View Full Version : Which middleweights would you pick to beat 1951 Robinson?


kendom
02-18-2012, 02:58 PM
Just a thread to see which middleweights you would pick to beat the best version of middleweight Robinson. Mine would be possibly Greb

IronDanHamza
02-18-2012, 03:08 PM
I'd pick Monzon to beat him over anyone else, personally.

crold1
02-18-2012, 03:13 PM
Randy Turpin could have split with him.

;)

kendom
02-18-2012, 03:49 PM
I'd pick Monzon to beat him over anyone else, personally.

Would Robinson's superior speed, movement and jab not cause too much trouble for Monzon?

IronDanHamza
02-18-2012, 03:59 PM
Would Robinson's superior speed, movement and jab not cause too much trouble for Monzon?

Correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying Robinson's jab is superior to Monzon's?

And no, he would outbox him.

Bigger, stronger, keep it on the outside and beat him to the punch.

them_apples
02-18-2012, 04:01 PM
Robinson vs Monzon would be a hell of a fight. On their best night I'd put my cash on Ray.

kendom
02-18-2012, 05:02 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying Robinson's jab is superior to Monzon's?

And no, he would outbox him.

Bigger, stronger, keep it on the outside and beat him to the punch.

Lol I was scared you would misinterpret that, no I wasn't I was just talking about Robinsons jab

Ray Corso
02-18-2012, 05:41 PM
The first that comes to mind is Gene Fullmer, Fullmer was ridiculously strong and just as determined. His skill level was no where near Sugarmans but his determination was equal. This guy was very difficult to fight style wise and had a huge heart. The second would be Stan Harrington who I met and knew of him prior to meeting him because he fought a friend of my family a few times, Gaspar Ortega. Harrington was another extremely tuff man who could take and loved to give. I think he was a southpaw and a legit lefthander at that. These fellows knew they were fighting a legend and they were very determined against Sugarman. You have to throw Basillo in there because hes one the bravest boxers of all time I met people who knew him and they told me the guy would fight a lion, he was an incredible man outside the ring a real gentleman. You can say Turpin and Jake but honestly they really weren't capable of coming close to winning a series against him. Monson is a favorite of mine and would be a bigger opponent for sure in body type but Sugar at his best had to much to offer against him or anyone. Hes not the only great fighter and loosing isn't the end of the world when you fight all comers but Sugar Ray Robinson was in a class by himself. Ray

Barn
02-18-2012, 07:53 PM
Monzon and Hagler can both beat him. Hagler having more difficulty due to Robinson's lateral movement.

No even commenting on Greb, who knows. For my money Robinson would win.

them_apples
02-19-2012, 01:04 AM
Monzon and Hagler can both beat him. Hagler having more difficulty due to Robinson's lateral movement.

No even commenting on Greb, who knows. For my money Robinson would win.

Hagler would probably have the easier night. Robinson had good lateral movement much like ARL but he was still a fair bit easier to hit. SRL threw short punches, often straight and had quicker hands. SRR was tough and it would be a war, with Hagler winning it imo.

As for Monzon, I don't see him beating ray imo.

mickey malone
02-19-2012, 08:33 AM
Of the middleweights who were active in 51, i believe the Aussie 'dark horse' Dave Sands may have been a worthy candidate..

To the best of my knowledge a match had been agreed for the summer of 52, but Sands was killed in a truck crash just prior to the event taking place..

As for a fantasy match, i'd go with Monzon to wear him down slowly and win an ugly dc.

wmute
02-19-2012, 10:02 AM
I would pick Greb over SRR in a heartbeat. This is 160. I am a strong believer in weight classes.

I would also favor Monzon and Hagler (both cuter and more aggressive version) to win a good majority of a series against Robinson. 7-8 out of 10.

I will get some **** for the folowing, but I don't care. I suspect that good versions of Toney (say his "i actually care" fights from 91-92), Hopkins (99-01, echols to tito or so) and Jones (harder to find the right pick cos Jones stayed for a really short time at 160) probably right before moving up) get to win the majority of a series against SRR. Bear in mind that these modern MW are larger than those Ray was fighting, due to the weigh in rules...

Barn
02-19-2012, 10:26 AM
I would pick Greb over SRR in a heartbeat. This is 160. I am a strong believer in weight classes.

I would also favor Monzon and Hagler (both cuter and more aggressive version) to win a good majority of a series against Robinson. 7-8 out of 10.

I will get some **** for the folowing, but I don't care. I suspect that good versions of Toney (say his "i actually care" fights from 91-92), Hopkins (99-01, echols to tito or so) and Jones (harder to find the right pick cos Jones stayed for a really short time at 160) probably right before moving up) get to win the majority of a series against SRR. Bear in mind that these modern MW are larger than those Ray was fighting, due to the weigh in rules...
How can you pick Greb? I don't understand why people even do this. There's no footage.

