Robinson. Its not up for discussion :P.
Well, I dont think so. Armstrong is a close second.
Haha, usually when someone is a close second in someone's view, it is actually very much up for discussion. Just like people who call 115-113 fights robberies... no dice. It's up for discussion, could have gone either way.
Yaknowhatimsayin?
:offtopic:
:cop: Observation from the self-appointed "language police:" An exclamation point (!) at the end of your statement would've had the same effect as the explitive. Language need not be salty to be effective... :cool:
:offtopic:
Sweet. Glad the linguistic enforcer is on my ass, everyone else watch out.
Suck it!
I'm not entirely sure who is the best, but considering after about 30 votes, Henry Armstrong had 0 votes, I had to pitch that one in... he defended the welterweight title 19 fucking times
:offtopic:
:cop: Observation from the self-appointed "language police:" An exclamation point (!) at the end of your statement would've had the same effect as the explitive. Language need not be salty to be effective... :cool:
:offtopic:
it's very close, between haggler and robinson could be a toss-up but
haggler was the most consistent pressure fighter
Check the thread title sugar plum, welter not middle.
YOU KNOW THAT IS NOT TRUE!!! We constantly hold it against fighters who do not fight opponents who are at least close to their caliber. That being said SRR fought the most champions of ANY OTHER BOXER EVER.
Truth. There is a reason that no one talks about Sven Ottke's 20 title defenses, or Darius Michael...(sp?), because they both fought shitty fighter after shitty fighter to boost their number of defenses up.
your an idiot. you cant possibly hold it against a fighter because his opponents werent nearly as good as him. thats hilarious.
And these "primitive era fighters" didnt know of all these moves and shit, but had they known of them then they would do them better then anybody. SRR was the best of all times, and he was at his best at welterweight. can u explain urself?
Guys like Dempsey and Benny Leonard, THEY were primitive fighters.
YOU KNOW THAT IS NOT TRUE!!! We constantly hold it against fighters who do not fight opponents who are at least close to their caliber. That being said SRR fought the most champions of ANY OTHER BOXER EVER.
I understand the love for Sugar #1 but I think Henry Armstrong should be a little closer. His style is the most salivated over in the history of boxing, IMHO.
this is about boxing not ppls sexual prefrence grow up my friend
he is rated #1 all time on boxrec 2
Did you notice Ray Robinson is not listed on the welterweight all time list? Boxrec only allows a fighter to be ranked in one all time weightclass... boxrec's records suck ass anyway. Look at their P4P list, it doesn't make any sense.
I'm saying that 1) Emile Griffith is gay, and 2) your sexuality is suspect.
this is about boxing not ppls sexual prefrence grow up my friend
he is rated #1 all time on boxrec 2
Dino is kinda right, Hearns isn't even on the list. He definetaly deserves to be up there and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people picked him as GOAT.
i wasnt commentating on that part, i was talking about the "primitive fighter" part
your an idiot. you can possibly hold it against a fighter because his opponents werent nearly as good as him. thats hilarious.
And these "primitive era fighters" didnt know of all these moves and shit, but had they known of them then they would do them better then anybody. SRR was the best of all times, and he was at his best at welterweight. can u explain urself?
Guys like Dempsey and Benny Leonard, THEY were primitive fighters.
i love sugar ray robinson i think he was incredible. but i really dont think that in todays era of fighters, he would be #1. they fought in way different time periods and athletes now are quicker, stronger and smarter. thats jus evolution working cant do anytihng about that. he would be a top 5 welter no doubt about it, but there are guys who could beat him at welter.
your an idiot. you can possibly hold it against a fighter because his opponents werent nearly as good as him. thats hilarious.
And these "primitive era fighters" didnt know of all these moves and shit, but had they known of them then they would do them better then anybody. SRR was the best of all times, and he was at his best at welterweight. can u explain urself?
Guys like Dempsey and Benny Leonard, THEY were primitive fighters.Dino is kinda right, Hearns isn't even on the list. He definetaly deserves to be up there and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people picked him as GOAT.
none of those guys, thomas hearns is the best welterweight, im so sick of idiots posting guys saying their the "greatest" from primitive era's of boxing.
ray robinson fought against people who didnt have his speed or reflexes, hearns and leoanard would beat him
your an idiot. you can possibly hold it against a fighter because his opponents werent nearly as good as him. thats hilarious.
And these "primitive era fighters" didnt know of all these moves and shit, but had they known of them then they would do them better then anybody. SRR was the best of all times, and he was at his best at welterweight. can u explain urself?
Guys like Dempsey and Benny Leonard, THEY were primitive fighters.
Ricky Hatton,
You mean that bloke who got beat by Luis Collazo and Juan Urango, and the same bloke who beat up old shot fighters like Kosta and JLC?
Yeah, greatest welterweight ever...for sure.
Where you comin' from?
pretty sure dios was jus messin around. ricky hatton is no where near being mentioned as being considered for a possible candidate spot as being one of the greats. everbody get that?
18y ago
Greatest Welterweight Ever | BoxingScene Community