Honestly, is there anyone in here who doesn't see SRR as the GOAT?

[DrewWoodside]

so its better to fight one Michael Jenning before a good fighter or ten Michael Jennings before a good fighter? What's more impressive?... and how can you be sure they were worse then Michael Jennings?

You leave poor Michael Jennings alone!

[drinkxerox]

how sad is this ****...

Seriously, how is this even a question?

*******s?

Got anything?

GTFO here Drew.

I'm sure there was his share of David Diazes and Ricky Hattons in there, but come on, you think he fought 130 scrubs?

Honestly, pink. You were the last person I'd expect to pop in here with *******ation.

The man's resume speaks for itself.

The real question would be, what makes you feel that he isn't the Goat?

And don't say because Packy is or I swear to god....

You criticized Manny Packy???

Oh no you didnt...

I'm still waiting for you to uncontrollably declare Packy the GOAT.

Come on *******, you know you want to...

even in his own thread about Sugar Ray Robinson Jack D. can't even stay on topic and shows his obsession with Pacquiao. Get a life you virgin

[Danny Gunz]

so its better to fight one Michael Jenning before a good fighter or ten Michael Jennings before a good fighter? What's more impressive?... and how can you be sure they were worse then Michael Jennings?

No its basically the same, but it makes a difference when you are considering him the greatest of all time.

And i cant its just speculation and my opinion

[-EX-]

Only Henry Armstrong comes close really from wat I know...and Robinson beat Armstrong

[JAB5239]

Only Henry Armstrong comes close really from wat I know...and Robinson beat Armstrong

There are a few more who could be up there for greatest ever (Greb, Langford, Charles and Pep all come to mind), but SRR clearly dominated as good or a better level of comp than these guys for a longer amount of time than most.

I've already read a few times in this thread where posters have said "Im sure he fought 10 or 20 tomato cans before fighting a good fighter". That is a joke. People who don't know about his competition should either not post about him, or they should expect their opinions to be ridiculed. Im no boxing historian, but I've read enough about him and his comtemporaries, and have seen enough of his fights to know that any conversation on this subject that doesn't include him is a joke.

[WhoreUs]

Only Henry Armstrong comes close really from wat I know...and Robinson beat Armstrong

henry armstrong was at the end of his career.

[Jim Jeffries]

henry armstrong was at the end of his career.

And was a lot smaller fighter than Robinson.

[DonTaseMeBrah]

i also have ray robinson 1#. but boxing historians definitely have a incredible bias for oldschool boxers. Every single athletic sport had their greatest player continuously come in modern times.


Yet only boxing is immune to this athletic & physical evolution according to the old school farts & that its hearsay to even consider a modern fighter better or even being competitive vs old school greats.

The bert sugars of the world love to say competition was sooo great during the old times, less divisions, more fights blah blah. Just looking at ray robinson's record before his 1st & 2nd losses, you see him face guys with records of;

3-15
1-14
67-36
41-53
4-6
0-0
13-17
47-19
39-39
74-27
20-29
15-11
25-24
111-26
46-26 (Jannazzo)
30-19
45-18
6-23 (jean wanes)
22-22
29-21
86-13(luc van dam (jean claude van dam's great grandfather)
53-29
15-15
24-24


I can go on. i think u get the point. can u imagine a modern superstar fighting someone who was 6-23 after he was established? pac & fraud jr. get crap for fighting david diaz & baldomir.

Its not so golden back then. yet old timers are so blind & biased of the fact & modern & current greats get the short end of the stick. i know duran, leondar, & hearns would never lose some plodder like jake lamotta.