Roy Jones Jr. Vs Sugar Ray Robinson

Ray and this era look to be very overextending a lot of times to the body and are very hesitant in most movements. They don't fight from range much,they leave themselves open a lot of times, and a lot of times they will just throw to the body and not protect themselves. The Carlos era were able to protect the body with 1 hand while punching to the body. along with all the other advances in movement, along with being way smoother in movements the ray era They use mostly counters when up close. The lateral movement is very basic. They don't seem to be able to punch from range while doing it smoothly. They have to stop then punch most of the time. Their feet are mostly tiptoeing. No one made midcard fighting like this in 70s-90s,so no srr wouldn't win and only not sane people said he would win

No one beats PRIME RRJ in a fantasy matchup!!!! RRJ was way to gifted to be the underdog against anyone (all-time). Offcourse its boxing and anything can happen, but no RRJ was a beast.

RJ all day at that weight

I agree Carnera is very similar to Vitali. Vitali is better but stylistically very much alike. He's not like Wlad though and i don't get why people (not you) lump them together saying "he fight nothing like the Klitschkos". They're quite different. It's cool to see modern day fighters with the "old grainy choppy black/white" filter like in that Vitali clip. I think many people don't realize how old timers would look in perfect HD and full color.

Sorry BIG, I know it was a "quick question" but I just couldn't give you a "quick" answer. I got "involved"........they were great days for boxing.

The main difference today is that there can be really big men who are genuinely athletic, because of some sort of evolutionary genetic mutations.....I don't know what to call it, but when I was growing up, these guys didn't exist in sports. If they did, they were useless, slow, ponderous, and poorly skilled. I actually knew one boxer, a fellow called Jim Cully, 7' but he was hopeless and gave it up. Really big men generally suffered from acromegaly, and would die very young. They could make a small living in circuses. Medicine was poorly advanced then by comparison with today. Primo Carnera, and a few guys like Buddy Baer or Abe Simon, were really anomalies, but weren't really much good, had short careers, and usually didn't live to ripe old age. Carnera wasn't bad, had a long career,but still died long before his time. i remember his last few fights were after the war. I think he lost them all. All this is just my opinion of course. Yeah Carnera was the size of lewis and the klits but no where near their talent. Valuev at 7ft and 300+ pounds is the new carnera. And even Valuev had surprisingly good stamina for his size. It happens in other sports too, like the NFL, theyre all way bigger and there are 300 pound guys that can run fast as ****.

Robinson looked good, he had good power in both hands you could see its effects on his opponents, he was fast as well. But Roy dont get hit and Robinson was open defensively for counters. Roys footwork was amazing in his prime and hes the bigger guy. To me, its an easy pick for roy. He will use movement to avoid Robinsons pressure and pick his counters and they will land because of his speed. Robinson could win some rounds if Hopkins could and that is because Roy is bad on the ropes but in his prime he is mobile enough that he doesnt stay there long. Its not a bad thing to say for SRR, because hes the smaller guy.

Quick question, could it be possible the fighters he fought after the long layoff be overared? I think it'd depend on who's deciding. I just had a quick look at them, and I can tell you truthfully, that every one of them, the 5-6 of them, up to the time Robinson fought Bobo Olsen, was a really tough guy. I remember each and every name, they were constantly mentioned in RING, which I got weekly (when it was really THE magazine) having tough fights, beating, drawing with or just losing to multiple champions. They all fought everybody, and even though they had plenty of losses, these were only against the best. There was hardly a champion who didn't have 5-6 losses BEFORE he became champ. I remember when Joey Giardello, whom everyone thought was finished, became champion, and because of the title, he became better. Bobo Olsen, although Robinson always had his number was a very good fighter. When Robinson beat him, he'd had about 80 fights and was still only about 26. He won his title by beating Randolph Turpin, beat Joey Maxim, even fought Archie Moore for the light-heavy title, lost of course but it shows how good he was and how tough. So BIG I don't know what to tell you, because those guys, most of whom were capable of beating champions, would today not even come close to getting a fight with their records. I think they'd plough through most of today's zero losses guys. Don't forget they had same day weigh-in, and in today's climate, would be at least a division lower. in my opinion, boxing, because it's a unique martial sport of man-to-man, with the goal of conquering, is completely different from all other sports because they have leagues they can win, and records they can break. So, with improved nutrition and science, they can surpass the records of those greats of 20 years ago. Boxing is different, and because it's man-to-man, depending on the same traditional skills, of at least the past 100 years, you won't find many of today's top fighters who are better than those of years ago. A heavyweight champ of 60-75 years ago could be a light-heavy today, with a 30 hour weigh-in window. The main difference today is that there can be really big men who are genuinely athletic, because of some sort of evolutionary genetic mutations.....I don't know what to call it, but when I was growing up, these guys didn't exist in sports. If they did, they were useless, slow, ponderous, and poorly skilled. I actually knew one boxer, a fellow called Jim Cully, 7' but he was hopeless and gave it up. Really big men generally suffered from acromegaly, and would die very young. They could make a small living in circuses. Medicine was poorly advanced then by comparison with today. Primo Carnera, and a few guys like Buddy Baer or Abe Simon, were really anomalies, but weren't really much good, had short careers, and usually didn't live to ripe old age. Carnera wasn't bad, had a long career,but still died long before his time. i remember his last few fights were after the war. I think he lost them all. All this is just my opinion of course.