Shabba Rank$
02-19-2012, 12:41 PM
I just can't see monzon being ray tbh...

Barn
02-19-2012, 12:46 PM
I just can't see monzon being ray tbh...
I think Monzon is very deceptive. Sometimes he doesn't look that great(especially on the speed front.) but, ATG's like Griffith get beaten by him.

briggle
02-19-2012, 01:09 PM
roy jones would destroy robinson within 7 rounds

Barn
02-19-2012, 01:45 PM
roy jones would destroy robinson within 7 rounds
Care to elaborate at all?

wmute
02-19-2012, 02:20 PM
How can you pick Greb? I don't understand why people even do this. There's no footage.

The same way I sometimes pick a fighter of which I have seen only crappy BW videos over a fighter from the 2000s whom I have seen in HD

Barn
02-19-2012, 02:26 PM
The same way I sometimes pick a fighter of which I have seen only crappy BW videos over a fighter from the 2000s whom I have seen in HD
Black and White footage is completely different from zero footage.

kendom
02-19-2012, 02:32 PM
Black and White footage is completely different from zero footage.

If he was good enough to beat Tunney he's good enough to beat Robinson IMO

wmute
02-19-2012, 02:35 PM
Black and White footage is completely different from zero footage.

that's where written reports come in...

Barn
02-19-2012, 02:37 PM
that's where written reports come in...
So what we know about Greb:

Threw lots of punches.
Fast
Quite Wild.
Very durable.

Lets be realistic how can we analyse stylistic properties of the bout from these alone.

wmute
02-19-2012, 02:54 PM
So what we know about Greb:

Threw lots of punches.
Fast
Quite Wild.
Very durable.

Lets be realistic how can we analyse stylistic properties of the bout from these alone.

I encourage you to do some searching you will be surprised at how detailed newspaperes accounts could be.

Barn
02-19-2012, 02:59 PM
I encourage you to do some searching you will be surprised at how detailed newspaperes accounts could be.
Could you help a brother out?

wmute
02-19-2012, 03:18 PM
Could you help a brother out?

frankly no it's a pain in the butt...

try google news (and also maybe library of congress)

Barn
02-19-2012, 03:23 PM
This had me laughing, thought it was worth a share.

Greb's Own Eccentric Style Baffles Mr. Greb

It was not the spectacular fight that Greb's usually is because Smith, having met Harry some five or six times, had the eccentric Pittsburgher figured to a fine point and in some rounds he completely frustrated Greb's efforts to pull the circus stuff that makes him at once a puzzle and a marvel to both opponents and spectators.

In the early rounds Smith boxed Greb at Greb's own style and at times he out-Grebed Greb in that, while he let Greb lead, he repeatedly got in a good straight, stiff punch while Harry was missing.

Confronted by a mimic of himself Harry was at a loss for Greb never before had fought Greb. He now knows how much of an enigma he is to his opponents. If he kissed the canvas in his well known manner of bringing up a punch from the submarine depths Smith also kissed it; if he danced Smith danced; if he clinched Smith clinched, and let it be said that in the clinches Smith was pretty much to the mustard for he tied Greb so effectually that he could hardly do a thing while his own shorter arms frequently got in short, stiff hooks that might have told on a weaker specimen than the Pittsburger.

them_apples
02-19-2012, 03:31 PM
that's where written reports come in...

lol sometimes I think your aren't being serious.

either that or a very old man

Also isn't their footage of greb sparring? I'd pick Robinson to merk him.

wmute
02-19-2012, 04:12 PM
This had me laughing, thought it was worth a share.

trying to give you good k but I can't

edit: as in i need to spread more around first

wmute
02-19-2012, 04:13 PM
lol sometimes I think your aren't being serious.

either that or a very old man

Also isn't their footage of greb sparring? I'd pick Robinson to merk him.

Suit yourself, I would be happy to be on the opposite side of the bet.

wmute
02-19-2012, 04:14 PM
lol sometimes I think your aren't being serious.

either that or a very old man

Also isn't their footage of greb sparring? I'd pick Robinson to merk him.

depends on your definition of very old

Barn
02-19-2012, 04:20 PM
lol sometimes I think your aren't being serious.

either that or a very old man

Also isn't their footage of greb sparring? I'd pick Robinson to merk him.
He's sparring a retired former champ. Shouldn't be taken seriously and should be treated as a great anecdote of boxing history and nothing else.

Sugarj
02-19-2012, 06:05 PM
The 1951 Robinson that fought Turpin first time would get outpointed by a number of greats and possibly a few non greats too.......his form was very poor that night.

