Is Sugar Shane worthy of the "Sugar" Moniker

**rebmogul** · 03-15-2008, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Ryno113

Considering that Leonard and Robinson were arguably the two best P4P fighter of their time and both are All Time Great is Shane worthy of having the Sugar Moniker? Considering he most likely will not become a P4P great and hasn't been atop the P4P pile.

Robinson is almost definately the best P4P fighter of his era and the only fighter than stand infront of Leonard as a threat to his P4P supremacyis Hagler but that is nothing to be ashamed of. Personally I don't think he lives up to the name and fall short but only just.

Shane is one of the best fighters over the last ten years. He's small but I think that he beats every other ww out there right now including Mayweather.

His mistake was fighting Cotto. Along with JC, the baddest boy in boxing today...

**-Antonio-** · 03-15-2008, 03:33 PM

Yeah I do. Accomplishments aside, when he was at his best he could pop off those beautiful combos just like Robinson and Leanord. He can throw the powerful left hook from the hip like SRR.

**Miburo** · 03-15-2008, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Ryno113

Considering that Leonard and Robinson were arguably the two best P4P fighter of their time and both are All Time Great is Shane worthy of having the Sugar Moniker? Considering he most likely will not become a P4P great and hasn't been atop the P4P pile.

Robinson is almost definately the best P4P fighter of his era and the only fighter than stand infront of Leonard as a threat to his P4P supremacyis Hagler but that is nothing to be ashamed of. Personally I don't think he lives up to the name and fall short but only just.

"Sugar" is a moniker conferred based upon a particular style (I believe in all three cases in their amateur days, and thus preemptively) - fast hands and combinations - rather than having anything to do with particular career success. That said, while Mosley has not had the success and is probably not on the same level as the previous two Sugars in some respects, he has fought everyone even when the risk did not equal the rewards - providing a good example of a throwback fighter more concerned about making high-level fights than maintaining his record.

**Ryn0** · 03-15-2008, 03:50 PM

Ok but I think he has had much less success that Leonard and Robinson and is worse than both of them, Leonard and Robinson BEAT everyone that needed to be fought, Leonard beat: Hagler (i thought he lost but it was close), Hearns, Duran, Benitez,
Robinson Beat: Kid Gavilan, Carl Olson, Lamotta, Randy Turpin, Rocky Graziano, Gene Fullmer, Basilo.

Sugar Shane has fought the best but hasn't always won which is what Leonard and Robinson did Robinson only started losing the majority of his losses at the age of 39.

**AntonTheMeh** · 03-15-2008, 03:52 PM

only walker smith junior was worthy.by the way i am a ray leonard fan as well.

**TheGreatA** · 03-15-2008, 03:53 PM

Shane was named "Sugar" because his fighting style resembles Robinson's and Leonard's with the fast combinations he throws.

Sugar Shane Mosley

Sugar Ray Robinson

**evo** · 03-15-2008, 03:59 PM

sugar shane is seriously talented although not as talented as the other two sugars but not far off in his prime he was probably the best in the ww division.

1k calzghe ud over hopkins.

**Ryn0** · 03-15-2008, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by TheManchine

Shane was named "Sugar" because his fighting style resembles Robinson's and Leonard's with the fast combinations he throws.

Sugar Shane Mosley

Sugar Ray Robinson

I see where you're coming from but I'm saying now that his career is nearing it's end do you think that he was worthy of being this generations "Sugar" because the two Sugars of the past have ruled the P4P ranking Shane had a breif stint.
I mean you had other Sugar who were no where near that level like Sugar Ramos and Sugar Ray Seales.

**KILLA RIGHT** · 03-15-2008, 04:27 PM

no one deserves the sugar..theres only 1

Is Sugar Shane worthy of the "Sugar" Moniker