View Full Version : Are we all deluded about Sugar Ray Robinson?


kendom
01-28-2012, 02:25 PM
I was having this argument with a guy on youtube some time ago over a fantasy match-up between Ray Robinson and Sugar Ray Leonard. He claimed that Robinson had " no defense, a poor jab, throws terrible punches that are too wide, and leaves himself off-balance." He claimed that Leonard would be able to easily beat Robinson, because of his superior hand speed and better "form" even once claimng that Robinson defense consisted of "blocking punches with his head"
When I made my rebuttal and asking what he meant by "form" he said

" By form, I'm***65279; referring to Leonard's textbook punches, instead of the wide, off-balance, amateurish shots Robinson takes. Robinson could never hit Leonard with those shots, and would get killed with counter punches".

oh btw he also claimed that Lamotta was a lousy fighter and would be easily beaten by Leonard and get "killed in the 70's"

So are we all deluded? cause the Robinson he was talking about didn't seem to be the same Robinson I know. I thought he was overblowing Robinsons faults and exaggerating Leonards skills, but it did get me thinking.

Any thoughts?

Barn
01-28-2012, 02:29 PM
The guy is obviously a bit of a moron.

I was surprised by just how skilful LaMotta looks on film.

Barn
01-28-2012, 02:30 PM
As soon as I pressed reply it came to me he's obviously only ever watched a HL of Robinson.

kendom
01-28-2012, 02:42 PM
The guy is obviously a bit of a moron.

I was surprised by just how skilful LaMotta looks on film.

Yh I thought so too, I was appalled at his bias, you can see the argument if you want this the link to the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql2jscsVcjE
Go back some pages Im kenomy66 and the guys name is TA15 something

Barn
01-28-2012, 03:07 PM
The guy is a bit of an idiot.

I disagreed with a lot of things he said, too many to list. I disagreed with you a little on a few points as well though.

The first being Robinson's jab was only 7/10. I think Sugar's jab is 8.5/10 or something along them lines, probably more. It's a thing of beauty the speed and accuracy which he shoots it out. Constantly moving and firing that jab early in the fight. Keeping the opponent at bay.

The second being that Leonard didn't have power to keep Basilio off him. I find Leonard's punching does get under-rated and he was definitely a big banger. I think Leonard's shots to have the sting to discourage Basilio to just under the same extent Robinson's did.

Good debating though!

Vadrigar.
01-28-2012, 03:13 PM
" By form, I'm***65279; referring to Leonard's textbook punches, instead of the wide, off-balance, amateurish shots Robinson takes. Robinson could never hit Leonard with those shots, and would get killed with counter punches".



It's called combination punching. When Robinson wants to box he will box. Remember Hearns was out boxing Leonard before he got tired and Robinson's stamina wasn't a problem.

Maybe Robinson has to open up to keep the big middleweights off him. he wouldn't need to do that with Leonard.

kendom
01-28-2012, 03:24 PM
It's called combination punching. When Robinson wants to box he will box. Remember Hearns was out boxing Leonard before he got tired and Robinson's stamina wasn't a problem.

Maybe Robinson has to open up to keep the big middleweights off him. he wouldn't need to do that with Leonard.

Yh I know I was just quoting the guy I was debating with

kendom
01-28-2012, 03:29 PM
The guy is a bit of an idiot.

I disagreed with a lot of things he said, too many to list. I disagreed with you a little on a few points as well though.

The first being Robinson's jab was only 7/10. I think Sugar's jab is 8.5/10 or something along them lines, probably more. It's a thing of beauty the speed and accuracy which he shoots it out. Constantly moving and firing that jab early in the fight. Keeping the opponent at bay.
The second being that Leonard didn't have power to keep Basilio off him. I find Leonard's punching does get under-rated and he was definitely a big banger. I think Leonard's shots to have the sting to discourage Basilio to just under the same extent Robinson's did.

Good debating though!

I dont think that Robinsons jab was that big a part of his arsenal, although it was a very good jab, I think it was more of a range finder jab than one he used to control a fight

And yeah about Basilio, well this point applied more to Lamotta to be honest, I dont think Leonards shots would have kept away as much as Robinsons. Since there's no footage of the 1st five fights where Lamotta was much faster its hard to imagine how Robinson was able to constantly beat him, but I think power would have come into the equation.

Miburo
01-28-2012, 05:49 PM
Robinson would only really get off balance when he was committing to the tail end of a combination, such as when he'd double and triple up the left hook on a retreating opponent.

AntonTheMeh
01-28-2012, 07:42 PM
lol. dude makes it seem as if that's how ray would start his attack. and for the record, dude needs to go check out ray in his prime. there are quite a few little clips of him. the man would have been owning WW and MW for the past decade that's how ahead of his time he was.

all i need is Leonard hearns I as a reference. what happened when hearns boxed? he outboxed Leonard. it was only when Leonard made it a dogfight that he started winning. ray would have outboxed him, and outlasted him in a brawl. that's not to take anything away from Leonard , as i think he's the second greatest ww. i just think SRR would have beaten the breaks off of him.

