Is Sugar Ray Robinson overrated?

[LetOutTheCage]

From what I have seen of him (admittedly not that much) he looked very good. Power, athleticism and a good boxing brain. Couple that with power in either hand. It would have been interesting to see how he fared against a Duran or Hearns at Welter and a Hopkins or Haggler at middleweight. Basically fighters with real boxing intelligence. I have seen Robinson fight aggressive come-forward fighters and he dealt with them very well, tbh he looked very big for a welter.

[baya]

I like the way you describe him. A murderous ballerina. Which is true or at least have true, he did kill somone, right?

yeah, jimmy doyle.

[deathofaclown]

There's a lot of factors involved though.

Athletes have become better and better over the years. In individual sports where you can measure things like time recordings or distance or whatever, they are always being broken. Boxing is no different, there's just no way to measure it because it's opinion based. Boxers today are far superior athletes than a long time ago.

I believe if you put Marvin Hagler in a time machine exactly as he was and brought him to today, a guy like David Lemieux would beat him. Ray Robinson wouldn't last 2 rounds with Keith Thurman or someone like that. That's no disrespect to them, it's just the way of the world. However, put them in a time machine and give them all todays training methods, diets, nutrition, personal trainers etc...with their talent and that, then it's a whole different story of course.

So really, the debate of the best/greatest ever is ridiculous because there is far too many factors involved to really know. All you can be is the best of your time.

is Pele the greatest player ever? given the conditions in which he played, heavier ball, heavier boots etc etc. possibly he is. Put Pele from then straight into todays game and he wouldn't be fit or strong enough to last, plus players now are far technically superior to even him because of coaching methods and new styles being developed all the time. but then put Pele's natural ability with everything that's been learned up to now and the advantages modern athletes have, again, it's a different story.

Boxing is no different.

[DreamerUSA]

There's a lot of factors involved though.

Athletes have become better and better over the years. In individual sports where you can measure things like time recordings or distance or whatever, they are always being broken. Boxing is no different, there's just no way to measure it because it's opinion based. Boxers today are far superior athletes than a long time ago.

I believe if you put Marvin Hagler in a time machine exactly as he was and brought him to today, a guy like David Lemieux would beat him. Ray Robinson wouldn't last 2 rounds with Keith Thurman or someone like that. That's no disrespect to them, it's just the way of the world. However, put them in a time machine and give them all todays training methods, diets, nutrition, personal trainers etc...with their talent and that, then it's a whole different story of course.


So really, the debate of the best/greatest ever is ridiculous because there is far too many factors involved to really know. All you can be is the best of your time.

Ok I was on board with you until the Hagler vs Lemieux and Thurman vs. Robinson comparisons. Hagler ****s all over Lemieux. Better nutrition and training methods or not. Skill is still the name of the game, and Lemieux is rocking training wheels while Hagler is doing triple back flips on an Evil Knievel turbo charged motorcycle. Also Thurman would be the one killed in two rounds. How the **** is a welterweight, albeit a hard punching one, going to stop a guy that had exactly one stoppage loss in over 200 fights, and that came cause the guy was about to have a heat stroke. Robinson had a chin forged by the Gods and was tested time and time again and I'm suppose to believe Thurman steps in and Ko's him in 2 rounds? GTFOH

[deathofaclown]

Ok I was on board with you until the Hagler vs Lemieux and Thurman vs. Robinson comparisons. Hagler ****s all over Lemieux. Better nutrition and training methods or not. Skill is still the name of the game, and Lemieux is rocking training wheels while Hagler is doing triple back flips on an Evil Knievel turbo charged motorcycle. Also Thurman would be the one killed in two rounds. How the **** is a welterweight, albeit a hard punching one, going to stop a guy that had exactly one stoppage loss in over 200 fights, and that came cause the guy was about to have a heat stroke. Robinson had a chin forged by the Gods and was tested time and time again and I'm suppose to believe Thurman steps in and Ko's him in 2 rounds? GTFOH

Well you obviously didn't understand the whole posts. Hagler and Robinson were good in the context of their era.

Hagler looked skills because boxers then were less skilled. It's like when you watch lower league soccer/football, it looks absolutely fine because the opponents and other players are not that good either, so in the context of the game, they look good and look skilled. Take them out of that game and drop them in a game higher skilled game and they would be like a fish out of water. That would be Hagler in todays middleweight division.