That said, Robinson looked superb against La Motta that year. I wouldn't pick any middleweights to definitely beat the Robinson from La Motta (Valentines day) or Turpin 2.

Hagler would be a nasty match up, Robinson never faced a southpaw nearly as good.

Middleweight Tommy Hearns without the silly Hagler gung ho gameplan would be a threat too.....

I've never really fancied Monzons chances. Middleweight Roy Jones has a shot, the Leonard that turned up for Hagler would be a good 12 round fight.

Barn
02-19-2012, 06:13 PM
The 1951 Robinson that fought Turpin first time would get outpointed by a number of greats and possibly a few non greats too.......his form was very poor that night.

That said, Robinson looked superb against La Motta that year. I wouldn't pick any middleweights to definitely beat the Robinson from La Motta (Valentines day) or Turpin 2.

Hagler would be a nasty match up, Robinson never faced a southpaw nearly as good.

Middleweight Tommy Hearns without the silly Hagler gung ho gameplan would be a threat too.....

I've never really fancied Monzons chances. Middleweight Roy Jones has a shot, the Leonard that turned up for Hagler would be a good 12 round fight.
That Leonard wouldn't be competitive IMO.

wmute
02-19-2012, 07:35 PM
That Leonard wouldn't be competitive IMO.

cosig ^^^^ SRL would be outdone in pretty much every department except defense.

And I would bet good money on Hearns getting knocked out (great fight while it lasts though).

GJC
02-20-2012, 09:20 AM
So what we know about Greb:

Threw lots of punches.
Fast
Quite Wild.
Very durable.

Lets be realistic how can we analyse stylistic properties of the bout from these alone.
Parts of that would fit Turpin, Fulmer, La Motta and Basilio?
Don't think SRR had many weaknesses but if he struggled against anyone it would be rough tough pressure fighters. Greb would have a great chance, also he had great whiskers so not sure whether SRR could have got him out of there.

Sugarj
02-20-2012, 01:01 PM
That Leonard wouldn't be competitive IMO.


I'd favour the 'Hagler' version of Leonard over the 'Turpin 1' version of Robinson over 12 rounds.

I quite rated the 'Hagler' Leonard, I thought he looked very fast, sharp and mobile that night. Some terrific combination work and pretty accurate.

Its worth having a look at Robinson vs Turpin 1. Robinson really looked a shell of himself. When even 1951 Robinson had a bad night he could look very beatable.

Barn
02-20-2012, 04:58 PM
I'd favour the 'Hagler' version of Leonard over the 'Turpin 1' version of Robinson over 12 rounds.

I quite rated the 'Hagler' Leonard, I thought he looked very fast, sharp and mobile that night. Some terrific combination work and pretty accurate.

Its worth having a look at Robinson vs Turpin 1. Robinson really looked a shell of himself. When even 1951 Robinson had a bad night he could look very beatable.
Leonard had no pop at Middleweight really though.

F l i c k e r
02-20-2012, 05:03 PM
Leonard had no pop at Middleweight really though.


You don't need pop to win on the cards.

Barn
02-20-2012, 05:12 PM
You don't need pop to win on the cards.
You need it to keep SRR away from you and win on the cards though.

Ray Robinson would not struggle as much as Hagler did with a moving/running Leonard. Robinson had good speed of hand and foot and an excellent rhythm which was hard to disrupt. If Leonard wanted to keep Mr Robinson from setting and landing huge punches on him, he better be firing something back. A trait he lost being heavier/past prime.

Also, if it was judged in Robinson's day. You DID need pop to win on the cards.

Sugarj
02-20-2012, 05:16 PM
Leonard had no pop at Middleweight really though.

Even if he had serious power at middleweight I doubt it would make much difference, Robinson's chin was superb.

But as Turpin showed......Robinson could be outboxed on a bad night.

Barn
02-20-2012, 05:34 PM
Even if he had serious power at middleweight I doubt it would make much difference, Robinson's chin was superb.

But as Turpin showed......Robinson could be outboxed on a bad night.
I'm not talking about knockouts. I'm talking punching hard enough to keep Robinson wary. Leonard can't do that.

Who did Leonard ever outbox at Middlweight? Before it's mentioned he never outboxed the Marvelous one.

Ziggy Stardust
02-20-2012, 05:39 PM
People forget the reason Turpin was able to beat Robinson in the first place wasn't simply because Robinson was "off" that night (he was) but also because Turpin was an awkward herky-jerky type of fighter that was impossible to time properly. Even in a losing effort he could make the victor look bad. Leonard really wasn't that sort of fighter at any point in his career. He could beat you certainly, but he was more of a classical boxer-puncher than a quirky spoiler.

Poet

Sugarj
02-20-2012, 06:52 PM
I'm not talking about knockouts. I'm talking punching hard enough to keep Robinson wary. Leonard can't do that.

