How many titles would robinson won today ?

[Cardinal Buck]

Don't you think the criticism of the amateur scoring system has been overblown? I mean Golovkin and Rigondeaux, amongst many others, fought in the amateurs for a long time and they have made the transition into the pro very easily and are now in the elite in boxing. Even though I think the moving away from the computer tallying system is a good thing I do think that the argument against amateur boxing has really been a convenient argument to explain American boxing's apparent decline rather than an actual good argument. After all many other countries have been producing successful amateur fighters who became successful professional fighters.


As for Robinson if he could make Lightweight he'd certainly be a champ from there all the way up to at least Super Middleweight. The only current fighters with a decent chance of beating him would be Pacquiao, Mayweather, Golovkin, maybe Martinez and Ward.

Yes, the criticism of the ams is due to most Americans sucking these days. The international level is as high as ever and better than when Robinson was starting.

When discussing Robinson, people get away with treating him like a God and not being labelled fanboys. The truth is, Robinson was the greatest welter ever but was not a great light heavy, and not better than top 10 at middle head to head. He also had big defensive flaws and fought when the fighters in the divisions were smaller. Andre Ward would whip his ass and Floyd would at worst be competitive.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Yes, the criticism of the ams is due to most Americans sucking these days. The international level is as high as ever and better than when Robinson was starting.

When discussing Robinson, people get away with treating him like a God and not being labelled fanboys. The truth is, Robinson was the greatest welter ever but was not a great light heavy, and not better than top 10 at middle head to head. He also had big defensive flaws and fought when the fighters in the divisions were smaller. Andre Ward would whip his ass and Floyd would at worst be competitive.

Then can you name the great world champions since 2000 that the olympics have produced,, Rigo and GGG look like the goods, but neither has had very long at the top, povetkin was a gold medalist but he never lived up to it and only got a title due to the numerous ones available, Ward is the only one so far to reign on top, If you look at the top 10 p4p ward and rigo are the only olympians...
Its safe to say that being an olympian doesnt translate as well to pro success as it use to,, Gold medalists use to be shoe-ins at being a champ within 5 years ala oscar, SRL, etc and nowadays guys come out, and they may still be good pros but it takes them alot longer to adapt to the pro game

[Humean]

Yes, the criticism of the ams is due to most Americans sucking these days. The international level is as high as ever and better than when Robinson was starting.

When discussing Robinson, people get away with treating him like a God and not being labelled fanboys. The truth is, Robinson was the greatest welter ever but was not a great light heavy, and not better than top 10 at middle head to head. He also had big defensive flaws and fought when the fighters in the divisions were smaller. Andre Ward would whip his ass and Floyd would at worst be competitive.

People do get carried away but I think you are harsh on Robinson as a middleweight. There was more than one version of Robinson as a middleweight, there was 1949-1952 Robinson who only lost to Turpin, who was one of the best middleweights at that time, and he avenged the loss. Turpin probably was a legitimate example of a style that Robinson just found difficult. Then there is Robinson at middleweight coming off a 3 year retirement and becoming the champ again fighting and beating most (Olson, Basilio, Fullmer) of the best middleweights of the day. He was still fighting top level middlweights and sometimes winning even into his early 40s. I do think light heavyweight would likely be too much for him though. Anyway when I think of Robinson to compare with this era and other fighters I think of the Robinson up to his first retirement in 1952 not the 1955-65 Robinson.

[Cardinal Buck]

People do get carried away but I think you are harsh on Robinson as a middleweight. There was more than one version of Robinson as a middleweight, there was 1949-1952 Robinson who only lost to Turpin, who was one of the best middleweights at that time, and he avenged the loss. Turpin probably was a legitimate example of a style that Robinson just found difficult. Then there is Robinson at middleweight coming off a 3 year retirement and becoming the champ again fighting and beating most (Olson, Basilio, Fullmer) of the best middleweights of the day. He was still fighting top level middlweights and sometimes winning even into his early 40s. I do think light heavyweight would likely be too much for him though. Anyway when I think of Robinson to compare with this era and other fighters I think of the Robinson up to his first retirement in 1952 not the 1955-65 Robinson.

I said top ten at middle, head to head, as in probably not top five. If you put any five from Jones, Hagler, Hopkins, Monzon, Greb, McCallum, Hearns, etc. ahead of him, then that makes him top ten.

[Humean]

I said top ten at middle, head to head, as in probably not top five. If you put any five from Jones, Hagler, Hopkins, Monzon, Greb, McCallum, Hearns, etc. ahead of him, then that makes him top ten.

