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

[JACK D. RIPPER]

[QUOTE=joseph5620;5828733]

people think ray was invincible.

ray showed up in awful shape and didn't train properly for a lot of fights.



people like to think he was unbeatable in his prime but the fact is he was beaten in his prime and more than a few times.

Wrong. His prime was at weltweight and he never lost at that weight. The one loss was to a top middleweight Jake Lamotta who outweighed him by 16 pounds(two divisions). Robinson still beat him 5 out of 6. To put it in perspective Manny pacquiao is worried about 2 more pounds, let alone 16.

You criticized Manny Packy???

Oh no you didnt...

[Roger Mellie]

It is very hard for anyone of this generation to really be certain,as all there is,is grainy unclear footage and anecdotal evidence. The fact that even in this day and age most people regard him as the best does give the argument about him being the best huge kudos.

[The Gambler1981]

No one is saying he isn't great, but ffs Moore top of the heap ahead of Armstrong and Robinson as the GOAT?

No way **** that.

Well I think a case can be made for Archie Moore, I rate him pretty highly. To me I don't think you can pick one man from the vast history of boxing and call him head and shoulders above the rest of the best.

There are fighters every bit as good as Robinson throughout the history of boxing. If you want to call Robinson the best go ahead he is at the summit of boxing history. All I am saying is to me it is not clear that there is no one in history that could hold Ray Robinson's jock strap?

[joseph5620]

What are you talking about. Ali was a recent fighter, and most people have him in their top 3 or 4.

Exactly. As was Roberto Duran, Pernell Whitaker, Hagler, Chavez.........

[TheGreatA]

did or did not ray come in some of his fights not in the best condition and was the reason for losing or not looking as good in those fights?

It's said that he wasn't in the best shape against Turpin the first time but even then he came on in the late rounds of the fight. He was having his European tour and fought something like 4-5 times in the past month against top European opposition. I wouldn't say he was physically in bad shape but he may have been a little worn out from all the fighting.

The worst shape he was ever in was probably against Ralph 'Tiger' Jones after coming back from a 3 year layoff. His legs and reactions were shot.

[WhoreUs]

Wrong. His prime was at weltweight and he never lost at that weight. The one loss was to a top middleweight Jake Lamotta who outweighed him by 16 pounds(two divisions). Robinson still beat him 5 out of 6. To put it in perspective Manny pacquiao is worried about 2 more pounds, let alone 16.

so he wasn't in his prime when he fought at middleweight?

so his losses at middleweight don't count right?



good. i'll apply the same thing for tito then.

tito was unbeatable in his prime! hopkins only beat a past prime tito at middleweight!



and wtf does pacquiao have to do with any of this? stupid fuck. no one's talking about pacquiao.

[flipbjefrox]

Jack D ****** please tell us 20 fights you've seen of SRR to make this assertion

[street bully]

It is very hard for anyone of this generation to really be certain,as all there is,is grainy unclear footage and anecdotal evidence. The fact that even in this day and age most people regard him as the best does give the argument about him being the best huge kudos.

Bingo. We have a lot of his fights, a good percentage of which being when he was past prime, (still looked spectacular if I may add). But when something is missing you must do your research, and find written evidence about how highly regarded he was ina time that if he was even a little vulnerable would get ****ted on.

[joseph5620]

[QUOTE=JACK D. RIPPER;5828740]

You criticized Manny Packy???

Oh no you didnt...

LOL no I like Pac. I'm just saying in those days there were no catch weights and that has to count for something if you're going to rate fighters based on accomlishments.

[LEFTYGUNZZ]

130 bouts in itself would be an impossible feat by today's standards.. So it's really difficult to put that into perspective as modern fighters don't come anywhere near fighting that many times in their entire careers. I'm not saying he isn't the GOAT but could you even give a single paragraph of information on 30 opponents from those 130 fights? If not, then how do you even know the value of the victories?

Different time different era in boxing. If you weren't around for Tyson or Holyfield you might look back and say they were both bums who fought nobody. Holyfield has 10 losses and fought way past his time and Tyson was just never that good. But believing is seeing for some people. Seeing tyson run through everyone like hot butter for 5 years. All those first round KO's. Watching Holyfield overcome adversity and never quitting in the ring. being able to see those thing gives more credit to their achivements and who they foguth against. At one time has been were contenders and beating a contender usually menas something...To look back 40-60 years and not really know the hype involved in some of thos efights or who the opponents were that he fought makes it more of an empty shell and just a # not really a record you can look at and say wow 175-19 and the guy had over 109 Knock outs all the way from WW to LHW at a time when there were no Junior Weight Classes?

different era.

Co sign to the 100th power but read my above paragraph.

it has nothing to do with being a ***** or being brave.

in his era you fight a lot of fights to make a living.

if they were making the kind of money now , they wouldn't be fighting 100-200 times in their career.



just like how some of the old school guys had like 10-15 fights with the same guy.

there was no tv , so people who didn't get to see the first 10 fights will pay to see the 11th.

True fighters fought back then and the promoters and the managers made most of the cash. Their was no PPV numbers or TV sponsers. they had radio but they did not make nearly as much money as they do now. the only way to see a match was to buy a tickets. Sometimes the fighters just got a purse and nothing from the gate at all. The need to work over came the need to recover and fighters fought with injuries and other alments which makes the 130-1 record more impressive if you ask me.

Even today I doubt fighters could go 130-1. They had to fight mroe rounds then than now, and their bodys were not given time to rest. After 8 fights in 2 months some of todays cupcakes body's would break down on them and would lose to bum level fighters.

read my above paragraph. I agree with you but it works both ways you may be a fighter who fought 2 times a month and facing a guy who fought the same both being injured levels the playing field no. Jim Braddock fought for 2 years with a broken right hand so he could earn $50.00 a fight. It was what it was. I am sure he fought some journey men to make a buck but he also fought many top contenders in 3 weight classes. To take away anything from SRR is idiotic. he was defintely GOAT MW in my mind. Then you have to put Lamotta and Hagler up there as well....Lefty