Who did Leonard ever outbox at Middlweight? Before it's mentioned he never outboxed the Marvelous one.

I think Leonard only boxed twice at middleweight (Hagler................& Camacho when post prime). But don't descend into nuthuggerdom, your better than that Barn. I know your the biggest Hagler fan and that you think he beat Leonard......but to my eyes and the majority of fans not to mention two judges, Leonard did outbox him in at least seven rounds of a close fight. He looked pretty good doing it too. Great handspeed, combinations, fast footwork and pretty elusive..... It would be a tough fight for many a great middleweight. Even the rounds that Hagler won were more on aggression/pressure than actually outboxing or outlanding Leonard for that matter.

Leonard wasn't exactly feather fisted at middleweight and above. Granted he caused Hagler no issue with his power, but he did seem to punch pretty pity pat that night (probably his gameplan....no one was knocking Hagler out!). Ray's power didn't look too pity pat against Hearns or Lalonde up a further division at super middleweight. The Lalonde knockout looked pretty savage despite his opponent's real lack of credentials at world level. A heavy punch is a heavy punch. But I doubt that Leonard's power would matter in a fight with Robinson; if Robinson had an off night, Leonard would I think have a good chance at a decision win.

Try watching Robinson vs Turpin 1, I think you'll be surprised by how poor Robinson looked that night......Leonard beats that guy! I know when to accept that my idols have an off night or look beatable. Hee hee

Sugarj
02-20-2012, 07:00 PM
People forget the reason Turpin was able to beat Robinson in the first place wasn't simply because Robinson was "off" that night (he was) but also because Turpin was an awkward herky-jerky type of fighter that was impossible to time properly. Even in a losing effort he could make the victor look bad. Leonard really wasn't that sort of fighter at any point in his career. He could beat you certainly, but he was more of a classical boxer-puncher than a quirky spoiler.

Poet

Who knows?

As you say, Robinson was 'off' against Turpin. I just wouldn't like to throw that Robinson in with many ATG middleweights, whether he was thrown by Turpin's style or not.

I rate Turpin as a very good middleweight. I was surprised how well he did in the return too.....and Ray was clearly well up for revenge, great fight!

Ziggy Stardust
02-20-2012, 07:18 PM
Who knows?

As you say, Robinson was 'off' against Turpin. I just wouldn't like to throw that Robinson in with many ATG middleweights, whether he was thrown by Turpin's style or not.

I rate Turpin as a very good middleweight. I was surprised how well he did in the return too.....and Ray was clearly well up for revenge, great fight!

I'm not downing Turpin: He was a solid fighter and worthy of a title shot. What I am saying his peculiar style of fighting was impossible to look good against unless you could spark him out quick.....and I wouldn't bet on that happening. Point is, I don't think anybody would have looked good against Turpin even if they won.

Poet

Ray Corso
02-20-2012, 07:19 PM
I'm not sure why Leonard would even be mentioned as a middleweight. He was done by then and the only reason he did well enough in the Hagler fight was he waited those YEARS prior so Hagler fought a few more fights and at the end you have fights that are tuffer than they would be in your prime. Leonard was beaten up by Camacho, Camacho Really!!! That guy couldn't break an egg yet he beat Duran too, twice if I remember!!!! Let me tell you all something, nothing like a Camacho would ever come close to beating Sugarman, no way no how. As for Leonard in the welter division he could be a problem for Sugar man because of his speed of foot and hand. Speed is a problem when your looking to time someone weither its your punches to be thrown or theirs coming to you. I think Leonard could be a problem until Sugar boxed and pressured him for some rounds. If Leonard moved like he could the result might take longer to resolve, I do believe Sugar gets him but Leonard might sneak to the distance. You can't totally under estimate talent thats at a high level and Leonard was a supreme athlete.
Hagler vs Sugarman would be interesting the difference would be that Leonard did hit him fairly easily and I think Marvin gets hit with most of those shots even in his prime years. When Hagler gets hit often or hard he abandons his boxing skills and turns back his clock to Philly times. Thats when when Sugarmans chances gets better. Someone stalking Robinson and dropping their hands to punch usually get hit and Sugarman can hurt any fighter and if he gets you really timed your going out. LaMotta always said Sugar didn't drop him but he was walking around knocked out on his feet a few times. I love Marvin but when he looses his cool hes very predictable he learned tuff lessons from another name stealer known as Sugar but Seals could fight and Marvin went back and got even with Ray. Theres a fighter I never hear mentioned here. Seals was good, and a big time crowd pleaser.
If Leonard had the guts he could have faced Marvin years before all the "oldies" bouts took place but he knew better. Let the guy fight some more maybe loose a step or two or three and thats what happened. Sugarman rules, theres a reason boxing historians think he is the number one boxer/puncher of all time. Look at his accomplishments, who he fought, when he fought, how often he fought, ducked NO one, gave return mastches ALWAYS. Fought an animal like Lamotta 5 times!!! Ali was great but not the Greatest, that was Sugar Ray there should be no reason to say his last name but so many think if its before their time its not reality. HA! Boxing has evolved but greatness doesn't come around very often, especially when it last 20 years and hundreds of fights. Remember 100 & 0 before a defeat!!! Only one man..the real Sugar Ray. Ray.