NChristo
01-28-2012, 09:58 PM
My thought is too never take what people say on Youtube seriously, used to try and 'debate' with people on there but got nothing except insult and bias rebuttals, then I found BoxingScene.

F l i c k e r
01-28-2012, 10:00 PM
In short, yes.

It's been a custom to over glorify the history of the sport because it is indeed so rich. However, yes, people get blinded by it and will refuse to admit that they had flaws and could be beaten by people who came after them.

JAB5239
01-28-2012, 10:10 PM
The guy is obviously a bit of a moron.

I was surprised by just how skilful LaMotta looks on film.

LaMotta gets a bad rap as a face first fighter because of the movie "Raging bull". Truth be told he had excellent skills.

them_apples
01-29-2012, 03:21 AM
Robinson changed boxing. I'll give him that. He had good hand speed and the heart of a champion as well as formidable punching power. He also had a LOT of experience in the ring.

I'll agree though that Leonard's technique is superior to Robinsons, as is his skill.

Robinson probably hit a little harder, he looked like he had heavy hands - but at the end of the day I'm picking SRL to win - no bias here.

them_apples
01-29-2012, 03:23 AM
LaMotta gets a bad rap as a face first fighter because of the movie "Raging bull". Truth be told he had excellent skills.

he did have some skill, but not a whole lot. Be real here Jab. Lamotta had a cast iron chin and the heart of a lion, a combination of genetics (look at the size of his dome) and the era he grew up in (tough as **** and not as educated). However, Lamotta was limited skillwise.

BennyST
01-29-2012, 06:47 AM
lol. dude makes it seem as if that's how ray would start his attack. and for the record, dude needs to go check out ray in his prime. there are quite a few little clips of him. the man would have been owning WW and MW for the past decade that's how ahead of his time he was.

all i need is Leonard hearns I as a reference. what happened when hearns boxed? he outboxed Leonard. it was only when Leonard made it a dogfight that he started winning. ray would have outboxed him, and outlasted him in a brawl. that's not to take anything away from Leonard , as i think he's the second greatest ww. i just think SRR would have beaten the breaks off of him.

Hearns would outbox Robinson too. There isn't a 147 pound fighter in the history of the sport that could outbox Hearns to a decision. Not Robinson, Leonard, Naploes, Griffith, Rodriguez, no one.

Hearns is taller than Robinson; 2-3 inches at least.
Hearns is as fast as Robinson.
Hearns has 6 inch reach advantage over Robinson.
Hearns has a better jab, boxes at range better, uses his height and full reach better.
Hearns is also more powerful than Robinson.

All saying, just because Leonard got outboxed by Hearns means utterly zero, nil, nadda, nothing, zip when it comes to facing Robinson. Leonard and Robinson fight very, very, very similar. They have the same height, same reach, but Leonard has the advantage in speed, jab, footwork....ie. he's the better boxer and would be the one outboxing Robinson, not the other way around. Robinsons would have the power, inside advantage and would be landing the harder punches. What Robinson would need to do is fight fire with fire and try to win in the exchanges as Leonard is punching, much like Duran did, but obviously Robinson is much taller, greater reach etc than Duran.

However, all that aside, if there was someone that would beat Robinson at 147 it would definitely be Leonard for my liking. In fact I would easily put up the fight as even odds. I can just as easily see Leonard winning it as I can Robinson. I do believe that Leonard may have been the perfect foil to Robinson and would probably be one of the few to say that Leonard has a couple of advantages over Robinson that would put the fight in his favour just a little bit.

Robinson is the GOAT. No, he's not invincible, but he's shown by the fighters he's beat that he's got everything needed to beat any style. However, Leonard has all the same qualities, plus IMO he's just a little bit faster with a little bit better jab and his defence is better. I think he could outpoint Robinson.

IronDanHamza
01-29-2012, 11:21 AM
I think it just boils down to the fact that the uneducated try and talk about things they know nothing about.

That's a big problem on this site and especially youtube.

If you're uneducated about something, why comment?

GJC
01-29-2012, 11:25 AM
The perfect fighter hasn't been born yet but I've never seen anyone better than SRR. Thing is you can break down a fighters skill and pick out parts that some fighters are stronger in. Did Hagler have a better chin? Quite possibly but Robinson had a hell of a chin. Did Hearns have a better jab was Leonard faster? Again probably but Robinson scores high. Pep was a better boxer but SRR was no mug. Thing is SRR did pretty much everything well and didn't have many weaknesses so for me he was the best. Might not be top of any category but gets considered in most. Y

JAB5239
01-29-2012, 12:14 PM
he did have some skill, but not a whole lot. Be real here Jab. Lamotta had a cast iron chin and the heart of a lion, a combination of genetics (look at the size of his dome) and the era he grew up in (tough as **** and not as educated). However, Lamotta was limited skillwise.

Gotta disagree bro. He had a very well balanced attack to the head and body, was good at mixing up his punches, used feints, had an OK jab which he seemed to use to set up his body attack and was good at slipping punches. Check out some of his other fights besides Robinson.