Roy Jones Junior by whatever he wants you ****. And while we're at it, David Haye would KO Muhammad Ali in 3. MUPPETS. Time elapses and human beings get better at sport (as proven with world records) Tools, stop nut hugging the past. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Haye beats Ali???? You're joking right???

At MW, even though we didnt see much of Roy there, he beats Robinson. Not saying he's greater all-time, because he isn't. But H2H at that weight, I'd bet on Roy.

ROY JONES JR was Power...Embodied in FLESH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Roy Toys with SRR and breaks his Will!

some nice points. robinson was a big welterweight in terms of his frame. tall and with a long reach. and obviously as you know these guys fought constantly, many times a year and sometimes even per month, so his weight is never going to have a chance to balloon. i dont think he'd be at 140 today in the heart of what was his prime at ww in the 50's. he had big shoulders and muscle. every loss you mentioned came after robinson's best days. his only loss in his prime was against jake lamotta. back then, guys lost and moved on robinson did have flaws in that he was open to get hit. he made up for it by being a complete savage and having a great chin. no fighter is perfect. robinson is the least flawed fighter of all time it's not really possible to be impartial about a great fighter like robinson. for starters, before you even knew what a great fighter looked like, people were telling you that robinson is the greatest to ever lace them up he's well filmed past his prime, but there's only bits and pieces of him at his absolute best. i guess it's easy to overate a guy of that esteem. i believe the TS asks/should ask us this: could 50's robinson take prime roy jones the weight thing is bopkiss in my estimation. i doubt prime jones is going to drain himself down to 164 lbs. roy's best work was at 168 and 175. i think that MW robinson at his best would take the roy that fought at 160 lbs who was very young and relatively green. prime robinson was, as stated, a WW. or more appropriately, robinson's best weight and beginning of his career was at WW, because he got more done as a MW in terms of his great-making resume i think that the issue is size. roy was markedly larger than robinson. at 168 lbs, roy decision.From what I've read Robinson was at his best in the 40s and was already past his prime when he beat La Motta for the middleweight tittle in early 1951 at age 29.He had already had 120 pro fights when he fought La Motta for the tittle and that had to take a toll. Robinson was 30 years old when he lost to Turpin in England, apparently from way to much partying and not being in top shape.He was 36 when he lost to Basillo, 38 when he lost to Pender and 39 when he lost to Fulmer so I'm sure a younger Robinson would have won those fights. Robinson turned pro as a lightweight at age 19. By age 22 he was a full welterweight. He weighed 155 when he won the tittle from La Motta and 154 when he lost his middleweight tittle to Turpin. I think he was really still a welterweight that could beat the best middleweights.

i understand the logic of roy jones not being considered the greatest or one of top few greatest fighters to ever live due to competition but in head-to-head matchups, i would not pick against roy vs. anybody south of light heavyweight. roy jones is the most gifted fighter that i've ever seen.

