How fast was Sugar Ray Robinson in 1950? Find out here.

[VG_Addict]

I don't think SRR was faster than RJJ or Meldrick Taylor.

[Canelo Phresh]

absolutley incredible that a fighter was allowed to continue after being carried back to his corner while completely unconscious

load him up on smelling salts and sent him out for more

Real men back in those days.

[soul_survivor]

Definite low blows there but the speed of "body" to head was phenomenal.

I dunno how many of you have seen old footage from ESPN of Robinson in his amateur days. He literally stood by the ring ropes, dropped his hands and dodged a bunch of punches. Very sharp reflexes to go with the handspeed.

[billeau2]

We have the same kind of thinking....I believe in every era one or two true boxing greats emerge and regardless of any era they would have gone to the top...its kind of weird when you think about it......but boxing is probably the only sport where it's considered the old timers were better than the new era....in the new era we have tennis,athletics,football,golf etc Federer,bolt,mesi,woods are probably considered the best in history...and yet boxing according to the historians a 195 pound Louis beats a 245 lennox Lewis .....I don't think that's logicol thinking it's more like nostalgia thinking......I don't belive anybody is superman ....good chatting to ya :-)

It doesn't seem logical on the surface, and yes it goes against trend... But there are reasons for it. For one, boxing demographics have changed considerably and there is in fact somewhat of a correlation to football and basketball. There is a lot of back and fourth on this, but when considering the changes in equipment, the rules and the interest in boxing, not to mention the effect of olympic programs on the sport...well boxing may not follow a trend where modern is better.

[The Old LefHook]

It doesn't seem logical on the surface, and yes it goes against trend... But there are reasons for it. For one, boxing demographics have changed considerably and there is in fact somewhat of a correlation to football and basketball. There is a lot of back and fourth on this, but when considering the changes in equipment, the rules and the interest in boxing, not to mention the effect of olympic programs on the sport...well boxing may not follow a trend where modern is better.

You got it. What makes your friend think evolution is a continual improvement? He knows the word but not evolution itself and how it works. He comes on and immediately states, I know a lot about boxing, so must be watched suspiciously.

I don't think Jones is any faster than Robinson. They threw differently. Robinson from a classic guard looking for combinations. Jones was looking for the single explosive shot. Roy would not put everything into these potshots, which enabled them to be thrown faster. Sometimes they knocked the opponent out anyway.

We have been over this ground thoroughly. Those who claim evolution has made for better fighters are not critical thinkers. If they were they would notice something. What evolved that makes them so much better, the canvas, the ropes, the gloves? Oh, the training methods, they say.

You cannot get any harder or be in any better condition than some fighters pre 1960, let's say. Oh, so the new guys exercise all the muscle groups in the right proportion and timing. So did the old guys, and they did it without knowing what the muscle groups are. Oh, so the new breed have dieticians in camp to make wholesome meals. Yeah, the old boys believed in steak, and anyone will fight just fine on it.

The diet they have that was not available is called PED's, pure and simple. That is why many of today's fighters are so muscled up. This has been shown many times with many different fighters. Most top level fighters today are on something. That allows the argument that they do not even train as well or as thoroughly as the old breed, because many of their muscles come in a bottle instead of the old fashioned way.

I wonder if juice can affect speed. I have heard that it does.

[billeau2]

You got it. What makes your friend think evolution is a continual improvement? He knows the word but not evolution itself and how it works. He comes on and immediately states, I know a lot about boxing, so must be watched suspiciously.

I don't think Jones is any faster than Robinson. They threw differently. Robinson from a classic guard looking for combinations. Jones was looking for the single explosive shot. Roy would not put everything into these potshots, which enabled them to be thrown faster. Sometimes they knocked the opponent out anyway.

We have been over this ground thoroughly. Those who claim evolution has made for better fighters are not critical thinkers. If they were they would notice something. What evolved that makes them so much better, the canvas, the ropes, the gloves? Oh, the training methods, they say.

You cannot get any harder or be in any better condition than some fighters pre 1960, let's say. Oh, so the new guys exercise all the muscle groups in the right proportion and timing. So did the old guys, and they did it without knowing what the muscle groups are. Oh, so the new breed have dieticians in camp to make wholesome meals. Yeah, the old boys believed in steak, and anyone will fight just fine on it.

The diet they have that was not available is called PED's, pure and simple. That is why many of today's fighters are so muscled up. This has been shown many times with many different fighters. Most top level fighters today are on something. That allows the argument that they do not even train as well or as thoroughly as the old breed, because many of their muscles come in a bottle instead of the old fashioned way.

I wonder if juice can affect speed. I have heard that it does.

Glad you are back lefty missed you!

I think as a big picture guy and in virtually all endevours there is evolution. Its very hard to make a case going against the trend. Even regarding other feilds this holds true, my dad played for the new york philamonic and tells me "the kids today are exceptional and can do things undoable back then." There is no intellectual laziness in making a case for evolution of fighters in boxing...its just that I believe, as you do, that boxing is an exception for very good reasons.