PAC-BOY
01-29-2012, 12:41 PM
I was having this argument with a guy on youtube some time ago over a fantasy match-up between Ray Robinson and Sugar Ray Leonard. He claimed that Robinson had " no defense, a poor jab, throws terrible punches that are too wide, and leaves himself off-balance." He claimed that Leonard would be able to easily beat Robinson, because of his superior hand speed and better "form" even once claimng that Robinson defense consisted of "blocking punches with his head"
When I made my rebuttal and asking what he meant by "form" he said

" By form, I'm***65279; referring to Leonard's textbook punches, instead of the wide, off-balance, amateurish shots Robinson takes. Robinson could never hit Leonard with those shots, and would get killed with counter punches".

oh btw he also claimed that Lamotta was a lousy fighter and would be easily beaten by Leonard and get "killed in the 70's"

So are we all deluded? cause the Robinson he was talking about didn't seem to be the same Robinson I know. I thought he was overblowing Robinsons faults and exaggerating Leonards skills, but it did get me thinking.

Any thoughts?

you shouldnt have had this conversation with this moron to begin with. If any one thinks SRR wasnt the best of all time is smoking crack mixed with Meth and a dab of *****. Of course everyone has their opinion. His was just way out there.

kendom
01-29-2012, 12:44 PM
In short, yes.

It's been a custom to over glorify the history of the sport because it is indeed so rich. However, yes, people get blinded by it and will refuse to admit that they had flaws and could be beaten by people who came after them.

We all admit that Robinson had flaws as a fighter, his love of getting into a scrap and his defense that could have been better, however when people make rdiculous statemnets we just have to call them out on it, as this guy did

Ray Corso
01-29-2012, 12:47 PM
Sugar Ray could box and fight thats what seperated him from most other boxers. He had options to choose from when facing different styles and had method and techniques that were all above average and actually was outstanding in most phases. He was tuff when he was in trouble and could knock out anyone with either hand and thats another huge difference that seperates him from all other boxers. Theres fighters that are capable with both hands but most boxers have one hand and one punch to rely on to hurt someone with. Sugar had ALOT of them! Just talk to the best boxing minds from that era and of this era and see what they say. Everyone can have an opinion and thats fine but to listen to someone who has NO experience in boxing suggest that Leonard could beat Sugar Ray is ridiculous, Leonard was a tremendous athlete who could box and fight pretty well, well enough to form a great career but stop and look at their historys. When your a full time boxer who has unbelievable longevity and actually maintained skills well beyond your prime thats very impressive. The active voices on this forum are to wrapped up in winning & losing and forget that competing and have dignity is what the greats are all about. I just posted on another thread that Sugarman won 100 bouts in a row!!! You can fight your sister 100 times and lose at least 12 times. Then theres a few on these threads that couldn't win one! To see and read all the info thats right in front of you and not be able to understand greatness pretty much explains why some opinions have no merit. There is right and wrong along with proper techniques and willingness to WIN. TV ruined boxing as it was and the lack of willingness is apparent now. Its plain to see with the Mayweather vs Pacman disgrace. When both people have an opportunity to earn 50 million and GIVE the FANS what they'd like to see theres something very wrong with BOTH people. Forget the politics and good ol' boy BS if those fellows want to fight it would be ON!
Now think back to Sugarman vs the Bull no one wanted to fight them and thats a TRUE STATEMENT not a movie plot so they fought each other and other than the last fight which got to be one sided the others were brutal fights and both of them disliked each other but the respect was high!! Wheres the RESPECT factor in Mayweather vs Pacman? Businessmen not real fighters! Ray Corso

them_apples
01-29-2012, 02:36 PM
IMO Robinsons skills just fit nicely inside the 4 Hagler, Hearns, SRL, Duran.

They all had a chance of beating each other. SRR is not better than those 4, he's simply on that level. His competition was not as good as those 4.

Even Duran, if anyone just compares his height too Lamotta and assumes he loses to SRR is stupid. Duran had incredible defense, was explosive and a slippery counter puncher. As well as having heavy hands. Look at Duran in his early days at WW. a Monster. SRR by Ud however, close fight, maybe Sd.

Hagler, Hagler IMO, too strong. He'd beat Robinson in a good fight. Look what he did to Hearns. Even look what an aging Hagler did to SRL. I don't see SRR having the defense game that ARL had in that fight, it would become a war and Hagler chin was on Lamottas level only Hagler had incredible skill and good punching power. He was a southpaw too. Hagler by Ud or late stoppage.

Leonard, He seems like a bad matchup for SRR. Only because he's better than SRR main strengths. Speed and boxing ability. They both got good feet, SRL has better feet. And better technique. Superior defense. SRR has that chin and incredible heart, better punching power. Don't see it being enough. SRL was a highly, highly skilled boxer. SRL by Ud.

Hearns, if he hit SRR flush he'd put him away. It could happen. I'd bank on SRR actually weathering the storm and catching Tommy though. SRR by mid to late stoppage.

The later era was quite good too. A little more one dimensional but it could produce some good fights too. DLH at his peak is underrated.

