasy fight.

Poet

Oh.. so a prime SRL has no chance against Robinson at welterweight?

A middleweight version of Jones, Hagler, Monzon and Greb have no chance, right?

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 10:31 AM
where u already in church, praying for wladimirs defeat tomorrow?

More like I had to check just now to see who he's fighting because frankly I couldn't care less.


fact is wladimir is the heavyweight champ since 5 years, with more title denfenses than many great heavys from the past.

That says more about the lack of quality in today's division than it does about the prowness of Vitali's little sister.


i dont think he will have to buy a ticket to get in the HOF, they will roll out a red carpet just for him after his boxing career is over. i want a picture of your face expression at that moment, would bet too funny to see it :D

I'm sure they will since the IBOF is a popularity contest and Wlad's demented nuthuggers like yourself will clamour for it. Like I said: "If we had a REAL hall-of-fame....."

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 10:41 AM
didn't Joe Louis get knocked the **** out by an unknown German and an overrated Italian???

The "unknown" German was a former Heavyweight champion. Sorry, you FAIL: Schmeling was well known in the US in the 1930s. I also seem to recall Louis icing him in a round in the rematch. The "overrated" Italian happend to be the only Heavweight champion to retire undefeated. Whether or not you think some rank him to highly is irrelivent, it can't be denied the man was an ATG. More to the point Louis was washed up when they fought.


you're an ignorant fool if you think Wlad is not HOF material......get your head out your ass and give the man the credit he deserves........Wlad has been dominating his so called 'weak' era and that is more than enough to get you into the HOF

"So called" weak era? Anyone with a brain KNOWS this is one of the weakest eras ever in Heavyweight history. You'd have to have tour head in your arse not to see it. As for Wlad getting into the IBOF......I have no doubt Arturo Gatti will get in since any fighter with a significant fan following is likely to get in. Which means Wlad, with his legions of delusional fan-bois will most likely as well. It doesn't say anything about Wlad but rather speaks volumes about the low standards of the IBOF.

Poet

T3dBundy
03-19-2010, 10:44 AM
I'm sure they will since the IBOF is a popularity contest and Wlad's demented nuthuggers like yourself will clamour for it. Like I said: "If we had a REAL hall-of-fame....."


the old biased troll has spoken again, since when im a wladimir nuthugger?
just giving credit for what he has done in his career, something u never heard of i bet.

Fiasco
03-19-2010, 10:45 AM
"So called" weak era? Anyone with a brain KNOWS this is one of the weakest eras ever in Heavyweight history. You'd have to have tour head in your arse not to see it. As for Wlad getting into the IBOF......I have no doubt Arturo Gatti will get in since any fighter with a significant fan following is likely to get in. Which means Wlad, with his legions of delusional fan-bois will most likely as well. It doesn't say anything about Wlad but rather speaks volumes about the low standards of the IBOF.

Poet

Yeah, let's just pretend that Louis didn't fight "Bum Of The Month Club" members.

fight_professor
03-19-2010, 10:45 AM
Ali is an icon, a hero. We have to differenciate between p4p rankings and relative achievements. Ali's reign, level of competition and dominance of the grandest era make his achievements unsurpassed for my money.

P4P is a different debate, although I can gladly accept Ali as #1. Most place SRR at #1, and the case is strong. The weight of "opinion" backs that.

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 10:46 AM
Oh.. so a prime SRL has no chance against Robinson at welterweight?

A middleweight version of Jones, Hagler, Monzon and Greb have no chance, right?

Did I say "no chance"? I said I wouldn't favor them: A big difference from "no chance" wouldn't you say? As a general rule, any ATG fighter has a chance in a one-off fight against another ATG in his weight class. Simply because they have a chance to win doesn't mean they should be favored.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 10:48 AM
Yeah, let's just pretend that Louis didn't fight "Bum Of The Month Club" members.

Never said he didn't. I'd favor Louis' "bums" over the vast majority of Wlad's career opponents.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 10:51 AM
the old biased troll has spoken again, since when im a wladimir nuthugger?
just giving credit for what he has done in his career, something u never heard of i bet.

Unlike you I actually have standards. I give credit where that credit is earned. Being a big fish in a small pond doesn't qualify as "earning" anything. Unlike you, I don't give bonus points for region of birth.

Poet

Fiasco
03-19-2010, 10:51 AM
Did I say "no chance"? I said I wouldn't favor them: A big difference from "no chance" wouldn't you say? As a general rule, any ATG fighter has a chance in a one-off fight against another ATG in his weight class. Simply because they have a chance to win doesn't mean they should be favored.

Poet

We're not talking about a one-off fight. We're talking about each of them on their best nights fighting each other.

The fighters I named have a relatively good chance at beating Robinson. How many heavyweights have a good chance at beating a prime Ali?

Never said he didn't. I'd favor Louis' "bums" over the vast majority of Wlad's career opponents.

Poet
L-O-L.

T3dBundy
03-19-2010, 10:54 AM
Unlike you I actually have standards. I give credit where that credit is earned. Being a big fish in a small pond doesn't qualify as "earning" anything. Unlike you, I don't give bonus points for region of birth.

53-3 47 KOs, nuff said :D

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 11:01 AM
We're not talking about a one-off fight. We're talking about each of them on their best nights fighting each other.

That's still a one-off fight by definition.


The fighters I named have a relatively good chance at beating Robinson. How many heavyweights have a good chance at beating a prime Ali?

