Appreciation thread" Black Murderers Row and the uncrowned champions of boxing

[therealpugilist]

That's what I've read. It was the same for other "world champs" that they wouldn't fight the "colored champs"

and they think the turn world champion is diluted today...all the nostalgia of the past but no one looks at how fighters that were great like these guys didnt get their due.

Eddie Booker isnt even in the hall of fame and has wins over hall of famers....while guys Mancini and Gatti beat average competition and are in there because of excitement and "cultural impact"

[soul_survivor]

the point is boxing has always been a business...its called prizefighting for a reason


I understand the racial climate of the time but I also know that the statement ," the old time greats fought the best!" is complete bull**** when boxing was even more corrupt in the past and there were a lot more fighters, meaning a lot more fighters that werent very good to use as gatekeepers and record padders...A lot of the fighters who earned title shots didnt recieve titleshots so pulling , and others drew the color line


Robinson himself fought over welterweight most of the time he held the welterweight title and fought Lamotta in the early 40s and LaMotta was a middleweight...he actually fought a few guys in the murderers row....Robinson didnt...robinson earned his way but he was also nitpicky about opponents, money, venue and was a bit of a diva


I have no agenda

You do have an agenda, which is the PBD/Floyd agenda, you've posted it several times and I've proved your posts have been rubbish several times.

Outside of Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Liston, Patterson and even Holmes, who was Ali supposed to have fought? He is also one of those old timers.

How about Robinson and his fights and wins over LaMotta, Armstrong, Zivic, Olson, Gavilan, Turpin, Maxim? Who else should he have fought? Burley? The guy was retired by the time Robinson gained the middleweight crown. Holman Williams? The guy campaigned at middle or light heavy for most of the 40s and then retired, when was Robinson supposed to have fought him?

This is absolutely rubbish. You don't even have to go back to the 40s, 50, 60s, or 70s to see guys who consistently fought the best. Look at Oscar, in this century alone (12 fights) he fought 4 HOF/ATGs, possibly 5 and all but one of those fights was against a future, current or former champion. He also spent that time fighting a prime Mosley twice, a prime Mayweather, a prime Pacquiao, a close to prime but much bigger Hopkins and a prime Sturm.

It's only in the post May/Pac economy, which started circa 2009, where guys think they can wait it out, keep their "0" and cash in that check. The same goes for modern heavyweights and the Wlad money, which may just be changing.

It's ridiculous that we're going to actually argue the validity of some resumes, smh

[bigjavi973]

and they think the turn world champion is diluted today...all the nostalgia of the past but no one looks at how fighters that were great like these guys didnt get their due.

Eddie Booker isnt even in the hall of fame and has wins over hall of famers....while guys Mancini and Gatti beat average competition and are in there because of excitement and "cultural impact"

I agree..... I'm a firm believer in that the fighter makes the belt.... not the other way around. You gotta sacrifice sometimes to get the fights that are NEEDED.

[Boxfan83]

One thing I noticed about all the fighters is their similar body types. Emmanuel Steward (RIP) used to say the best frame for boxing is tall & lanky. Kinda confirms that "present day" the best boxer in the world is probably in the NBA...

[therealpugilist]

You do have an agenda, which is the PBD/Floyd agenda, you've posted it several times and I've proved your posts have been rubbish several times.

Outside of Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Liston, Patterson and even Holmes, who was Ali supposed to have fought? He is also one of those old timers.

How about Robinson and his fights and wins over LaMotta, Armstrong, Zivic, Olson, Gavilan, Turpin, Maxim? Who else should he have fought? Burley? The guy was retired by the time Robinson gained the middleweight crown. Holman Williams? The guy campaigned at middle or light heavy for most of the 40s and then retired, when was Robinson supposed to have fought him?

This is absolutely rubbish. You don't even have to go back to the 40s, 50, 60s, or 70s to see guys who consistently fought the best. Look at Oscar, in this century alone (12 fights) he fought 4 HOF/ATGs, possibly 5 and all but one of those fights was against a future, current or former champion. He also spent that time fighting a prime Mosley twice, a prime Mayweather, a prime Pacquiao, a close to prime but much bigger Hopkins and a prime Sturm.

