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

[NChristo]

You've seen Robinson vs Galento ?

[McGoorty]

That is incredibly lazy and poor reading on your part.

Cannon article states "The first five rounds were hard ones for Robinson" - that does not say that Bell took all of those rounds as one would learn if they took time to read the accounts or at least skimmed the scorecards.

For example, after six rounds the United Press scorecard had it 3-2-1 to Bell.

The overall scoring for the contest was;

Referee: Eddie Joseph 10-5
Judge: Arthur Schwartz 10-5
Judge: Jack O'Sullivan 8-6
Unofficial United Press scorecard: 10-4-1
Unofficial Associated Press scorecard: 8-5-2

Like you said, do the maths.




If boxrec is your sole source then you need to expand.

"Robinson cut loose with both barrels in the later rounds but Brimm came back with a terrific finish. Judge Willie DeJames gave Robinson a 5-4-1 edge, Referee Fred Stanton and Judge Fred Hegnauer scored it even-Stephen in rounds but Stanton voted for Brimm on points 7-6 according to the Deseret News."

No mention of lucky. Sounds like it was scored a draw.




I would place Brimm as a gatekeeper, fighters that beat him usually were going upper tier fighters.



You didn't ask that previously - of course Robinson performed sub-standard on more than one occasion, I have never disputed that.

But in the same vein in which you do not place him on a special pedestal, neither do I - Robinson was not invincible, he could be beaten.

When he was taken close or fought a draw it does not necessarily mean he performed sub-standard in that particular contest - the opponent may have been the right type to counter his style.



1946 - Tony Riccio
1946 - Cliff Beckett
1946 - Sammy Angott III
1946 - Freddie Flores
1948 - Bernard Docusen



Yes Maxim did have to experience the same conditions as Robinson.



Boxrec written word is gospel? Can you tell me who Robinson's 7th professional opponent was then please.

--

I appreciate your responses as it has allowed me to see at least how you have drawn your conclusions.

You don't seem to have a particular agenda but just a lack of information to form an overall opinion.

Yes that is a good response, yes of course there is film of Robbo as a welter and from what I see he was incredibly loose limbed and VERY VERY modern in many ways... by far not the first who often had hands low but also had the high when needed, not the first to fight an evasive style (I do thing there were better defensive fighters), Benny leonard fought in a similar fashion BUT Robinson is CERTAINLY the inspiration for the likes of Ray Leonard, Ali and Roy Jones junior... yet they also had their own personal touches. There was nothing ordinary about Sammy Angott either and it's great to watch him. Yes Robinson did have some ordinary fights.... this is guaranteed when fighters fight as often as they did way back....... NO FIGHTER EVER managed to look at their best in those conditions because they were not always at their best,,,, fighting every few weeks you are carrying injuries, or something as common as the flu into many fights so they often fought while in bad shape but they had to put food on the plate. Too many modern fighters are spoiled.

[Elroy1]

you said you didn't think robinson was the greatest, a long way from that idiot calling him a bum which proves the tool is a troll

By the then standard, Robinson was of course among the best, but by no means dominant over the small percentage of quality opponents he fought as opposed to the bulk of his record which featured actual bums for even the then standard.

Of course my comment referred merely to how we would view Roibinson by todays standards and since he would not be competitive at any weight, bum is an accurate assessment.

You are done here mate.

And you have exposed yourself as a complete fool.

I challenge you to refute the specific examples I outlined..

Show me an amazing Robinson defence for instance?

We will see who puts the "nut" in nut bag mate!

[Scott9945]

By the then standard, Robinson was of course among the best, but by no means dominant over the small percentage of quality opponents he fought as opposed to the bulk of his record which featured actual bums for even the then standard.

Of course my comment referred merely to how we would view Roibinson by todays standards and since he would not be competitive at any weight, bum is an accurate assessment.

You are done here mate.

And you have exposed yourself as a complete fool.

I challenge you to refute the specific examples I outlined..

Show me an amazing Robinson defence for instance?