Hmmm. I would give Louis, Johnson, and Holmes a fair chance of winning. Ali was the top Heavyweight of all time but he wasn't unbeatable.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 11:05 AM
53-3 47 KOs, nuff said :D

66-3 52 KOs, nuff said :D
49-0 43 KOs, nuff said :D

Poet

T3dBundy
03-19-2010, 11:06 AM
66-3 52 KOs, nuff said :D
49-0 43 KOs, nuff said :D

Poet

u just compared wladimir with joe louis and marciano, so u admit he is an ATG :D?

Fiasco
03-19-2010, 11:07 AM
That's still a one-off fight by definition.

You took the word "chance" too seriously.

In other words, they would have a very good case at beating a prime Robinson. Less fighters have a very good case at beating a prime Ali.

Hmmm. I would give Louis, Johnson, and Holmes a fair chance of winning. Ali was the top Heavyweight of all time but he wasn't unbeatable.

That's a total of three. I gave five for Robinson.

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 11:14 AM
You took the word "chance" too seriously.

I read it by it's generally accepted definition and unlike yourself didn't make leaps of logic such as interpreting "favor" to mean "no chance".


In other words, they would have a very good case at beating a prime Robinson. Less fighters have a very good case at beating a prime Ali. That's a total of three. I gave five for Robinson.

I wasn't bean-counting when I named those three: Those happend to be the first three that came to mind. Considering that there's been significantly more great Middleweights than great Heavyweights throughout history the fact that you've pulled two more names out of your ass is statistically insignificant.

Poet

Snopkins
03-19-2010, 11:23 AM
66-3 52 KOs, nuff said :D

Poet




That's quite a disappointing knockout record when you think about it.Joe Louis is supposed to be the greatest puncher of all time and yet thirteen of his fights went the distance.


Wladimir should have more knockouts by the time he is retired and he wouldn't have needed as many fights as Louis did

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 11:36 AM
That's quite a disappointing knockout record when you think about it.Joe Louis is supposed to be the greatest puncher of all time and yet thirteen of his fights went the distance.

Wladimir should have more knockouts by the time he is retired and he wouldn't have needed as many fights as Louis did

About ready for your next ban huh?

Poet

EzzardFan
03-19-2010, 12:00 PM
and when people say ali would beat tyson prime vs prime, i persuade that if ali struggled with joe fraser who stays low/bob weaves/throws power hooks/ that mike tyson does all those things better than fraser and has a good right hand and uppercuts too. i cant see ali winning it more than 1 out of 5 fights if they fought over and over...and thats if his fighting like his cassius clay days

We never saw Ali in his prime because he was barred from fighting during that period. The best we saw of Ali was in '66 & '67. He didn't fight Frazier until '71.

Okay.. now let us do the important math. Which elite prime fighters did Robinson beat?

Gavilan
LaMotta
Graziano
Fullmer
Basilio
Turpin
Olson
Angott

Now compare those 7 with the 7 most prime elite fighters on Ali's resume:

Foreman
Frazier
Liston
Patterson
Norton
Terrell
Ellis
Quarry

I think it's safe to say that, overall, the majority of the people on Ali's resume are better than the ones on Robinson's resume.

Heavyweight fighters generate more interest that the other weight divisions, and as a result are generally better known, particularly 1970s vintage du to Ali being a great self publicist. Many people on this forum can comfortably reel off the names of all the HW champions from JLS onwards from memory. Very few could do the same with the fighters from other weight classes. None of this means that heavyweights are technically better fighters, they are just better known.

The difference is that back in SRRs era boxers engaged in many more and many more frequent contests. There were many more professional boxers active during SRR's era than there were during Ali's era. The quality of opposition was clearly much higher. SRR fought many more times than Ali did.

For my money Foreman, Frazier, Liston, Patterson, Norton, Terrell, Ellis, and Quarry were technically nothing special when compared to the majority of fighters active in the first 60 years of this century. Ali was a standout due to his chin, his recuperative powers, his reflexes, his speed, and his evasive skills. But when he lost the reflexes, speed, and evasive capability all that was left was a very tough guy able to withstand enormous punishment. Fortunately for Ali as the process occurred the division had also become progressively weaker.

SRR is an altogether different proposition. He was every bit as tough as Ali (the only time he failed to finish a fight on his feet was when fighting a much larger man in scorching heat), but he also had the technical skills to carry on fighting top opposition long after his reflexes had headed South. He not only regained his title several times, he also successfully defended it many times. There really is no comparison.

Ali is a lot like the top fighters of today, a great natural physical talent, but lacking in technical skill. SRR could tick both boxes.

rskumm21
03-19-2010, 12:02 PM
Oh.. so a prime SRL has no chance against Robinson at welterweight?

A middleweight version of Jones, Hagler, Monzon and Greb have no chance, right?

If you using theoretical opinion as one of the main points of your argument when comparing two boxers, you kind of lose all credibility in my book. Don't get me wrong, I love both Ali and Robinson equal, but you cant say that one guy is better than another based on who has the better record in "fantasy fights". Where's the logic in that?

Fiasco
03-19-2010, 12:06 PM
I read it by it's generally accepted definition and unlike yourself didn't make leaps of logic such as interpreting "favor" to mean "no chance".

Are you perhaps hurt that I proved you wrong? In that there are more fighters who have a good chance at beating Robinson than there are for Ali?

I wasn't bean-counting when I named those three: Those happend to be the first three that came to mind. Considering that there's been significantly more great Middleweights than great Heavyweights throughout history the fact that you've pulled two more names out of your ass is statistically insignificant.

I can name more, for Robinson. I bet you can't, for Ali.

