Who has the better resume Sugar Ray Robinson or Manny Pacquiao?

[Walt Liquor]

look at this sore loser right here....if i was a ****** how it's you who could not defend a single thing say yesterday...all i said were facts,....

all you said was..you are wrong, youre a ******,...nothing you said is true...but never countered a damn thing......GTFOH with your BS.....


one more thing mofo, please show the people where i said SRL lost to lamotta.....or that lamota is greater than SRL.....you lyin piece of ****....

i would never embarrass myself by giving you any sort or recognition like that. you look bad enough already.

[Walt Liquor]

I say Sugar Ray Robinson and Henry Armstrong are two of the biggest names in boxing which should be at the top of the ATG. Pacquiao is at least at the top 10.

I don't really care for Sugar Ray Leonard and as Floyd said he was a hype job. And I think Floyd wouldn't have said it without him knowing what a hype job is. I have more respect for Thomas Hearns than SRL.

Well, back to the argument. SRR and Armstrong fought inside the decades when racism was in an all time high. Watching clips of Joe Louis fighting a white boxer then winning followed by the audience turning into a mob out to hang him was a scary scene to watch. So, I just believe that fighting in those decades take a lot of courage and self determination to go against the crowd and expectations. Robinson and Armstrong were both pioneers.

To boxing inside the ring, Robinson and Armstrong fought all over the world. They showed their skills and their heart. Also, their schedules of fighting every month, or twice a month then every month, to 15 fights in a year is an impressive accomplishment. If you think about it, if JuanMa can lose to a journeyman named Salido or James Kirkland to Ishida then absolutely fighting 15 times a year would have increased the chance of an upset.

I don't like comparing those boxers to the modern day boxers. Modern boxers have to deal with politics. They don't even fight no more than 4 fights a year. And if they get a little bit of name recognition they become protected properties that only fights twice a year. All the champions today only fights twice a year and named boxers like Williams and others only fight twice a year too. So, those old time boxers would have laughed at the modern day champions. You know how many white boxers challenged Henry Armstrong and Sugar Ray Robinson back in those days? They all wanted to fight them because they couldn't stand those black men being at the top and on top of the white race.

Racism is a great motivator to fight a man. Hate is another thing. And the determination the politically correct term to say why any man wants to win. If I think about it, Ortiz hated people calling him a quitter and hated Berto for saying that he will make Ortiz quit. Berto didn't have hate or racism in his "determination" he only had an inflated ego. Berto thought he was the best because he was undefeated and he never quit. Then Ortiz came along with all the hate in the world and pounded Berto's chin to the ground twice and gave him jelly legs for 12 rounds.

Pacquiao is definitely up their in the ATG. And in this generation, starting from 2003 when he beat Barrera to 2011 and beyond he is definitely one of the best boxers. Give credit where credit is due. I think Rios hasn't fought anyone who will test him out. Right now, if Rios and Ortiz fight Ortiz wins because he found his "determination" which is he hates it when people questions his heart and calling him a quitter. Rios still has that undefeated smirk in his face like how JuanMa showed his before his fight with Salido. But all smirks disappear when the other boxer doesn't want to go down and who keeps throwing heavy punches from Round 1 to Round 12.

he's the best boxer since 2003 no doubt.

[TOBYLEE1]

This has to be a bait thread cause nobody can be this dumb

[puga]

i would never embarrass myself by doing so.

atleast you admit youwould embarased yourself arguing with me coz you could 'nt back up your claim....carry on!

[Walt Liquor]

atleast you admit youwould embarased yourself arguing with me coz you could 'nt back up your claim....carry on!

i know i know, jake lamotta has a win over srr, so he's better than srl. what a brilliant poster you are

Yes, that's true. He took a genuinely brutal beating. One thing you have to give Mayweather Sr credit for is heart. He took a nasty beating for many rounds, was hurt many times and never gave in until the ref stopped it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again though; people are completely overlooking a major point because they are obsessed with one fighter and don't know a damn thing about the rest of the sport. Hugh is a classic example. He'll put down a win over Mayweather and al the other guys Leonard beat except for Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Benitez etc while hyping up Pac's wins over guys like Clottey, Diaz etc.

Let me explain again: There were the two major titles then. WBC and WBA. You weren't considered a champion unless you had one of those. IBF came in reasonably soon after that but it was thought of as similar to what the IBO is now ie. meaningless.

Being a contender rated 5th onward was to be thought of as an excellent fighter and is the same as being one of the paper champions today. Holding a vacant WBO title is no different today than it was to be the 5th, 4th, 3rd ranked fighter back then without the title because there was only two titles instead of six!

The highest Clottey was ever ranked was 4th. He also held a vacant title for one fight. You have mentioned that win for Pac numerous times as one of his best. Leonard fought and beat guys who were ranked number one through five, and more, that you put down as meaningless bum fights. Guess what? At the time in that day, they were considered as good or better than beating Clottey, Diaz, and Margarito. They really were. His win over Pete Ranzany was an excellent win as good as Clottey. Unlike Clottey, Ranzany was the number 1 fighter for a number of years at 147.