Ray Corso
01-29-2012, 05:37 PM
them_apples in all honesty you have no idea how Sugar Ray punched you think hes light handed like Leonard, your wrong. He moved solid fighters when he landed and thats a key in punching power to be able to move your opponent. Leonard was not faster with his feet or hands, the shoe shine bull **** don't count when the bell rings. As for opponents Leonard fought a handfull of fights and other than Hearns and then waiting for Hagler to get older never fought anyone other than Duran who at his best was a lightweight. When you fight 200 fights that what real fighters did. Leonards record could have been accomblished in 3 years by Sugarman. Theres no comparison when it comes to the greatest boxer of all time when the ALL Time greats say its Sugarman theres a reason, experience has merit idol dreams doesn't. All respects I disagree completely with you. Ray

Barn
01-29-2012, 06:38 PM
them_apples in all honesty you have no idea how Sugar Ray punched you think hes light handed like Leonard, your wrong. He moved solid fighters when he landed and thats a key in punching power to be able to move your opponent. Leonard was not faster with his feet or hands, the shoe shine bull **** don't count when the bell rings. As for opponents Leonard fought a handfull of fights and other than Hearns and then waiting for Hagler to get older never fought anyone other than Duran who at his best was a lightweight. When you fight 200 fights that what real fighters did. Leonards record could have been accomblished in 3 years by Sugarman. Theres no comparison when it comes to the greatest boxer of all time when the ALL Time greats say its Sugarman theres a reason, experience has merit idol dreams doesn't. All respects I disagree completely with you. Ray
I think it's unfair to say Leonard was light-handed.

Ray Corso
01-29-2012, 07:20 PM
I watched Ray box since he was a J.O boxer in the ABF, I brought my team and allstar teams down to Maryland and Jersey for J.O. and Open class shows for years. Always competed at the Ohio State Fair Show and the Gloves (state, reg. an nationals) also the USA/ABF tourn. was the Region One coach a few times including the first few years at the olympic training center in Colo. Springs (first year was 82, I think) Mr. Nappi (bless his soul)was the National coach and I was the Region One coach. My teams included my son Ray Bright and a 15 year old heavyweight named Mike Tyson a few other good boxers too.
I don't know all of Leonards fights but other than his second fight in New Haven Conn. when he fought a retired lightweight who just got his nose fixed I don't remember a one punch knock out win. I might be wrong but his punches worked well in combination but he didn't have one punch power like Sugar Ray. I'm not knocking Leonard he was an Olympic and Pro Champ and all though the junior weight classes are nonsense he did fight the best of his era but he also fought very little. If you look at Sugarman fighing passed his prime and Leonard past his prime its a joke. Leonard fought guys his age Sugarman was fighting the up and coming kids who were hungry. Fellas it was a different time and the fighters back then had a different reason other than a purse they had enormous pride and wanted people to see they were the baddest in the world, I just don't see that anymore. Leonard had some of that and his lodd to Duran enabled him to grow as a fighter but hes no match for the Sugarman. He would do well through the early rounds and be competitive too but then his best attributes would be tuned against him and when your best isn't working and your being counter with movement and punches by a man who can hurt you your will changes thats what I don't see in good fighters today. They don't impose their will and take over the fight, I guess its talents lost but I do see some fellows that do have it. They fight as if they've been paid already and their pride is very small. Its just my observation, I'm not real old but I was raised in this sport and taught by some very good and knowledgable folks.
Did you see the fight were Sugarman KOs Carmen Bassillo by stepping back and catching him with his head lowered and Sugarmans left hook drops him. Thats the best I've seen and what makes it the best is that its Bassillo another Monster guy with guts and grit like few others ever had. Imagine what a "pay perview" might ring in today with a Bull vs Sugarman main go!!!!
Vegas would be rockin' Mayweather vs Pacman might be a 6 round opener!
Ray Corso

DarkTerror88
01-29-2012, 08:31 PM
I pick Robinson. There might have been some more durable, more conidtioned, faster, stronger guys. But Robinson is the GOAT for the intangibles

He has much more experience than leonard (Which is a difficult feat) and although both found a way to dig deep and pull out in the end, i think Robinson cas a bigger shovel to dig down and pulls out the win in an all time classic.

AntonTheMeh
01-29-2012, 09:40 PM
Hearns would outbox Robinson too. There isn't a 147 pound fighter in the history of the sport that could outbox Hearns to a decision. Not Robinson, Leonard, Naploes, Griffith, Rodriguez, no one.

Hearns is taller than Robinson; 2-3 inches at least.
Hearns is as fast as Robinson.
Hearns has 6 inch reach advantage over Robinson.
Hearns has a better jab, boxes at range better, uses his height and full reach better.
Hearns is also more powerful than Robinson.



All saying, just because Leonard got outboxed by Hearns means utterly zero, nil, nadda, nothing, zip when it comes to facing Robinson. Leonard and Robinson fight very, very, very similar. They have the same height, same reach, but Leonard has the advantage in speed, jab, footwork....ie. he's the better boxer and would be the one outboxing Robinson, not the other way around. Robinsons would have the power, inside advantage and would be landing the harder punches. What Robinson would need to do is fight fire with fire and try to win in the exchanges as Leonard is punching, much like Duran did, but obviously Robinson is much taller, greater reach etc than Duran.