Fiasco
03-19-2010, 12:08 PM
If you using theoretical opinion as one of the main points of your argument when comparing two boxers, you kind of lose all credibility in my book. Don't get me wrong, I love both Ali and Robinson equal, but you cant say that one guy is better than another based on who has the better record in "fantasy fights". Where's the logic in that?

That's not the ONLY reason to suggest one is better than the other. It's only one part of the argument.

Ziggy Stardust
03-19-2010, 12:18 PM
Are you perhaps hurt that I proved you wrong? In that there are more fighters who have a good chance at beating Robinson than there are for Ali?

So let me get this straight: Making an idiot of yourself with your lack of reading comprehension and leaps of logic is proving me wrong? Okay Junior. I've just had my laugh for the day :haha:

Poet

Fiasco
03-19-2010, 12:23 PM
Heavyweight fighters generate more interest that the other weight divisions, and as a result are generally better known, particularly 1970s vintage du to Ali being a great self publicist. Many people on this forum can comfortably reel off the names of all the HW champions from JLS onwards from memory. Very few could do the same with the fighters from other weight classes. None of this means that heavyweights are technically better fighters, they are just better known.

This forum section is for boxing historians. Those historians should know not to rate a fighter based on popularity. I sure do and that's not the reason why I think Ali is the greater fighter.

The difference is that back in SRRs era boxers engaged in many more and many more frequent contests. There were many more professional boxers active during SRR's era than there were during Ali's era. The quality of opposition was clearly much higher. SRR fought many more times than Ali did.

The reason he had more fights is because boxing needed to make a decent living, in those days. It was different in the Ali's generation and onwards to today's generation of fighters.

And most of his fights weren't against the best of the best. More like club fighters, journeymen and tomato cans.

For my money Foreman, Frazier, Liston, Patterson, Norton, Terrell, Ellis, and Quarry were technically nothing special when compared to the majority of fighters active in the first 60 years of this century. Ali was a standout due to his chin, his recuperative powers, his reflexes, his speed, and his evasive skills. But when he lost the reflexes, speed, and evasive capability all that was left was a very tough guy able to withstand enormous punishment. Fortunately for Ali as the process occurred the division had also become progressively weaker.

Considering that the 1970s is considered by many to be the strongest era in heavyweight history, I can't take what you just said seriously.

SRR is an altogether different proposition. He was every bit as tough as Ali (the only time he failed to finish a fight on his feet was when fighting a much larger man in scorching heat), but he also had the technical skills to carry on fighting top opposition long after his reflexes had headed South. He not only regained his title several times, he also successfully defended it many times. There really is no comparison.

Ali never got knocked out, either. The only sort of knockout recorded on his record was when his corner stopped the fight on his stool, after Ali wanted to continue. Keep in mind that Ali was feeling the effects of Parkinson's, at the time.

And Ali made more successful defenses of his heavyweight title than Robinson did for his middleweight and welterweight title combined.

Ali is a lot like the top fighters of today, a great natural physical talent, but lacking in technical skill. SRR could tick both boxes.

There is absolutely no comparison between Ali and the heavyweights of this era.

EzzardFan
03-19-2010, 12:26 PM
I can name more, for Robinson. I bet you can't, for Ali.

Yeah yeah we all have access to boxrec, wiki, and google. The 13 year old kid next door could probably beat both of you at that game.

Ali was fast tough, and had incredible reflexes.

SRR was fast, tough, had incredible reflexes, and awesome technical ability which enabled him to continue long after his physical advantages had been eroded by time. He also fought many more fights, against tougher opposition, in a much longer career.

Fiasco
03-19-2010, 12:28 PM
So let me get this straight: Making an idiot of yourself with your lack of reading comprehension and leaps of logic is proving me wrong? Okay Junior. I've just had my laugh for the day :haha:

Poet

What I proved wrong was that you couldn't name anymore fighters who had a very good chance at beating Ali, while I could for Robinson. Look at how you avoided replying to my last statement, where I just called you out on it, once again.

And, now that you chose to run away by logging off, it's clear who got the better of this debate.

Fiasco
03-19-2010, 12:30 PM
Yeah yeah we all have access to boxrec, wiki, and google. The 13 year old kid next door could probably beat both of you at that game.

Ali was fast tough, and had incredible reflexes.

SRR was fast, tough, had incredible reflexes, and awesome technical ability which enabled him to continue long after his physical advantages had been eroded by time. He also fought many more fights, against tougher opposition, in a much longer career.

Those websites can't explain how fantasy match-ups would go. I can, though.

EzzardFan
03-19-2010, 12:44 PM
And most of his fights weren't against the best of the best. More like club fighters, journeymen and tomato cans.

The tomato cans of the fifties would be world champions today. There are certainly enough belts to go round...

Considering that the 1970s is considered by many to be the strongest era in heavyweight history, I can't take what you just said seriously.

It was certainly the most exciting. But you need to remember that the HW division was hampered for any years by limiting the access that great black fighters had to the title. There were many more great HWs in the old days, they just didn't get a shot. In the '70s you had perhaps six.

Ali never got knocked out, either.

Yeah that's what I said if you take the time to re-read it.

And Ali made more successful defenses of his heavyweight title than Robinson did for his middleweight and welterweight title combined.

That's more down to the quality and quantity of opposition. Liston was pushing 40, smaller, and well past it. I love Patterson, he was an exciting fighter to watch but his chin was terrible. Frazier again was great fun to watch but technically he was very limited. Norton was big and awkward but not a technical boxer by any stretch, Eddie Machen would have had his number, and also given Foreman a much better run for his money. Foreman was a big slugger than wouldn't have troubled a peak '67 vintage Ali. Terrell, Ellis, and Quarry were nothing special.

