The oldschool of boxing is overrated

[BattlingNelson]

In this footage of WW Robinson you will find many of his great tools/skills.. punch variation, jabs to the stomach, pivoting, counters, controlled aggression..

This is before Sugar Ray won the Welterweight title too.



By a minute mark you will see great glimpse of skill in Robinson. Floyd would be outmanned in the clinch against Robinson.

Great find! This is the first WW Robinson I've seen!


As for this thread. Gee I wish some of these noobs would at least make a slight effort in learning about the rich and fantastic history of our sport, before making those absurd and outragerous claims.

[Sugarj]

There was flaws in his game..... robinson got hit a lot, and from what I have seen from his middleweight days he is not the best fighter ever. There isn't any footage of him at WW so we don't know.

There is more and more footage of welterweight Robinson sifting through......and has been doing so for a few years now. Granted, we have more post prime footage of middleweight Robinson and contemporary reports support the view that he was even more spectacular at welterweight.

For every fight that Robinson really engaged and took punches, there are other fights where he slipped punches beautifully and used his incredible footwork to be elusive. I wouldn't condemn either as flaws in his game so much as feathers in his cap....he could do both well and he had the punch resistance to get away with it.

It is realistic to understand that he took more punches in fights that are freely available at middleweight when he was in his 30s (which was considered fairly old for a fighter back then). The guy had been so active....you have to understand that Floyd would have had losses by now if he fought more than two or three times a year and there would be far more wear and tear on him than there is.

Robinson of course did lose several fights in the 50s and rather more in the 60s when he was hopelessly post prime.

Lets remember too that there have been times when Mayweather has been less than defensive too and has shipped more punches than we would like to have seen.

[Augustane]

I agree.

When it comes to ranking all time greats, the disadvantage of modern fighters is that their fights aren't filmed in low resolution black and white.

There is no question that boxers today are FAR superior to those 60-100 years ago. And it's not even close.

The most humorous remark I hear on these boards is that Willie Pep would actually give Floyd Mayweather a competitive fight, let alone beat him

Or that any Heavyweight from that era would even last 4 rounds with a Klitschko

Well, the Klitschkos would be a foot taller and 60 lbs heavier.

[LoadedWraps]

No disrespect to the old boys, they're warriors, but as I study their resumes, they really DOES seem less impressive than the Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfields of modern times.

Frazier: He had 1 great win, Ali. To who he lost the two rematches. His second best win Quarry, a guy with a very flawed resume, and if anyone today had a loss like the one he Frazier had to Foreman back then, it would be considered "exposed".

Jerry Quarry: Lost to journeymen right and left and his best win was Earnie Shavers...

Earnie Shavers: He lost to journeymen right and left, got knocked out in round 1 by Quarry...

Rocky Marciano: His KO percentage and undefeated record seems impressive, but he got no great wins at all, we could hail Deontay Wilder today like many are hailing Marciano...

Just some examples. It's as if the old fighters are being hyped a lot to make each other seem better by beating each other. But we had guys like Lewis in modern times with far better resumes and more clear top quality wins.

I just don't get why so many prefer oldschool boxing, although yes, Ali and Foreman would both probably be on top today, but guys like Frazier, Shavers and Quarry would probably not even beat Holyfield... I'm trying to be realistic here.

You couldn't be more wrong,the champions of today would be pedestrian in the 50s, there is no competition between eras as far as the talent pool, and overall boxing knowledge of the time. Before you try and bring up advancements of sports medicine, while they do benefit modern athletes, the difference isn't drastic, I don't see half of todays elite athletes making it through 15 rounds.

lol I've been on this site for 8 years.

I've seen plenty of footage Willie Pep, and no doubt he was ahead of his time in terms of boxing ability. However, to compare that ability to modern greats who have had the benefit of the sport naturally evolving along with training and equipment advancements; to think he would even be competitive with Floyd Mayweather is ridiculous.

What a ridiculous post. Boxing isn't evolving, in fact the opposite. Precious knowledge is being lost every year, every era the standard is lower for what is elite and what makes a champion.

For being here 8 years you sure didn't take the time to study boxings history or you would know this is the case and something that makes the sport unique from what I can tell.

