Is Sugar Ray Robinson overrated?

[Cogitation7]

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.

[soul_survivor]

I don't know anything about basketball but if what you are seeing from Bryant or James, with your own eyes, surpasses what Jordan did, then you can surely be of the opinion that they are better, right? Especially if the statistics match up well too.

Fact is, a considerable chunk of Robinson's career and almost the entirety of Ali's is available on video. Heck, you can even find footage of Robinson from his amateur days. From what I've seen of fighters since, only Leonard stacks up in terms of aesthetically pleasing and all round quality. When you factor in the statistics, there really is no denying Robinson and Ali are the two greatest of all times.

[-PBP-]

What don't you like about his "boxing IQ"?

[Damn Wicked]

All the top boxers are overrated. It's human nature to look for heros and put one man on the top. So what we do is gather evidence to justify putting a man in that top spot. The evidence is never conclusive because there are too many factors to calculate and arrive at a REAL conclusion.....The people who do conclude that someone is the greatest are just under an illusion. Any man can be beat at any time IF the fight the wrong opponent for them. No boxer has fought anywhere near enough opponents to come to to the conclusion that they are the greatest. We don't even truly know if the fighters back in the old days were better or worse than the fighters now. It's just conjecture no matter what we believe.

The other problem is that people become overrated based on their level of fame. This is a major source of brain washing the public into overrating a fighter or any other person in any field (music, sports, science, psychology, art, beauty). Mohammed Ali, Elvis, The Beatles are all WAY overrated. They're overrated because they have a story built around their fame. They were the first to be hyped in a particular way. They had interesting stories. The overrated people had better branding because they came along at the right time, in the right era, with the right handlers around them, and the right circumstances to breed the kind of success and extraordinary fortune. People are suckers and believe the hype. Robinson was a great fighter just as Ali was but there were other guys that have been just as good and haven't benefited from the circumstances that they happened upon at the right place or time.

[baya]

like a previous poster said, the proof is in the tape.

he was a murderous puncher with both hands, had speed and could step on the gas or counter you to death if he so chose. his wars with lamotta and his win over kid gavilan is better than anything that hagler or hopkins ever did. guys who we thought were monsters growing up as welters and super welters .... guys like trinidad, odlh, vargas, mosley, cotto, margarito, clottey, hearns, srl, duran (past prime and above weight) would get absolutely murked against the real sugar and i also feel that floyd would not see the end of a 15 round fight with him. he was a murderous ballerina. no one in the game today could see srr.

personally, i see him stopping hopkins and MD hagler.

[Jedi Vader]

His ability to deliver knockouts with both hands from the backfoot alone is worth ATG Number 1 status.

To even question his status is laughable.

[Sledgeweather17]

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 there is a profound difference between being TGE (The Greatest Ever) and TBE (The Best Ever).

I feel like the TGE title is and probably should be judged on a more subjective (opinionated) point of view, and the TBE on a more objective (factual) point of view.

What I mean by this is that we all know that the fans appreciate a brawler and knockout artist a lot more than they do a pure boxer, but the experts appreciate them equally or lean more on the skillset and execution/application of said skill set.

To be the greatest first of all fans have to like your style and you have to pull off miracles that leave everyone stunned and/or inspired. You also have to have the personality that appeals to the broader audience on top of that.

Take for instance Chavez Sr. There's a fight that he was losing and he got a tko in the last 10 seconds or something to overturn it, and most of the guys people put in the TGE bracket have taken some loses, some even by knockout. However, coming back from a defeat like that and dominating again, or winning in the last ten seconds of a bout you were losing, those are the things that inspire humans. For some reason humans seem to naturally gravitate away from perfection. If you don't have any weaknesses and you don't lose, rather than praise you, they will diss you and say you haven't faced any real competition. Prime examples of this are GGG, Floyd Mayweather, and Andre Ward, and prime Roy Jones.

If you're perfect or your skills and/or power are so unmatched that no one can beat you, then you probably should fall under the TBE genre, which is more based on a factual analysis then a subjective one. It takes into account your skills, your application of said skills, the ranking/standing of your opponents, and your fight record (ie...the number of wins vs losses).

If this is the case, then Ali, Chavez sr, Duran, Sugar Ray (both), Manny Pacquiao etc etc would be in the argument for greatest ever, and guys like Floyd Mayweather, Andre Ward, Pernell Whitaker, Prime Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins, and maybe GGG depending on how his career turns out would fit more into the TBE argument, because they were so good in their division in terms of skillset and application of said skillset that no one could pose a threat to them. This takes into account the ABC and P4P rankings of their opponents, the dominance in said fights (punches landed for and against), ring IQ/generalship, basically all the fundamental skills and how they were applied.

So there it is, TGE/ATG = entertainment value and inspiration (of course you gotta still have a resume) and TBE = skill set and application.

Sugar Ray Robinson? Never actually watched a full fight of the guy so I can't really say, but the consensus seems to be that he is the ATG/TGE.

[Ryn0]

If this is the case, then Ali, Chavez sr, Duran, Sugar Ray (both), Manny Pacquiao etc etc would be in the argument for greatest ever, and guys like Floyd Mayweather, Andre Ward, Pernell Whitaker, Prime Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins, and maybe GGG depending on how his career turns out would fit more into the TBE argument, because they were so good in their division in terms of skillset and application of said skillset that no one could pose a threat to them. This takes into account the ABC and P4P rankings of their opponents, the dominance in said fights (punches landed for and against), ring IQ/generalship, basically all the fundamental skills and how they were applied.

This is a ridiculous argument though, why haven't you included Marciano if those are your requirements for a 'best ever' basis. Furthermore, all of those guys did lose apart from Floyd and Ward (whose career is not over yet.) I assume that is because many of those fighters didn't lose until they were past their prime correct?

So consider this, 10 of Ray Robinsons losses came after he was 40 years old, 16 of them after his 3 year retirement after the Maxim fight, 18 of them after his 30th Birthday. So, before his 30th birthday Ray Robinson was 128-1. There is no possible way to compare that to today where fighters have 2-3 months a year to prepare for a single fight, and had 28 fights against Hall of Fame fighters.

Now I know the math doesn't exactly work this way but consider if Hopkins had fought maybe 100 times with the same success rate as he has now. He is 55-7, he would be 110-14, and so on and so forth.

Whether Ray Robinson is the best ever is a decent argument, Willie Pep deserves to be there as do many of the names you mentioned but there isn't even an argument that he is close to the top. It really isn't, bear in mind his most famous fights are the ones he had in his late 30's for the middleweight title. In his welterweight days he was imperious, running through opposition. And surely, you should maybe watch a full fight before even trying to pass judgement.

[b00g13man]

While I don't agree that he's overrated, I do get your point about people calling him TBE without any real knowledge, simply because it's the "fashionable" answer.

[therealpugilist]

He is overrated by casual fans and some others but everyone has their preference..some act like its gospel that he be considered the GOAT


He is the quintessential all arounder and had it all but he had his flaws...he carried his left hand really low, he could be troubled by physically stronger guys or swarmers. Also with all the footage of him, he didnt seem like the slickest guy around. A lot of it has to do with no one seeing his combination of speed, power, skills and athletcism for a long time before him.

He didnt fight a lot of the best fighters of his era. He fought Tommy Bell for the welterweight title and was fighting fights over 147 years before he got a crack at the middleweight title.


He is top 5 but I can understand anyone between Armstrong, Sam Langford, Robinson, Harry Greb being considered the GOAT