Is Sugar Ray Robinson overrated?

[DreamerUSA]

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"

Haha. That is probably about the average size of welterweights these days. Brook is the only top guy I can think of that is much past 5'8. SRR was certainly a monster for that time period.

[deathofaclown]

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.

We have. There's a massive jump when comparing athletes from the 70's and 80s to now.

Lemieux is probably more skilled than Hagler if they met head to head, if that was possible. Hagler looked skilled in the context of his era.

[Mike_R]

Is Ray Robinson overrated? Probably not.

The fact is that he dominated in an era that compared to today was incredibly deregulated and much more dangerous. Nobody is going to have the chance to do what he did ever again because of the risk to human life. You can't fight every 3 weeks anymore (and nobody should).

Boxing is such a pure form of competition, we all know it probably goes back to pre-history in one form or another. The farther back you go the more life and death it was.

We're lucky to have Robinson video available because he was an athletic phenom. He is revered in the sport for a reason, it isn't just a bandwagon answer to say he's the GOAT.

[deathofaclown]

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

If they fought Hagler or Robinson, yeah, because they wouldn't really break a sweat. They would only need to operate at about 70% for most of the fight anyway.

[Caught Square]

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

[BrometheusBob.]

He went 128-1-2-1 in his first 132 fights. That one loss was to someone who tipped the scales at over the MW limit when he himself well under WW, and who later lost to him several times. A large portion of those wins are against high quality, well regarded fighters.

I couldn't say there is anyone else I'd put over him, but to each their own. There might be a case you can make about whether he was really better prime for prime than some of the other top greats though.

[IronDanHamza]

Some people overrate him in the sense that they try and say he was A+ in every area which simply isn't true.

But, Robinson clearly has a strong argument for being the greatest fighter of all time, so.. Yeah.

Overall I'd say no.

[TOBYLEE1]

When the whole to WW division avoids you and you have to go to MW to fight the top names and get a title I wouldn't call him over rated.

He fought in an area that they didn't pay much, had to fight frequently, only 8 weight classes, maybe 2 belts per division, 15 round fights, etc

[Ray Corso]

..............."Lemieux is probably more skilled than Hagler if they met head to head, if that was possible. Hagler looked skilled in the context of his era". huh


In all seriousness is this statement your reality or just a bad joke?

To make an intelligent and honest opinion about talent in any sport you need experience, knowledge and an idea of what the intangibles are needed to perform at a high level are.
Sugar Ray Robinson happens to not only be the greatest talent ever he has all of the above components that are needed to identify greatness.
If your evaluation process doesn't include actual skills your opinion isn't worth diddle even if your first name is Bo!

Dumb how this same topic pops up ever 4 months from someone born 20 years ago as if nothing existed until they were born.

Does anyone ever research the archives when they join here? Same ol' same ol' BS!
Ray

[Tony Trick-Pony]

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.

It's an opinion. Consensus is always BS anyway. It's basically saying you have a group of people who all say the same thing and if you dispute that, well, you must be an idiot. It's elitist crap and they alienate themselves and eventually become the minority due to their terrible attitudes. For me, Roberto Duran is the pound-for-pound best of all time and I don't care what any one else thinks. It's my opinion and they have theirs, but by you questioning Robinson or saying that he's not your number one, you'll catch no flack from me.

When it comes down to it, Robinson was a lot of fun to watch, with excellent speed and power in both hands. He also stayed very busy and had a very high tally of wins. It's hard to knock the guy either way you look at it and I certainly believe he's one of the best in the sport's history.

However, he did fight plenty of soft touches as anyone with 200 fights did. it couldn't be helped. I think those fights kept him sharp and there's nothing wrong with that. I wish more modern fighters would do the same. He also fought the best of his era and beat most of them. But his style was like anybody else's. It had certain flaws.

Robinson was an outside fighter for the most part. His best work came from a distance. When Basilio, LaMotta and Fullmer crowded him, they had a lot of success in the losses and of course their victories over the sugar man. I think most good inside fighters would give him plenty of trouble and the great inside fighters would beat him more often than not. I'm not sold that Hopkins would beat him as I think he would be too busy and sharp for Hopkins. And a younger Hopkins would run into his shots more which would give him the advantage. Hagler would have a shot but only if he got to land like he wanted to. Personally, I think Robinson would be too quick and would frustrate Hagler way too much. You have to ask yourself 'If Sugar Ray Leonard could beat him, could not Sugar Ray Robinson?' I can't answer that question any other way than Robinson would win. Hagler was bigger and stronger, but he could be outboxed as he was against Leonard and in my opinion, Duran as well.

I'm not sure how Robinson-Monzon would play out. I think it would be a close, chess match that wouldn't be much fun with Monzon possibly edging him on points but it could really go either way. I do see Julian Jackson getting a knockdown over him. Mike McCallum might be too much for him as well, but I don't know. McCallum often got frustrated too. James Toney would lose I believe. Roy Jones would bring all kinds of athleticism in for a fun scrap, but Robinson threw a lot and had accuracy. If he managed to clip Roy, it could be all over. I think he's too much for Pavlik and Taylor. From what I've seen of GGG, I have to give the edge to Robinson due to opposition, but this is too early IMO. When GGG does get big fights, we will see.

Robinson will always be highly regarded and rightly so. But never be afraid to say he was not the best. And I don't believe Ali was the best heavyweight either. I definitely favor Joe Louis if they ever met. However, I think Joe Louis-Joe Frazier would be so much more fun.