Ali is greater than Robinson

[TheGreatA]

You don't understand sarcasm, do you?

And yes, I'm so worried that adding Zivic to Robinson's resume of prime fighters that he beat would stomp all over Ali's resume.

Not Zivic by himself, but Zivic along with all the very good and great fighters that Robinson beat which you are discrediting.

I don't see any significant difference in speed between his hand speed against Bethea and his hand speed against Ali (in their first fight).

Perhaps it only appears that Liston was faster in that fight because he was able to unload combinations on Bethea, while he wasn't able to do so against Ali. The reason for that being because Ali was far more superior in defense and in overall fighting ability than Bethea was. Fighters look different against every other fighter they face.

I see a clear difference in speed. Watch Liston's fights post-Ali, he fights at a snail's pace. Liston was still a threat even when he fought Ali and a great win but a case can be made that he was not quite the man he was 5 years ago.

What makes you say that?

He retired on his stool halfway before his first fight with Ali and got knocked out in the first round in their rematch. Kind of hard to say whether or not he would have been able to go the distance, don't ya' think?

He had an injured shoulder. Kind of hard to continue with that, when your shoulder plays into every punch you throw. You know? Because you need to throw punches, in order to win the fight.

Also, he was getting a rematch and that could've possibly made him think he was going to better next time.

It's fairly easy to say that he couldn't have been able to go the distance because he didn't. Liston showed clear signs of tiring by the 6th round and it's part of why he retired on his stool. A few years later he ran out of gas again and got knocked out for it against Leotis Martin.

Are you saying that Liston quit because of an injury? Shouldn't it take away something from the win?

Anyway, my point was not that Ali doesn't deserve credit for beating Liston, it was that Robinson deserves credit for beating Zivic and Armstrong.

I thought we already went over this. A real boxing historian would know that age doesn't play a part in how good a fighter is.

Armstrong was done by 32 and retired. Jones was in his prime and dominating in his division, at that age. Does that mean that Jones is a greater fighter than Armstrong?

Didn't think so.

You're putting words in the mouth of others yet again. I never claimed anything to that effect. I proved that Armstrong at 30 years of age was still a very good, top ranked fighter by the time Robinson fought him unlike Roy Jones when he faced Calzaghe. Calzaghe did not face a 32 year old Roy Jones, he faced a 40 year old Roy Jones. It's you who brought up the comparison in the first place.

Freddie (Red) Cochrane*, Champion

1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Johnny Greco
4. Jimmy McDaniels
5. Fritzie Zivic
6. Bee Bee Wright
7. Harold Green
8. Tippy Larkin
9. Sammy Angott
10. Billy Arnold

Most, but it's pretty close.

I don't care to answer that comparison question, since it would just lead into another useless debate about those fighters, without fully concentrating on Ali and Robinson.

Like I said, though. If you wanna talk about, go ahead and make a new thread and ask other posters their opinions on it. I might even add into it. Just don't try to create these extra little debates in a thread that's not about them.

This is the last I'll be answering about it.

Discussing the opposition that Robinson and Ali beat is quite a big part in a debate about Robinson and Ali, don't you think? I personally think you should look into the fighters that Robinson beat a little more. You can't fully appreciate a fighter if you don't know about most of the fighters he beat. Everyone knows about Ali's opponents, but how many know about Robinson's?

Where did I say that wins over good fighters don't count? Please show me.

After I brought up names like Steve Belloise, Bobo Olson, Robert Villemain you responded with:

"How about we point to the important fights of his career, instead of men who only fought to put food onto the table?"

I corrected you by saying that these fights were indeed important for Robinson and shouldn't be disregarded.

Foreman's accomplishments are better than Gavilan's. Anyone would tell you that.

If you mean accomplishment as in Foreman's accomplishment of winning the title at 45 years of age then yes, but he has that over a lot of fighters.

Is SRL greater than Armstrong, based on skill?

There are many aspects of skill. Was Duran faster or more fleet-footed than Leonard? No, but he was a better infighter and pressure fighter. Same goes for Armstrong. All Foreman has over Gavilan is power. He was not technically better in any category.

I asked if Gavilan did something similar to that. I'm guessing you have no answer.

How many fighters in history did something similar to that? Foreman winning the title was a unique accomplishment, one that he deserves all the credit for. Other fighters can still be rated over him.

If we rate fighters by title defenses, then Joe Calzaghe would be greater than Benny Leonard and Willie Pep.

Calzaghe defended a WBO belt against European opponents in a weak division. Gavilan defended the legitimate welterweight title in a strong division.

If we rate fighters by skill, then SRL would be greater than Armstrong.

Not necessarily. Two entirely different styles that we're talking about here, and I'd say that both were equally as effective at what they did. With Armstrong's resume and accomplishments, he gets edge out of these two as far as I'm concerned although both were great.