However, all that aside, if there was someone that would beat Robinson at 147 it would definitely be Leonard for my liking. In fact I would easily put up the fight as even odds. I can just as easily see Leonard winning it as I can Robinson. I do believe that Leonard may have been the perfect foil to Robinson and would probably be one of the few to say that Leonard has a couple of advantages over Robinson that would put the fight in his favour just a little bit.

Robinson is the GOAT. No, he's not invincible, but he's shown by the fighters he's beat that he's got everything needed to beat any style. However, Leonard has all the same qualities, plus IMO he's just a little bit faster with a little bit better jab and his defence is better. I think he could outpoint Robinson.

I'm not going to get in to the specifics of this post because I'm being lazy right now. but this thread is about someones opinion regarding robinson and leonard. not hearns. and me saying leonard go outboxed by hearns is more relevant to the topic then you rambling on about hearns.

F l i c k e r
01-29-2012, 10:17 PM
IMO Robinsons skills just fit nicely inside the 4 Hagler, Hearns, SRL, Duran.

They all had a chance of beating each other. SRR is not better than those 4, he's simply on that level. His competition was not as good as those 4.

Even Duran, if anyone just compares his height too Lamotta and assumes he loses to SRR is stupid. Duran had incredible defense, was explosive and a slippery counter puncher. As well as having heavy hands. Look at Duran in his early days at WW. a Monster. SRR by Ud however, close fight, maybe Sd.

Hagler, Hagler IMO, too strong. He'd beat Robinson in a good fight. Look what he did to Hearns. Even look what an aging Hagler did to SRL. I don't see SRR having the defense game that ARL had in that fight, it would become a war and Hagler chin was on Lamottas level only Hagler had incredible skill and good punching power. He was a southpaw too. Hagler by Ud or late stoppage.

Leonard, He seems like a bad matchup for SRR. Only because he's better than SRR main strengths. Speed and boxing ability. They both got good feet, SRL has better feet. And better technique. Superior defense. SRR has that chin and incredible heart, better punching power. Don't see it being enough. SRL was a highly, highly skilled boxer. SRL by Ud.

Hearns, if he hit SRR flush he'd put him away. It could happen. I'd bank on SRR actually weathering the storm and catching Tommy though. SRR by mid to late stoppage.

The later era was quite good too. A little more one dimensional but it could produce some good fights too. DLH at his peak is underrated.

Good post.

them_apples
01-29-2012, 11:23 PM
them_apples in all honesty you have no idea how Sugar Ray punched you think hes light handed like Leonard, your wrong. He moved solid fighters when he landed and thats a key in punching power to be able to move your opponent. Leonard was not faster with his feet or hands, the shoe shine bull **** don't count when the bell rings. As for opponents Leonard fought a handfull of fights and other than Hearns and then waiting for Hagler to get older never fought anyone other than Duran who at his best was a lightweight. When you fight 200 fights that what real fighters did. Leonards record could have been accomblished in 3 years by Sugarman. Theres no comparison when it comes to the greatest boxer of all time when the ALL Time greats say its Sugarman theres a reason, experience has merit idol dreams doesn't. All respects I disagree completely with you. Ray

I said he had heavy hands. lol

And moving your oponent is a sign of a push, not power. I don't know if you have boxed before but anyone who tries to "make the bag swing" is almost never a hard puncher.

And Leonard could bang. I said SRR probably hit harder though.

Ziggy Stardust
01-29-2012, 11:43 PM
Where did idea that Leonard was a "pitty-pat" puncher come from? The Hagler fight? When I hear that I begin to wonder if the only Ray Leonard they've seen is the comeback version. I'm sorry but prior to his first retirement Leonard had a hell of a punch. Was it on Robinson's level? No, but VERY few fighters could punch with Robinson at Welter so that's hardly an indictment of Leonard.

It just seems like this one of those myths that have cropped up in recent years around Leonard.....Like the one that says he was a "runner" or "dancer" ect. Well, if all you've seen of Leonard are Duran II and Hagler maybe you could get that impression. The problem is neither of those fights are "typical" Leonard fights. If you watch a good selection of Leonard's pre-first retrirement fights you'll realize that his tactics in Duran I was his NORMAL style of fighting. He was a boxer-puncher prior to the first retirement NOT a dancer.

Poet

BennyST
01-30-2012, 07:41 AM
Where did idea that Leonard was a "pitty-pat" puncher come from? The Hagler fight? When I hear that I begin to wonder if the only Ray Leonard they've seen is the comeback version. I'm sorry but prior to his first retirement Leonard had a hell of a punch. Was it on Robinson's level? No, but VERY few fighters could punch with Robinson at Welter so that's hardly an indictment of Leonard.

It just seems like this one of those myths that have cropped up in recent years around Leonard.....Like the one that says he was a "runner" or "dancer" ect. Well, if all you've seen of Leonard are Duran II and Hagler maybe you could get that impression. The problem is neither of those fights are "typical" Leonard fights. If you watch a good selection of Leonard's pre-first retrirement fights you'll realize that his tactics in Duran I was his NORMAL style of fighting. He was a boxer-puncher prior to the first retirement NOT a dancer.

Poet

Absolutely man. So few people get that for some reason. People think of him as the quintessential 'boxer' in the purist sense, jab, jab, move, jab jab, flurry, move, but he was as pure a boxer-puncher as there is.