Barn
02-20-2012, 07:21 PM
I'm not sure why Leonard would even be mentioned as a middleweight. He was done by then and the only reason he did well enough in the Hagler fight was he waited those YEARS prior so Hagler fought a few more fights and at the end you have fights that are tuffer than they would be in your prime. Leonard was beaten up by Camacho, Camacho Really!!! That guy couldn't beark an egg yet he beat Duran too, twice if I remember!!!! Let me tell you all something, nothing like a Camacho would ever come close to beating Sugarman, no way no how. As for Leonard in the welter division he could be a problem for Sugar man because of his speed of foot and hand. Speed is a problem when your looking to time someone weither its your punches to be thrown or theirs coming to you. I think Leonard could be a problem until Sugar boxed and pressured him for some rounds. If Leonard moved like he could the result might take longer to resolve, I do believe Sugar gets him but Leonard might sneak to the distance. You can't totally under estimate talent thats at a high level and Leonard was a supreme athlete.
Hagler vs Sugarman would be interesting the difference would be that Leonard did hit him fairly easily and I think Marvin gets hit with most of those shots even in his prime years. When Hagler get hits often or hard he abandons his boxing skills and turns back his clock to Philly times. Thats when when Sugarmans chances gets better. Someone stalking Robinson and dropping their hands to punch usually get hit and Sugarman can hurt any fighter and if he gets you really timed your going out. LaMotta always said Sugar didn't drop him but he was walking around knocked out on his feet a few times. I love Marvin but when he looses his cool hes very predictable he learned tuff lessons from another name stealer known as Sugar but Seals could fight and Marvin went back and got even with Ray. Theres a fighter I never hear mentioned here. Seals was good, and a big time crowd pleaser.
If Leonard had the guts he could have faced Marvin years before all the "oldies" bouts took place but he knew better. Let the guy fight some more maybe loose a step or two or three and thats what happened. Ray.
Hagler in his prime fought a very disciplined fight more often than not IMO.

Ziggy Stardust
02-20-2012, 07:23 PM
I'm not sure why Leonard would even be mentioned as a middleweight. He was done by then and the only reason he did well enough in the Hagler fight was he waited those YEARS prior so Hagler fought a few more fights and at the end you have fights that are tuffer than they would be in your prime. Leonard was beaten up by Camacho, Camacho Really!!! That guy couldn't beark an egg yet he beat Duran too, twice if I remember!!!! Let me tell you all something, nothing like a Camacho would ever come close to beating Sugarman, no way no how. As for Leonard in the welter division he could be a problem for Sugar man because of his speed of foot and hand. Speed is a problem when your looking to time someone weither its your punches to be thrown or theirs coming to you. I think Leonard could be a problem until Sugar boxed and pressured him for some rounds. If Leonard moved like he could the result might take longer to resolve, I do believe Sugar gets him but Leonard might sneak to the distance. You can't totally under estimate talent thats at a high level and Leonard was a supreme athlete.
Hagler vs Sugarman would be interesting the difference would be that Leonard did hit him fairly easily and I think Marvin gets hit with most of those shots even in his prime years. When Hagler get hits often or hard he abandons his boxing skills and turns back his clock to Philly times. Thats when when Sugarmans chances gets better. Someone stalking Robinson and dropping their hands to punch usually get hit and Sugarman can hurt any fighter and if he gets you really timed your going out. LaMotta always said Sugar didn't drop him but he was walking around knocked out on his feet a few times. I love Marvin but when he looses his cool hes very predictable he learned tuff lessons from another name stealer known as Sugar but Seals could fight and Marvin went back and got even with Ray. Theres a fighter I never hear mentioned here. Seals was good, and a big time crowd pleaser.
If Leonard had the guts he could have faced Marvin years before all the "oldies" bouts took place but he knew better. Let the guy fight some more maybe loose a step or two or three and thats what happened. Ray.

I'd point out that at the end of HIS career, when he was washed up, Ray Robinson was losing to the likes of 55-16 Stan Harrington. When a fighter fights long past his prime losses like that happen. To ANY fighter. Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, and yes, Ray Robinson.