Having said that we lost the best 4 years of Ali.

Fiasco
03-19-2010, 01:00 PM
The tomato cans of the fifties would be world champions today. There are certainly enough belts to go round...

Oh, boy..

It was certainly the most exciting. But you need to remember that the HW division was hampered for any years by limiting the access that great black fighters had to the title. There were many more great HWs in the old days, they just didn't get a shot. In the '70s you had perhaps six.

Whether or not it had more top heavyweights, the '70s had the best heavyweights, out of all eras.

Yeah that's what I said if you take the time to re-read it.

If you were allowed to make a such a great description of Robinson's only form of a knockout loss, I can do the same for Ali.

That's more down to the quality and quantity of opposition. Liston was pushing 40, smaller, and well past it. I love Patterson, he was an exciting fighter to watch but his chin was terrible. Frazier again was great fun to watch but technically he was very limited. Norton was big and awkward but not a technical boxer by any stretch, Eddie Machen would have had his number, and also given Foreman a much better run for his money. Foreman was a big slugger than wouldn't have troubled a peak '67 vintage Ali. Terrell, Ellis, and Quarry were nothing special.

Having said that we lost the best 4 years of Ali.

What you just did to Ali's opponents could be done to Robinson's opponents, as well. Except for the thing you mentioned about Liston, which is completely wrong.

Liston was actually 31 years old, when he fought Ali for the first time. Nowhere near 40.

TheGreatA
03-19-2010, 01:39 PM
Just to move on with the topic, which isn't about Zivic, I'll say that he was in his absolute physical prime. No man or machine could've possibly beaten him.

I never claimed that nobody could beat him, because Robinson beat him twice, and once stopped him. I only pointed out that he was not such a washed up fighter that should be discounted from Robinson's resume for no good reason. You only seemed to do it because Zivic would be one more great fighter in Robinson's resume, adding up to his already impressive legacy.


If you believe Liston wasn't in his prime against Ali, tell me what he didn't do as good as he did before. I'll await your answer, which I suspect to be ridiculous.

He was slower.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mQZkFNdPkdI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mQZkFNdPkdI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

He could not go 6 rounds without tiring when previously he could fight 12 rounds at a hard pace.

He did not have the heart to take a beating while in the past he had fought on with a broken nose and a broken jaw.

As for Terrell, I think it's safe to say that the "what's my name?" fight with Ali had a big mental effect on his career. Wouldn't you be effected if you were beaten in an absolutely one-sided fight, while your opponent is shouting at you and embarrassing you, in a huge stadium and on national TV?

It's also safe to say that Zivic may have been affected from getting beaten down and stopped by a 1 year pro in Robinson when he himself was a veteran of the game. Zivic went onto say that everything he did, Robinson did better. This was a Robinson who had only fought one year as a pro. Anyone should be able to see what's amazing about that.


A real boxing historian would know that Armstrong was retired by the age of 32, while Jones at 32 was dominating in his division and had yet to go on and win a heavyweight title two years later.

But like I said, only real boxing historians would know that.

At 40 years of age Jones wasn't winning anything though, and you compared the Jones who fought Calzaghe to the Armstrong who fought Robinson. Armstrong was ranked number 1 in the division, had beaten very good to great fighters and evidently still had something left while he was not the terror of 3 years ago. Jones is not world class at this stage.

You see the funny thing is, I did ask historians whether or not Ali is better than Robinson. That was the meaning of this thread. I aim to get opinions on the matter in order to discuss it with them.

I asked you to do the same for your little theory, but you got very defensive about it. Which leads me to believe that you're not so confident others will agree with you.

And the result is that most people have Robinson over Ali.

This doesn't mean that you can't argue against it and I've never said you couldn't. Your only response to a part of my post was to ask someone else of their opinion while not stating anything yourself on the matter, which is not a valid way to argue against anybody.

Sure I could ask others but what's the point? It's you who is supposed to be proving me wrong here. I could say that the majority thinks Robinson was better than Ali and leave it at that, but that's not proof of anything.

Good, but not elite-worthy.

Because wins over nothing but the elite don't count? In my opinion Quarry, Lyle, Shavers, Ellis and Terrell weren't elite. Does this mean wins over them shouldn't count?

So then don't only concentrate on one fighter and try to make it seem like he was the only one who did it. If you knew it was a big deal for both fighters, you would've mentioned the other fighter, as well.

You didn't ask me about what Ali did post-30 years of age.

It doesn't only have to do with records. Accomplishments and skills add into a fighter's greatness, as well.

Records are quite a big deal. Obviously Kid Gavilan is not lacking in accomplishments or skill either.

I'll use Foreman, as an example:

Foreman is considered to be not only one of the greatest punchers in heavyweight history, but on a P4P basis, as well. Is Gavilan one of the best punchers in the history of his division?


You picked the one attribute that Foreman has over Gavilan. Did Foreman have better boxing technique than Gavilan? Was he a better ring general? Did he have better defense? Did he have better footwork? Was he faster? Foreman had better punching power over Gavilan but in almost every other category Gavilan was simply better. Did Ali have better punching power than Foreman?


Foreman retired and came back to win a heavyweight world title at 45 years old. The oldest to do so. Did Gavilan do something similar to that?

A lot of people didn't come back to regain the title at 45 years of age. Henry Armstrong didn't, does this mean he doesn't rate over George Foreman? Ali didn't either.

Foreman did not have 7 title defenses, Foreman was not a more skilled boxer than Gavilan, Foreman did not have as many wins over top ranked contenders.

