Was Sugar Ray Robinson really the best of all time?

[forcefraser]

Reading a book many years ago now, I first came upon the name Sugar Ray Robinson (not literally).

I must have been about 12 years old and was amazed how many fights the guy had had. The book stated that he had lost almost 20 fights in his career, yet still called him the greatest boxer to have ever laced up a pair of gloves (the book was probably written in the early 80`s)

I thought at that time that anyone who loses 19 times cannot possibly be the greatest fighter of all time, especially when I compared it to Rocky Marciano`s unbeaten record. I dismissed it at nonsense.

Some years later, as my passion for boxing started to take charge, I started looking into Ray Robinson again, watching many of his old fights, reading about him.

There have been some tremendous fighters throughout the ages, but for me, Ray Robinson was a step above them all. A perfect fighting machine, blessed with heart and skill that beggar belief.

His first pro loss to Jake La Motta he was heavily outweighed. He won all his other 125 or so fights since starting his career, until losing to Turpin at the age of 31, winning an immediate rematch by KO.

Later in his career he did slide, as do so many boxers and he did fight on for far too long, way into his 40`s.

However, for me, in his peak between the age of 20 -30, a brilliant 10 year span, Ray Robinson was the finest boxer that has ever lived.

Anybody agree?

[Deserter]

Anybody agree?

I think you're far more likely to struggle to find anyone who doesn't agree!

[slapbangwhallop]

I consider him my favourite of all time to be honest.

He was an innovator and so far ahead of his time.

[deadpan]

Nathan Cleverly just called him out. And I ain't heard anything back from this Sugar Ray bloke.

[McCannW14]

Ray Robinson is in my opinion, by some considerable margin, the greatest fighter to have ever laced on a glove. Considering his record and acheivement and the popularity of boxing during his time and now, it is highly unlikely that he will ever be surpassed.

[Poncey]

For me, the Maxim fight was the true measure of his brilliance. Almost at the point of death and still managed to put in a very credible performance as a relatively old man.

[Deno1986]

Robinson had everything - footwork, handspeed, chin, reflexes, one punch KO power and fought everyone and anyone. No one comes close in my opinion.

I'd like to see someones argument for having another boxer ahead of him.

[punchoutsb]

No. Harry Greb was the greatest of all time, and I've also seen some convincing arguments for Willie Pep, though it would be more difficult in my opinion to justify Pep over Robinson.

[Scrap]

His record suggests to me Top 20.

[Smokin Preedy]

Just shows that its not all about peoples records. A lot of people dismissed Amir Khan once he suffered his first loss, now he is a world champion

[palooka]

Just shows that its not all about peoples records. A lot of people dismissed Amir Khan once he suffered his first loss, now he is a world champion

To be regarded among the best in the division you have to win (or fight well) against the others considered the best; something Amir is yet to do. To be considered among the best in any era the boxer has to face some very, very tough opposition. Many of Robinsons' losses came long after his peak; he boxed some of the very best champions in the hardest era in the sport; (apparently he didn't want to risk a bout against Charlie Burley; what does that say about Burley?) Other great boxers consider Robinson the very best. He may have been; Ali at his prime was another one who must be considered.

[ArtOfWar]

No. Harry Greb was the greatest of all time, and I've also seen some convincing arguments for Willie Pep, though it would be more difficult in my opinion to justify Pep over Robinson.

There is no fight footage of Harry Greb. To say he's the best is nonsense, when no one has ever seen him. There isn't even any footage of Robinson in his prime at welterweight. All the footage is of him at middleweight when he was past his best (still very good mind).

[punchoutsb]

No. Harry Greb was the greatest of all time, and I've also seen some convincing arguments for Willie Pep, though it would be more difficult in my opinion to justify Pep over Robinson.

There is no fight footage of Harry Greb. To say he's the best is nonsense, when no one has ever seen him. There isn't even any footage of Robinson in his prime at welterweight. All the footage is of him at middleweight when he was past his best (still very good mind).