As were his wins over Randy Shields, Johnny Gant, Muniz, Tony Chiaverini etc. No doubt you'll come back with some ****** comment, but all that tells me is that you have no idea about anything other than Pac and his oppoents, most of which you also don't know about. I was lucky enough to have been there watching those fights and a fan of boxing then. They were all stiff tests and hard fights against top fighters of that time. He dominated guys who were as good or better than most of the fighters you are talking about. You have to get to the understanding that a contender then had more opposition than most titlists do today. With six titles to go around, thus six different rankings there are guys who fight only for the IBF sanctioned opponents. That means the division as a whole becomes diluted greatly. That didn't happen. The number one contender in that era was better and did more than any Clottey, or Diaz did today.

They were all top fighters in the division and would today have been titlists of some sort. Is that the only way you would understand they were as good as beating some paper titlist like Clottey who in any other era but today's would never have been a titlist at all?

You guys really are laughable with your thinking. There are other fighters in boxing's long history apart from the guys that Pac beat you know?

Your thinking is as simple and foolish as me saying this: Ranzany was the number one ranked fighter for years, had a record of 45-3 and Leonard beat him. That's better than Pac's wins over Clottey, Diaz, etc. Better record and higher ranked. You lose.

That's actually a better argument than your "Pac dominated his opposition and that makes him better, even though he was beating guys who had shown massive flaws, had been beaten as bad and worse and weren't actually that great anyway".

I for one (and I'm not nearly alone in this), find it highly amusing that a fighter can be ranked 4th, 5th or 6th and can still be considered a 'world champions' today. It's utterly absurd and this is the type of argument you guys use. The fact is that while that 5th ranked fighter might have some useless 'title', they are still only ranked 5th and that means there are four better fighters above him. To my mind, beating someone who was the number one fighter is a hell of a lot better than beating the 5th best fighter in the division, but who happened to have been given a vacant paper title. That's something that you guys seem to have a lot of trouble grasping.

Just because there weren't the ridiculous amount of titles in every single division back then doesn't mean there weren't number one ranked fighters. Holding some crappy vacant title today while being ranked 5th is still no different than being ranked 5th in the 70's. They still had to go through the division fighting the same highly ranked fighters. They just weren't given some fake ass title against someone who wasn't even ranked either for it. They had to get through more top fighters then though as there were more fighters in boxing in general.

So while you pretend that Clottey (ranked 5th or 6th or something) beating Judah (ranked 7th, 8th or 9th) for some BS vacant title actually means more than it does, Ranzany (ranked 2nd) beating Shields (ranked 3rd) is better than that by far. In fact, it would today, be the equal of when Cotto and Mosley fought without the name value of Mosley.

Maybe that helps put things in perspective for you guys that don't seem to understand that the significance of fighters doesn't diminish over time and that being ranked among the top of your division means as much forty years ago as it does today. Just because they are fighting today and you actually know them and have seen them fight doesn't automatically make them better fighters. The simple fact is that a lot of the guys you talk about as being great opponents today were never even ranked as high as many of the guys you summarily dismiss from Leonard's resume even though they were ranked higher for longer and beat more top fighters.

this post has remained unanswered by you.

[Walt Liquor]

atleast you admit youwould embarased yourself arguing with me coz you could 'nt back up your claim....carry on!

yes, i'd ruin a good reputation

[$tate of Mind]

dudes are trying their best to make someone like footwork look like bennyst.

obviously, the big 3 I mentioned have no comparison to

Walt I'm no fanboy, what are you talking about?

[Walt Liquor]

Walt I'm no fanboy, what are you talking about?

no but you are forever out to discredit pac.......

[-Spinal-]

Armstrong(shot), Gavilan(2), Civic(2), Olson, Lamotta(5), Turpin, Basilio, Fullmer, Graziano, Angott(3).

LaMotta and Robinson fought 6 fights, Robinson went 5-1 against him.

12 Hall of Famers.

Pacquiao has what, 3 potential HOF'ers? Morales, Barrera, Marquez, then you have DLH and Mosley, that's 5 potential HOF'ers.

I wasn't around in SRR's time or even close to it, but I am around Pacquiao's time and I know enough to say, SRR's resume is better than Pacquiao's.

[puga]

i know i know, jake lamotta has a win over srr, so he's better than srl. what a brilliant poster you are



this post has remained unanswered by you.

there you go again twisting ****...can you not lie please?.....its not ok for me not to answer but it's ok if it is you ducking a post?..lol...that particular post by bennyst was torturously too long for me read, dont have patience for all that...but i did respond to all the shorter posts...unlike you i dont go in hiding and talk ****...kinda like floyd..lol.....you wanna take credit for that post i assume?..