Except they were considered by many to have been in their primes (or very close to it), while Armstrong wasn't.

At 30 years of age and having recently been knocked out twice in the first round by Liston, Patterson was certainly not thought to be in his prime.

Liston was the champ but he was a non-factor in the division after Ali beat him.

I'd say that most agree Ellis's true prime was in the late 1960's when he held a version of the heavyweight title.

I'm not claiming that these fighters should be counted out for Ali because they may or may not have been at their peak, I'm claiming that Zivic or Armstrong shouldn't be counted out for Robinson. No, beating Armstrong at the time Robinson did is not the same as beating a peak Armstrong, but he was still the top ranked contender in the division and Robinson had to get past him, so it should count.

If it can't physically be done by both fighters, then don't try to bring it up in hopes to make a comparison.

So we shouldn't bring up Robinson's accomplishments because heavyweights couldn't do it? Armstrong's accomplishment of holding titles in three divisions shouldn't be brought up if he were compared to Joe Frazier?

It's only a part of what makes Robinson great, I'm not saying that Robinson rates over Ali because he was successful in different weight classes. It's the combination of everything he accomplished that's why he rates over Ali.

Like I said, fighters had to fight to make a decent living, in those days. They fought more than any of the more modern generations of fighters.

But you said that Robinson only fought a bunch of tomato cans and clubfighters. He fought numerous ranked contenders in his 200 fights which is a part of why he is great.

A fighter could have 40 fights and fight 30 contenders in total. Another could fight 100 times and fight 20 contenders in total. In that case the former should rate over the latter when it comes to the amount of contenders fought. Like I said previously, Len Wickwar had more fights than anybody, but he beat nobody. I don't rate fighters based on how many wins they had, but how many wins against good fighters they had.

In this case Robinson fought 200 times, fought nearly a hundred contenders, while Ali fought about 60 times and fought around 40-50 contenders. Robinson fought more contenders than almost anybody.


He was a head hunter and that was part of his strategy. Not every fighter is the same. So I'm sorry that Ali doesn't match up to your perfect idea of how a fighter should be. We just have to accept them as they are.

It was part of his "strategy" but it was also a flaw because some fighters benefited from it. Frazier only used his left hook, and a great left hook it was, but he would have been even better if he had a great right hand to go along with that left hook. Robinson was a great headhunter and a great body puncher, with dynamite in both hands.

Evidence? Not everything you state is evidence. A lot of it is just opinion and not fact. Don't confuse them.

You're very far from winning this debate.

Opinion backed up by factual evidence.

EzzardFan
03-19-2010, 01:40 PM
Liston was actually 31 years old, when he fought Ali for the first time. Nowhere near 40.

That is highly debatable.

Fiasco
03-19-2010, 02:55 PM
You like putting words into other people's mouths don't you? I never claimed that nobody could beat him, because Robinson beat him twice, and once stopped him. I only pointed out that he was not such a washed up fighter that should be discounted from Robinson's resume for no good reason. You only seemed to do it because Zivic would be one more great fighter in Robinson's resume, adding up to his already impressive legacy.

You don't understand sarcasm, do you?

And yes, I'm so worried that adding Zivic to Robinson's resume of prime fighters that he beat would stomp all over Ali's resume.

He was slower.

I don't see any significant difference in speed between his hand speed against Bethea and his hand speed against Ali (in their first fight).

Perhaps it only appears that Liston was faster in that fight because he was able to unload combinations on Bethea, while he wasn't able to do so against Ali. The reason for that being because Ali was far more superior in defense and in overall fighting ability than Bethea was. Fighters look different against every other fighter they face.

He could not go 6 rounds without tiring when previously he could fight 12 rounds at a hard pace.

What makes you say that?

He retired on his stool halfway before his first fight with Ali and got knocked out in the first round in their rematch. Kind of hard to say whether or not he would have been able to go the distance, don't ya' think?

He did not have the heart to take a beating while in the past he had fought on with a broken nose and a broken jaw.

He had an injured shoulder. Kind of hard to continue with that, when your shoulder plays into every punch you throw. You know? Because you need to throw punches, in order to win the fight.

Also, he was getting a rematch and that could've possibly made him think he was going to better next time.

It's also safe to say that Zivic may have been affected from getting beaten down and stopped by a 1 year pro in Robinson when he himself was a veteran of the game. Zivic went onto say that everything he did, Robinson did better. This was a Robinson who had only fought one year as a pro. Anyone should be able to see what's amazing about that.

Of course Robinson is a better fighter than Zivic. I didn't say otherwise and neither did anyone else in this thread. I just question what stage of his career Zivic was in, due to him losing most of his major bouts less than a year later.

But like I said, this is a discussion that I don't care on having. I've already told you that Zivic was an unstoppable force that no one could tame.

At 40 years of age Jones wasn't winning anything though, and you compared the Jones who fought Calzaghe to the Jones who fought Robinson. Armstrong was ranked number 1 in the division, had beaten very good to great fighters and evidently still had something left while he was not the terror of 3 years ago. Jones is not world class at this stage.

I thought we already went over this. A real boxing historian would know that age doesn't play a part in how good a fighter is.

Armstrong was done by 32 and retired. Jones was in his prime and dominating in his division, at that age. Does that mean that Jones is a greater fighter than Armstrong?

Didn't think so.

And the result is that most people have Robinson over Ali.

This doesn't mean that you can't argue against it and I've never said you couldn't. Your only response to a part of my post was to ask someone else of their opinion while not stating anything yourself on the matter, which is not a valid way to argue against anybody.

