Is Sugar Ray Robinson overrated?

[QueensburyRules]

Coddled? You obviously never heard of the Jordan Rules nor saw how the Detroit Pistons were allowed to physically beat up on him for years.

If you don't know what you're talking about then you should probably just keep your mouth shut.

- -U coddled sissies a dime a dozen the days.

I was busy with a blizzard of other things when he came along, so I sat down to watch him during a rare down time, and all I saw was he getting passed the ball and driving thru players who parted like opening a zipper with nobody wishing to touch him lest they be charged an automatic 3pt foul.

Like watching HR records set in the new pancake thin grooved strike zone with pitchers being cuffed.

U Barney boys better suited to hugging each other than traditional mens' sport.

Watching wilt emasculate him one on one priceless!

[hugh grant]

He probably is overrated when people say there can never be anyone better ever.
not sure how he became so good was it his coach, did he train hard, was he obsessed with boxing, was he addicted to exercise? What lengths did he go to, to win a fight did he study his opponents or did he just turn up? He had ko power in both hands? Why? Was he born.like that or did he train in a way no-one did? So many things we don't know so I can't say SRr isn't overated
SR R has got 100 win record but I think many people around his day did

[kushking]

He is not the goat in my opinion. If he faced the opposition he did then today,hed be eternally clowned before becoming famous under current conditions & the way fans are. Context matters,JCC was undefeated almost as long & yet his resume is picked apart despite him fighting much better skilled & physical advantage opponents.

[Zaryu]

There's too many posts here for me to read through to verify if my post will be redundant, so here it goes.

I think SRR is rightly regarded as the best/greatest fighter in boxing history. But I have always taken issue with adding the "of all time" portion. In a sense it's just hyperbole to drive the point down of how great of a fighter he was, but it also seems to shut the door for anyone ever being able to surpass him. I can appreciate that it is nearly impossible to surpass SRRs legendary status, but it should still be technically possible. Imagine if Pacquiao never lost a fight with his current resume and somehow beats Crawford and Spence before hanging up the gloves? Or what if Roy Jones Jr. went on to become undisputed Heavyweight Champion and successfully defend the title several times after defeating John Ruiz? Are we really just shutting the doors for these amazing athletes to be properly recognized?

Again, I know these are "if" scenarios and if the queen had balls she'd be the king. But I bring up these two examples because even without the "if" scenarios their resumes are incredibly impressive, and at some point someone similarly talented and courageous may actually accomplish enough to legitimately challenge SRR's status and we shouldn't have a foregone conclusion that it has already been set in stone that SRR will forever and ever be the very best no matter what.

[Tails]

I agree to a degree with what you say.

I do not contest that Sugar Ray Robinson should be the greatest of all time. But that is in the context of his era and the degree of separation he had amongst his peers.

But I know for certain that there have been plenty of fighters beyond his era that would beat him throughly and some that could stop him. I don't hold that against Ray Robinson because they have the advantage of learning from him and the other great fighters born after him that passed on even more refined boxing knowledge.

From about the 80's and onwards Ray Robinson would be going against fighters that have the benefit of knowing what works and doesn't work against certain styles. And he would have the disadvantage of going against people more skilled than him.

But I hold the upmost respect for Ray Robinson as he has contributed everlasting knowledge on boxing that has shaped the way we fight today.

[Marchegiano]

Nah, but the bum fights forgiveness is a bit much.

[BodyBagz]

All a person has to do is give a fighters resume an honest look.

Some say Archie Moore is an ATG.....to look at his resume and you'd wonder why.

A ton of guys from that era have the most laughable resumes, fighting 15+ times a year

[ShoulderRoll]

All a person has to do is give a fighters resume an honest look.

Some say Archie Moore is an ATG.....to look at his resume and you'd wonder why.

A ton of guys from that era have the most laughable resumes, fighting 15+ times a year

Why would fighting 15+ times a year be laughable? That's what made the old fighters so skillful, the more you do something the better you get at it.

[whollisboxing]

Once you reach the pinnacle of a sport and reach a legendary status it becomes hard to be surpassed. For example, it is exoterically percieved to the general public that Michael Jordan will forever be the greatest basketball player of all time; that is hard to argue against no matter who is on top of the game today. Guys like Kobe Bryant and Lebron James will forever be in his shadow. Whether it is true or not, people will always sway to Jordan no matter the circumstance, but that is another topic entirely.

This brings me to Muhammad Ali, the general consensus of any casual fan will always say he is the greatest boxer of all time.

Furthermore, to most "hardcore" boxing fans, many will say Sugar Ray Robinson holds that title. Has it become a norm to throw Robinson's name out there because every other "hardcore" boxing fans say so? Does it seem like no one wants to dispute that statement out of fear of being ridiculed in the boxing community and to be dissmissed with the statement "You don't know SHlT about boxing"? I'm not undermining Sugar's natural raw ability and inimitable talent & impressive amateur career, but it could it be the reason why he flourished so well was because of the era he was in. I can't really speak about that era he fought because I was not alive in that time, but it seems to me he fought in era where fighters weren't so "sweet". I've seen quite a few of his professional bouts and many highlights of his and although he had immeasurable power in both hands and had a wide variety of punches in his arsenal, I just don't see how he is the greatest of all time. His boxing IQ was good, but it didn't seem elite. Don't get me wrong, I think he would be a threat in any era, but I personally feel Marvin Hagler & Hopkins would have beaten him. Can someone give me logical and legit reasons as why he is labled "Greatest of All Time" to many hardcore boxing fans and convince me as to why he has earn that title. Your input is highly appreciated. Thank you.

For me it’s the number of Hall of Fame fighters he beat and especially his record in the 1940’s. They fought a lot more often with six-ounce horse hair gloves too. I get what you’re saying about people simply repeating what other people say but the proof is in his body of work

[BodyBagz]

Why would fighting 15+ times a year be laughable? That's what made the old fighters so skillful, the more you do something the better you get at it.

Out of those 15+ guys, MAYBE 2 will be legit boxers who care about winning.

So many 10-53 and KTFO 12+ x's......

Pure stat padding.

If a guy today fought 15+ a year, I'm certain we would point out all of the bums.