Is Lennox Lewis better than sugar Ray Robinson and Leonard?

[AlexKid]

Because like them he dominated his division, BUT he dominated a far more dangerous division which greater variations in weight and body type. (which was pretty stacked)

So doesn't that make him better more effective more skillful?

[Sadiqkingofko]

Sugar Ray Robinson is the most overrated fighter ever, people rank him way too high

[RINGG]

Not sure if serious.

[The Old LefHook]

Not sure if serious.

Oh, he is serious. Alex is a know-nothing who cannot seem to be cured. He wants us to take as fact that his opening statement is a solid truth upon which everything else in his exegesis depends.

Flippantly, he says Lewis fought more dangerous opponents whose body size differed more than the opponents of Robinson. Gee, could that be because he was a heavyweight where all body types are regular occurences?

Since Alex is a pretty nice boy it is hard to treat him with disrespect even for disrespectful remarks he makes and interprets as truths he alone has spotted. We have tried to guide him, to no avail.

Both he and the Sadiqkingofko need to open their minds. This is not a meatless broad cliche. I have specific suggestions for them. I want them to report back right here in this thread.

First, all you have to do is find one aspect of boxing at which Robinson was less than average, find the big weakness in his game that must be there for him to be called the most overrated fighter ever.

That is your first task, spineless cowards who will probably not even report back, preferring to react emotionally if they do.

That's it. That should be very easy for those who make such contentions. Find one area of boxing at which Robinson was less adept than average ancients or average moderns, I don't care which. Less than average. The big boxing IQs can solve this in minutes, I'd wager.

[AlexKid]

Oh, he is serious. Alex is a know-nothing who cannot seem to be cured. He wants us to take as fact that his opening statement is a solid truth upon which everything else in his exegesis depends.

Flippantly, he says Lewis fought more dangerous opponents whose body size differed more than the opponents of Robinson. Gee, could that be because he was a heavyweight where all body types are regular occurences?

Since Alex is a pretty nice boy it is hard to treat him with disrespect even for disrespectful remarks he makes and interprets as truths he alone has spotted. We have tried to guide him, to no avail.

Both he and the Sadiqkingofko need to open their minds. This is not a meatless broad cliche. I have specific suggestions for them. I want them to report back right here in this thread.

First, all you have to do is find one aspect of boxing at which Robinson was less than average, find the big weakness in his game that must be there for him to be called the most overrated fighter ever.

That is your first task, spineless cowards who will probably not even report back, preferring to react emotionally if they do.

That's it. That should be very easy for those who make such contentions. Find one area of boxing at which Robinson was less adept than average ancients or average moderns, I don't care which. Less than average. The big boxing IQs can solve this in minutes, I'd wager.

Lewis had a better Jab than Robinson, and used straight shots more often, and more effectively.

Robinson had a good jab too but it lacked the genetic advantages of Lewis's, also he over relied on the long hook/hook punches.

Robinson was more like a miniature version of Ken Norton or Tommy Morrison in style and Lewis had no trouble dealing with Morrison

[billeau2]

Oh little Alex!

How many times must you be told? you don't have to try to be a jakazz...Just be the real virgin, living in mom's basement you... and that will be plenty jakazz enough, trust me.

[The Old LefHook]

See, gentlemen, it is another truth that Alex has revealed for the first time in the history of the world--Robinson's style was like Ken Norton and Tommy Morrison. No one ever guessed it before. Who would have guessed that lead was like water? Incredible job, Alex!

I see after your instruction how the footwork of Robinson and Norton is almost identical. Robinson always dragged his back foot behind him ponderously just like Norton.

[AlexKid]

See, gentlemen, it is another truth that Alex has revealed for the first time in the history of the world--Robinson's style was like Ken Norton and Tommy Morrison. No one ever guessed it before. Who would have guessed that lead was like water? Incredible job, Alex!

I see after your instruction how the footwork of Robinson and Norton is almost identical. Robinson always dragged his back foot behind him ponderously just like Norton.