Sure I could ask others but what's the point? It's you who is supposed to be proving me wrong here.

Most, but it's pretty close.

I don't care to answer that comparison question, since it would just lead into another useless debate about those fighters, without fully concentrating on Ali and Robinson.

Like I said, though. If you wanna talk about, go ahead and make a new thread and ask other posters their opinions on it. I might even add into it. Just don't try to create these extra little debates in a thread that's not about them.

This is the last I'll be answering about it.

Because wins over nothing but the elite don't count? In my opinion Quarry, Lyle, Shavers, Ellis and Terrell weren't elite. Does this mean wins over them shouldn't count?

Where did I say that wins over good fighters don't count? Please show me.

You didn't ask me about what Ali did post-30 years of age.

I didn't, but you should've.

Records are quite a big deal. Obviously Kid Gavilan is not lacking in accomplishments or skill either.

Foreman's accomplishments are better than Gavilan's. Anyone would tell you that.

You picked the one attribute that Foreman has over Gavilan. Did Foreman have better boxing technique than Gavilan? Was he a better ring general? Did he have better defense? Did he have better footwork? Was he faster? Foreman had better punching power over Gavilan but in almost every other category Gavilan was simply better.

Is SRL greater than Armstrong, based on skill?

A lot of people didn't come back to regain the title at 45 years of age. Henry Armstrong didn't, does this mean he doesn't rate over George Foreman?

I asked if Gavilan did something similar to that. I'm guessing you have no answer.

Foreman did not have 7 title defenses, Foreman was not a more skilled boxer than Gavilan, Foreman did not have as many wins over top ranked contenders.[/QUOTE]

If we rate fighters by title defenses, then Joe Calzaghe would be greater than Benny Leonard and Willie Pep.

If we rate fighters by skill, then SRL would be greater than Armstrong.

As for the top ranked contenders part, Foreman's two wins against Frazier, Norton and Moore are greater than the any of the others Gavilan beat. But once again: don't take my word for it, if you don't wish. Put a poll up and get the general consensus.

At 30 years of age and having recently been knocked out twice in the first round by Liston, Patterson was certainly not thought to be in his prime.

Patterson vs Liston was a bad stylistic match-up.

Patterson's chin wasn't good, but he was able to make up for it with his boxing ability against other fighters. As for Liston, he was one of the hardest punchers in the division's history.

If you can't spell a bad style match-up, I don't know what to tell you.

Liston was the champ but he was a non-factor in the division after Ali beat him.

Ruined.

I'd say that most agree Ellis's true prime was in the late 1960's when he held a version of the heavyweight title.

There's no shame in losing to Frazier. Ellis just couldn't match up against someone like him.

I'm not claiming that these fighters should be counted out for Ali because they may or may not have been at their peak, I'm claiming that Zivic or Armstrong shouldn't be for Robinson. No, beating Armstrong at the time Robinson did is not the same as beating a peak Armstrong, but he was still the top ranked contender in the division and Robinson had to get past him, so it should count.

I never said it didn't count. I just don't count it as a full-credited win. Does it get credit? Yes. Does it get full credit? No.

So we shouldn't bring up Robinson's accomplishments because heavyweights couldn't do it? Armstrong's accomplishment of holding titles in three divisions shouldn't be brought up if he were compared to Joe Frazier?

It's only a part of what makes Robinson great, I'm not saying that Robinson rates over Ali because he was successful in different weight classes. It's the combination of everything he accomplished that's why he rates over Ali.

It shouldn't be brought up to make a comparison, if no comparison can fairly be made.

But you said that Robinson only fought a bunch of tomato cans and clubfighters. He fought numerous ranked contenders in his 200 fights which is a part of why he is great.

A fighter could have 40 fights and fight 30 contenders in total. Another could fight 100 times and fight 20 contenders in total. In that case the former should rate over the latter when it comes to the amount of contenders fought. Like I said previously, Len Wickwar had more fights than anybody, but he beat nobody. I don't rate fighters based on how many wins they had, but how many wins against good fighters they had.

In this case Robinson fought 200 times, fought nearly a hundred contenders, while Ali fought about 60 times and fought around 40-50 contenders. Robinson fought more contenders than almost anybody.

What you don't seem to realize is that everything I said adds up together.

Fighters fought much more frequently to make a decent living, thus they would fought more contenders than any of the past few generations of fighters.

If Robinson was fighting in the 1980s and 1990s, do you honestly think he woud've fought one hundred contenders?

It was part of his "strategy" but it was also a flaw because some fighters benefited from it. Frazier only used his left hook, and a great left hook it was, but he would have been even better if he had a great right hand to go along with that left hook. Robinson was a great headhunter and a great body puncher, with dynamite in both hands.

If they didn't need it, then why would they try and add it to their strategies and styles?

Opinion backed up by factual evidence.

I have countered most of your opinions, as well as the factual evidence behind it. But don't worry. We're still debating and it's far from over.

disolly
03-19-2010, 03:06 PM
ali was great, but sugar ray robinson, in my opinion is the greatest ever. 128-1-2 with 84 knockouts, in his first 131 pro fights, avenged that 1 loss a couple fights later (against lamotta of course, and robinson had a 16 pound weight disadvantage in the 10 round fight he loss to him), beat many other ATG's,,, and greats like Ali, Louis, and Leonard all call him the p4p best ever.

TheGreatA
03-19-2010, 04:14 PM
You don't understand sarcasm, do you?

And yes, I'm so worried that adding Zivic to Robinson's resume of prime fighters that he beat would stomp all over Ali's resume.

