Robinson or Ali, who's really the greatest?

[Tom Cruise]

I'm of the opinion Ross did his best work at welterweight. And while I see him as a great lightweight, I wouldn't rank him with Leonard, Gans and Duran at that weight.

Ross is actually one of my favorite fighters. His life story is amazing. If you want to read a great book about him, find the one written by Douglas Century. Absolutely one of my favorite boxing books if not my favorite.

Ive asked for that from my gf for Christmas. Glad to see its worth the read

[JAB5239]

Ive asked for that from my gf for Christmas. Glad to see its worth the read

We'll worth it. It talks about the murder of his father, his friendship with Al Capone and other Chicago gangsters, his crazy gambling, his fights and his heroics in WWII. Talk about his addiction to morphine from wounds he suffered at Gaudelcanal and how he finally overcame the demons cold turkey. You will enjoy it I'm sure.

[Anthony342]

Plus Stallone's character from the Expendables movies is named after him.

[them_apples]

Both Sugar Ray Robinson and Muhammad Ali have a legitimate claim to the title of, "Greatest Of All Time". Robinson is widely considered to be pound for pound the best fighter to ever lace a pair of gloves, but Ali is considered to be the best heavyweight ever, and heavyweight has always been seen as the premier division in boxing. They both have among the best resumes in boxing history, with Robinson holding wins over Lamotta, Fullmer, Basilio, and Gavilan, while Ali holds wins over Frazier, Foreman, Liston and Patterson.

Who do you think is the best ever?

if you actually study Robinsons career, it's a no brainer. He has the best resume of all time. Ali had a great resume as did Ezzard Charles.

Robinson fought HOfers and fighters ranked in the top 5 3-4 times each - spanning decades and jumping weight.

It's like Canelo moving up and fighting GGG 6 times like Robinson did to Lammotta and then finally stopping him as well. And Thats just 1 fight.

Robinson was so experienced in high level championship fights his ego must have been enormous. There was only 1 belt back then

[j.razor]

It not JUST "film being out there" and looking good or bad imbecile! Its great we have film, wish it had been around so freely when I was a kid... Commentary allows one to see a focus, even if one disagrees. But more to the point my friend... Most people do not know what they are watching, they simply say it is "good, bad" or "this guy looks slow" (the filming lol). You have to account for the different filming techniques, the different speeds of the film and pull out, pay attention to things which may appear as small details in the big picture at first and not be an imbecile.

Its like looking at a microscope and trying to see things without knowing what to look for. One thing you will see if yu know what you are watching are things fighters do/did. Its not just a question of what looks better, but you know all that right?

You just said whole bunch of NOTHING sounding like jim lampley...."He lands a right & another"....nothing landed jim....Like I said, go look at the footage of Walker Smtih Jr & tell me if he is as skilled as T.B.E. imbecile

[j.razor]

Get back to everyone? I never quoted you. All the same, Robinson wipes his ass with 50-0.

You don't believe that, you just say it.

#T.B.E.

Peace!

[Dempsey-Louis]

The only difference between them, that comes to my mind, is that SRR had one punch KO power, Ali didn't. But who is 'greater' that's a pick-um.

[j.razor]

its one thing to have high accuracy against impossible-to-miss version of cotto and please-hit-me maidana. its another to have high accuracy against awkward guys with underrated defense like fullmer and turpin.

See how you can't even lie. Cheno was "awkward" & you ignored everything else.

[Schmerzen]

ali himself said robinson was the best p4p boxer ever

[The Old LefHook]

If these arguments could get settled there would be no need for a forum. Most people enter stage left already with an opinion; most people could use the same exit leaving. You cannot argue effectively with the Mayweather or the Robinson glans polishers. Their mouths are full.

The remodeling of professional boxing via amateur tactics and sensibilities that Corso ably brought to our attention, had not yet taken place. Fans paid for KO's and savagery. They did not want to leave their houses in the first place to see a polite dance where one man is out slicked, even if the slicking is semi-magical.

Only a churl would argue the sport is as brutal now as it was then. Before the great remodeling there was a period where you could stand over an opponent you had floored, ready to smash him again as soon as he began to arise. That rule was already gone by Robinson's time. Slowly, boxing lost many of its most gory attributes--gloves got bigger and more protective, protective cups came into vogue, fights got shorter, referees learned to nanny, etc., etc., etc.

Robinson and Mayweather still fought in similar eras. It is true. Restore some minor differences and they are very similar. Robby did not come from Fitz's time! He was still boxing professionally when Kennedy was president. The main difference is the cultural one of amateur vs gladiator mentality.

The crowd is now happy to see one man symbolically shown up, counted coup upon, humiliatingly outclassed, without his necessarily being beaten senseless and pulverized to prove a point. There is more disgrace in your enemy toying with you and refusing to allow you the honor of going out on your shield. The cultural change trickled down to the fans, yes. Without this trickle down Mayweather would have no fans. They have to come from somewhere. In a world of instant mass communications he found believers. Not only did they believe, they were willing to tithe to a great talent's health more heavily than ever before, merely to see men shown up the new way.

Under Robinson's era, which was at least reminiscent of the founding fathers, Robinson was judged many times the quintessential fighter for that entire epoch and the epoch of the founding fathers preceding it. Likewise, there is no doubt Mayweather is the quintessential example of a perfect prize fighter under the new "amateurized," paradigm.

This is my proposal for a compromise to end this old debate. The proposal is that Robinson and Mayweather are pentultimate representatives of different cultural eras. Robinson fans still stubbornly judge Mayweather by the standards of yesterday, but fans of Mayweather do the same thing when they criticize Robby for getting hit too much, knowing war was his culture. Judge neither man by the standards of the other's era.

Mayweather is the supreme practitioner of the new era because he really does have no punch and often has to endure the danger of his opponent for the entire twelve rounds, keeping his defensive abilities on full display for thirty-six minutes.

Robinson was a great amateur fighter--in the amateurs, I mean. Even then, of course, he did not fight like an amateur, but like a professional going for the kill, racking up a higher KO percentage as an amateur than as a pro. Robinson certainly would have had some abilities in the new "counting coups," culture. Ironically, if he had showboated more, we would have more information to judge his abilities under the new paradigm. Since he was known to be more graceful than any fighter up to his time, had big natural athletic talent, speed and reflexes, the only reasonable guess is that he would have been quite good under the new standards.

Translation: From the evidence on hand, if Robinson had wanted to, he would have been pretty darned good himself at the new "counting coups," style.