How fast was Sugar Ray Robinson in 1950? Find out here.

[Elroy1]

yes Steve that is true isn't it...... But do you really think nothing I said has value or logic or anything reasonable good about it ?

It seems like you are fishing for credibility here!

Even YOU don't have confidence in your own opinions dude.

[NChristo]

Sugar Ray Robinson was 80 wins 0 losses as an amateur; then turned pro and won his first 40 fights, before he lost a controversial close decision to Jake LaMotta who's in the Hall of Fame)........
3 weeks later he fought Jake again and won. Then Sugar went on to win ANOTHER 40 fights in a row. That's a record of (180 wins and only 1 loss!). No other fighter in the history of boxing has ever achieved this. These are facts. Even Muhammad Ali said that Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest fighter p4p of all times! I agree with Ali's opinion. especially coming from the boxer who says "I'm the greatest Heavyweight of all times". I'm just saying.

He lost to Billy Graham as an amateur.

[joeandthebums]

Sugar Ray Robinson was 80 wins 0 losses as an amateur; then turned pro and won his first 40 fights, before he lost a controversial close decision to Jake LaMotta who's in the Hall of Fame)........
3 weeks later he fought Jake again and won. Then Sugar went on to win ANOTHER 40 fights in a row. That's a record of (180 wins and only 1 loss!). No other fighter in the history of boxing has ever achieved this. These are facts.

This is the polar opposite of an Elroy post.

As NChristo has already pointed out Robinson did lose as an amateur, he lost on more than one occasion.

His loss to LaMotta was not controversial. There is a better argument that some of Robinson's wins in the series were controversial than LaMotta's sole victory was.

There seems to be a lack of information on both sides of this debate - somewhat surprising given the status that Robinson has in the sport.

[Ray Corso]

The fights are available, watch them. Robinson losses came at the very end of his career accepting trips to Hawaii to fight Stan Harrington who was a top notch guy for many years. Fighting past his prime no one stopped him and the fans were thrilled just to see. They didn't care if he wasn't the great Sugar Ray they just wanted to see him.
Ray

[Elroy1]

This is the polar opposite of an Elroy post.

As NChristo has already pointed out Robinson did lose as an amateur, he lost on more than one occasion.

His loss to LaMotta was not controversial. There is a better argument that some of Robinson's wins in the series were controversial than LaMotta's sole victory was.

There seems to be a lack of information on both sides of this debate - somewhat surprising given the status that Robinson has in the sport.

Well actually, numerically speaking, I will attest myself to Robinson having the best paper record of all time.

It's only once we conduct an analysis of the fights and the opponents that my theory differs from that of this Mosley guy.

[billeau2]

This is the polar opposite of an Elroy post.

As NChristo has already pointed out Robinson did lose as an amateur, he lost on more than one occasion.

His loss to LaMotta was not controversial. There is a better argument that some of Robinson's wins in the series were controversial than LaMotta's sole victory was.

There seems to be a lack of information on both sides of this debate - somewhat surprising given the status that Robinson has in the sport.

Thats a good point about where the contraversy resides. part of the problem is where conventions run up against what amounts to an incredible record.

For the sake of clarity lets consider a record in baseball that i personally believe will never be broken...that being Dimaggios 56 consequitive games with at least one hit. If we watched those games spanning from may of 1941 to july, would we see a few bloopers? a few close calls where an error could have been called? was this a stretch where the yanks played a few teams with poor defense and/or pitching? Convention dictates that Dimaggio no doubt had a few things go his way, but they were probably the same things as many other men had go their way.

Champions often get their gloves raised when things are tight, and there have been many great fighters who won lots of fights. It seems that even with these factors accomplishing a record of consecutive wins like this is greater than any set of factors that could possibly helps along such an accomplishment.

[The Old LefHook]

He lost to Billy Graham as an amateur.

I didn't know that fact about Robinson, which does not affect my opinion of him at all. Since he was using his own name, I assume those losses were very early in his amateur career.

[Ray Corso]

No fighter in the history of Modern Boxing has the quality opposition that appears on Sugar Rays record. The very best were fought 2 and 3 times spanning 25 years. He has decs losses at the end of his campaign against good competition.
Just because the household names then aren't known by some fans today doesn't mean they weren't there! Study and learn who Sammy Angott and Frits Zivic were along with the Fulmers Don & Gene. Holly Mimms was outstanding as Luc van Dam was also.
Imagine Ray Leonard against Hagler 5 times, how about twice inside a month!
Thats what Sugar Ray vs LaMotta was back then, what fighter puts himself on the line like that today?
If he wanted to Robinson could have been the lightwelter, welter and junior middle & middleweight champ at the same time.
Armstrong held his 3 titles at the same time when he reigned!

No one is attempting that in the "Current Era" different times for sure.
Different mentality too, a kinder more gentle fighter these days.

Ray

[Elroy1]

No fighter in the history of Modern Boxing has the quality opposition that appears on Sugar Rays record. The very best were fought 2 and 3 times spanning 25 years. He has decs losses at the end of his campaign against good competition.
Just because the household names then aren't known by some fans today doesn't mean they weren't there! Study and learn who Sammy Angott and Frits Zivic were along with the Fulmers Don & Gene. Holly Mimms was outstanding as Luc van Dam was also.
Imagine Ray Leonard against Hagler 5 times, how about twice inside a month!
Thats what Sugar Ray vs LaMotta was back then, what fighter puts himself on the line like that today?
If he wanted to Robinson could have been the lightwelter, welter and junior middle & middleweight champ at the same time.
Armstrong held his 3 titles at the same time when he reigned!

No one is attempting that in the "Current Era" different times for sure.
Different mentality too, a kinder more gentle fighter these days.

Ray

In past eras, fighters fought match after match and amassed NUMERICALLY SUPERIOR records to modern fighters.

This is EXACTLY ecause the opposition was so poor. In fact, the etter the opposition, the longer and more specific you need to train to fight them.

You can STILL see exactly the same type of regular fighting and non-specific opponent traiing in pro boxing today. IT occurs right at the start of their careers.

Of course, once they progress (if) to upper levels, they then enter a regime where the opposition reaches a level totally unheard of in Robinson's, or any of the pre-professional (pre-80's) eras, in which they need camps, periodised training, opponent studying and specific training and prolonged conditioning/recuperation etween outs.

The solution is obvious. You cannot have hundreds of fights if you fight "quality" opposition, the moment you SEE such numbers on any record, it is a sure sign there is wide spread bum busting.

These are un-challengable facts

[joeandthebums]

This is EXACTLY ecause the opposition was so poor. In fact, the etter the opposition, the longer and more specific you need to train to fight them.

Mike Tyson fought approx. every 2-3 months when many consider him "peak" - is this because his opposition was so poor?

Rocky Marciano fought approx. every 6 months during this title reign - is this because his opposition was better?

The solution is obvious. You cannot have hundreds of fights if you fight "quality" opposition, the moment you SEE such numbers on any record, it is a sure sign there is wide spread bum busting.

The business of the sport today has no resemblance to that of the pre-television years and PPV changed the sport yet again.

To fight so regular requires a different mentality and approach to the sport - one that is no longer needed so it is unlikely to be seen again.