Poet

Barn
02-20-2012, 07:27 PM
I think Leonard only boxed twice at middleweight (Hagler................& Camacho when post prime). But don't descend into nuthuggerdom, your better than that Barn. I know your the biggest Hagler fan and that you think he beat Leonard......but to my eyes and the majority of fans not to mention two judges, Leonard did outbox him in at least seven rounds of a close fight. He looked pretty good doing it too. Great handspeed, combinations, fast footwork and pretty elusive..... It would be a tough fight for many a great middleweight. Even the rounds that Hagler won were more on aggression/pressure than actually outboxing or outlanding Leonard for that matter.

Leonard wasn't exactly feather fisted at middleweight and above. Granted he caused Hagler no issue with his power, but he did seem to punch pretty pity pat that night (probably his gameplan....no one was knocking Hagler out!). Ray's power didn't look too pity pat against Hearns or Lalonde up a further division at super middleweight. The Lalonde knockout looked pretty savage despite his opponent's real lack of credentials at world level. A heavy punch is a heavy punch. But I doubt that Leonard's power would matter in a fight with Robinson; if Robinson had an off night, Leonard would I think have a good chance at a decision win.

Try watching Robinson vs Turpin 1, I think you'll be surprised by how poor Robinson looked that night......Leonard beats that guy! I know when to accept that my idols have an off night or look beatable. Hee hee
HAGLER WAS ALWAYS MARVELOUS AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

I've never seen the Lalonde fight. Added to the list.

Ray Corso
02-20-2012, 08:21 PM
......the likes of Stan Harrington!!!as if hes a bum, are you kiddiing me or you just don't know what the hell your talking about. Harrington was a top flight fighter for ten years straight, he beat and lost to ALL the top fighters back then. The guy was tuff as hell and had NO fear who he fought and fought ALL the best. Being 55 & 16 or what ever the hell his record was means nothing back then. Only today does a guy need to be undefeated or have 2 or 3 looses or hes a bust. These kids today fight twice a year once there records are built up fighting "dead people" !!! Take away HBO and years ago closed circuit and try fighting on a "live circuit" then you'll see real fighters fighting hard in every second of every round.
Heres the thing Mr. Poet, Sugar Ray was fighting "young up and coming guys not old guys like Leonard did. Sugar Ray fought top contenders not pretenders. To disgrace a man like Harrington tells me everything I need to know about your knowledge of boxing from that era. Go look at his record, the guy was a pro fighting a pro circuit his wins and looses were against some pretty well known fighters. Well their known by people who know boxing anyways. Obviously not you. Ray

Ziggy Stardust
02-20-2012, 08:30 PM
......the likes of Stan Harrington!!!as if hes a bum, are you kiddiing me or you just don't know what the hell your talking about. Harrington was a top flight fighter for ten years straight, he beat and lost to ALL the top fighters back then. The guy was tuff as hell and had NO fear who he fought and fought ALL the best. Being 55 & 16 or what ever the hell his record was means nothing back then. Only today does a guy need to be undefeated or have 2 or 3 looses or hes a bust. These kids today fight twice a year once there records are built up fighting "dead people" !!! Take away HBO and years ago closed circuit and try fighting on a "live circuit" then you'll see real fighters fighting hard in every second of every round.
Heres the thing Mr. Poet, Sugar Ray was fighting "young up and coming guys not old guys like Leonard did. Sugar Ray fought top contenders not pretenders. To disgrace a man like Harrington tells me everything I need to know about your knowledge of boxing from that era. Go look at his record, the guy was a pro fighting a pro circuit his wins and looses were against some pretty well known fighters. Well their known by peiple who know boxing anyways. Obviously not you. Ray

The point is, Harrington was a fringe contender and a fighter a prime Ray Robinson would NEVER have lost to. Yet you criticise Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran for losing well past their primes to Hector Camacho, who, like it or not, was a top fighter at the time. Camacho was 62-3 at the time and six months away from a shot at De La Hoya's Welterweight crown.

The bottom-line is washed-up fighters lose to guys they never would have lost to in the primes. They ALL do if they hang around long enough. It happens, regardless of how good you were in your prime. You can't excuse it in one instance and slam someone for it in another.

