The Best Fighter SRR Beat?

[Rusty Tromboni]

Rusty doesn't have a point at all. WTF are you talking about? All Rusty did throughout the post was make claims without an example? He doesn't have a good example, or he would have used it.

When these characters like Rusty and Queensbree come up with stuff you never heard before (yes, I do group those two together) it is because they are spreading the manure of their own pet theories.

I can explain things to you, but I cannot UNDERSTAND them for you.

I pretty much held your hand through this one. I don't know what more you need.

A lot of the footage of Robinson, if it ever existed, is unavailable. Same with many of his opponents. Therefore, you have to refer to the record books.

LaMotta was probably never the best Middleweight in the world, but he was always damn close. Considering his series w/ Ray began with him carrying a considerable weight advantage, that seems to be the best conclusion we can reach: at some point, LaMotta was the best opponent Ray beat.

I don't know what "example" you need, or will satisfy you more than the evidence presented.

If you want to dispute my argument, fine. I doubt you'll fair well. But at least dispute it. Don't be a b i t c h who asks a question, then flairs up when you don't hear what you want. My daughters don't even do that.

[The Old LefHook]

Well, I made an error, so will return later.

[billeau2]

Armstrong had been the greatest fighter he ever fought, but was no longer great when they met.

We know Basilio and Fullmer were both not far from their best when Robinson beat them.

Zivic, Ambers, Fusari, Graziano? Turpin was still young.

Bell, Levine, Angott? Lamotta had one of the top 3 chins in boxing history.

Still the pure best he ever beat may have been the slick Gavilan, whom he could only decision twice. Ray was in his prime, as well.

Who was the best pure package at the time he beat them that Robinson ever beat, if yer so smart?

Great topic Lefty...why do I feel you are walking Rusty into a trap? Just kidding could not resist. Seriously I have to think this one through.

Im thinking: How we judge a "best" here? Do we look at the level of opposition? the weight class? the actual range of events that took place in a match? the sheer domination?

Lets hypotheticate here (I invented a word) Lets say Floyd fought Pac when they were prime at around around 150 pounds. Lets say the fight went just as the fight that actually happened occured. This would be Floyd's best win but: It was not at his best weight, not his best performance, and was not a particularly good fight... to some of us it was not even decisive.

With Sugar Ray do we want to consider his best work? his best version? the level of his opponent? When he beat up strong middle weights like Basilio and Fullmer perhaps an argument could be made that beating LaMotta was a step above... Perhaps but to me we don't even have to argue whether LaMotta was marginally better, or much better than Basilio... Because Sugar Ray was not at his best at middle weight.

We have some sleepers...What about Sammy Angott? A man who beat some of the best, including Pep, beau Jack, Williams and Zivic. And what of Zivic? who returned the favor beating Angott... and who was another Pittsburgh fighter who would qualify as as an ATG me thinks, in a manner that no one on Mayweather's resume, for example, would, with the exception of the past it pac fight.

I would go with either of these two men.

[The Old LefHook]

Robinson is that rare fighter who is exactly the same size as both Marciano and Saddler and fought neither. His resume may lack a truly tall man but is full of miniatures like Armstrong and Beau (by God) Jack. Is there a stick man on his ledger?

Since Bill asks for a criterion, let's find the tallest man Robinson defeated and see how he fared.

[billeau2]

Robinson is that rare fighter who is exactly the same size as both Marciano and Saddler and fought neither. His resume may lack a truly tall man but is full of miniatures like Armstrong and Beau (by God) Jack. Is there a stick man on his ledger?

Since Bill asks for a criterion, let's find the tallest man Robinson defeated and see how he fared.

More to the point: If we wanted the best version of Robinson what weight class would that be? Sometimes, depending on the weight class, the particular fighter, it does not work that way... But, for example, with Tunney who was his best win? Grebb or Dempsey?

While we might have to think on this, can we really say Floyd, who was an ATG at 135ish, was comparable when he skated by average middleweights? An older De La Hoya, Madonna, etc. And neither of these two guys lost by a wide margin, Either man could have been given the decision over Floyd.

Sugar Ray was so strong that we have to legitimately choose among options that could all lead us to conclude whom the "best" man he fought was.

[Rusty Tromboni]

More to the point: If we wanted the best version of Robinson what weight class would that be? Sometimes, depending on the weight class, the particular fighter, it does not work that way... But, for example, with Tunney who was his best win? Grebb or Dempsey?

While we might have to think on this, can we really say Floyd, who was an ATG at 135ish, was comparable when he skated by average middleweights? An older De La Hoya, Madonna, etc. And neither of these two guys lost by a wide margin, Either man could have been given the decision over Floyd.

Sugar Ray was so strong that we have to legitimately choose among options that could all lead us to conclude whom the "best" man he fought was.

I felt my break-down was pretty fair. I really don't know how the answer is anyone other than LaMotta. Even if the 6th fight, LaMotta was putting on a show. Not a complete slogging by Ray. He looked the bigger man, and LaMotta had surely suffered from improper training/weight management, but Ray had to overcome a man possessed to pull out that win.

