Is Sugar Ray Robinson overrated?

[Ham Porter]

but HAUSER won't write stuff like that because of HIS general insecurities to black folk. piece of shlt. I hate that mofo..

Let's be honest, you hate Hauser for no other reason besides the fact that he dislikes Mayweather and has written negative things about him in the past.

[REMOVE SHARK 55]

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.

The footage is available for all too see. The old farts on NSB keep pushing that agenda but with footage there it's impossible to say he was the greatest of all times. If you've sat down and watched all the footage you can of SRR like myself, then I think it's safe to say he was NOT the greatest of all time.

[Lester Tutor]

Let's be honest, you hate Hauser for no other reason besides the fact that he dislikes Mayweather and has written negative things about him in the past.

Or he's never written anything positive about Mayweather during his reign, the same non energetic spirit Larry Merchant covered on Floyd on HBO. Instead, Hauser writes that Yuri Foreman is a wonderful rags to riches story... how? Were the Mayweather's from Michigan ever rich? Hell no. Floyd became the richest athlete in the world. Is that not a lovely rags to riches story?

Yeah keep believing what you think is normal and sink those words in your head since uou know the double standard is apparent. **** Hauser. At least ESPN gave up the war.

[Biolink]

He was unquestionably a great athlete, but his competition was doo-doo.

[TheBoxingXpert]

Robinson defeated a lot of trashcans. He is all about quantity instead of quality, with the most padded record I have seen. He wouldn't last 10 rounds against a proven fighter like Hagler.

[Tom Cruise]

Robinson defeated a lot of trashcans. He is all about quantity instead of quality, with the most padded record I have seen. He wouldn't last 10 rounds against a proven fighter like Hagler.

You mean other than the multiple contenders, HOFers and ATGs that he fought many times each? Across 4 divisions (7 modern day divisions)?

He fought nearly 200 fights, there are bound to be some weaker fighters in there, but to claim he has a 'padded record' is ridiculous and completely untrue

[Reloaded]

You mean other than the multiple contenders, HOFers and ATGs that he fought many times each?

He fought nearly 200 fights, there are bound to be some weaker fighters in there, but to claim he has a 'padded record' is ridiculous and completely untrue

Some is a bit of an understatement , lets go the other way he fought about 20 top liners the rest were bums .

[Tom Cruise]

Some is a bit of an understatement , lets go the other way he fought about 20 top liners the rest were bums .

Please. most of the time when talking about boxing history 'bum' just means 'fighter i havent heard of'.

In 50 years time how many names will people recognise off of Klitschko or Mayweathers resumes?

[Gonzalez_Boxing]

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.

Define sweet? How can you criticize the era and admit you have limited knowledge of the era in the same sentence?

How did you manage to calculate and judge his ring IQ anyways? Based on what criteria?

[bballchump11]

He is rightfully rated the GOAT. I do think he gets overrated in H2H matchups though. People act like he would KO anybody at 147 and he's unbeatable at 160. I see people say Robinson would knock out Mayweather, when plenty of fighters not as skilled as Mayweather have gone the distance with him. Can he knock him out? Of course he can, but I wouldn't bet on him to do it.