First off if Rugby tomorrow became a high priced sport, with more of a professional than club presence that was on a par with the major sports, one might see more athletes, better athletes becoming rugby players....Football americana has specific reasons why it has become such a complex game with some of the elite athletes competing...I have detailed why I think this is...

There was a time when the very best men had designs on being boxing champions. There was a whole network to support that endevour with some of the brightest minds as trainers...When boxing was king the lower east side of new york city was the most populated piece of real estate in the world.

We know have a world with over a billion people, entree into the boxing field by many more participants, but we also have a lot more endevours that could make an athlete richer. We also have other combative endevours that compete with boxing as well. So the first thing one must realise is how much does more strong, tough participants in the world, really affect the level of participants in boxing?

Next we have to look at mentorship. For every guy like Barry Robinson for example, there are many trainers who still teach a style of fighting in the olympics that has not changed much since the early 1900's. Then there were the great olympic trainers who taught the Cubans, etc. Today olmpic boxing is not what it once was though, and now a days anyone can train boxing for fitness and to relieve some of that stress of being a wall street man! how much work are professional fighters getting coming up? how much mentorship, training, etc?

At a glance? back in the day a fighter would fight many times and be taught all the tools in a gym before ascending...that just does not happen today. A look at a fighter like Doentay Wilder reveals that he has so many flaws, and though he looks great can hardly throw punches without gassing....its hard to imagine a man like Louis, who was taught everything from the ground up, wouldn't find a way to avoid deontay's bomb...and its hard to think in a 15 round fight that deontay could even stand frankly.

This is just an example and there are lots of back and fourth on this...as my dear friend Elroy says "Roberto Duran was a poor man's Manny pacquio!"

[McGoorty]

I think your confused power with speed lunatic......I never said he wouldn't destroy mayweather....who mentioned anything about that...mayweather wouldn't last in any great welterweight era...no my opinion that could compete with ronsinson era was Ray Leonard's era with Thomas hearns and Benitez......I've seen enough fight films of Robinson and lamotta and graziiano to know the 80's was an ear that could match them for speed and power......I'm not one of these people that are obsessed with old days and how good they were.......I suggest you sit yourself down one evening and don't just go through the best Ray Robinson on film but look at his duds as well......sugar Ray Leonard was every bit as good as Ray Robinson.......that's my view....is Robinson the number 1 p4p yes he is because of what he achieved but the most skilled p4p who ever lived...no he is not..robinson defence was poor...he was not accurate...be boxed and lost to some very poor contenders and his record was also filled with many boxers that should never have got a title shot......a complete different era and your comparing speed and Robison was not faster than a Leonard or a Roy Jones period

Hell since when did any "poor" fighter ever beat Robinson ?... every one of them had some great qualities. Sure Ray Leonard matched him in some departments but not in power but seriously Robinson fought nearly as many great fighters as Leonard had total fights. Their careers simply cannot be compared, the resume's are vastly different. How can you say Robinson wasn't accurate ? his left hook that dropped Fullmer was as accurate as any ever, maybe you been watching different films. The most important thing about Robinson's record is that of when he was a welterweight, not when he was old and fighting past his best against middles, his record as a welter is incredible. The only department Leonard was superior in was his business sense and his great entrepeneurial skills, Leonard was onbe of the smartest cookies boxing ever saw.

[McGoorty]

You got it. What makes your friend think evolution is a continual improvement? He knows the word but not evolution itself and how it works. He comes on and immediately states, I know a lot about boxing, so must be watched suspiciously.

I don't think Jones is any faster than Robinson. They threw differently. Robinson from a classic guard looking for combinations. Jones was looking for the single explosive shot. Roy would not put everything into these potshots, which enabled them to be thrown faster. Sometimes they knocked the opponent out anyway.

We have been over this ground thoroughly. Those who claim evolution has made for better fighters are not critical thinkers. If they were they would notice something. What evolved that makes them so much better, the canvas, the ropes, the gloves? Oh, the training methods, they say.

You cannot get any harder or be in any better condition than some fighters pre 1960, let's say. Oh, so the new guys exercise all the muscle groups in the right proportion and timing. So did the old guys, and they did it without knowing what the muscle groups are. Oh, so the new breed have dieticians in camp to make wholesome meals. Yeah, the old boys believed in steak, and anyone will fight just fine on it.

The diet they have that was not available is called PED's, pure and simple. That is why many of today's fighters are so muscled up. This has been shown many times with many different fighters. Most top level fighters today are on something. That allows the argument that they do not even train as well or as thoroughly as the old breed, because many of their muscles come in a bottle instead of the old fashioned way.

I wonder if juice can affect speed. I have heard that it does.

