How many titles would robinson won today ?

[joeandthebums]

If Robinson had come up now and at his peak or aging ...

Robinson would take some of the alphabet titles, be top of the p4p list, fight sparingly against whoever he had to or could get away with fighting for more money than anybody else in the sport.

How many belts though? Depends where the money was at and the jumps in weight he'd make.

[BennyST]

SRR would win everything from 135-175 inclusive.

I think he would win titles from 130 to 168, but not 175. I think 168 would be his upper limit, unless he got the 'right' opponent at 175. Even at 168 he'd need the right opponent. A lot of the 175 guys are just too big for a natural welterweight, even one as great as Robinson. Any of the guys starting out at 168 today are natural light heavies. Big guys with skill. Still, I think with the right opponents it's certainly not at all out of the question to win titles at 168, and even 175.

But, unlike most here, I think he'd be winning more stuff at even lower weights rather than higher. After all, it's not higher that today's weigh ins allow fighters to move as much, but lower.

He was fighting top champions at just above 135, so I think it's safe to assume he'd be a champion at 135 without too much doubt, particularly against the faff today, but I also think he'd take a title at 130 quite easily in his formative years.....a bit like Oscar did, but unlike Oscar he'd be able to win titles higher too.

[Humean]

Ward, GGG, Rigo, are a bunch of novices who don't even fight each other lol..
People die and decompose in the time time it takes these blokes to have a decent fight.

That silly super six tournament.. SRR would've fought about 30 times while all that went on

At least in regards to Golovkin and Rigondeaux they had the bulk of their fights in the amateurs whearas Robinson and the like had theirs in the professional ranks, the importance of this difference is far less pronounced that people suppose. It is certainly true that Robinson and many others could be found to fight back to back opponents of high calibre with a gap of as little as a few days or a week but the more common story, that actually 'pads' the records of these older fighters, are that they were fighting lots of journeymen. Should we really be giving so much credit for beating a load of journeymen? If so why not give credit for modern fighters for their amateur wins? Anyway it is too often perpetuated falsehood, or at least exaggeration, that modern fighters don't fight as much as older fighters when they often do, it is just in the amateur ranks rather than professional. Golovkin had over 300 amateur fights and Rigondeaux had over 400. Not only are they not novices in general but are hardly even novices compared to Robinson.

[joeandthebums]

... but the more common story, that actually 'pads' the records of these older fighters, are that they were fighting lots of journeymen. Should we really be giving so much credit for beating a load of journeymen?

It was more of a trade then. They were in training all year round, so they fought all year round.

You don't have to give them credit them for a tune-up fight, or facing lesser opponents - I think most do because they prefer that model of the sport.

Anyway it is too often perpetuated falsehood, or at least exaggeration, that modern fighters don't fight as much as older fighters when they often do, it is just in the amateur ranks rather than professional. Golovkin had over 300 amateur fights and Rigondeaux had over 400. Not only are they not novices in general but are hardly even novices compared to Robinson.

I'll take Golovkin for comparison as you mentioned him.

He's 31. 300 amateur fights you say, add 28 pro fights = 328 contests.

Robinson at same age, after Maxim fight, 89 amateur fights, add 136 pro fights = 225 contests.

So you are absolutely right in regards to Golovkin. 103 more contests.

300 at 3 rounds limit. Robinson 89 at 3 round limit. Golovkin 117 rounds as a pro. Robinson 878 rounds as a pro.

1017 rounds to 1145 rounds. Only 128 rounds in it, in Robinson favour.

That's a rough as hell example, as just one-off analysis.

At least in regards to Golovkin and Rigondeaux they had the bulk of their fights in the amateurs whearas Robinson and the like had theirs in the professional ranks, the importance of this difference is far less pronounced that people suppose.

I think it does make a difference whether you learn your trade in three round affairs or over eight/ten rounds. I can certainly see benefits in having to plying a skill continually over longer periods.

[mickey malone]

At least in regards to Golovkin and Rigondeaux they had the bulk of their fights in the amateurs whearas Robinson and the like had theirs in the professional ranks, the importance of this difference is far less pronounced that people suppose. It is certainly true that Robinson and many others could be found to fight back to back opponents of high calibre with a gap of as little as a few days or a week but the more common story, that actually 'pads' the records of these older fighters, are that they were fighting lots of journeymen. Should we really be giving so much credit for beating a load of journeymen? If so why not give credit for modern fighters for their amateur wins? Anyway it is too often perpetuated falsehood, or at least exaggeration, that modern fighters don't fight as much as older fighters when they often do, it is just in the amateur ranks rather than professional. Golovkin had over 300 amateur fights and Rigondeaux had over 400. Not only are they not novices in general but are hardly even novices compared to Robinson.

What about the padded amateur records of GGG and Rigo?

[Humean]

What about the padded amateur records of GGG and Rigo?

I do not doubt that, I am just sceptical of the amount of praise that older fighters get for their activity when they did fight a high number of journeymen.

My point was that Golovkin and Rigondeaux are, or at least close to, as experienced boxers as Robinson, contrary to your claim that they were mere novices in comparison.

It was more of a trade then. They were in training all year round, so they fought all year round.

You don't have to give them credit them for a tune-up fight, or facing lesser opponents - I think most do because they prefer that model of the sport.