Poet

Sugarj
02-21-2012, 01:01 PM
I'm not sure why Leonard would even be mentioned as a middleweight. He was done by then and the only reason he did well enough in the Hagler fight was he waited those YEARS prior so Hagler fought a few more fights and at the end you have fights that are tuffer than they would be in your prime. Leonard was beaten up by Camacho, Camacho Really!!! That guy couldn't break an egg yet he beat Duran too, twice if I remember!!!! Let me tell you all something, nothing like a Camacho would ever come close to beating Sugarman, no way no how. As for Leonard in the welter division he could be a problem for Sugar man because of his speed of foot and hand. Speed is a problem when your looking to time someone weither its your punches to be thrown or theirs coming to you. I think Leonard could be a problem until Sugar boxed and pressured him for some rounds. If Leonard moved like he could the result might take longer to resolve, I do believe Sugar gets him but Leonard might sneak to the distance. You can't totally under estimate talent thats at a high level and Leonard was a supreme athlete.
Hagler vs Sugarman would be interesting the difference would be that Leonard did hit him fairly easily and I think Marvin gets hit with most of those shots even in his prime years. When Hagler gets hit often or hard he abandons his boxing skills and turns back his clock to Philly times. Thats when when Sugarmans chances gets better. Someone stalking Robinson and dropping their hands to punch usually get hit and Sugarman can hurt any fighter and if he gets you really timed your going out. LaMotta always said Sugar didn't drop him but he was walking around knocked out on his feet a few times. I love Marvin but when he looses his cool hes very predictable he learned tuff lessons from another name stealer known as Sugar but Seals could fight and Marvin went back and got even with Ray. Theres a fighter I never hear mentioned here. Seals was good, and a big time crowd pleaser.
If Leonard had the guts he could have faced Marvin years before all the "oldies" bouts took place but he knew better. Let the guy fight some more maybe loose a step or two or three and thats what happened. Sugarman rules, theres a reason boxing historians think he is the number one boxer/puncher of all time. Look at his accomplishments, who he fought, when he fought, how often he fought, ducked NO one, gave return mastches ALWAYS. Fought an animal like Lamotta 5 times!!! Ali was great but not the Greatest, that was Sugar Ray there should be no reason to say his last name but so many think if its before their time its not reality. HA! Boxing has evolved but greatness doesn't come around very often, especially when it last 20 years and hundreds of fights. Remember 100 & 0 before a defeat!!! Only one man..the real Sugar Ray. Ray.



Leonard was 10 years after Hagler when he fought Camacho in 1997. Leonard was clearly near as dammit shot against Norris in what? 1991. No surprise that without any warmup fights or ring activity in those six years, pushing him past 40 that he was going to lose........

That Camacho would have probably beaten the last version of Robinson too.

Barn
02-21-2012, 02:00 PM
Leonard was 10 years after Hagler when he fought Camacho in 1997. Leonard was clearly near as dammit shot against Norris in what? 1991. No surprise that without any warmup fights or ring activity in those six years, pushing him past 40 that he was going to lose........

That Camacho would have probably beaten the last version of Robinson too.
Last version of Hagler would have beaten Camacho. :banana:

them_apples
02-21-2012, 02:08 PM
The point is, Harrington was a fringe contender and a fighter a prime Ray Robinson would NEVER have lost to. Yet you criticise Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran for losing well past their primes to Hector Camacho, who, like it or not, was a top fighter at the time. Camacho was 62-3 at the time and six months away from a shot at De La Hoya's Welterweight crown.

The bottom-line is washed-up fighters lose to guys they never would have lost to in the primes. They ALL do if they hang around long enough. It happens, regardless of how good you were in your prime. You can't excuse it in one instance and slam someone for it in another.

Poet

pff camacho didn't win. Same goes for Pazienza

joseph5620
02-21-2012, 04:24 PM
Hagler in his prime fought a very disciplined fight more often than not IMO.

You're right, he did.

Ray Corso
02-21-2012, 04:39 PM
Hees the main point about these types of fights, Harrington took a punch into the fight with him. guys who can punch don't loose that ability so their chances are more realistic even when their other skills eroid. Guys like Camacho never could punch it makes them atleast a "safe" opponent and if you think that Harrington was an easier fight then a Camacho you really have never been there. Any fighter will tell you they'll face the boxer over the guy that can punch. Being bewildered in a match beats they hell out of being "hurt"! I doubt you knew who Harrington was before I mentioned him. I met the guy and your telling me something about a guy I met and who fought a good friend of my families. I met Ray Leonard on a number of occasions, he trained in my gym for his 4th or 5th fight. Your talking about fighters as if you know them and you don't I did and I boxed and I trained and I managed and your a fan! Why not listen and learn, are you one of those guys who goes under your car with the mechanic and talks to him while hes working? I bet you are. Everyone has an opinion its like an A..H..! Butt whats it based on, facts and actually knowledge or reading and watching a video? Ray Corso

Ziggy Stardust
02-21-2012, 04:52 PM
Hees the main point about these types of fights, Harrington took a punch into the fight with him. guys who can punch don't loose that ability so their chances are more realistic even when their other skills eroid. Guys like Camacho never could punch it makes them atleast a "safe" opponent and if you think that Harrington was an easier fight then a Camacho you really have never been there. Any fighter will tell you they'll face the boxer over the guy that can punch. Being bewildered in a match beats they hell out of being "hurt"! I doubt you knew who Harrington was before I mentioned him. I met the guy and your telling me something about a guy I met and who fought a good friend of my families. I met Ray Leonard on a number of occasions, he trained in my gym for his 4th or 5th fight. Your talking about fighters as if you know them and you don't I did and I boxed and I trained and I managed and your a fan! Why not listen and learn, are you one of those guys who goes under your car with the mechanic and talks to him while hes working? I bet you are. Everyone has an opinion its like an A..H..! Butt whats it based on, facts and actually knowledge or reading and watching a video? Ray Corso

When I want to know about how a car works I'll go ask the engineer who designed it not the grease monkey under the hood.