I am with you on this, in fact look at Carmen Basilio, in particular his back, his back muscles seem to be in the thousands, it is an awesome specimen, he was always in peak condition and I find it hard to believe anyone today could be fitter, as fit ? yes certainly, today there are many fighters with physiques like his but that's my point, fighters back in the 50's were most usually incredible physical specimens. One thing though, a fighters body type should not be the type that would win any bodybuilding comps, way way back old Bob Fitzsimmons used to laugh at guys built like that and he could beat them all to a pulp as well, in fact Bob had a perfect build for a boxer.
.................................................. ............................. ........................................ To use Bob Fitzsimmons as an example may make many laugh but boxing in his time required much different things than boxing today, those tiny gloves, those very long long fights, you just couldn't hold yer hands up high all day your arms would drop off. I won't go any further now, I have covered all this a hundred times before.

[The plunger man]

Hell since when did any "poor" fighter ever beat Robinson ?... every one of them had some great qualities. Sure Ray Leonard matched him in some departments but not in power but seriously Robinson fought nearly as many great fighters as Leonard had total fights. Their careers simply cannot be compared, the resume's are vastly different. How can you say Robinson wasn't accurate ? his left hook that dropped Fullmer was as accurate as any ever, maybe you been watching different films. The most important thing about Robinson's record is that of when he was a welterweight, not when he was old and fighting past his best against middles, his record as a welter is incredible. The only department Leonard was superior in was his business sense and his great entrepeneurial skills, Leonard was onbe of the smartest cookies boxing ever saw.

Look buddy I ain't gonna get into some sort of debate about how good Robinson was...u mention the gene fulmer fight but that's one fight...there are countless fights on YouTube where you can see Robinson miss wildly and a lazy and then get countered, Robinson also fought a lot of duds and guys he should have beat easy but he lost to, Leonard, Robinson would have been a close fight and making somebody that is head shoulders above everybody else does not really exist my friend, it's a called evolution and progression and to think somebody from 50 years prior walks over any other person that enters that sport is biased and stupid , sugar ray Robinson was an all time great in his era and to make him some kind of demigod who Beats anybody he meets in all of history is ridiculous , Leonard had as much ability as Robinson and i have boxed all my life, I stand by what I said Robinson is the greatest p4p because of his record not because he beats every boxer in history, next thing your be saying is Joe Louis beats Lennox Lewis

[McGoorty]

Glad you are back lefty missed you!

I think as a big picture guy and in virtually all endevours there is evolution. Its very hard to make a case going against the trend. Even regarding other feilds this holds true, my dad played for the new york philamonic and tells me "the kids today are exceptional and can do things undoable back then." There is no intellectual laziness in making a case for evolution of fighters in boxing...its just that I believe, as you do, that boxing is an exception for very good reasons.

First off if Rugby tomorrow became a high priced sport, with more of a professional than club presence that was on a par with the major sports, one might see more athletes, better athletes becoming rugby players....Football americana has specific reasons why it has become such a complex game with some of the elite athletes competing...I have detailed why I think this is...

There was a time when the very best men had designs on being boxing champions. There was a whole network to support that endevour with some of the brightest minds as trainers...When boxing was king the lower east side of new york city was the most populated piece of real estate in the world.

We know have a world with over a billion people, entree into the boxing field by many more participants, but we also have a lot more endevours that could make an athlete richer. We also have other combative endevours that compete with boxing as well. So the first thing one must realise is how much does more strong, tough participants in the world, really affect the level of participants in boxing?

Next we have to look at mentorship. For every guy like Barry Robinson for example, there are many trainers who still teach a style of fighting in the olympics that has not changed much since the early 1900's. Then there were the great olympic trainers who taught the Cubans, etc. Today olmpic boxing is not what it once was though, and now a days anyone can train boxing for fitness and to relieve some of that stress of being a wall street man! how much work are professional fighters getting coming up? how much mentorship, training, etc?

At a glance? back in the day a fighter would fight many times and be taught all the tools in a gym before ascending...that just does not happen today. A look at a fighter like Doentay Wilder reveals that he has so many flaws, and though he looks great can hardly throw punches without gassing....its hard to imagine a man like Louis, who was taught everything from the ground up, wouldn't find a way to avoid deontay's bomb...and its hard to think in a 15 round fight that deontay could even stand frankly.

This is just an example and there are lots of back and fourth on this...as my dear friend Elroy says "Roberto Duran was a poor man's Manny pacquio!"

Just a quick note, you talked about Rugby, I presume you mean the game called Rugby Union, but in the other rugby code, Rugby League it is highly professional and we have some incredible athletes, in fact Billy Slater is maybe the greatest all round athlete I have ever seen, the bloke is a freak, unfortunately he is now on the back end of his awesome career and injuries are taking their inevitable toll. Rugby Union has also turned professional but it did that relatively recently but League has been a pro sport since 1895 in fact that was why league broke away from the Union. The two games require different things of an athlete, rugby league players have to be faster, stronger and have far better stamina as it is a faster more explosive and tougher sport. To see the Wallabies against the Kangaroos (the latter are the Australian rugby league team, the Wallabies the union version), you see a big difference, in union you still see many varied body types but the Kangaroos or any of the great club teams you see massively muscled athletes, one and all, their training regimes are positively Spartan.