BennyST
01-30-2012, 07:56 AM
I'm not going to get in to the specifics of this post because I'm being lazy right now. but this thread is about someones opinion regarding robinson and leonard. not hearns. and me saying leonard go outboxed by hearns is more relevant to the topic then you rambling on about hearns.

Yet it was you bringing up Hearns as the reason that Robinson would outbox Leonard, despite it being Leonard and Robinson that fought the same rather than Robinson and Hearns. Simple enough for you?

Robinson doesn't have any of the same strengths that allowed Hearns to out-box Leonard so your theory doesn't really work. If you are going to randomly say "Fighter A got outboxed by Fighter B (despite the fact that one could be a shortass brawler and the other a tall lanky boxer) therefore Fighter C would beat Fighter A" even though B and C are nothing alike and fight nothing alike.

Does that not make any sense to you?

To me, it's like saying Pac would KO Paul Williams in two rounds because Sergio Martinez did. They're both southpaws after all.

BennyST
01-30-2012, 08:53 AM
I reckon he had a pretty good punch! Knock outs from 147 to 168, and against great champions.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/r8INHy35zWg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Arguably one of the top 5-10 one punch knock outs ever....

Ray Corso
01-30-2012, 09:28 AM
them_apples; Moving your opponent means that your contact enables them NOT to return a punch not literally move them. Their are punches that can move you and their not pushing anyone. As to me I fought from 1964 to 1968 in the amatuers and pros. I ran a boxing gym in Hamden Ct. for many years were many state, regional and national champions were trained, by me. The gym exsist today and is operated by one the young men who trained under me over 30 years ago. I had many contenders and world champion come to me for finishing up training and advices for nearing fights. I've worked corners all over the world in world title fights and trained at the Olympic training center in Colo. Springs as the Region One USA coach. I managed, trained and handled fighters from 1964 thru 1986 when I retired from the sport.

So now that you know something about my boxing career tell me something about your amatuer and professional career? Where do you train and who are your mentors? What fights have you participated in as a fighter, trainer or manager? Ray Corso

joseph5620
01-30-2012, 11:43 AM
I think it just boils down to the fact that the uneducated try and talk about things they know nothing about.

That's a big problem on this site and especially youtube.

If you're uneducated about something, why comment?






That is so true and extremely annoying.

joseph5620
01-30-2012, 11:51 AM
In short, yes.

It's been a custom to over glorify the history of the sport because it is indeed so rich. However, yes, people get blinded by it and will refuse to admit that they had flaws and could be beaten by people who came after them.

The same thing can be said when it comes to current fighters and the fighters before them. The Klitschko's are a perfect example.

IronDanHamza
01-30-2012, 11:59 AM
Where did idea that Leonard was a "pitty-pat" puncher come from? The Hagler fight? When I hear that I begin to wonder if the only Ray Leonard they've seen is the comeback version. I'm sorry but prior to his first retirement Leonard had a hell of a punch. Was it on Robinson's level? No, but VERY few fighters could punch with Robinson at Welter so that's hardly an indictment of Leonard.

It just seems like this one of those myths that have cropped up in recent years around Leonard.....Like the one that says he was a "runner" or "dancer" ect. Well, if all you've seen of Leonard are Duran II and Hagler maybe you could get that impression. The problem is neither of those fights are "typical" Leonard fights. If you watch a good selection of Leonard's pre-first retrirement fights you'll realize that his tactics in Duran I was his NORMAL style of fighting. He was a boxer-puncher prior to the first retirement NOT a dancer.

Poet

Exactly.

I was having a debate with someone on here recently, I can't remember who it was.

But there was saying the difference between Robinson and Leonard is Robinson would always bang whereas Leonard would just outbox to a Decision :lol1:

Leonard LOVED to bang. He loved a good scrap. He's so far from a conventional pure boxer it's a ridiculous.

It again boils down to my original post in this thread. It's obvious that someone who say's that hasn't seen enough of Leonard. So why comment? I don't get it.

AntonTheMeh
01-30-2012, 12:26 PM
Yet it was you bringing up Hearns as the reason that Robinson would outbox Leonard, despite it being Leonard and Robinson that fought the same rather than Robinson and Hearns. Simple enough for you?
lol. simple enough for me? really? let me explain it to you. this is about RAY LEONARD VS RAY ROBINSON. NOT RAY VS TOMMY. THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY.

i brought it up because the comparison works. SRR was bigger SRL, and SRR had similar attributes to Hearns.

was that simple enough for you?


Robinson doesn't have any of the same strengths that allowed Hearns to out-box Leonard so your theory doesn't really work. If you are going to randomly say "Fighter A got outboxed by Fighter B (despite the fact that one could be a shortass brawler and the other a tall lanky boxer) therefore Fighter C would beat Fighter A" even though B and C are nothing alike and fight nothing alike.

:lol1:

To me, it's like saying Pac would KO Paul Williams in two rounds because Sergio Martinez did. They're both southpaws after all.

:lol1: that is not remotely the same thing. it is laughable that you'd actually make that assumption.



Does that not make any sense to you?

no. it doesn't. please explain to me how you can gauge what you're basing your opinion on based on what is most likely later fight film of SRR.