Roy Jones Junior by whatever he wants you ****. And while we're at it, David Haye would KO Muhammad Ali in 3. MUPPETS. Time elapses and human beings get better at sport (as proven with world records) Tools, stop nut hugging the past. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Robinson was even in his later 30's for this fight. Before he fought Randolph Turpin and lost, his record was 132-1. He was fighting ex-welterweight champions like Marty Servo and Fritzie Zivic, when he was still a lightweight-beating them too. In hia first 5 fights with LaMotta he was giving away 12-16 lbs regularly, and he did this in many other fights too. When he fought 175 lb Joey Maxim, he weighed 156 and by the fight's end ne was 147. He retired for 3 years, and came back aged 35, his best days long behind him. When he had his record-breaking fights with Olsen, Basilio and Fullmer, he was entering and in his very late 30's. Just to show what a remarkable fighter he was, he'd fought a successful welterweight defense,, and less than 2 weeks later, fought and won the Pennsylvania World Middleweight crown against a very good fighter Jose Basora. Guys like Robinson are unique historical figures. As to whether he'd beat Jones, yes I'd say it's possible, but at the same time, as a middleweight, Robinson was not unbeatable, as we very well know. If Jones could keep from getting caught for 12-15 rds, yes, he would win, but I feel that Robinson would eventually be able to time him, and although he'd miss many, he'd tag him a few, which might have been enough. An inferior but good, defensive fighter Paul Pender, beat him twice, but Robinson was 40, and, although still good, fallible, and could be tied up. And Jones was a different fighter to Pender. It's a toss-up. Quick question, could it be possible the fighters he fought after the long layoff be overared?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xMLt9Vakrg Robinson vs. Gene Fullmer, full fight. Robinson was even in his later 30's for this fight. Before he fought Randolph Turpin and lost, his record was 132-1. He was fighting ex-welterweight champions like Marty Servo and Fritzie Zivic, when he was still a lightweight-beating them too. In hia first 5 fights with LaMotta he was giving away 12-16 lbs regularly, and he did this in many other fights too. When he fought 175 lb Joey Maxim, he weighed 156 and by the fight's end ne was 147. He retired for 3 years, and came back aged 35, his best days long behind him. When he had his record-breaking fights with Olsen, Basilio and Fullmer, he was entering and in his very late 30's. Just to show what a remarkable fighter he was, he'd fought a successful welterweight defense,, and less than 2 weeks later, fought and won the Pennsylvania World Middleweight crown against a very good fighter Jose Basora. Guys like Robinson are unique historical figures. As to whether he'd beat Jones, yes I'd say it's possible, but at the same time, as a middleweight, Robinson was not unbeatable, as we very well know. If Jones could keep from getting caught for 12-15 rds, yes, he would win, but I feel that Robinson would eventually be able to time him, and although he'd miss many, he'd tag him a few, which might have been enough. An inferior but good, defensive fighter Paul Pender, beat him twice, but Robinson was 40, and, although still good, fallible, and could be tied up. And Jones was a different fighter to Pender. It's a toss-up.

If you want to be fair you need to bring the weight down to 160 because Robinson was a natural welterweight. That means he was about the same size as a big 140 lb. fighter of today because He had no problems making 147 the day of the fight. He might have been the best welterweight of all time but not the best middleweight of all time in my opinion. Roy Jones was a much bigger man. Jones was faster and hit harder than Robinson. Robinson came to fight so Jones would KO him in my opinion. Robinson lost middleweight tittle fights to Gene Fulmer, Basillo, a welterweight, who spotted him 6 lbs., Paul Pender, and Randy Turpin. I have seen plenty of films of Robinson and consider him somewhat overrated. He had flaws. Over the years the oldtimers have firmly established him as the greatest PFP that ever lived and you are not supposed to question this. At welterweight maybe, but not at middleweight. Not to me. If those other guys could beat him Jones would beat him because he was alot better than any of them. I know Robinson beat Fulmer, Basillo, and Turpin in rematches but Jones would not have lost to them even once. some nice points. robinson was a big welterweight in terms of his frame. tall and with a long reach. and obviously as you know these guys fought constantly, many times a year and sometimes even per month, so his weight is never going to have a chance to balloon. i dont think he'd be at 140 today in the heart of what was his prime at ww in the 50's. he had big shoulders and muscle. every loss you mentioned came after robinson's best days. his only loss in his prime was against jake lamotta. back then, guys lost and moved on robinson did have flaws in that he was open to get hit. he made up for it by being a complete savage and having a great chin. no fighter is perfect. robinson is the least flawed fighter of all time. it's not really possible to be impartial about a great fighter like robinson. for starters, before you even knew what a great fighter looked like, people were telling you that robinson is the greatest to ever lace them up he's well filmed past his prime, but there's only bits and pieces of him at his absolute best. i guess it's easy to overate a guy of that esteem. i believe the TS asks/should ask us this: could 50's robinson take prime roy jones the weight thing is bopkiss in my estimation. i doubt prime jones is going to drain himself down to 164 lbs. roy's best work was at 168 and 175. i think that MW robinson at his best would take the roy that fought at 160 lbs who was very young and relatively green. prime robinson was, as stated, a WW. or more appropriately, robinson's best weight and beginning of his career was at WW, because he got more done as a MW in terms of his great-making resume i think that the issue is size. roy was markedly larger than robinson. at 168 lbs, roy decision.

Robinson was plenty great enough at 160 to make this a really intriguing question. Matching Robinson against damn near anyone at 147 would probably be a mismatch in most people's eyes.It is a good question and I answered it truthfully, and gave my reasons for my answer. Everyone certainly has the right to disagree. I think he was better at 147 but he did have two draws and several split decisions when he fought at that weight so him against some of the other great welterweights might not be mismatches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xMLt9Vakrg Robinson vs. Gene Fullmer, full fight.

This is literally the longest SRR video I can find on youtube, and it's only the end. Usually longer fights are in parts. Just put in Robinson's name on Google and go to videos, set it so you only get videos 20 minutes or longer. I just did that and got two full fights 20 minutes long and 30 minutes long.