I'd personally have him 2 or 3, no lower than 5. Only Monzon and perhaps Hagler ahead of him for me. Jones jr didn't stick around long enough and fight enough meaningful fights at middleweight to put him ahead of Robinson for me.

[Cardinal Buck]

Then can you name the great world champions since 2000 that the olympics have produced,, Rigo and GGG look like the goods, but neither has had very long at the top, povetkin was a gold medalist but he never lived up to it and only got a title due to the numerous ones available, Ward is the only one so far to reign on top, If you look at the top 10 p4p ward and rigo are the only olympians...
Its safe to say that being an olympian doesnt translate as well to pro success as it use to,, Gold medalists use to be shoe-ins at being a champ within 5 years ala oscar, SRL, etc and nowadays guys come out, and they may still be good pros but it takes them alot longer to adapt to the pro game

It's funny how you put the cutoff at 2000, when both Klitschko's and Mayweather were elite amateurs and are both at or near the top today. Tarver, the best amateur of all, was still relevant before the suspension. Povetkin did better than a lot of heavy gold medalists and never had a real chance to be on top due to the K bros being around. I don't think there's a single division without at least one stand out amateur in the top five. Call me out if I'm wrong.

[Cardinal Buck]

I'd personally have him 2 or 3, no lower than 5. Only Monzon and perhaps Hagler ahead of him for me. Jones jr didn't stick around long enough and fight enough meaningful fights at middleweight to put him ahead of Robinson for me.

I said head to head. Jones is the one guy who I'd easily put in front of him.

[Humean]

I said head to head. Jones is the one guy who I'd easily put in front of him.

I know I pretty much meant the same thing, that is largely how I do my lists, largely in terms of who was the best. Jones resume at middleweight is relevant to me because it is not so clear to me he'd get the better of Robinson based on the evidence of those fights. Robinson was a lot better than the fighters Jones fought at middleweight or even super-middleweight, maybe Toney was the only one close-ish to Robinson's level out of Jones' opponents.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

It's funny how you put the cutoff at 2000, when both Klitschko's and Mayweather were elite amateurs and are both at or near the top today. Tarver, the best amateur of all, was still relevant before the suspension. Povetkin did better than a lot of heavy gold medalists and never had a real chance to be on top due to the K bros being around. I don't think there's a single division without at least one stand out amateur in the top five. Call me out if I'm wrong.

Well i put the cutoff at 2000 because we were talking about the present day, this generation of amateurs, not 20-25 years ago,,, all those guys you mentioned were amateurs in the early 90s,, Povetkin was 04 and has a decent career but he is greatly overrated, had some nice wins early vs byrd and chambers but basically just went life and death with marco huck,,

Look at the current divisions and yes they all have one or 2 standouts of the amateurs, but most were amateurs nearly 20 years ago,, guys that were amateurs since 2000 have sorely underacheived,, Lacy, taylor, povetkin, gamboa, wilder, etc

If you look at the divisions from 30 years ago, they all had outstanding amateurs and were very deep in talent,,

Since 2000 cotto and ward are about the only guys to really make it to the mountain top


Where are all the great pros from the 2000, 2004, and 2008 olympics,, just name the guys that have really shined and become true world champs,, Its basically cotto and ward,, Rigo and GGG are close but need to be on top alittle longer, you could throw khan in there

Tarver, floyd, klits, all are at the tail end of their career and are 35 years old or older
What fighter in his 20s was an olympic champ and now a world champ,, in the history of boxing it usually takes about 4 years to become champ if your a medalist, so everyone from 2000, 04, 08 should have lived up to the hype, unless they arent as active, padded record, and the watered down amateur system makes guys not as skilled as years past, as their developmental process is stunted

[Humean]

Rigo and GGG are the exception to the rule,, like i said earlier there is still very skilled fighters, but its the depth that is lacking,,,
Just look at the olympic fighters from 60s-90s and compare to the last 4 groups from 00,04,08,12.. Its too early to tell about the 2012 class, but the others have sorely come up short,,

I will look later to see if I think you are right on that, particularly about depth, but you did mention the 90s olympians about a week ago compared to the 2000s olympians and I thought the best of the 2004 crop were probably better than any of the 90s although 1996 was strong.

1992 De La Hoya, Casamayor, McCullough, Byrd
1996, Mayweather, Reid, Jirov, Tarver, Wlad Klitschko
2000, Rigondeaux, Jermain Taylor, Erdei, Ibragimov,
2004, Rigondeaux, Gamboa, Khan, Golovkin, Direll, Ward, Povetkin

I think 2008 might even be a little early to tell