Then the title should be "Was Sugar Ray Robinson really the best we've ever seen". I'm willing to read a little along with watching footage before I make up my mind. Mind you, I'm not the only one who rates Greb highly. He was blind in one eye for the last five years of his career, and still managed to beat many great fighters. He never drew a color line, and was the only man to beat Gene Tunney. Harry Greb was number one.

[forcefraser]

No. Harry Greb was the greatest of all time, and I've also seen some convincing arguments for Willie Pep, though it would be more difficult in my opinion to justify Pep over Robinson.

Greb was obviousy a great fighter, but he did lose a number of fights during his "peak years" which for the sake of discussion I woud have paced at between 20 to 30. He was aso outcassed badly (according to the reports) by Tunney in a couple of the fights he lost to him.

Maybe it`s wrong to judge in this way, but I fee that Robinson boxed in an era that we can relate to easier, if you watch the fights they resemble pretty much modern boxing.

In the era when Greb fought, at least for much of it, if you knocked a guy down, you woud hover over him and knock him down again as soon as he stood up (ie: Dempsey v Willard style). I`m not saying it wasn`t proper boxing back then, cos it was what they did at the time, but I stil have problems in relating to it. Not sure about the judging/scoring in those days either (athough to be fair, if we look at some modern day decisions I doubt it coud have been much worse than today)

[banjo]

To the majority of people yes he is the best of all time, with a countless list of champion fighters who he has defeated and the length of time he was competitive as a world class fighter it's hard to argue. Personally though I've always hated the "best of all time" or "greatest of all time" label since it is subjective, you can only ever be the best of YOUR time. :)

[Deserter]

you can only ever be the best of YOUR time. :)

The problem is even that can be subjective - look at the current debate regarding Pacquaio's acheivements versus Mayweather's talent.
How do you compare a straw-weight legend like Ricardo Lopez, with a Heavyweight like Lennox Lewis etc, etc, etc.
Still, we'd be a bit stuck on what to do on this forum if we weren't able to debate these questions even if there is no 'right' answer

[bennie]

You can judge greatness on level and longevity and on how a fighter reacts in a crisis. Robinson was badly cut against Turpin and pulled out a huge right hand; Leonard was trailing against Hearns and pulled out a huge round; Hagler was cut against Hearns and came back to destroy him; Ali was pinned on the ropes by George Foreman and rode out the barrage; Duran was wobbled by Barkley and came back to floor him.
You remember those moments because they are select; they belong to great fighters.

[Deserter]

You can judge greatness on level and longevity and on how a fighter reacts in a crisis. Robinson was badly cut against Turpin and pulled out a huge right hand; Leonard was trailing against Hearns and pulled out a huge round; Hagler was cut against Hearns and came back to destroy him; Ali was pinned on the ropes by George Foreman and rode out the barrage; Duran was wobbled by Barkley and came back to floor him.
You remember those moments because they are select; they belong to great fighters.

It's a really good point Bennie, but then how do you judge those fighters who just by sheer bad luck end up competing in an era where they don't face a nemesis or someone to really test them? As I write that I'm thinking of a peak Jones Jr at Super Middle or a prime Chavez...

[bennie]

You can judge greatness on level and longevity and on how a fighter reacts in a crisis. Robinson was badly cut against Turpin and pulled out a huge right hand; Leonard was trailing against Hearns and pulled out a huge round; Hagler was cut against Hearns and came back to destroy him; Ali was pinned on the ropes by George Foreman and rode out the barrage; Duran was wobbled by Barkley and came back to floor him.
You remember those moments because they are select; they belong to great fighters.

It's a really good point Bennie, but then how do you judge those fighters who just by sheer bad luck end up competing in an era where they don't face a nemesis or someone to really test them? As I write that I'm thinking of a peak Jones Jr at Super Middle or a prime Chavez...

