Is Ray Robinson the G.O.A.T why or why not?

[BodyBagz]

Gonna be honest with you boxers from that era were not even drug tested (yes their were PED's in that era) plus the mob was tied HEAVILY into boxing (LaMotta for example is known to have losses because he was ordered to take a dive).

That's why SRR at least in my eyes would be classified in a different era.

Hell even for his era Joe Lewis has more of shot of being the GOAT then SRR because of what he did for boxing overall and the fact the he is a HW.

This is why Mayweather will never be considered GOAT over Ali and outside of America he will never be thought of higher then Pacquiao (this is mainly in Asia).

Ali and Pacquiao have transcended boxing. Mayweather hasn't.

Between May and Pac, who do you think has the better resume ?
The resume should be the only thing that matters.

[The plunger man]

Uh yeah,

The guy went 100-1-2 in the 1940s.

Started his career 128-1-2

Won 91 fights in a row

He's the GOAT welterweight.

Arguably, the GOAT middleweight

And was this close to being the light heavyweight champion, winning on all cards against Joey Maxim, but the 100 degree weather made him collapse in his corner in the 14th round.

Like, it's not hyperbole to propose that SRR could beat anyone ever between 147-175.

GOAT

maxim had to contend with the same heat as Robinson...leonard beat hearns when it was 110 degrees in Vegas 1981.
Robinson run out of steam and maxim came on and it was actually a stoppage....SRR was only 32 also....some of his defences were against boxers that had 40 losses on there records.
it’s easy to jump on the bandwagon with Robinson and say he is the GOAT but he lost to many a fighter that was mediocre and he beat many a contender that were just club fighters.
Robinson was great for his era but to say he could have beaten any welterweight or middleweight who ever lived is just bollocks.
Ralph Jones beat the crap out of him and this guy had lost 4 of his last 5 fights.

[uppercut510]

alot of people who say ray is the greatest just say it because alot of the greats said it, they only watched 4 of his fights on youtube and read biographies

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Sometimes you try to drive a point home and it gets lost by the effort rather than being obvious.


Sorry bud, I meant to say I think in all time convos one who stands alone ranks above those who are repeating a forgotten era's awards.


resume is honestly little concern to me for all time. It is, in my eye, a bias per era. I use it for direct comparisons of careers but not so much their awards because to me it is a form of time based bias. Who am I to say LaMotta is way better than Ikkos? Who are any of us?


Like I said before, you give no ****s about Klieto, but, you give even less ****s about who he beat, right?

I don't mean that as a criticism, ancient boxing history isn't for everyone, but, the point is your lack of caring about him ought to cue you into your own time based biases.

Names on a record exist far longer than film, most fans don't care about them.

Names on a record go back far longer than newspapers, no one gives any ****s about any names or records though.

Awards in time, not all time awards like they are presented, are what we tend to argue about when talking all time greats.


Floyd's resume, SRR's resume, those are time based awards that one can argue over forever....on a personal level, I'd never get an answer out of myself. I'd just flip flop due to perspectives. If you say this sort of timing matters to you most then you're good to go, but, the day you wake up and think meh, this sort of performance matters more, now you've a whole new **** show to work out.

I wash my hands of the in-time awards by granting all time to those who hold all time accolades.


----------------------------------


If I misunderstood and you meant more how to I award Floyd for having an array of techniques, that's clearly not something captured by records bud.

Yes, by eye, we all saw his evolution. His record is proof he did well with it, not that he did it. The proof that he changed from forward, aggressive, punching with boxing as a control measure to laid back boxing with snappy punches as a control measure can only be seen, I think, I mean you could read articles about it I guess but you get what I'm saying. Yes, there is eye test to it, no, I'm not saying that alone. What he did against who.


In both regards, I try to take away my personal feelings toward all time. Not really to be beyond bias, I'd be fine with saying this is my bias and this is my list, but rather because I can never pin down one set bias, or, criteria.


If they fought top ranked opposition I'll give it to them, names and timing are secondary. Like Wlad, you don't often see my caveat his run with timing. Because that is my bias. I don't like his timing, but, in all time, does my bias of his timing exclude his record? I think not. I think the fact that the ancients let dead dudes reign for way longer than ten years breaks his all time record though. Should I show bias against the ancients and tell them having a dead champion is ******?