Not Zivic by himself, but Zivic along with all the very good and great fighters that Robinson beat which you are discrediting.

I don't see any significant difference in speed between his hand speed against Bethea and his hand speed against Ali (in their first fight).

Perhaps it only appears that Liston was faster in that fight because he was able to unload combinations on Bethea, while he wasn't able to do so against Ali. The reason for that being because Ali was far more superior in defense and in overall fighting ability than Bethea was. Fighters look different against every other fighter they face.

I see a clear difference in speed. Watch Liston's fights post-Ali, he fights at a snail's pace. Liston was still a threat even when he fought Ali and a great win but a case can be made that he was not quite the man he was 5 years ago.

What makes you say that?

He retired on his stool halfway before his first fight with Ali and got knocked out in the first round in their rematch. Kind of hard to say whether or not he would have been able to go the distance, don't ya' think?

He had an injured shoulder. Kind of hard to continue with that, when your shoulder plays into every punch you throw. You know? Because you need to throw punches, in order to win the fight.

Also, he was getting a rematch and that could've possibly made him think he was going to better next time.

It's fairly easy to say that he couldn't have been able to go the distance because he didn't. Liston showed clear signs of tiring by the 6th round and it's part of why he retired on his stool. A few years later he ran out of gas again and got knocked out for it against Leotis Martin.

Are you saying that Liston quit because of an injury? Shouldn't it take away something from the win?

Anyway, my point was not that Ali doesn't deserve credit for beating Liston, it was that Robinson deserves credit for beating Zivic and Armstrong.

I thought we already went over this. A real boxing historian would know that age doesn't play a part in how good a fighter is.

Armstrong was done by 32 and retired. Jones was in his prime and dominating in his division, at that age. Does that mean that Jones is a greater fighter than Armstrong?

Didn't think so.


You're putting words in the mouth of others yet again. I never claimed anything to that effect. I proved that Armstrong at 30 years of age was still a very good, top ranked fighter by the time Robinson fought him unlike Roy Jones when he faced Calzaghe. Calzaghe did not face a 32 year old Roy Jones, he faced a 40 year old Roy Jones. It's you who brought up the comparison in the first place.

Freddie (Red) Cochrane*, Champion

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Johnny Greco
4. Jimmy McDaniels
5. Fritzie Zivic
6. Bee Bee Wright
7. Harold Green
8. Tippy Larkin
9. Sammy Angott
10. Billy Arnold


Most, but it's pretty close.

I don't care to answer that comparison question, since it would just lead into another useless debate about those fighters, without fully concentrating on Ali and Robinson.

Like I said, though. If you wanna talk about, go ahead and make a new thread and ask other posters their opinions on it. I might even add into it. Just don't try to create these extra little debates in a thread that's not about them.

This is the last I'll be answering about it.

Discussing the opposition that Robinson and Ali beat is quite a big part in a debate about Robinson and Ali, don't you think? I personally think you should look into the fighters that Robinson beat a little more. You can't fully appreciate a fighter if you don't know about most of the fighters he beat. Everyone knows about Ali's opponents, but how many know about Robinson's?

Where did I say that wins over good fighters don't count? Please show me.


After I brought up names like Steve Belloise, Bobo Olson, Robert Villemain you responded with:

"How about we point to the important fights of his career, instead of men who only fought to put food onto the table?"

I corrected you by saying that these fights were indeed important for Robinson and shouldn't be disregarded.


Foreman's accomplishments are better than Gavilan's. Anyone would tell you that.

If you mean accomplishment as in Foreman's accomplishment of winning the title at 45 years of age then yes, but he has that over a lot of fighters.


Is SRL greater than Armstrong, based on skill?

There are many aspects of skill. Was Duran faster or more fleet-footed than Leonard? No, but he was a better infighter and pressure fighter. Same goes for Armstrong. All Foreman has over Gavilan is power. He was not technically better in any category.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GyiFIdbN2H4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GyiFIdbN2H4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IH4GEcjJV68&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IH4GEcjJV68&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I asked if Gavilan did something similar to that. I'm guessing you have no answer.

How many fighters in history did something similar to that? Foreman winning the title was a unique accomplishment, one that he deserves all the credit for. Other fighters can still be rated over him.

If we rate fighters by title defenses, then Joe Calzaghe would be greater than Benny Leonard and Willie Pep.

Calzaghe defended a WBO belt against European opponents in a weak division. Gavilan defended the legitimate welterweight title in a strong division.

If we rate fighters by skill, then SRL would be greater than Armstrong.

Not necessarily. Two entirely different styles that we're talking about here, and I'd say that both were equally as effective at what they did. With Armstrong's resume and accomplishments, he gets edge out of these two as far as I'm concerned although both were great.

As for the top ranked contenders part, Foreman's two wins against Frazier, Norton and Moore are greater than the any of the others Gavilan beat. But once again: don't take my word for it, if you don't wish. Put a poll up and get the general consensus.

In a p4p sense, Norton and Moorer would have gotten their chin checked by quite a few Gavilan opponents. Gavilan unlike them had an all-time great chin and was never stopped. Frazier was a great fighter but he was made for Foreman. Foreman struggled with good boxers like Ali and Young. Gavilan proved he could deal with any style.

I'd say all in all, with Gavilan having fought more contenders, a high level of opposition, defending his title successfully 7 times and being the more complete fighter of the two, is deserving of being rated over Foreman.

Patterson vs Liston was a bad stylistic match-up.

Patterson's chin wasn't good, but he was able to make up for it with his boxing ability against other fighters. As for Liston, he was one of the hardest punchers in the division's history.

