Tweet
Sugar Ray Robinson is a great, great fighter. Easily top 5, possibly top 3, but I just dont know about him being the greatest fighter of all time.
1)Attributes-Robinson had all the attributes a fighter would want: speed, chin, stamina, power, counterpunching, and ability to punch in combination. As well as a huge heart. He was like the Roy Jones of his era, a natural fighter but IMO he wasnt always the SMARTEST. All his losses when he was a top notch fighter were to come forward, strong types. He was a huge welterweight in his era. At middleweight his advantages in size and strength were minimized
2) Resume-People criticize fighters of today not fighting a lot of great fighters, he didnt either. IN 200 plus fights he only defeated 14 world champions, thats like one world champion ever 14 fights, whereas Mayweather has defeated 9 in 45 fights and gets ripped for his competition. McClarnin fought better competition as well, simply put.....Robinson's resume is great, its just not close to being the best
Langforde was a former lightweight who beat Hall of fame heavyweights and light heavyweights, Armstong defended the welterweight title 20 times was just fighting at featherweight and won the title skipping 135 altogether. At 147 where some rate Robinson number one. If he fought a prime Armstrong. He probably would have lost or been a razor close fight. Robinson had trouble with short, strong, crowding fighters......Basilio, LaMotta, Fuller were not close to dynamic as a prime armstrong.
3) Who is higher.....Their should be an argument for Langforde, Armstrong, and Harry Greb to be ranked higher. Robinson is the prototype fighter, but these guys fought and beat better competition, had better resumes, and in their primes were just as dominant.
I currently rate Langforde 1 hell he beat champions and HOF from lightweight to heavyweight, Armstrong 2, and Greb 3.
1)Attributes-Robinson had all the attributes a fighter would want: speed, chin, stamina, power, counterpunching, and ability to punch in combination. As well as a huge heart. He was like the Roy Jones of his era, a natural fighter but IMO he wasnt always the SMARTEST. All his losses when he was a top notch fighter were to come forward, strong types. He was a huge welterweight in his era. At middleweight his advantages in size and strength were minimized
2) Resume-People criticize fighters of today not fighting a lot of great fighters, he didnt either. IN 200 plus fights he only defeated 14 world champions, thats like one world champion ever 14 fights, whereas Mayweather has defeated 9 in 45 fights and gets ripped for his competition. McClarnin fought better competition as well, simply put.....Robinson's resume is great, its just not close to being the best
Langforde was a former lightweight who beat Hall of fame heavyweights and light heavyweights, Armstong defended the welterweight title 20 times was just fighting at featherweight and won the title skipping 135 altogether. At 147 where some rate Robinson number one. If he fought a prime Armstrong. He probably would have lost or been a razor close fight. Robinson had trouble with short, strong, crowding fighters......Basilio, LaMotta, Fuller were not close to dynamic as a prime armstrong.
3) Who is higher.....Their should be an argument for Langforde, Armstrong, and Harry Greb to be ranked higher. Robinson is the prototype fighter, but these guys fought and beat better competition, had better resumes, and in their primes were just as dominant.
I currently rate Langforde 1 hell he beat champions and HOF from lightweight to heavyweight, Armstrong 2, and Greb 3.
the way you describe srr, pacquiao would beat him easy.
Comment