[billeau2]

I felt my break-down was pretty fair. I really don't know how the answer is anyone other than LaMotta. Even if the 6th fight, LaMotta was putting on a show. Not a complete slogging by Ray. He looked the bigger man, and LaMotta had surely suffered from improper training/weight management, but Ray had to overcome a man possessed to pull out that win.

Keeping in mind this is a hard question to approach as an absolute, and keeping in mind some feel Ray was at his best at welter... There are a couple ways of picking such a man.

I have no qualms with LaMotta. I listed a criteria for why I wanted a Welterweight if possible. I could be wrong but it looks to me when he fought Argot and some of the other great welters, the division was really strong, and made those fighters exceptional. Robinson was a big welter...i also get that.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Keeping in mind this is a hard question to approach as an absolute, and keeping in mind some feel Ray was at his best at welter... There are a couple ways of picking such a man.

I have no qualms with LaMotta. I listed a criteria for why I wanted a Welterweight if possible. I could be wrong but it looks to me when he fought Argot and some of the other great welters, the division was really strong, and made those fighters exceptional. Robinson was a big welter...i also get that.

maybe zivic, then?

but really, Ray a Welterweight beating a Middleweght, i'd say that middleweight would be his best opponent.

p4p Zivic and gavilan were better than lamotta, but neither could give ray the problems that Jake did when at his best.

Ray really didn't fight many greats. plenty of good and very goods, but remarkably few great fighters. and i suspect that wasn't really a mater of coincidence. he was as much his generation's mayweather, as he was its Harry Greb.

[billeau2]

maybe zivic, then?

but really, Ray a Welterweight beating a Middleweght, i'd say that middleweight would be his best opponent.

p4p Zivic and gavilan were better than lamotta, but neither could give ray the problems that Jake did when at his best.

Ray really didn't fight many greats. plenty of good and very goods, but remarkably few great fighters. and i suspect that wasn't really a mater of coincidence. he was as much his generation's mayweather, as he was its Harry Greb.

LOl It was a toss up for me... Zivic could have been it.
I don't know Rusty... I think a lot of those Welters were ******* jack...You seem to consider the size of LaMotta as being primary, it is certainly a factor. LaMotta was a workhorse and never let up... I can actually see the point that this made him a very tough fight, I will give you that. I mean those are great criteria for a tough fight.

Lets say we are looking at Tunney. What was his toughest fight? Most people answer right away assuming it was his best victory yes? Many casuals probably don't even know much about Greb. So if we ask this question Many experts included would give it to Jack Dempsey. But some might give it to beating Greb. Greb was a small light heavy so its not a perfect analogy when we look at Sugar compared to the gang around back then, all of them ******* jack, but Greb was in some respects a tougher fight if you ask me.

Now I know that the guys Sugar fought at Welter were not Greb... But they were top fighers who knew how to win. This analogy while incomplete works to express my point provided we do not think La Motta is a better class of fighter.

Either way I could go with La Motta just as easily if we want to look at the added size being something more to overcome.

[Rusty Tromboni]

LOl It was a toss up for me... Zivic could have been it.
I don't know Rusty... I think a lot of those Welters were ******* jack...You seem to consider the size of LaMotta as being primary, it is certainly a factor. LaMotta was a workhorse and never let up... I can actually see the point that this made him a very tough fight, I will give you that. I mean those are great criteria for a tough fight.

Lets say we are looking at Tunney. What was his toughest fight? Most people answer right away assuming it was his best victory yes? Many casuals probably don't even know much about Greb. So if we ask this question Many experts included would give it to Jack Dempsey. But some might give it to beating Greb. Greb was a small light heavy so its not a perfect analogy when we look at Sugar compared to the gang around back then, all of them ******* jack, but Greb was in some respects a tougher fight if you ask me.

Now I know that the guys Sugar fought at Welter were not Greb... But they were top fighers who knew how to win. This analogy while incomplete works to express my point provided we do not think La Motta is a better class of fighter.

Either way I could go with La Motta just as easily if we want to look at the added size being something more to overcome.

I am the Greb's biggest cheerleader, but he was never Heavyweight champion. Could he have been had Dempsey provided the chance? I won't rule it out. But at the end of the day, we've seen Dempsey starch Heavyweights. Greb could beat good Heavyweights, he really was the best non-heavyweight in the world. But he was not bringing Dempsey's size and firepower.

Therefore, it's clear that Dempsey was Tunney's best scalp. I'd also argue that the Tunney who beat Dempsey would surely beat Greb.

If you want to argue that Greb was better than Tom Heeny or any of the Light Heavyweights that Tunney beat, OK. But Dempsey, even if you want to argue that he wanted no part of Greb, was the better man.



*BTW, let's remember LaMotta wasn't yet in his prime when he lost to Zivic. And by all accounts it was close. If Zivic were as good as Jake, why was he fighting at Welterweight instead of Middleweight?