I don't rate Jones. He was a great athlete and a better matchmaker than Mickey Duff, except that Duff matched on instinct while Jones probably agonized over every match.
Chavez is defined by Rosario, for me, whose hardest punches bounced off Julio's chin in the biggest clash of small men at the Garden since the days of Duran.

[Deserter]

You can judge greatness on level and longevity and on how a fighter reacts in a crisis. Robinson was badly cut against Turpin and pulled out a huge right hand; Leonard was trailing against Hearns and pulled out a huge round; Hagler was cut against Hearns and came back to destroy him; Ali was pinned on the ropes by George Foreman and rode out the barrage; Duran was wobbled by Barkley and came back to floor him.
You remember those moments because they are select; they belong to great fighters.

It's a really good point Bennie, but then how do you judge those fighters who just by sheer bad luck end up competing in an era where they don't face a nemesis or someone to really test them? As I write that I'm thinking of a peak Jones Jr at Super Middle or a prime Chavez...

I don't rate Jones. He was a great athlete and a better matchmaker than Mickey Duff, except that Duff matched on instinct while Jones probably agonized over every match.
Chavez is defined by Rosario, for me, whose hardest punches bounced off Julio's chin in the biggest clash of small men at the Garden since the days of Duran.

Yeh, but I don't want you to get hung up those examples that I pulled off the top of my head - my point is a general one that some fighters have the benefit of a counterpart who can allow them to illustrate their greatness through coming 'through the fire', while others, through nothing more than quirks in time, aren't afforded that opportunity.

[palooka]

You can judge greatness on level and longevity and on how a fighter reacts in a crisis. Robinson was badly cut against Turpin and pulled out a huge right hand; Leonard was trailing against Hearns and pulled out a huge round; Hagler was cut against Hearns and came back to destroy him; Ali was pinned on the ropes by George Foreman and rode out the barrage; Duran was wobbled by Barkley and came back to floor him.
You remember those moments because they are select; they belong to great fighters.

It's a really good point Bennie, but then how do you judge those fighters who just by sheer bad luck end up competing in an era where they don't face a nemesis or someone to really test them? As I write that I'm thinking of a peak Jones Jr at Super Middle or a prime Chavez...

I don't rate Jones. He was a great athlete and a better matchmaker than Mickey Duff, except that Duff matched on instinct while Jones probably agonized over every match.
Chavez is defined by Rosario, for me, whose hardest punches bounced off Julio's chin in the biggest clash of small men at the Garden since the days of Duran.

Chavez v Rosario is one of my very favourite fights. Their respective records and their styles! Chavez was very brave and was a machine. Rosario showed a great heart. (I can remember Edwin hitting Julio right on the bell; or half a second after and Chavez gave him a stare and nodded his head a few times before being ushered to his corner). Love to watch it again.

[Scrap]

What was Robinsons Managers other Job, its always worried me. Plus the storys Ive heard.

[bennie]

It's a really good point Bennie, but then how do you judge those fighters who just by sheer bad luck end up competing in an era where they don't face a nemesis or someone to really test them? As I write that I'm thinking of a peak Jones Jr at Super Middle or a prime Chavez...

I don't rate Jones. He was a great athlete and a better matchmaker than Mickey Duff, except that Duff matched on instinct while Jones probably agonized over every match.
Chavez is defined by Rosario, for me, whose hardest punches bounced off Julio's chin in the biggest clash of small men at the Garden since the days of Duran.

Yeh, but I don't want you to get hung up those examples that I pulled off the top of my head - my point is a general one that some fighters have the benefit of a counterpart who can allow them to illustrate their greatness through coming 'through the fire', while others, through nothing more than quirks in time, aren't afforded that opportunity.

They argue that about Marciano, and his old men, but I think great fighters will always have enough in their history to be labelled great.

[palooka]

What was Robinsons Managers other Job, its always worried me. Plus the storys Ive heard.

Please tell more

[bennie]

What was Robinsons Managers other Job, its always worried me. Plus the storys Ive heard.

What was Gainford's other job?