How can anyone say SRR is the best Welterweight of all time when......

The most of the guys that claim how good SRR was have only seen the movie Raging bull. Hype over SRR became crazy since that movie from 1980. When they are talking about SRR they are actually talking about the actor that plays SRR in that movie. Most boxing experts ranked Robinson the greatest fighter ever looooong before 1980.

The most of the guys that claim how good SRR was have only seen the movie Raging bull. Hype over SRR became crazy since that movie from 1980. When they are talking about SRR they are actually talking about the actor that plays SRR in that movie.

Robinson was the undisputed champ in an era of less titles that forced the best to really fight eachother I know not much footage is available to the public but i can digest the skills of his available fights on top of what ive read to be able to make a case for him being the best. I dont put him as some mythical unbeatable god like some but he would he a favorite against other welterweight legends

Noticed this guy ducked the question. Lovely paragraph but how many SRR fights have you watched? I'm not ducking anything, lets say i watched zero fights. I still have enough empirical data to at least make a case for SSR being an ATG. That's my point. And just now you did exactly what i requested not to. You attempted to confine the debate to your strawman. I'm saying that the eye test is not the only metric one can use to determine greatness. In fact, the eye test has proven to be far less accurate than empirical data. I'm saying if you don't believe empirical data can be used to at least make a case for greatness, than argue why not. Don't just ignore it and attempt to force someone argue against the strawman you created.

Floyd is held to a higher standard than any other fighter in history. People rewatch his fights with Pacquaio and Maidana in HD in slow motion looking for reasons to score rounds against him. In fact, a number one arugment from many people for Pacquaio winning is that you can only tell pacquaio won if you watch it in HD in half speed. Meanwhile if they see SRR beating on a plumber and part time boxer for 2 minutes in a black and white film at 15 frames per second, whelp that proves hes the best welter of all time. Floyd is a top 10 ATG IMO but what hurts his legacy are his lack of wins against elite fighters in their PRIME. Robinson beat prime LaMotta, Gavilan, Agnott, Fullmer, Olson etc. Leonard beat prime Benitez, prime Duran and prime Hearns. Floyd never reached those same heights.

Yes, we know you guys who doubt SSR don't believe in math. But why keep asking the same question? Any time someone brings up the simple math of his record and how that is far more accurate and objective than the subjective eye test which you believe in, you ignore it and say but you didn't see him. If you believe math is not objective and can't be used to determine skill, than argue that. Don't just ignore the counter argument and create the strawman that someone needs to prove limited footage is enough to make an accurate assessment of skill and try to force the argument to stay confined to the strawman that you created. Noticed this guy ducked the question. Lovely paragraph but how many SRR fights have you watched?

SRR is a myth. people claim how good he was because they watched his fights with LaMotta on youtube and because they know he beat Kid Gavilan twice. I have seen about 40 fights of Pacquiao. How much SRR fight have his fans seen? Or its "well all the books and articles say he was the best" how often do these same people disagree with boxing writers today, only because they seen the fights.. but all of a sudden the fat dans of the 1940s can be taken as gospel for fights you cant even watch. Or Bert sugar going on about the good old days on an ESPN count down is good enough, never mind he wasnt at any of these fuking fights because he was 6 years old when SRR fought lamatta for the first time.

SRR is a myth. people claim how good he was because they watched his fights with LaMotta on youtube and because they know he beat Kid Gavilan twice. I have seen about 40 fights of Pacquiao. How much SRR fight have his fans seen? Yes, we know you guys who doubt SSR don't believe in math. But why keep asking the same question? Any time someone brings up the simple math of his record and how that is far more accurate and objective than the subjective eye test which you believe in, you ignore it and say but you didn't see him. If you believe math is not objective and can't be used to determine skill, than argue that. Don't just ignore the counter argument and create the strawman that someone needs to prove limited footage is enough to make an accurate assessment of skill and try to force the argument to stay confined to the strawman that you created.

There’s a tonne of footage of him above Welterweight though. Duh.......�� It’s not like Leonard or Hearns fought exclusively at 147 either. Who is the “GOAT” in your opinion? Floyd?�� Floyd is held to a higher standard than any other fighter in history. People rewatch his fights with Pacquaio and Maidana in HD in slow motion looking for reasons to score rounds against him. In fact, a number one arugment from many people for Pacquaio winning is that you can only tell pacquaio won if you watch it in HD in half speed. Meanwhile if they see SRR beating on a plumber and part time boxer for 2 minutes in a black and white film at 15 frames per second, whelp that proves hes the best welter of all time.

