I watched Ro binson vs. Basilio II last night

**BrooklynBomber** · 03-10-2008, 05:43 PM

That was his comeback fight. He was still quite rusty.

**TheGreatA** · 03-10-2008, 05:44 PM

Robinson was old as hell in that fight.
He was 37 with 150 pro fights (and over 80 amateur fights) and that was his last great fight, barely won a single one afterwards (went something like 28-13 after that fight).

Basilio was a very exciting fighter but no one will mistake him for a highly technical boxer.

**Fox McCloud** · 03-10-2008, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by TheManchine

Robinson was old as hell in that fight.
He was 37 with 150 pro fights (and over 80 amateur fights) and that was his last great fight, barely won a single one afterwards (went something like 28-13 after that fight).

Basilio was a very exciting fighter but no one will mistake him for a highly technical boxer.

That was one thing that kind of concerned me too. Guys who win something like 5 FOTYs in a row, probably aren't going to be super accurate slicksters. In other words, Robinson should have been able to win easily against a guy who seemed to have to go to war with people to win. You know?

The guys who consistently are in the running for FOTY usually get schooled by the fighters schooled in the science.

I guess if he was old though, then he gets a pass.

**warp1432** · 03-10-2008, 05:59 PM

His fight against Rocky Graziano is a great one. It's only 3 rounds and it's at middleweight, but he just shows a glimpse of what he could have been.

He gets knocked down in the thrid round only to come back with a devastating right that totally knocks Graziano out and his mouth piece (literally) goes flying out of his mouth.

It's on youtube and it's vicious.

**TheGreatA** · 03-10-2008, 06:13 PM

Well, Basilio was probably one of the best fighters in the 1950's, he had a good run at WW and MW winning both titles.
Basilio was exciting but he also won important fights, he just pulled them off in the end, that's why he was exciting.

It was great for Robinson that even managed to win that fight because he was way over the hill at that point. His reflexes were shot and his legs were gone.

There are not many good prime Robinson fights to show because they are usually too one-sided for Robinson.

LaMotta vs Robinson. I think comparing this to Mayweather vs Gatti would be appropriate except it went 13 rounds. LaMotta had some good moments early on but the last rounds were as one-sided as it gets.

Some other short fights:

Robinson vs Luc Van Dam

Robinson's last fight at welterweight vs Fusari

Robinson vs Stock

Robinson vs Walzack

**RodBarker** · 03-10-2008, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by DWiens421

and I have to tell you, I am shocked that so many people write off today's fighters against the ATGs of old.

Ray Robinson looked pretty good, but he got hit... a lot.

In addition to nutritional, training and size advantages that most fighters today seem to experience compared to those of past eras, it also seems like boxing has shifted to a sport that values defense more than past eras.

This fight was at middleweight, and I have heard that Robinson's best was at welterweight, but still, if he is so open to get hit all night, I wouldn't be shocked if someone like Ray Leonard could have been in and out on him all night and won a decision.

Did I just pick a bad bout to watch to judge Robinson on, or is there some credence in what I typed?

Ive said it a lot , there is not much between the very best from different eras , people with the passing of time make these heros bigger and better putting them on pedestals with romantic stories and documentarys depicting them larger than life , as humans made out of flesh and bone you can only be so good , only so fast , only so strong ,the best in history are all of the same vein and very little between them , with the modern era ahead of the Jack Johnson days because of modern technology in sports science and also from boxing technique being refined , if the greats all fought the crucial deciding factor would be who turned up in the zone on the night , that would decide more winners than any fancy writing journo glorifying a hero .
The greats in other sports are split by milliseconds and so is boxing , thats why Ive said Floyd could compete with anyone in history his weight , would he win , who the **** knows but he is good enough to be there .
Would Hagler beat Robinson , maybe , maybe not ,,, put it this way the racing professional punter that really plays to win dont bet a great deal if at all on match races between two champions they bet with their head not their heart .

**joecrappy** · 03-10-2008, 07:03 PM

Fighter's were more skilled of yesteryear.

Today's era comapred to the 70's....70's rips these fools apart. No question in my mind bro.

**Fox McCloud** · 03-10-2008, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by joecrappy

Fighter's were more skilled of yesteryear.

Today's era comapred to the 70's....70's rips these fools apart. No question in my mind bro.

You are probably going to have to be more specific than making blanket statements such as that, or else you are at a high risk of looking like an idiot.

What welterweight of the 70s would beat Cotto and Mayweather?

If you are talking about heavyweights, fair enough, because that is pretty obvious.

But blankets statements saying all elites from the 70s beat all the elites from today is ridiculous.

**joecrappy** · 03-10-2008, 07:12 PM

Flat out...the 70's AND 80's are two great era's. And I would pick most of those guys vs. the chumps we have today.

I mean I love the middleweights, but Pavlik is our ****ing champion. Kelly ****ing pavlik.

He is about the same skill level and talents as his fellow youngstown hero in boom boom mancini. Mancini was a step above B level. Never an elite fighter though.

Galindez, Griffith, Duran, Foster, Arguello....

Need I say more? Those are just 5 guys. And i didnt pick the top of the line guys for a reason.

I watched Ro binson vs. Basilio II last night