I suppose I just don't think that this model is as desirable as they make out, in part because they totally discount the amateurs as a means for gaining experience and competence. Rest is also important, I think too many fighters might have got burned out too quickly in the past. Too many also seem to maintain that fighters were tougher back then, in part because of how often they fought, but economics was the main reason for their activity levels.

I'll take Golovkin for comparison as you mentioned him.

He's 31. 300 amateur fights you say, add 28 pro fights = 328 contests.

Robinson at same age, after Maxim fight, 89 amateur fights, add 136 pro fights = 225 contests.

So you are absolutely right in regards to Golovkin. 103 more contests.

300 at 3 rounds limit. Robinson 89 at 3 round limit. Golovkin 117 rounds as a pro. Robinson 878 rounds as a pro.

1017 rounds to 1145 rounds. Only 128 rounds in it, in Robinson favour.

That's a rough as hell example, as just one-off analysis.

I think it highlights that fighters with very extensive amateur careers can build competence and experience akin to the most active professional fighters of the past.

I think it does make a difference whether you learn your trade in three round affairs or over eight/ten rounds. I can certainly see benefits in having to plying a skill continually over longer periods.

I think the benefit of developing much of your skill and experience over only 3 rounds is that you are not needlessly taking punishment earlier in your career over too many rounds in one go. Obviously fighters need a good number of the eight/ten rounders also but I just think that perhaps too many of those could perhaps accelerate the decline of fighters through brain damage.

[mickey malone]

SRR had 200 pro fights.. At least 100 were against fighters with winning records.. I say, 'at least' when it should be 'more than' because he fought some of his opponents on more than one occasion. Ray went in with 16 world champions that I know of.. The distance in experience, is simply light-years, when you look at the current resumes of todays fighters .Hence the term, 'Novices' which is what they are, novice professional fighters..
We're in a deluded era, if guys with less than 30 pro fights who hav'nt even been tested, are considered, remotely near to Robinson's level.. Way too early in their fledgling careers for absurd comparisons to be made.

[Ben Bolt]

SRR had 200 pro fights.. At least 100 were against fighters with winning records.. I say, 'at least' when it should be 'more than' because he fought some of his opponents on more than one occasion. Ray went in with 16 world champions that I know of.. The distance in experience, is simply light-years, when you look at the current resumes of todays fighters .Hence the term, 'Novices' which is what they are, novice professional fighters..
We're in a deluded era, if guys with less than 30 pro fights who hav'nt even been tested, are considered, remotely near to Robinson's level.. Way too early in their fledgling careers for absurd comparisons to be made.

I'm not sure you can do comparisons between yesterday's and today's conditions. If SRR had earned the money today's fighters do, I believe he wouldn't been recorded for 200 fights, but settled with two or three a year.
My point is, he had been able to spend more time in the gym, improving his skills, so a SRR of 30-40 fights today might have been a better fighter than the SRR we know.

[mickey malone]

I'm not sure you can do comparisons between yesterday's and today's conditions. If SRR had earned the money today's fighters do, I believe he wouldn't been recorded for 200 fights, but settled with two or three a year.
My point is, he had been able to spend more time in the gym, improving his skills, so a SRR of 30-40 fights today might have been a better fighter than the SRR we know.

You can't, and Robinson was one of the richest sportsmen of his generation, he picked up around $4 million in career earnings, equivalent to $400 million in todays financial climate.. Fighting the best in 3 divisions over 25 years, does'nt compare to 10 fights every 25 months over 10 years. And that's just assuming, they even last that long.
What's done is done, and what is'nt, has'nt been. Comparisons are pointless at this stage.

[Ray Corso]

Try to compare "talent" not recorded fights! Who today works in combination like Sugarman? No one! Who has power in both hands and can deliver all the punches like him? No one! Who has the balance and hand and foot speed like him? No one!
As for weight classes I see no one in todays climate at 168 to 175 that would be a no brainer winner over him. Fellows like Ward or Stevenson simply have no experiences dealing with the greatest fighter of all time. Hell they've never even fought a great fighter!
Refering to Robinson only as a welter is ridiculous he fought 10 years at middleweight and defeated the best in the world. When he lost a fight in his latter years he's come back to the opponent and beat him usually by tko!
Keep in mind that Sugar was 5'11" and held 160 perfectly!

I like GGG because he comes to win but honestly I doubt he'd hit Sugar if he didn't want him to! GGG is the taylored made opponent for Robinson. someone who moves forward jabbing is going to get hurt! Robinson would be dropping off to his right off GGG jab and bringing right upper cuts in! When GGG tries his step over to the right to throw his body hook, no one would be there!
Its simply miles & miles of experience differences. GGG fought so many Euro styled amatuers who had no flow to their movement and were one dimentional forms. The era's were so different as to avalibilty of different opponents. One week Robinson could be in with a Basillo then met a Gavalin!
Whose GGG boxing? All second and third tier talents, no great fighters! Hell there are none! hahaha!!! Did anyone watch Froch & Groves? Is someone telling me those guys are "great"? They both looked like Rocky Gratizano who style wise was one of the "worst" ever! Left hand down, dragging their back legg and leading with their chins. Groves moves in and continues and Froch stands up into right hands!!! Come on these guys are horrible! Their club fighters but today their contenders? Really? Tell me what does that make someone like Sugar Ray Robinson? .......the Greatest Greatest of all time HA!
Ray Corso