It's only in the post May/Pac economy, which started circa 2009, where guys think they can wait it out, keep their "0" and cash in that check. The same goes for modern heavyweights and the Wlad money, which may just be changing.

It's ridiculous that we're going to actually argue the validity of some resumes, smh

Somebody has reading comprehension problems....not once did I mention his name so you might want to re-evaluate who has an agenda

armstrong was washed up and he beat Tommy Bell was nothing more than a decent fighter and contender....Charley Burley was a top ten contender at ww and mw when Robinson was there at both weights

If the champions of the past fought the best then, fighters who deserved title shots would have got them and the "world champions" wouldnt have drew the color line, fighters threw fights for title fights, etc.


Fighters fought under worse conditions back in the day but the best did not always fight the best...if that was the case why is it a fighter like Eddie Booker had a 60+ wins and only 5 losses with no title shots and wins over great fighters


get your head out of your ass

[therealpugilist]

One thing I noticed about all the fighters is their similar body types. Emmanuel Steward (RIP) used to say the best frame for boxing is tall & lanky. Kinda confirms that "present day" the best boxer in the world is probably in the NBA...

those long rangy guys generate so much torque and its so much power generated from the feet to the end of the fist


proper technique and its lights out

[therealpugilist]

I agree..... I'm a firm believer in that the fighter makes the belt.... not the other way around. You gotta sacrifice sometimes to get the fights that are NEEDED.

That why to me the term world champion from the time of the turn of the century til about the 1960s means little to me.....most the best fighters didnt get the opportunity or got one when they were washed up just to be a stepping stone


Fighters do make the belts.....thats why Ali being heavyweight champion or Wlad being world champion means a lot more than "legends" Dempsey, John L Sullivan, Jeffries, the 1930-1940s middleweights and welterweights


Calling Tony a great champion is diluted when he never fought any of the best contenders of the day and 147-175 was loaded from the 1930s-50s with talent.

Joe Jeanette, Sam McVey, Sam Langforde, had to fight each other dozens of times because the champions wouldnt fight them, often fighting fights with a handicap, hands barred etc

[soul_survivor]

Somebody has reading comprehension problems....not once did I mention his name so you might want to re-evaluate who has an agenda

armstrong was washed up and he beat Tommy Bell was nothing more than a decent fighter and contender....Charley Burley was a top ten contender at ww and mw when Robinson was there at both weights

If the champions of the past fought the best then, fighters who deserved title shots would have got them and the "world champions" wouldnt have drew the color line, fighters threw fights for title fights, etc.


Fighters fought under worse conditions back in the day but the best did not always fight the best...if that was the case why is it a fighter like Eddie Booker had a 60+ wins and only 5 losses with no title shots and wins over great fighters


get your head out of your ass

wait, wait, let me stop you there. At no time did Burley being a top middleweight coincide with Robinson's title reign and when Burley was at welter, Robinson had just started his career at 135 or around that weight. GTFO with that ****.

[therealpugilist]

wait, wait, let me stop you there. At no time did Burley being a top middleweight coincide with Robinson's title reign and when Burley was at welter, Robinson had just started his career at 135 or around that weight. GTFO with that ****.

wait wait wait...when did it say in boxing that you had to be the champion to fight the other contenders?


You are a simp man, use your brain jack ass...Burley campaigned at welterweight and middleweight...often fought bigger men, even fought a heavyweight until he retired


Robinson stayed at lightweight a short time with his 5'11" frame and was fighting welterweights in his second year as a pro and fought LaMotta in 1942, who was a middleweight and weighed over welterweight for all of their fights ....Also he fought LaMotta in 1943 for the second time, in 1947 he fought former middleweight titleholder Georgie Abrams and during his welterweight reign , he fought more times over 147 than he weighed in under the limit or defended the title


Burley didnt retire until 1950 and was a small Middleweight


Sorry, I know you're all caught up in nostalgia-land but even Ray Robinson didnt fight all the best fighters of his day...he fought from 135-175 and does none of these fights include the best black fighters of his era....deal with it...his best win is a pre=prime Kid Gavilan who would later become the champion, but didnt do a lot at that point.