There is a reason the most knowledgeable of posters never mention todays greats among the names of the greatest ever, it's clear someone doesn't know boxings history by the way they dicuss this era.

[Richard Wadd]

No way an old schooler like Napoles or Griffith could hang with a current great like Khan. Khan is such a smart technical boxer with a chin to make Hagler look like Norris.

Old schoolers like Robinson or Gavilan could not hang with a refined powerful ****er like Maidana.

Ali and Liston would have no chance against Vitali or Wlad. Vitali is unbeatable when he doesn't quit or get hit hard and cut. And Wlad is invincible now, he is fighting new-school marvels like Haye, Brewster, Povetkin, Peter, Byrd, and Rahman.

[Citizen Koba]

In this footage of WW Robinson you will find many of his great tools/skills.. punch variation, jabs to the stomach, pivoting, counters, controlled aggression..

This is before Sugar Ray won the Welterweight title too.



By a minute mark you will see great glimpse of skill in Robinson. Floyd would be outmanned in the clinch against Robinson.

Riccio, Flores? And we talk about how it's easy to look good against lesser opposition?

Nice bit of footage BTW. and you can see some decent technique in there - but this was in the post war period when every demobed guy who thought he could punch a bit had a try in the ring for $50 and supper...how the hell do you compare to todays pro fighters?

I ain't saying the fighters from previous eras were worse or better...all I think is that trying to make any kind of H2H comparison is pointless and ridiculous. Simply put, given the huge changes in the sport, we just can't know.

However, such conversations do serve to (hopefully) encourage fans to learn more about the rich history of our favourite sport.

[bklynboy]

The 160lb middleweights of today are way bigger than the 160lb middleweights 30 years ago. They can pack in more muscle, bone, etc into that 160lbs than the old 160lbs

160 new hotness vs old and busted 160 lbs

Change the rules to same day weigh-ins and that goes out the window.

[Citizen Koba]

You couldn't be more wrong,the champions of today would be pedestrian in the 50s, there is no competition between eras as far as the talent pool, and overall boxing knowledge of the time. Before you try and bring up advancements of sports medicine, while they do benefit modern athletes, the difference isn't drastic, I don't see half of todays elite athletes making it through 15 rounds.


What a ridiculous post. Boxing isn't evolving, in fact the opposite. Precious knowledge is being lost every year, every era the standard is lower for what is elite and what makes a champion.

For being here 8 years you sure didn't take the time to study boxings history or you would know this is the case and something that makes the sport unique from what I can tell.

There is a reason the most knowledgeable of posters never mention todays greats among the names of the greatest ever, it's clear someone doesn't know boxings history by the way they dicuss this era.

How do you know this? How do you know how todays champions would have performed against those of the 50s or 60s or even 70s?

What proof do you have that the standard is steadily dropping?

I'm not even saying you're wrong, I simply can't see what grounds you have have for making such a sweeping statement when there is just no practical way of making a direct comparison.

I'm more than happy to debate it, though my historical knowledge of the sport could use some work...but it just sems like a futile endeavour - is it simply your belief that boxers are getting worse or do you have some kind of empirical evidence?

[SlySlickSmooth]

How do you know this? How do you know how todays champions would have performed against those of the 50s or 60s or even 70s?

What proof do you have that the standard is steadily dropping?

I'm not even saying you're wrong, I simply can't see what grounds you have have for making such a sweeping statement when there is just no practical way of making a direct comparison.

I'm more than happy to debate it, though my historical knowledge of the sport could use some work...but it just sems like a futile endeavour - is it simply your belief that boxers are getting worse or do you have some kind of empirical evidence?

You can point it to trainers, and the knowledge of trainers. You could say there are more boxing "coaches" than boxing "trainers". Trainers as in regard to what we may now refer to as "old timers" of the sport; or the "Bert Sugar's"; many trainers can possibly teach you the very basics. But knowledge that may have gone missing is forever lost that may have been created when boxing was at its PEAK in America(of course where the best prizefighters were).

[BigAlexSand]

I'm about to speak blasphemy on these boards.

Robinson would be schooled too. And that's saying a lot considering Robinson was a lot bigger.

Schooled... wow. Robinson is the One ATG that with out a doubt at welterweight would KO Mayweather. I'm a huge mayweather fan but saying Robinson would be school is down right "ignorant"...