They all over relied on long hooks, and didnt use many straight rights or orthodox hooks

[The Old LefHook]

Alex, my boy, you are genuinely inane at boxing observation. Is an orthodox hook something you just now named to differentiate it from a long, sweeping hook? I guess Frazier did not throw an orthodox hook either, then.

If a man's lefhook lands as regularly as Robinson's, who cares if it is so-called orthodox or not, churlish boy, and what could that possibly matter to effectiveness? Of course you will not answer this question or any other, or even try to. You will not even consider answering it.

A Dempsey style hook with the elbow pinned to the body was not something Robinson employed frequently. That goes with being defensively responsible, which Robinson was, as anyone who watches the first few rounds of Lamotta VI can plainly see. In fact they can see the original print from which Ali and Leonard evolved, without a hell of a lot of difference. One difference was that Robinson was a harder P4P puncher than either of them. He could sock, so he took more advantage of that.

For the same reason, one does not see Robinson employ the fall-step jab. His jab is not a power weapon, it creates openings for harder punches meant to follow, or is used defensively as against the rushing Jake. One is not going to see Willie Pep employ the fall-step jab either. Some fighters have an advantage at long range which they can immediately lose by falling in. Why would Robinson, for instance, have wanted to use a fall step jab against the heavier Maxim? He wouldn't, and he didn't. The reasons are obvious. They are commensurate with his style. He operates best in the open.

Open your eyes, young 'un, unless they have been put out and you are gaining your insights from radio broadcasts of old fights. Learn what it is you are seeing.

[billeau2]

Alex, my boy, you are genuinely inane at boxing observation. Is an orthodox hook something you just now named to differentiate it from a long, sweeping hook? I guess Frazier did not throw an orthodox hook either, then.

If a man's lefhook lands as regularly as Robinson's, who cares if it is so-called orthodox or not, churlish boy, and what could that possibly matter to effectiveness? Of course you will not answer this question or any other, or even try to. You will not even consider answering it.

A Dempsey style hook with the elbow pinned to the body was not something Robinson employed frequently. That goes with being defensively responsible, which Robinson was, as anyone who watches the first few rounds of Lamotta VI can plainly see. In fact they can see the original print from which Ali and Leonard evolved, without a hell of a lot of difference. One difference was that Robinson was a harder P4P puncher than either of them. He could sock, so he took more advantage of that.

For the same reason, one does not see Robinson employ the fall-step jab. His jab is not a power weapon, it creates openings for harder punches meant to follow, or is used defensively as against the rushing Jake. One is not going to see Willie Pep employ the fall-step jab either. Some fighters have an advantage at long range which they can immediately lose by falling in. Why would Robinson, for instance, have wanted to use a fall step jab against the heavier Maxim? He wouldn't, and he didn't. The reasons are obvious. They are commensurate with his style. He operates best in the open.

Open your eyes, young 'un, unless they have been put out and you are gaining your insights from radio broadcasts of old fights. Learn what it is you are seeing.

On a very general level it could be said of the assasin, whether in the ring, or in the street follows the rules of engagement thus: When attempting to take out a target, if it can be done reliably and safely from a distance, why risk getting closer to the target?

A hook tends to sweep more as more distance is needed to be covered. Marciano would actually take a shuffle step often to throw his hook...coming low and then high to hide the step.

Robinson has such great technical chops that he didn't need to overcommit on his punches...something he may have learned from one of his idols and Detroit Neighbor...Joe Louis. Louis likewise never overreached on his punches, being very patient...

For precedent I will never forget a fight Shannon Briggs had with one of the Eastern European heavyweights...Briggs took his time and was getting to his opponent throwing a few chosen punches...as the rounds wore on, he was getting more and more success, until the last round where he would have been slightly outpointed in the fight...It took him until the last seconds of the last round when he KO'ed the guy! But in a sense this fight was a masterful display of patience and execution. he used exactly the time he had to connect the right way and win the fight.