Robinson wouldn't have a chance against any current top 10 147/154/160 guy. He wouldn't even lay a glove on them. He'd be out for the count by the end of the second round and that's being generous.

[therealpugilist]

Never said I didn't like it, I guess I just expected more technical ability from someone who is rated as the the greatest of all time. He seemed like raw and vicious puncher with power in both hands with crazy combos and a wicked leaping left hook like sugar shane

Mosley definitely fought more like Ray in his prime and styles were similar.....sugar ray leonard always reminded me of kid gavilan with his style.....flashy, bolo punches, underrated punching power, was looked at like a kid/keed and had that baby face yet would batter you if he had too

[therealpugilist]

From what I have seen of him (admittedly not that much) he looked very good. Power, athleticism and a good boxing brain. Couple that with power in either hand. It would have been interesting to see how he fared against a Duran or Hearns at Welter and a Hopkins or Haggler at middleweight. Basically fighters with real boxing intelligence. I have seen Robinson fight aggressive come-forward fighters and he dealt with them very well, tbh he looked very big for a welter.

dude was damn near six foot....he was ahead of his time athletically and size wise...like the grand dad of Hearns at 147

when he and willie pep fought in the amatuers he was like no way can this guy be in or near my weight class

he was a freak of nature....most welterweights in the 1930s-40s were 5'6"-5'8"

[DreamerUSA]

Well you obviously didn't understand the whole posts. Hagler and Robinson were good in the context of their era.

Hagler looked skills because boxers then were less skilled. It's like when you watch lower league soccer/football, it looks absolutely fine because the opponents and other players are not that good either, so in the context of the game, they look good and look skilled. Take them out of that game and drop them in a game higher skilled game and they would be like a fish out of water. That would be Hagler in todays middleweight division.

Robinson wouldn't have a chance against any current top 10 147/154/160 guy. He wouldn't even lay a glove on them. He'd be out for the count by the end of the second round and that's being generous.

Dear Lord. Just no. Hagler had mad skills. I can watch tape and see that. You're acting like we've made some huge evolutionary jump in 30 years, which is hysterical. Outside of nutrition and training methods, not much has changed in boxing in the last 80 years. Boxers are still honing the same skills today that they were in 1935. Guys today are certainly a bit bigger, stronger and faster, but that does'nt equate to better skills. That does'nt magicly give you better footwork, balance, timing, ring IQ, defense or insert about any skill "here". Size, power and speed can all be overcome with a better skill set. If you can honestly look at tape and think that Lemieux is even in the same galaxy as Hagler, skillwise, I don't even know what to say.

[SplitSecond]

Well you obviously didn't understand the whole posts. Hagler and Robinson were good in the context of their era.

Hagler looked skills because boxers then were less skilled. It's like when you watch lower league soccer/football, it looks absolutely fine because the opponents and other players are not that good either, so in the context of the game, they look good and look skilled. Take them out of that game and drop them in a game higher skilled game and they would be like a fish out of water. That would be Hagler in todays middleweight division.

Robinson wouldn't have a chance against any current top 10 147/154/160 guy. He wouldn't even lay a glove on them. He'd be out for the count by the end of the second round and that's being generous.

[-PBP-]

There's a lot of factors involved though.

Athletes have become better and better over the years. In individual sports where you can measure things like time recordings or distance or whatever, they are always being broken. Boxing is no different, there's just no way to measure it because it's opinion based. Boxers today are far superior athletes than a long time ago.

I believe if you put Marvin Hagler in a time machine exactly as he was and brought him to today, a guy like David Lemieux would beat him. Ray Robinson wouldn't last 2 rounds with Keith Thurman or someone like that. That's no disrespect to them, it's just the way of the world. However, put them in a time machine and give them all todays training methods, diets, nutrition, personal trainers etc...with their talent and that, then it's a whole different story of course.

So really, the debate of the best/greatest ever is ridiculous because there is far too many factors involved to really know. All you can be is the best of your time.

is Pele the greatest player ever? given the conditions in which he played, heavier ball, heavier boots etc etc. possibly he is. Put Pele from then straight into todays game and he wouldn't be fit or strong enough to last, plus players now are far technically superior to even him because of coaching methods and new styles being developed all the time. but then put Pele's natural ability with everything that's been learned up to now and the advantages modern athletes have, again, it's a different story.

Boxing is no different.

Are Thurman and Lemieux even conditioned well enough to fight 15 rounds?