If you can't spell a bad style match-up, I don't know what to tell you.

He was knocked out twice in the first round. If that doesn't take your confidence away then nothing does. Patterson was highly regarded in the mid/late 1950's, by the mid 1960's he was not rated as highly. It's not the same thing as beating Patterson the heavyweight champion.

There's no shame in losing to Frazier. Ellis just couldn't match up against someone like him.

An elite fighter should have been able to match up with Frazier though. I'm not too sure if I'd call Ellis elite. His high point was in the late 1960's when he achieved his best victories. By the time of the Ali fight, his stock had gone down and it would continue to go down until he was no more than a traveling journeyman.


I never said it didn't count. I just don't count it as a full-credited win. Does it get credit? Yes. Does it get full credit? No.

I don't count it as a full-credited win either. But it makes sense to give him quite a lot of credit for beating an all-time great who was still top ranked in the division.

It shouldn't be brought up to make a comparison, if no comparison can fairly be made.

No comparison was made either. However there's no way not to acknowledge Robinson's achievements in several weight classes. It's a part of why he is great.

TheGreatA
03-19-2010, 04:14 PM
What you don't seem to realize is that everything I said adds up together.

Fighters fought much more frequently to make a decent living, thus they would fought more contenders than any of the past few generations of fighters.

If Robinson was fighting in the 1980s and 1990s, do you honestly think he woud've fought one hundred contenders?


Why should Robinson not be credited for fighting more contenders due to the "conditions of the era"? It's not like there were many, if any fighters in the 1950's either who beat as many contenders as Robinson did. That's why he was regarded as the best. Earlier you were making it out to be as if he fought a bunch of tomato cans.

If they didn't need it, then why would they try and add it to their strategies and styles?


To be better? Do you disagree that Frazier would have been better had his right hand been equally as good as his left hook? Do you disagree that Ali would have been even better had he been a great body puncher with power in both hands?

I have countered most of your opinions, as well as the factual evidence behind it. But don't worry. We're still debating and it's far from over.

Amidst all this supposed "countering" you haven't really brought up much evidence why Ali is greater than Robinson, and mostly try to take down anything Robinson accomplished.

Ziggy Stardust
03-20-2010, 10:14 AM
What I proved wrong was that you couldn't name anymore fighters who had a very good chance at beating Ali, while I could for Robinson. Look at how you avoided replying to my last statement, where I just called you out on it, once again.

And, now that you chose to run away by logging off, it's clear who got the better of this debate.

Since he's been banned it's probably pointless to reply but I was going to say that I had work to do: That's the difference between being a responsible adult and an indolent adolescent like him :)

Poet

Forza
03-20-2010, 10:22 PM
Ali was more of a dominate champ and fought better competition. 90% of SRRs fights were against bums and he still got destroyed by jake lamotta.

Ali was the best HW of all time probably the best boxer of all time. In his prime he wouldve killed anyone.

razzledaz 38
03-21-2010, 02:02 PM
pound for pound i think ali was better than robinson only just

cotto16
03-21-2010, 02:05 PM
Robinsion!

Shabba Rank$
03-21-2010, 07:59 PM
I'd probably take Sugar over Ali. More complete in my opinion.

NChristo
03-21-2010, 09:04 PM
Ali was more of a dominate champ and fought better competition. 90% of SRRs fights were against bums and he still got destroyed by jake lamotta.


Oooohh dear, maybe you should look at Sugars record again and look up some of the boxers he fought, "destroyed" by LaMotta ? maybe you should watch the fight aswell.

Robinson gets a clear vote for me.

tanibanana
03-21-2010, 09:38 PM
pound for pound i think ali was better than robinson only just
I beg to differ, I think it was clear that Robinson was the best fighter pound for pound.. to a point where he revolutionized and coined that "mythical crown" because of his greatness...

Jim Jeffries
03-22-2010, 02:16 AM
TheGreatA is on point, as usual. A credit to this site.

Ali has a battle on his hands with Joe Louis as to the greatest HW. Sugar Ray stands alone.

JudeTheObscure
03-22-2010, 02:54 AM
what this entire thread is based upon is really how you define "greatness".

Sugar Ray Robinson is the greater boxer... he always will be, above everyone. He has more knockouts then anyone compared to him has fights! The man is the reason the pound-for-pound list was invented.

Muhammad Ali is the greatest fighter. His fights, his aura, his life transcended the sport. His fights unified and went beyond his era. Simple as that.

JAB5239
03-22-2010, 05:30 AM
what this entire thread is based upon is really how you define "greatness".

Sugar Ray Robinson is the greater boxer... he always will be, above everyone. He has more knockouts then anyone compared to him has fights! The man is the reason the pound-for-pound list was invented.

Muhammad Ali is the greatest fighter. His fights, his aura, his life transcended the sport. His fights unified and went beyond his era. Simple as that.

Ali was and is the greatest personality and ambassador in boxing history. His accomplishments and resume are incredible, but there are fighters in history, besides Robby, who should be ranked above him in my opinion. That is no slight to Ali, only an objective opinion.

The Beatles
03-22-2010, 06:52 AM
Sugar Ray > Ali > Everyone Else

VegaSinclair
03-22-2010, 03:08 PM
They both fought great fighters but as far as the greatest goes, I have to give it to Ali just because of his whole story and the history behind his fights. Plus, I used to live in Louisville, his hometown.

valero
03-22-2010, 03:12 PM
Ali's title reign was much better than that of Robinson's. He had a better world title record and (in my opinion) beat the better fighters.

You're nuts.