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

[The plunger man]

Believe it or not but most fight films from 1950 or lower were actually slightly faster than real time which gave the impression they were quicker than what they really were....u can tell by looking at the ref walking and people movements watching in the audience.......Robinson was quick for his era for sure

[NChristo]

Just the shadow of Ray Robinson looking at Van Dam from his corner is a hell of an image.

[McGoorty]

Believe it or not but most fight films from 1950 or lower were actually slightly faster than real time which gave the impression they were quicker than what they really were....u can tell by looking at the ref walking and people movements watching in the audience.......Robinson was quick for his era for sure

He was quick for any era, there have been quicker but rarely have those guys had anywhere near the power and timing of Robinson. Not sure how you think Robinson would go against todays welterweights and middleweights but I can say with complete confidence that Ray MOIDERS DA BUMS.... seriously Ray would simply blow Mayweathers head off and it would look so so so so easy in the doing. As for Pacquiao, he wouldn't have even dared to enter the ring against Robinson who is way too big and way too powerful for Manny who has an amazing amount of guts but he ain't that dumb.

[billeau2]

He was quick for any era, there have been quicker but rarely have those guys had anywhere near the power and timing of Robinson. Not sure how you think Robinson would go against todays welterweights and middleweights but I can say with complete confidence that Ray MOIDERS DA BUMS.... seriously Ray would simply blow Mayweathers head off and it would look so so so so easy in the doing. As for Pacquiao, he wouldn't have even dared to enter the ring against Robinson who is way too big and way too powerful for Manny who has an amazing amount of guts but he ain't that dumb.

Mayweather? you mean the mayweather who would challenge a one legged man to an azz kcking contest?

[The plunger man]

He was quick for any era, there have been quicker but rarely have those guys had anywhere near the power and timing of Robinson. Not sure how you think Robinson would go against todays welterweights and middleweights but I can say with complete confidence that Ray MOIDERS DA BUMS.... seriously Ray would simply blow Mayweathers head off and it would look so so so so easy in the doing. As for Pacquiao, he wouldn't have even dared to enter the ring against Robinson who is way too big and way too powerful for Manny who has an amazing amount of guts but he ain't that dumb.

I think your confused power with speed lunatic......I never said he wouldn't destroy mayweather....who mentioned anything about that...mayweather wouldn't last in any great welterweight era...no my opinion that could compete with ronsinson era was Ray Leonard's era with Thomas hearns and Benitez......I've seen enough fight films of Robinson and lamotta and graziiano to know the 80's was an ear that could match them for speed and power......I'm not one of these people that are obsessed with old days and how good they were.......I suggest you sit yourself down one evening and don't just go through the best Ray Robinson on film but look at his duds as well......sugar Ray Leonard was every bit as good as Ray Robinson.......that's my view....is Robinson the number 1 p4p yes he is because of what he achieved but the most skilled p4p who ever lived...no he is not..robinson defence was poor...he was not accurate...be boxed and lost to some very poor contenders and his record was also filled with many boxers that should never have got a title shot......a complete different era and your comparing speed and Robison was not faster than a Leonard or a Roy Jones period

[LacedUp]

The speed, skill and power of Robinson is unrivaled by any fighter before or since,.

[billeau2]

Believe it or not but most fight films from 1950 or lower were actually slightly faster than real time which gave the impression they were quicker than what they really were....u can tell by looking at the ref walking and people movements watching in the audience.......Robinson was quick for his era for sure

Your correct but your really oversimplifying the conclusion. There are a lot of things about the filming at different times/techniques and the speed of the film does not so much make guys look faster, as hyperreal. Point being that there is a lot of differences and the fact that sometimes the film speeds, does not fool the eye into thinking a fighter is faster.

I guess what I look for is technique, distance, timing, things like that. Then there is the subtle things...For example, regardless of film speed, Robinson seldom telegraphs a punch.

There is nothing wrong, factually speaking of considering guys like Leonard (benitez was also a great technition) and company as fighters worthy of being in a class or better than Robinson. It is an opinion and we are discussing great fighters. BUT my caveat would be, if one bases speed on the percieved quality of film and not the attributes displayed....it gets dicey.

Regarding Jones? Jones speed would have to be monumentally better than Robison's if at all when considering how compact and the form and accuracy of Robinson. Robinson never had a glaring weakness is countless contests....Roy couldn't angle and showed bad whiskers....If you want to put both guys in the ring on their best day? well I think robinson would beat Roy but I could respect a vote for Jones....But overall?

[The plunger man]

Your correct but your really oversimplifying the conclusion. There are a lot of things about the filming at different times/techniques and the speed of the film does not so much make guys look faster, as hyperreal. Point being that there is a lot of differences and the fact that sometimes the film speeds, does not fool the eye into thinking a fighter is faster.