That is a time based bias isn't it?

A friend of mine, who’s a huge boxing historian is also a Mayweather guy. He always describes Mayweather as a chameleon, and feels no fighter was able to consistently adapt like him. He’ll admit that other fighters reached greater heights but insists their careers plateaued at a far lower level than Floyd’s citing consistency as the reason for Floyd being the GOAT.

I disagree with him but I can understand his logic.

I know you’re also a history guy so I was interested to see why you picked Floyd.

There’s probably about 10 or so names you can make plausible arguments for as to being the GOAT, and each one would be based on a different philosophy or criteria. I don’t really understand why people get so upset over people thinking fighter X is better then fighter Y when there’s never going to be a definitive answer.

[Boxing_1013]

Boxing is so hard to compare, era over era...being the man or a top guy in your era is really all you can do...put yourself into that conversation

[NORMNEALON]

I agree. His record speaks for itself. No other fighter in that period had such a dominating career. He was head and shoulders above his peers. Trying to compare him to modern fighters doesn't work because of advances in sports science not to mention chemistry. Competing in his era he was the best by a long shot.

100% and his era had alot of great fighters , he really doesn't have any misses that stand out either . I mean if there are any someone pls enlighten me . I've heard time and time again he ducked burley , but that wasn't really the fight everyone would have wanted to see at middle at the time , there were other middleweights the fans would have been clamoring for sugar to move up and fight before Charley burley , but what a fight that would have been . Burley gets criminally underrated by some looking back becusse he never won a title . But he was a great boxer . Hopkins style actually reminded me alot of burley , iam sure he studied plenty of tape on charley

That begs to question . What fights over his career did sugar ray miss ?? I would have liked to have seen him picked up a lightweight strap but he did beat Agnott in a non title fight when Sammy was the lightweight champion. Do u guys think there are any clear misses on rays resume ??

[Shape up]

Pls give valid reasons for your opinions.

Everyone gives wins, loses as their reasons, they seem to forget the logistics, example, Floyd fighting top notch opposition, never injured, best nutrition , a team of experts accessing and advising him every step of the way, 1 maybe 2 fights a year. SRR, often injured, terrible diet for boxing, just his trainer and seconds, fighting up to 22 times a year, ask yourself if you swapped their conditions, would Floyd be as successful as SRR, I don't think so, would SRR be as successful as Floyd with Floyd's conditions, more than likely yes

[Canelo and GGG]

Everyone gives wins, loses as their reasons, they seem to forget the logistics, example, Floyd fighting top notch opposition, never injured, best nutrition , a team of experts accessing and advising him every step of the way, 1 maybe 2 fights a year. SRR, often injured, terrible diet for boxing, just his trainer and seconds, fighting up to 22 times a year, ask yourself if you swapped their conditions, would Floyd be as successful as SRR, I don't think so, would SRR be as successful as Floyd with Floyd's conditions, more than likely yes

Thats what im sayin ,you cant compere they'r careers ,People say that SRR lost to some lesser fighters ,well yes he fought 22 times a year at times like u said,you cant prepere perfectly for 22 fights in one year. Number of fights is big diffrence maker here.

[Marcello]

He is the Goat, beyond debate.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Gonna be honest with you boxers from that era were not even drug tested (yes their were PED's in that era) plus the mob was tied HEAVILY into boxing (LaMotta for example is known to have losses because he was ordered to take a dive).

That's why SRR at least in my eyes would be classified in a different era.

Hell even for his era Joe Lewis has more of shot of being the GOAT then SRR because of what he did for boxing overall and the fact the he is a HW.

This is why Mayweather will never be considered GOAT over Ali and outside of America he will never be thought of higher then Pacquiao (this is mainly in Asia).

Ali and Pacquiao have transcended boxing. Mayweather hasn't.

PED’s were not really effective during the 40’s. They were around but athletes didn’t have the science to use them properly. You literally had fighters taking strychnine (modern day rat poison) *******, heroin, alcohol as a means of performance enhancing.

For example during WW2 soldiers were given amphetamine to improve performance.

Doping was never effective until at least the 1950’s, and was largely used in athletics. It’s obviously grown from strength to strength since then.

I highly, highly doubt any fighter was using the sort of PED’s you see nowadays.