We will see who puts the "nut" in nut bag mate!

Hey Leroy,

Since you have such disrespect for boxing history, why don't you get the **** out of the boxing history section? You have a right to your weird opinions, and there are plenty of other forums on Boxing Scene they would fit in. But saying such idiotic things like Robinson was a bum and Shavers would hit like Chris Byrd now is really just trolling the boxing history. Lucky for you I'm not in a position to do anything about it. I can only hope those who can will.

[joeandthebums]

I don't have an agenda....I think Robinson was overrated in regards to the old timers saying he is the best fighter that ever lived....it's wrong in my eyes and that's that...

That's your opinion and I've no intention to argue opinions, only facts.

I have seen loads of Robinson fights from graziiano, galento, maxim, lamotta and four or five more...

You are aware that while Robinson's peak is hard to pin-point, the footage you possess of him is certainly post-prime by a good couple of years.

Trying to reference boxers you mentioned, you could almost equate it to having only Ray Leonard 1987 and onwards footage.

brimm losing 19 fights out of 48 is 100 percent fact that he was not a world class fighter whether you prefer calling him a gatekeeper to a journey man is your call and Robinson drew with him and bell as I said pushed Robinson all the way and that's always been my argument.....

Your original argument was that Robinson was lucky to get draws in both contests.

there are fight films of Robinson where he looks terrible....bad defence, wild, lazy jab ,tagged constantly and I'm sorry in my opinion. he is not the most skilled I have ever seen...

You opinion again, no issue with opinions.

I boxed all my life and when I see Robinson I see many flaws and just don't consider him the most skilled fighter ever....

To begin an opinion with "I have boxed x amount of years" or similar ilk is good background information but for me not relevant.

The ability to box is different to the ability to study boxers. Otherwise all boxers of a certain level would never be incorrect with their analysis or predictions for pending contests.

I am not saying your experience is worth nothing - but it does not automatically place you above somebody who never had the opportunity to box and has only observed.

in his era he was unique and amazing ....I rate Willis pep and Joe Louis above him for that era though ...

Big fan or both. Opinion, but Pep gets a knock because I don't feel he had a huge heart - Saddler exposed that on more than one occasion.

skill for skill sugar ray leonard was a more skilled fighter than Robinson ....

Opinion. To be honest I have never compared the two in any extensive manner.

I don't live in a world where Bert Randolph sugar insists on the old school fighters being superior to say 70' and 80 fighters...

Depends on which boxers we are discussing.

sorry to burst your bubble but sport and boxers reached a peak 25 years and now it's plateaued .....

That is an opinion which is wildly incorrect.

never in a million years and it's the same if Robiinson came up against a hagler or ray Leonard

Robinson was post-prime at MW, despite that I'd have to put him in as slight favourite against Hagler. Really would be dependent on how Hagler comes into the contest.

Robinson and Leonard at WW would be one of the best match-ups possible, though my own personal opinion is that Leonard style is not the type to give Robinson trouble.

...evolution ....bigger stronger faster ....every other sport can be proven things improve boxing can't because there are no lap timers or clocks to prove its superior

The world indoor record in cycling. No significant improvement since Eddy Merckx (shall we call him the Robinson of cycling) set a new record in 1972.

Chris Boardman (arguable top 3 modern TT's) beat Merckx's record in 2000 by 10 metres (32.8 ft), an improvement of 0.02%.

What also needs to be taken into consideration is the make-up of both men, Merckx was a mutliple grand tour leader each year, Boardman a time-trial specialist - the amount of time both were able to dedicate to their effort would of differed greatly - not giving consideration to often cited "modern training and fitness".

Evolution? Bigger? Stronger? Faster?

do I know ray robin sons 7th pro fight no I don't without looking at the internet

You missed my point, using boxrec can you tell me Robinson 7th professional opponent?

[The plunger man]

That's your opinion and I've no intention to argue opinions, only facts.



You are aware that while Robinson's peak is hard to pin-point, the footage you possess of him is certainly post-prime by a good couple of years.

Trying to reference boxers you mentioned, you could almost equate it to having only Ray Leonard 1987 and onwards footage.



Your original argument was that Robinson was lucky to get draws in both contests.



You opinion again, no issue with opinions.



To begin an opinion with "I have boxed x amount of years" or similar ilk is good background information but for me not relevant.

The ability to box is different to the ability to study boxers. Otherwise all boxers of a certain level would never be incorrect with their analysis or predictions for pending contests.

I am not saying your experience is worth nothing - but it does not automatically place you above somebody who never had the opportunity to box and has only observed.



Big fan or both. Opinion, but Pep gets a knock because I don't feel he had a huge heart - Saddler exposed that on more than one occasion.



Opinion. To be honest I have never compared the two in any extensive manner.



Depends on which boxers we are discussing.



That is an opinion which is wildly incorrect.



Robinson was post-prime at MW, despite that I'd have to put him in as slight favourite against Hagler. Really would be dependent on how Hagler comes into the contest.

Robinson and Leonard at WW would be one of the best match-ups possible, though my own personal opinion is that Leonard style is not the type to give Robinson trouble.



The world indoor record in cycling. No significant improvement since Eddy Merckx (shall we call him the Robinson of cycling) set a new record in 1972.

Chris Boardman (arguable top 3 modern TT's) beat Merckx's record in 2000 by 10 metres (32.8 ft), an improvement of 0.02%.

What also needs to be taken into consideration is the make-up of both men, Merckx was a mutliple grand tour leader each year, Boardman a time-trial specialist - the amount of time both were able to dedicate to their effort would of differed greatly - not giving consideration to often cited "modern training and fitness".

Evolution? Bigger? Stronger? Faster?



You missed my point, using boxrec can you tell me Robinson 7th professional opponent?

As I said it doesn't matter what ray robinsons 7th fight was ...it's irrelevant to the discussion .....and no it was not the discussion we first had...my discussion was with somebody else about Robinson drawing or struggling with lesser competition .....I can go back to the original discussion if that satisfies you....as I said before with 19 losses out for 48 fights with 3 draws is a terrible record..and that's a journey mans record whether you are trying to dress it upon not in regards to brimm...out of 100 greatest fighters ever Bert Randolph has 80 fighters before the 1960's so no it don't depend who were talking about lol....it's biased bull****.....have you ever checked out the records of fighters ray robinson faced in the welterweights before he was even champion ....they were atrocious ...so don't try and build up robinsons prime as a welterweight......lamotta had lost 4 and drawn 2 before he even faced Robinson and yet if a fighter faced of with say Lennox Lewis or marvin hagler and they had 4 losses they are considered a no hoper that's the facts .....you ain't gonna convince me in regards to Robinson as the best ever....skill wise he was not the greatest ever in my eyes and that's that.....Marty servo and Jose basora could also have got the nod over Robinson and Robinson was 21 and 23 years of age so thadebunks your argument on not his prime....robinsons record against welterweights would look great because 80 percent of them had over 12 losses on there record before they even faced him.....that's facts from me

[joeandthebums]

As I said it doesn't matter what ray robinsons 7th fight was ...it's irrelevant to the discussion .....

It is relevant as you have cited boxrec as the base for your facts. I am raising the point that it is not absolute in it's accuracy.

have you ever checked out the records of fighters ray robinson faced in the welterweights before he was even champion

Yes otherwise I would not comment on the subject to the extent that I have.

Have you checked out the career of the fighters record you have looked up on boxrec?

so don't try and build up robinsons prime as a welterweight

Are you questioning that Robinson prime was at a lower weight than MW?

Arguably Robinson may have peaked at LWW.

lamotta had lost 4 and drawn 2 before he even faced Robinson and yet if a fighter faced of with say Lennox Lewis or marvin hagler and they had ?4 losses they are considered a no hoper that's the facts .....

Because the sport has changed. A loss today is a dooms-day event and as such prospects are matched differently.

Lewis lost two contests over his entire career and look at the criticism he receives because of this.

you ain't gonna convince me in regards to Robinson as the best ever

I don't believe that has been my point of contention.

Marty servo and Jose basora could also have got the nod over Robinson and Robinson was 21 and 23 years of age so thadebunks your argument on not his prime

Why? Because a boxer in their prime cannot be in close contests?

Once again I have already stated Robinson was not invincible, he was a man, he could be beaten.

You are projecting opinions on me that I have not commented on.

robinsons record against welterweights would look great because 80 percent of them had over 12 losses on there record before they even faced him.....that's facts from me

How many contests had they competed in at the time they fought Robinson with those losses?

How does their loss percentage compare to that of a modern WW champion's opponents?

It's good to have statistics but without using them for meaningful reasons you just have numbers.

[The plunger man]

It is relevant as you have cited boxrec as the base for your facts. I am raising the point that it is not absolute in it's accuracy.



Yes otherwise I would not comment on the subject to the extent that I have.

Have you checked out the career of the fighters record you have looked up on boxrec?



Are you questioning that Robinson prime was at a lower weight than MW?

Arguably Robinson may have peaked at LWW.



Because the sport has changed. A loss today is a dooms-day event and as such prospects are matched differently.

Lewis lost two contests over his entire career and look at the criticism he receives because of this.



I don't believe that has been my point of contention.



Why? Because a boxer in their prime cannot be in close contests?

Once again I have already stated Robinson was not invincible, he was a man, he could be beaten.

You are projecting opinions on me that I have not commented on.



How many contests had they competed in at the time they fought Robinson with those losses?

How does their loss percentage compare to that of a modern WW champion's opponents?

It's good to have statistics but without using them for meaningful reasons you just have numbers.

Well your using statistics in equating Ray robinsons prime as a welterweight arnt u ..now your saying maybe his prime was light welter weight he was a light welterweight up to the age of 21 and I have never heard of a boxer reach his prime at 21 except Wilfredo beinitez who was a world champion at 16 ...I suggest you check out the records of robinsons opponents as a welterweight and just see how poor the records of the fighters he faced....eg frankie Wallace and benny cartengena had more losses than than they had wins lol.....enough of this as I said robinson lost or struggled with mediocre opponents and his record is padded with journeymen and that's the facts my friend...I suggest you supply the facts to me in regards to robinsons challengers on just how good there were and why they suffered so many losses before he faced them...because at the moment your just going round and round......my statement is robinson lost or struggled with mediocre opponents and is not the greatest fighter who laced up the gloves...Joe the conversation is over now...

[joeandthebums]

Well your using statistics in equating Ray robinsons prime as a welterweight arnt u

Reports and not statistics have influenced my opinions.

now your saying maybe his prime was light welter weight he was a light welterweight up to the age of 21

I am not saying anything as an absolute - but that it is a position that can and has been argued.

When this position is made, it is with the consideration that Robinson weighed in same day as his contest and could have comfortably made the 140 limit for a considerable length of time had that division been financially worthwhile.

I have never heard of a boxer reach his prime at 21 except Wilfredo beinitez who was a world champion at 16 ...

Each boxer is unique. Because something is an anomaly does not mean that it is not so.

I suggest you check out the records of robinsons opponents as a welterweight and just see how poor the records of the fighters he faced....eg frankie Wallace and benny cartengena had more losses than than they had wins lol

Why do you punctuate sentences with "lol"?

I am aware of Robinson's opponent and their careers - you're opinion seems to have been established and defined regardless of any additional information beyond what boxrec has to offer.

Your example of Frankie Wallace I would venture was a good opponent at that stage of Robinson's career.

I suggest you supply the facts to me in regards to robinsons challengers on just how good there were and why they suffered so many losses before he faced them

As I stated above, it seems unlikely to me that your opinion will change regardless of any new information.

because at the moment your just going round and round......

Are perception of the discussion differs then.

Joe the conversation is over now...

Thank you for the discussion.

[NChristo]

I want to hear more about Robinson vs Galento and how that fight went, sounds exciting