I guess what I look for is technique, distance, timing, things like that. Then there is the subtle things...For example, regardless of film speed, Robinson seldom telegraphs a punch.

There is nothing wrong, factually speaking of considering guys like Leonard (benitez was also a great technition) and company as fighters worthy of being in a class or better than Robinson. It is an opinion and we are discussing great fighters. BUT my caveat would be, if one bases speed on the percieved quality of film and not the attributes displayed....it gets dicey.

Regarding Jones? Jones speed would have to be monumentally better than Robison's if at all when considering how compact and the form and accuracy of Robinson. Robinson never had a glaring weakness is countless contests....Roy couldn't angle and showed bad whiskers....If you want to put both guys in the ring on their best day? well I think robinson would beat Roy but I could respect a vote for Jones....But overall?

The question of this topic was about speed it never meant who was the best fighter if they thought...Im a knowledgable guy about boxing as well....no figher in history has ever been 100 percent perfect....and that includes robinson or Ray leonard......every fighter has a flaw and that was his defence and losing or drawing to fighters who actually should never have beat him.....and his record yes 200 hundred fights is simply amazing....but when counted he actually lost a 10% ratio on all his fights......it doesn't mater whether he was old or not...he still lost them.....he also faced many club fighters and that also added to his 200.....some fighters he actually boxed 3 or more times....listen as I said Ray robinson was unique and is right up with greatest of all time.....but he is not my number 1.....Theres a few you can't really separate and that's Joe Louis,Ray robinson,Henry Armstrong ,Ali and sugar Ray leonard....its taboo to say Robinson was not the greatest of all time but I'm a boxer myself and I also look at fightes closely......leonard vs Robinson would have been a toss up, hagler vs robinson would have been an even matchup as well.......I just don't follow the opinion that you have to rate Robinson that he beats everybody he faces.......I'm going on the fact that if a Randolph Turpin can beat him...so could a leonard or hagler ...we all know evolution...in life things just get better and better and times get faster and faster...its nature we evolve

[billeau2]

The question of this topic was about speed it never meant who was the best fighter if they thought...Im a knowledgable guy about boxing as well....no figher in history has ever been 100 percent perfect....and that includes robinson or Ray leonard......every fighter has a flaw and that was his defence and losing or drawing to fighters who actually should never have beat him.....and his record yes 200 hundred fights is simply amazing....but when counted he actually lost a 10% ratio on all his fights......it doesn't mater whether he was old or not...he still lost them.....he also faced many club fighters and that also added to his 200.....some fighters he actually boxed 3 or more times....listen as I said Ray robinson was unique and is right up with greatest of all time.....but he is not my number 1.....Theres a few you can't really separate and that's Joe Louis,Ray robinson,Henry Armstrong ,Ali and sugar Ray leonard....its taboo to say Robinson was not the greatest of all time but I'm a boxer myself and I also look at fightes closely......leonard vs Robinson would have been a toss up, hagler vs robinson would have been an even matchup as well.......I just don't follow the opinion that you have to rate Robinson that he beats everybody he faces.......I'm going on the fact that if a Randolph Turpin can beat him...so could a leonard or hagler ...we all know evolution...in life things just get better and better and times get faster and faster...its nature we evolve

certainly. When great fighters are discussed there is nothing wrong with going against the majority....ironickly there are top level boxing historians who place a short, illmoving tank of a man known as Hank Armstrong (you mentioned him above) as the best bar none....of course I am being facitious I thnk the world of homicide hank.

personally I never make lists and never refer to any guy as the best, I may go so far as a list of the top ten...because I don't believe in "the best." but that is just me.

[The plunger man]

certainly. When great fighters are discussed there is nothing wrong with going against the majority....ironickly there are top level boxing historians who place a short, illmoving tank of a man known as Hank Armstrong (you mentioned him above) as the best bar none....of course I am being facitious I thnk the world of homicide hank.

personally I never make lists and never refer to any guy as the best, I may go so far as a list of the top ten...because I don't believe in "the best." but that is just me.

We have the same kind of thinking....I believe in every era one or two true boxing greats emerge and regardless of any era they would have gone to the top...its kind of weird when you think about it......but boxing is probably the only sport where it's considered the old timers were better than the new era....in the new era we have tennis,athletics,football,golf etc Federer,bolt,mesi,woods are probably considered the best in history...and yet boxing according to the historians a 195 pound Louis beats a 245 lennox Lewis .....I don't think that's logicol thinking it's more like nostalgia thinking......I don't belive anybody is superman ....good chatting to ya :-)