SRR is a myth. people claim how good he was because they watched his fights with LaMotta on youtube and because they know he beat Kid Gavilan twice. I have seen about 40 fights of Pacquiao. How much SRR fight have his fans seen?

My whole point is that no one should even compare him to fighters we have full fight footage of. No one should say confidently he's better than so and so. How do we even know if he's a better welterweight than Errol Spence? We don't How do we know any fighter is better than any other fighter they never fought prime for prime? It’s all opinions, and it doesn’t mean much of anything. The sport is all about the fights that happen in the ring, everything else is just topic for extra discussion.

You’re questioning those calling him the goat at ww because they haven’t seen him fight at ww, but at the same time you’re saying he isn’t the goat. Wouldn’t you also need to see him fight to make that call? I mean, the whole basis of your thread is saying people shouldn’t judge the man without being able to watch his fights. My whole point is that no one should even compare him to fighters we have full fight footage of. No one should say confidently he's better than so and so. How do we even know if he's a better welterweight than Errol Spence? We don't

SRR isn't the GOAT welterweight, I'll tell you that. You can't even watch him fight at 147 :lol1: You’re questioning those calling him the goat at ww because they haven’t seen him fight at ww, but at the same time you’re saying he isn’t the goat. Wouldn’t you also need to see him fight to make that call? I mean, the whole basis of your thread is saying people shouldn’t judge the man without being able to watch his fights.

I think you can only really gauge boxers of your era accurately. And if your 100 years old you can always compare today's fighters to the fighters you admired as a kid 90 years ago.

How can you accurately gauge how good Robinson and his competition were at 147 when you can't even watch their fights though? This doesn't make any sense, how are you able to form your own opinion? Boxrec, which is primarily just a computer algorithm, has Ray Robinson as the top MW of all time. But you don't have to trust that, you can do your own homework, and go over his record and his opponents records. Combine that with the footage you do see of him, even if at mw, and you can at least make a case for his greatness at welterweight just like you can make a case for Mayweather's greatness at 140. Like i said before, it's all really just math whether you've have seen a fighter or not, it makes little difference in terms of the math. Now maybe you like to ignore math and go based on the eye test, no problem, that's your choice. ATG categorizations are just opinions with no right or wrong answers. But the math is always far more accurate than the eye test (true in almost all of science btw) and that doesn't change just because you prefer not to use it. Imagine if i never saw Mayweather fight but i can see all of his stats and i say well "Luis Callazo is a much better fighter, despite having horrible stats compared to Mayweather, because at least i saw footage of him". Do you see the obvious flaw in my logic? The stats don't become irrelevant just because i prefer to go only by the eye test. A more complete assessment of Mayweather's skill must obviously include empirical data of some kind and not just what i feel like when i see him. Most fans and boxing historians acknowledge this fact when forming an opinion about SRR because it is the most complete and objective way to do so. If you choose not to fine, but that's a far more subjective opinion and assessment then.

You ducked my question :lol1: How can you even call him the GOAT welterweight when you don't even know how he looked at 147? :rofl: Stop ducking fella... 🦆

How can you accurately gauge how good Robinson and his competition were at 147 when you can't even watch their fights though? This doesn't make any sense, how are you able to form your own opinion? based off what i said...common sense and there is footage of him there and records of his opponents do your homework. he has one of if not the best resume of any welterweight in history and his feats past prime on film...common sense bro you dont go like 130-1 over a decade across 3 divisons and be a bum

dude that question has been answered for you numerous ways from different posters.....do you post to just reply or do you actually read what other posters posts as well and try to comprehend them....youre trying far too hard to play devils advocate use common sense......look at who the man fought and beat..check out his record do the research....and see how dangerous he was past prime in his 30s at middleweight. too.....every athlete is faster and sharper in their youth. look how dominant the man was he was undefeated at lightweight and welterweight they were his best divisions..... How can you accurately gauge how good Robinson and his competition were at 147 when you can't even watch their fights though? This doesn't make any sense, how are you able to form your own opinion?

Don’t duck the question?😂😂 You ducked my question :lol1: How can you even call him the GOAT welterweight when you don't even know how he looked at 147? :rofl:

Yep... I got to sit down and have a coffee with John H Stacey several years ago and he was telling me some stories. He said Mickey Duff said to him I’ve got you nice easy voluntary planned against some Mexican kid.😂😂 He said Palomino was an incredibly strong fighter. Duran outskilled him inside....Palomino was strong af....duran knew where to put his head...throw off both sides and shoulders..move his opponents elbows and guard punch around it shift...a true master of inside fighting.....palomino could fight well inside too, but Duran knew more moves and tactics