Poet

Ray Corso
02-21-2012, 05:04 PM
Your comment is ridiculous, your talking to someone who has done ALL the tasks in boxing from throwing and taking to promoting and managing to training. Whats your experience? Talking on a forum about other peoples lives and how they earned their livelyhood? Trainers are designers, if you ever were into boxing you'd know that. To be relavant means something, you seem to think that your pretty knowledgable. Tell me who have you trained? Who have you fought? What boxing arenas have you appeared in as a fighter or trainer? What gym do you own and who are you affiliated with? Tell us. Ray

Barn
02-21-2012, 05:17 PM
Your comment is ridiculous, your talking to someone who has done ALL the tasks in boxing from throwing and taking to promoting and managing to training. Whats your experience? Talking on a forum about other peoples lives and how they earned their livelyhood? Trainers are designers, if you ever were into boxing you'd know that. To be relavant means something, you seem to think that your pretty knowledgable. Tell me who have you trained? Who have you fought? What boxing arenas have you appeared in as a fighter or trainer? What gym do you own and who are you affiliated with? Tell us. Ray
I own the Kronk gym.

I trained Thomas Hearns, fought Muhammad Ali in the amateurs. I fought at MSG twice on an undercard.

Sugarj
02-21-2012, 06:31 PM
Last version of Hagler would have beaten Camacho. :banana:

I totally agree.

Ziggy Stardust
02-21-2012, 07:21 PM
Oh, and for the record I've ignored this "Ray Corso" person. I think any fair minded poster in this section will see that made a legitimate point and he chose to insult me over it then got butt hurt when I fired back. In any case he subsequently sent me an insulting PM and I told him he can consider himself ignored.

Poet

them_apples
02-22-2012, 03:19 PM
Oh, and for the record I've ignored this "Ray Corso" person. I think any fair minded poster in this section will see that made a legitimate point and he chose to insult me over it then got butt hurt when I fired back. In any case he subsequently sent me an insulting PM and I told him he can consider himself ignored.

Poet

Ray Corso claims to have been around boxing his entire life and trained pro boxers. I'm not saying he has or hasn't. But his posts are often times deluded, even his boxing knowledge in ring is kind of funny sometimes.

Obama
02-22-2012, 03:57 PM
This thread is twisted from the beginning. 123+ fight Robinson is the best Middleweight Robinson now? Robinson was dominating Middleweights long before that. Just because they finally gave him a title shot in '51 doesn't mean he wasn't ready to win it in the mid 40s.

After the man became Middleweight Champion he began to decline even more due to his extravagant lifestyle. The man was no longer a hungry motivated fighter. He pretty much just went through the motions. The fact that he still whooped everyone's ass just goes to show how great he really was.

So yea, quite a few great Middleweights could have beat Robinson in '51 if the likes of Randy Turpin could.

People get too hung up on weight. Doesn't matter that Robinson had no problems making Welterweight in the mid 40s, he still would have beat the faded Middleweight version of himself in the 50s.

kendom
02-22-2012, 04:30 PM
This thread is twisted from the beginning. 123+ fight Robinson is the best Middleweight Robinson now? Robinson was dominating Middleweights long before that. Just because they finally gave him a title shot in '51 doesn't mean he wasn't ready to win it in the mid 40s.

After the man became Middleweight Champion he began to decline even more due to his extravagant lifestyle. The man was no longer a hungry motivated fighter. He pretty much just went through the motions. The fact that he still whooped everyone's ass just goes to show how great he really was.

So yea, quite a few great Middleweights could have beat Robinson in '51 if the likes of Randy Turpin could.

People get too hung up on weight. Doesn't matter that Robinson had no problems making Welterweight in the mid 40s, he still would have beat the faded Middleweight version of himself in the 50s.

So mid forties is the best middleweight version of Robinson? what great middleweights could have beaten that Robinson?

Argentine
02-25-2012, 07:37 AM
Monzon,he was a beast!

Barn
02-25-2012, 07:39 AM
Monzon,he was a beast!
Didn't see that one coming. :lol1: