Did SRL Have A Better Jab, Balance, and Defense Than SRR

[Ray Corso]

Here's the Welter class prior to moving up to 160......

Marty Zervo
Charley Fusari
Kid Gavilan
Tommy Bell
Sammy Angott
Izzy Jannazzo
Freddie Cochran
Jose Basora
Henry Armstrong
Frits Zivic

just a few of the best from 1940--50. Robinson was fighting contenders in his 25th year. If you like Burley or Napolis or even Leonard thats ok but to refer to Sugar Ray's opponents as "bums" just shows complete ignorance of boxing history. He was an ATG who fought other ATG's. You can't fix ******!!

Ray.

[The Old LefHook]

Here's the Welter class prior to moving up to 160......

Marty Zervo
Charley Fusari
Kid Gavilan
Tommy Bell
Sammy Angott
Izzy Jannazzo
Freddie Cochran
Jose Basora
Henry Armstrong
Frits Zivic

just a few of the best from 1940--50. Robinson was fighting contenders in his 25th year. If you like Burley or Napolis or even Leonard thats ok but to refer to Sugar Ray's opponents as "bums" just shows complete ignorance of boxing history. He was an ATG who fought other ATG's. You can't fix ******!!

Ray.

Those guys were tough, too, and a diverse group, though most of that evidence is on paper rather than film. Robinson called Basora a tough cookie. Big compliment for those days. Merely those you have listed are enough to show how comparitively deep the division was in that era. Servo was another one that managed to become champ and reach about 40-0 before taking a defeat from Robinson. Such quality is *******ly sprinkled throughout Robby's ledger. If you are going to fight quality as often as he did, your record will also be ******* with lesser fighters in between who you use to stay in tune on. You cannot fight a big name every two weeks.

Leonard did not take a chicken ascent through the ranks, either, but he and his cagey advisors made sure his carefully milked career got the most buck for his ****. Nor was Leonard's a shallow era. It was a great era, as well. The difference was that in Robinson's era you might have to run that dangerous gauntlet numerous times instead of just once. Leonard has startlingly few prime fights for one consistently rated so historically high. That illustrates how quality is so important to legacy in boxing. Even his jealous guarding and hoarding of his victories over Hearns and Hagler for his own legacy cannot knock him down. Quality is that big a deal.

One reason both men are firmly rated so high is that they both had great opposition to kick around. They came from two great eras, and I am not even sure that either of those eras was the best in welterweight history!

Lef.

[Pugilist_Spec]

Sugar Ray Leonard was an excellent boxer and great athlete.

Of course he had better balance, jab and defense than Robinson..

Have you guys actually SEEN Robinson's fights???

WIDE OPEN defense!!

Now I don't want to dump on old time greats I really don't, but the only thing timeless about Ray Robinson was his most extensive numerical record which when taken for win/loss and excluding the quality of opposition faced, happens to be the best boxing record of all time.

Of course it is impossible to have 200+ fights against quality opponents and what we are actually seeing deflates down quicker than the Hindenberg after it alighted.

Robinson was not Leonard's equal, you only have to watch a few short clips of each to see immediately.

Look who Leonard had to fight too, Hagler, Hearns, Duran and so on..

Who was Robinson's nemesis amongst the bums??

Jake bloody LaMotta for christ sake!! The Raging Bull movie of old really captured the quality of that fighter clearly... More like "Raging Punch-bag!"

Talk about exaggeration.

You don't find anything about Robinson impressive?

His punch variety, his immense double-fisted power, his superb handspeed, his footwork and jab?

His defense was fairly rudamentary but I wouldn't hold it against him considering his other great attributes as well as his cast iron chin.

And while his resume is obviously not littered with big names considering he DID have 200+ fights, he beat an abundance of HOF caliber fighters accross multiple weight divisions.

[billeau2]

Those guys were tough, too, and a diverse group, though most of that evidence is on paper rather than film. Robinson called Basora a tough cookie. Big compliment for those days. Merely those you have listed are enough to show how comparitively deep the division was in that era. Servo was another one that managed to become champ and reach about 40-0 before taking a defeat from Robinson. Such quality is *******ly sprinkled throughout Robby's ledger. If you are going to fight quality as often as he did, your record will also be ******* with lesser fighters in between who you use to stay in tune on. You cannot fight a big name every two weeks.

Leonard did not take a chicken ascent through the ranks, either, but he and his cagey advisors made sure his carefully milked career got the most buck for his ****. Nor was Leonard's a shallow era. It was a great era, as well. The difference was that in Robinson's era you might have to run that dangerous gauntlet numerous times instead of just once. Leonard has startlingly few prime fights for one consistently rated so historically high. That illustrates how quality is so important to legacy in boxing. Even his jealous guarding and hoarding of his victories over Hearns and Hagler for his own legacy cannot knock him down. Quality is that big a deal.

One reason both men are firmly rated so high is that they both had great opposition to kick around. They came from two great eras, and I am not even sure that either of those eras was the best in welterweight history!

Lef.

Yes because that weight class is where most human beings are found. One can be fairly certain that when boxing is in a strong part of the cycle there usually will be great fighters permeating these middle divisions. It really means a lot to be a champion when you are in a pool competing with most athetic individuals on the planet.

In Thai boxing and in Chinese boxing tournaments the heavyweights are considered an exotic kind of diversion, the middle weight classes on down carry the true champion fighters.

Robinson was remarkable in that aside from having such skills he had a rare amount of power for those weight classes.

[rightsideup]

just some of my thoughts on sugar ray Robinson. his stamina and conditioning must have contributed to his amazing punching power and incredible chin. Although not slight in the upper-body by any means I think his legs and god given talent made him the greatest fighter ever

[The plunger man]

Happy New year all. Robinson may have not been as fast as Leonard...thats a possability, but he was more explosive, seldom telegraphed, and had all the characteristics of a murderous puncher, going backwards and fowards. In this respect he was more accomplished than Leonard. Fast hands are great, quickness is the refinement of those qualities and where Robinson shows his elite status.

If a guy wins so much, then a great offense is, for him the best defense. Both Leonard and Robinson could counter punch and real counter punching abilty, where the opponent is caught before the blow completes is "defense with offensive benefitts" lol!

Arguments about the alleged lack of defense when considering a top fighter...even a guy like Armstrong, much less Robinson, should consider the necessity of defensive movement where offensive, or counter movements will suffice. To put this issue in a more global context regarding combat decisions....in traditional Japanese Swordsmanship defensive movements were often utilized during the process of Iuchu... or mutual suicide. Simply put, when a man was facing off against a better opponent and could not beat the man, he would defend himself and in the process virtually guarantee that, while he would not win, he could hope for mutual death of himself and the opponent.

Defensive strategy was, dare one say?, under these circumstances considered pathetic and counter productive. Many generations later Miyomoto Musashi implored all dueling swordsman to forgo all defensive efforts and sieze the advantage immediately by making the opponent react to you...Musashi had a record similar to Robinson's and included a spectcular underdog win against one of the finest swordsmen in history: Prince Koto...the story goes that Musashi boating to the island where he was to face the prince, and his handlers, refused to come ashore...baiting the prince to come out...you know sort of like the fighter who comes out late making the other guy wait and dry out.

At last the prince had enough and ran out with a Kia to meet his adversary...Musashi realizing that the prince's fine mobility and ability to move foward was compromised decided that sword be damned! Length was to be found in the boat oar which Musashi grabbed, ran towards the prince and bashed his head in, no defense needed...not even a sword was drawn by Musashi! the prince's blood turned the water red as wine, his handlers were left with a corpse and Musashi after stepping out of the boat, stepped back in and improved his record much as Tyson did with Spinx in a reasonably short period of time...again, no defensive movement needed.

Here we go again....we've already discussed Leonard and Robiinson comparison.....Leonard was every bit as good as Robiinson ....probably even better....Robiinson telegraphed punches ...wild swinging punches with wide open defence...but it was different era and things improve in time.....look up Dave boy green, Andy price and Pete ranzany to see how a complete fighter Ray Leonard was......I'm not gonna knock Ray Robiinson as he was a great fighter but times change ...eras cannot be compared

[Ray Corso]

Actually era and individuals can be compared.
First you need to know what Methodology is trying to be applied! Then you need to know Techniques to determine "right & wrong" "strong or weak"!
When you study these ingredients for a few years, then apply them then compare the greats you get a pretty clear and obvious opinion that is actually based on FACTS not opinions.


I keep hearing about "wide punches" from the novice boxing fans here.
Stop and realize that the "wide punches" that are set up are the ones hardest to see and those are the ones that do the most damage. Robinson had ALL the punches and was fast & powerful. It's on film and if you know what your looking at its pretty clear.

Ray

[billeau2]

Here we go again....we've already discussed Leonard and Robiinson comparison.....Leonard was every bit as good as Robiinson ....probably even better....Robiinson telegraphed punches ...wild swinging punches with wide open defence...but it was different era and things improve in time.....look up Dave boy green, Andy price and Pete ranzany to see how a complete fighter Ray Leonard was......I'm not gonna knock Ray Robiinson as he was a great fighter but times change ...eras cannot be compared

I think one can compare method and tecnique, though when you get two fighters sufficiently on a proverbial short list, judgements like "better" and "worse" become conversly more meaningless.

Wide punches are in some respects harder to block, especially when the tempo is varied, or, they are set up with other punches, or the guy being punched is against the ropes. When a fighter just comes in winging, this is different. Ray Robinson was very deliberate in his strategy which is one reason he won so much. He would even take a shot to give shots if he thought it would close the show.

Leonard was also an extraordinary ring general...For example, he used his speed to create a defense. In other words, he made a guy feel like, if at any time he committed to an attack, the guy would be embarrassed. Jones did this as well, among others. The result was the proverbial "the best defense is a great offense."

[The plunger man]

Actually era and individuals can be compared.
First you need to know what Methodology is trying to be applied! Then you need to know Techniques to determine "right & wrong" "strong or weak"!
When you study these ingredients for a few years, then apply them then compare the greats you get a pretty clear and obvious opinion that is actually based on FACTS not opinions.


I keep hearing about "wide punches" from the novice boxing fans here.
Stop and realize that the "wide punches" that are set up are the ones hardest to see and those are the ones that do the most damage. Robinson had ALL the punches and was fast & powerful. It's on film and if you know what your looking at its pretty clear.

Ray

Eras cannot be compared ...training methods and supplements improve as well circumstances and also who competes in your division while your active..eg klitchko totally dominated in his era because the lack of world class heavyweights say we had in the Ali era and also the Lewis era....so on your judgement klitchko beats every other heavyweight because he dominated longer than any other heavyweight...waffle corso.....Leonard skill was comparable to Robiinson and you have to be a fool to think otherwise....the only part of Leonard's career which fails in comparison is the amount of fights they had.....but on every other aspect he rivals Robinson.....Benitez was 38 and 1 draw with no losses (3 division champ) kalule was 36-0 Duran was 73-1 (4 division champ ) loss and hearns was 32 -0 with 30 ko's (5 division champ) those 4 had a combined record of 179-1-1 Robiinson padded his record against a lot of weekend bums and he also had quite a few lucky decisions and close fights against mediocre opponents.....skill wise there wasn't many fighters as good as Leonard was in his prime ..next your be saying is Jack Johnson beats Lennox Lewis or Ali

[The plunger man]

Eras cannot be compared ...training methods and supplements improve as well circumstances and also who competes in your division while your active..eg klitchko totally dominated in his era because the lack of world class heavyweights say we had in the Ali era and also the Lewis era....so on your judgement klitchko beats every other heavyweight because he dominated longer than any other heavyweight...waffle corso.....Leonard skill was comparable to Robiinson and you have to be a fool to think otherwise....the only part of Leonard's career which fails in comparison is the amount of fights they had.....but on every other aspect he rivals Robinson.....Benitez was 38 and 1 draw with no losses (3 division champ) kalule was 36-0 Duran was 73-1 (4 division champ ) loss and hearns was 32 -0 with 30 ko's (5 division champ) those 4 had a combined record of 179-1-1 Robiinson padded his record against a lot of weekend bums and he also had quite a few lucky decisions and close fights against mediocre opponents.....skill wise there wasn't many fighters as good as Leonard was in his prime ..next your be saying is Jack Johnson beats Lennox Lewis or Ali

I know what I'm looking at .....I boxed and followed boxing all my life...so I think I can past comment ...What facts we talking about....Leonard beat all styles....he beat hall of famers...he won belts at 5 weight classes and managed to win the light heavyweight title which Robiinson failed to do and was stopped....you have to start waking up and realise no human has ever been created as a superman and who has an almighty right to be better than guy that comes before him or after him...there are loads of fights on youtube where Robiinson looked horrendous and I hate to say...but crude and wild ...sorry buddy I don't see Robinson any more than Leonard