As for the top ranked contenders part, Foreman's two wins against Frazier, Norton and Moore are greater than the any of the others Gavilan beat. But once again: don't take my word for it, if you don't wish. Put a poll up and get the general consensus.

In a p4p sense, Norton and Moorer would have gotten their chin checked by quite a few Gavilan opponents. Gavilan unlike them had an all-time great chin and was never stopped. Frazier was a great fighter but he was made for Foreman. Foreman struggled with good boxers like Ali and Young. Gavilan proved he could deal with any style.

I'd say all in all, with Gavilan having fought more contenders, a high level of opposition, defending his title successfully 7 times and being the more complete fighter of the two, is deserving of being rated over Foreman.

Patterson vs Liston was a bad stylistic match-up.

Patterson's chin wasn't good, but he was able to make up for it with his boxing ability against other fighters. As for Liston, he was one of the hardest punchers in the division's history.

If you can't spell a bad style match-up, I don't know what to tell you.

He was knocked out twice in the first round. If that doesn't take your confidence away then nothing does. Patterson was highly regarded in the mid/late 1950's, by the mid 1960's he was not rated as highly. It's not the same thing as beating Patterson the heavyweight champion.

There's no shame in losing to Frazier. Ellis just couldn't match up against someone like him.

An elite fighter should have been able to match up with Frazier though. I'm not too sure if I'd call Ellis elite. His high point was in the late 1960's when he achieved his best victories. By the time of the Ali fight, his stock had gone down and it would continue to go down until he was no more than a traveling journeyman.

I never said it didn't count. I just don't count it as a full-credited win. Does it get credit? Yes. Does it get full credit? No.

I don't count it as a full-credited win either. But it makes sense to give him quite a lot of credit for beating an all-time great who was still top ranked in the division.

It shouldn't be brought up to make a comparison, if no comparison can fairly be made.

No comparison was made either. However there's no way not to acknowledge Robinson's achievements in several weight classes. It's a part of why he is great.

[TheGreatA]

What you don't seem to realize is that everything I said adds up together.

Fighters fought much more frequently to make a decent living, thus they would fought more contenders than any of the past few generations of fighters.

If Robinson was fighting in the 1980s and 1990s, do you honestly think he woud've fought one hundred contenders?

Why should Robinson not be credited for fighting more contenders due to the "conditions of the era"? It's not like there were many, if any fighters in the 1950's either who beat as many contenders as Robinson did. That's why he was regarded as the best. Earlier you were making it out to be as if he fought a bunch of tomato cans.

If they didn't need it, then why would they try and add it to their strategies and styles?

To be better? Do you disagree that Frazier would have been better had his right hand been equally as good as his left hook? Do you disagree that Ali would have been even better had he been a great body puncher with power in both hands?

I have countered most of your opinions, as well as the factual evidence behind it. But don't worry. We're still debating and it's far from over.

Amidst all this supposed "countering" you haven't really brought up much evidence why Ali is greater than Robinson, and mostly try to take down anything Robinson accomplished.

[StarshipTrooper]

What I proved wrong was that you couldn't name anymore fighters who had a very good chance at beating Ali, while I could for Robinson. Look at how you avoided replying to my last statement, where I just called you out on it, once again.

And, now that you chose to run away by logging off, it's clear who got the better of this debate.

Since he's been banned it's probably pointless to reply but I was going to say that I had work to do: That's the difference between being a responsible adult and an indolent adolescent like him

Poet

[Forza]

Ali was more of a dominate champ and fought better competition. 90% of SRRs fights were against bums and he still got destroyed by jake lamotta.

Ali was the best HW of all time probably the best boxer of all time. In his prime he wouldve killed anyone.

[razzledaz 38]

pound for pound i think ali was better than robinson only just

[cotto16]

Robinsion!

[Shabba Rank$]

I'd probably take Sugar over Ali. More complete in my opinion.

[NChristo]

Ali was more of a dominate champ and fought better competition. 90% of SRRs fights were against bums and he still got destroyed by jake lamotta.

Oooohh dear, maybe you should look at Sugars record again and look up some of the boxers he fought, "destroyed" by LaMotta ? maybe you should watch the fight aswell.

Robinson gets a clear vote for me.

[Jim Jeffries]

TheGreatA is on point, as usual. A credit to this site.

Ali has a battle on his hands with Joe Louis as to the greatest HW. Sugar Ray stands alone.

[JudeTheObscure]

what this entire thread is based upon is really how you define "greatness".

Sugar Ray Robinson is the greater boxer... he always will be, above everyone. He has more knockouts then anyone compared to him has fights! The man is the reason the pound-for-pound list was invented.

Muhammad Ali is the greatest fighter. His fights, his aura, his life transcended the sport. His fights unified and went beyond his era. Simple as that.