Hearns would outbox Robinson too. There isn't a 147 pound fighter in the history of the sport that could outbox Hearns to a decision. Not Robinson, Leonard, Naploes, Griffith, Rodriguez, no one. this is irelevant. so lets get **** **** out the way.



Hearns is taller than Robinson; 2-3 inches at least.
bull****. at welterweight hearns was listed at 6'1 and there's always been dispute about whether or not ray was 5-11 or 6'0. so right off the bat your math is wrong.



Hearns is as fast as Robinson.

Hearns has 6 inch reach advantage over Robinson.
true.
Hearns has a better jab yeah.

boxes at range better, and uses his height and full reach better. the fact that he might be slightly better then SRR at this doesn't not lend any credence to what you're arguing. its almost as if you're arguing that hearns boxing talent was SO much better then Ray's that arguing that SRR would have had similar success vs Leonard is laughable.



Hearns is also more powerful than Robinson. :lol1: i honestly don't know how you can possibly now that. at this point I'm not even gonna try and finish this discussion with this bull**** artist.



the bottom line is THIS IS NOT ABOUT ROBINSON VS HEARNS.

THAT IS A DIFFERENT STORY.

Barn
01-30-2012, 12:29 PM
Exactly.

I was having a debate with someone on here recently, I can't remember who it was.

But there was saying the difference between Robinson and Leonard is Robinson would always bang whereas Leonard would just outbox to a Decision :lol1:

Leonard LOVED to bang. He loved a good scrap. He's so far from a conventional pure boxer it's a ridiculous.

It again boils down to my original post in this thread. It's obvious that someone who say's that hasn't seen enough of Leonard. So why comment? I don't get it.
Who doesn't love to bang? It takes an especially disciplined fighter not to.

Ziggy Stardust
01-30-2012, 12:47 PM
Who doesn't love to bang? It takes an especially disciplined fighter not to.

My question is why is banging given a bad name? Depending on the circumstances it can be a more efficient avenue to victory than "boxing".

Poet

Barn
01-30-2012, 01:01 PM
I agree. Although it is a lot more fun than fighting a disciplined fight. Can take less energy out of you as well sometimes.

Even Sweet Pea loved a good scrap!

joseph5620
01-30-2012, 01:20 PM
lol. simple enough for me? really? let me explain it to you. this is about RAY LEONARD VS RAY ROBINSON. NOT RAY VS TOMMY. THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY.

i brought it up because the comparison works. SRR was bigger SRL, and SRR had similar attributes to Hearns.

was that simple enough for you?




:lol1:



:lol1: that is not remotely the same thing. it is laughable that you'd actually make that assumption.




no. it doesn't. please explain to me how you can gauge what you're basing your opinion on based on what is most likely later fight film of SRR.










this is irelevant. so lets get **** **** out the way.



bull****. at welterweight hearns was listed at 6'1 and there's always been dispute about whether or not ray was 5-11 or 6'0. so right off the bat your math is wrong.






true.
yeah.

the fact that he might be slightly better then SRR at this doesn't not lend any credence to what you're arguing. its almost as if you're arguing that hearns boxing talent was SO much better then Ray's that arguing that SRR would have had similar success vs Leonard is laughable.



:lol1: i honestly don't know how you can possibly now that. at this point I'm not even gonna try and finish this discussion with this bull**** artist.



the bottom line is THIS IS NOT ABOUT ROBINSON VS HEARNS.

THAT IS A DIFFERENT STORY.

Hearns was listed at 6-1 because he had trouble getting fights at 147 due to his height. He was actually 6-3 or close to it. Emanuelle Steward confirmed this and you can see for yourself when stood face to face with James Shuler(6-1) Virgil Hill (6-0 and a half) and even Muhammad Ali (6-3).

Barn
01-30-2012, 01:28 PM
Hearns was listed at 6-1 because he had trouble getting fights at 147 due to his height. He was actually 6-3 or close to it. Emanuelle Steward confirmed this and you can see for yourself when stood face to face with James Shuler(6-1) Virgil Hill (6-0 and a half) and even Muhammad Ali (6-3).
<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/r2thglwsTak" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

IronDanHamza
01-30-2012, 02:56 PM
Who doesn't love to bang? It takes an especially disciplined fighter not to.

I don't know, Willie Pastrano? Joshua Clottey? I don't know.

But that wasn't even what I was saying, anyway.

Ray Leonard enjoyed going toe to toe with guys. He enjoyed standing his ground and throwing 6,7,8 punches at a time.

From my experience on this website I imagine around 85+% of people are unaware of this.

AntonTheMeh
01-30-2012, 02:57 PM
Hearns was listed at 6-1 because he had trouble getting fights at 147 due to his height. He was actually 6-3 or close to it. Emanuelle Steward confirmed this and you can see for yourself when stood face to face with James Shuler(6-1) Virgil Hill (6-0 and a half) and even Muhammad Ali (6-3).


same was said about SRR. i do think hearns might have grown some (not much) as he went up in weight to be honest. maybe it just looked that way cause he was so slight at ww. although, in that video barn burner posted he doesn't look as tall as ali.

Barn
01-30-2012, 03:00 PM
I don't know, Willie Pastrano? Joshua Clottey? I don't know.

But that wasn't even what I was saying, anyway.

Ray Leonard enjoyed going toe to toe with guys. He enjoyed standing his ground and throwing 6,7,8 punches at a time.

From my experience on this website I imagine around 85+% of people are unaware of this.
no-one can tek his poonches.

I think instead of pointing people to the Duran fight, it would be better to point them to the Benitez fight. Leonard was damn awesome there using his usual style and clearly bested an in prime ATG.

I'm not sure what everyone else thinks Leonard's best fight is. Benitez is the best performance he has had IMO.

Barn
01-30-2012, 03:01 PM
same was said about SRR. i do think hearns might have grown some (not much) as he went up in weight to be honest. maybe it just looked that way cause he was so slight at ww. although, in that video barn burner posted he doesn't look as tall as ali.
Pause at 0:22, they are by no means far off.

IronDanHamza
01-30-2012, 03:01 PM
no-one can tek his poonches.

I think instead of pointing people to the Duran fight, it would be better to point them to the Benitez fight. Leonard was damn awesome there using his usual style and clearly bested an in prime ATG.

I'm not sure what everyone else thinks Leonard's best fight is. Benitez is the best performance he has had IMO.

Possibly.

It's a very underrated fight between two prime ATG's.

AntonTheMeh
01-30-2012, 03:04 PM
Pause at 0:22, they are by no means far off.

6'1 isn't far off from 6'3 but it aint 6-3.

MJ223
02-02-2012, 01:15 PM
Possibly but by watching his old clips and looking over his resume you will see he was an amazing fighter.....

them_apples
02-02-2012, 08:03 PM
them_apples; Moving your opponent means that your contact enables them NOT to return a punch not literally move them. Their are punches that can move you and their not pushing anyone. As to me I fought from 1964 to 1968 in the amatuers and pros. I ran a boxing gym in Hamden Ct. for many years were many state, regional and national champions were trained, by me. The gym exsist today and is operated by one the young men who trained under me over 30 years ago. I had many contenders and world champion come to me for finishing up training and advices for nearing fights. I've worked corners all over the world in world title fights and trained at the Olympic training center in Colo. Springs as the Region One USA coach. I managed, trained and handled fighters from 1964 thru 1986 when I retired from the sport.

So now that you know something about my boxing career tell me something about your amatuer and professional career? Where do you train and who are your mentors? What fights have you participated in as a fighter, trainer or manager? Ray Corso


well thats pretty impressive. I only boxed as an amatuer for about 3 years and just watch a lot of boxing. So you got me beat.

BUT.

doesn't mean my initial statement isn't true. Moving your opponent is by NO means a sign of power. It simply means the punch is staying in contact longer than the blow. Which is a push. Some guys are too slow and it happens, the majority of good punchers, the shot lands hard and crisp and returns to its original position.

If you knock your opponent out of position then that's good that he can't return fire, it doesn't mean you hit hard though.

BennyST
02-02-2012, 10:58 PM
lol. simple enough for me? really? let me explain it to you. this is about RAY LEONARD VS RAY ROBINSON. NOT RAY VS TOMMY. THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY.

i brought it up because the comparison works. SRR was bigger SRL, and SRR had similar attributes to Hearns.

was that simple enough for you?




:lol1:



:lol1:

*sigh*

Yes, it's a different story, but it's one that you brought up to indicate that Robinson would outbox Leonard with. Why not stick to your own story and explain it? I'm not talking about Robinson vs Hearns. I'm saying Robinson and Hearns aren't alike at all, which is what you're saying.

Why not explain how Robinson and Hearns have similar attributes, so much so that a fight between Robinson and Leonard would resemble Hearns/Leonard?

They're both black and welterweights? Is that it?

They don't have a similar jab at all (the main reason why Hearns had such success against Leonard), their reach is a mile apart (again the biggest reason Hearns had such success against Leonard), they are not even close to being the same height (Leonard and Robinson are similar heights, not Hearns and Robinson) and when Hearns chose to box, like he did against Leonard, he was much, much harder to get into range against than Robinson has shown to be. It's just a different style fight and Robinson vs Leonard would be more like Leonard vs Leonard, not Hearns vs Leonard.

BennyST
02-02-2012, 11:19 PM
them_apples; Moving your opponent means that your contact enables them NOT to return a punch not literally move them. Their are punches that can move you and their not pushing anyone. As to me I fought from 1964 to 1968 in the amatuers and pros. I ran a boxing gym in Hamden Ct. for many years were many state, regional and national champions were trained, by me. The gym exsist today and is operated by one the young men who trained under me over 30 years ago. I had many contenders and world champion come to me for finishing up training and advices for nearing fights. I've worked corners all over the world in world title fights and trained at the Olympic training center in Colo. Springs as the Region One USA coach. I managed, trained and handled fighters from 1964 thru 1986 when I retired from the sport.

So now that you know something about my boxing career tell me something about your amatuer and professional career? Where do you train and who are your mentors? What fights have you participated in as a fighter, trainer or manager? Ray Corso

What was your pro record out of curiosity?