Criticisms of Sugar Ray Robinsons resume?

[davie]

One thing that this board has taught me is that you can pick holes in absolutely any resume (usually to make a point)

fighter x.... lost to that guy, avoided this guy, fought so and so past his prime, fought blown up fighters from lower weight classes, beat this guy but he was coming off a gruiling fight or had a runny nose in training camp etc etc

No matter how good a resume is, it's impossible to fight absolutely everyone at their prime weight and in their absolute prime, I don't imagine SRR's resume is any different with almost 200 fights on it.
I am not disputing the man is the greatest fighter to have worn gloves but
let's say, for arguments sake, we're having a debate that Ray was better than so and so, how would you counter that? What holes can be poked in Sugar Rays record? Who didn't he fight and who did he fight in far from ideal circumstances
Did he get any favourable close decisions which may have gone the other way? or get a slightly longer than 10 count?

[King Carlos]

His record can be picked apart like any other. Avoided certain members of the Murderers Row. Had close, somewhat controversial decisions against Abrams, LaMotta, Gavilan, Servo, etc. Didn't face the best at Middleweight until after his first retirement, etc.

[elmersalsa]

I think winning the middleweight crown 5 times is kind of overrated in a sense, ain't it?

[BoxBuzz]

The Best Welter of all time. And he dominated the MW division convincingly for a good period of time.

But he was not one of the 3 best MW's.

Pound for pound?.....he's got some braggin' rights.

[Cutman Scabbers]

Can you make a convincing case for anyone else being better than SRR?

[davie]

Can you make a convincing case for anyone else being better than SRR?

No, as I said, I accept he is most likely the best there's ever been. (I say most likely because I'm not an outright authority on the matter and don't think I have the required level of boxing history knowledge to state that with any great conviction other than give it as opinion.)

Just thought it would be interesting to see if we could pick holes in the greatest evers CV.

How many times do we see a discussion like 2 people arguing who's better between Hagler or Monzon or SRL vs FMJ and each side pick these legends careers apart. I suppose I was just trying to make the point that no matter how good you are or how impressive your list of opponents, a boxing forum can always find fault.

[Tuan_Jim]

How else do you propose we form a conclusion on a fighter's worth other than weighing up his pros and cons? Should we turn our attention to his school grades? Study his dress sense?

[Tomasino]

Can you make a convincing case for anyone else being better than SRR?

A case could be made for Henry Armstrong, Ezzard Charles, Sam Langford and Harry Greb.

[elmersalsa]

Can you make a convincing case for anyone else being better than SRR?

A case could be made for Henry Armstrong, Ezzard Charles, Sam Langford and Harry Greb.

A case should be made to the great Henry Armstrong. To me, the greatest fighter, pound per pound, of all-time.

My top 5:
1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Sam Langford
4. Roberto Duran
5. Willie Pep

[elmersalsa]

Can you make a convincing case for anyone else being better than SRR?

A case could be made for Henry Armstrong, Ezzard Charles, Sam Langford and Harry Greb.

A case should be made to the great Henry Armstrong. To me, the greatest fighter, pound per pound, of all-time.

My top 5:
1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Sam Langford
4. Roberto Duran
5. Willie Pep

[Tomasino]

Can you make a convincing case for anyone else being better than SRR?

A case could be made for Henry Armstrong, Ezzard Charles, Sam Langford and Harry Greb.

A case should be made to the great Henry Armstrong. To me, the greatest fighter, pound per pound, of all-time.

My top 5:
1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Sam Langford
4. Roberto Duran
5. Willie Pep

Duran should be lower. He does not come close to the achievements of Ezzard Charles for instance.

[Ezzard]

Gans, Saddler, Moore, Tunney...

[elmersalsa]

A case could be made for Henry Armstrong, Ezzard Charles, Sam Langford and Harry Greb.

A case should be made to the great Henry Armstrong. To me, the greatest fighter, pound per pound, of all-time.

My top 5:
1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Sam Langford
4. Roberto Duran
5. Willie Pep

Duran should be lower. He does not come close to the achievements of Ezzard Charles for instance.

No no no. The Hands of Stone is right where he at. In the top 5 by anyone's standards

[Ambling Alp II]

One thing that this board has taught me is that you can pick holes in absolutely any resume (usually to make a point)

fighter x.... lost to that guy, avoided this guy, fought so and so past his prime, fought blown up fighters from lower weight classes, beat this guy but he was coming off a gruiling fight or had a runny nose in training camp etc etc

No matter how good a resume is, it's impossible to fight absolutely everyone at their prime weight and in their absolute prime, I don't imagine SRR's resume is any different with almost 200 fights on it.
I am not disputing the man is the greatest fighter to have worn gloves but
let's say, for arguments sake, we're having a debate that Ray was better than so and so, how would you counter that? What holes can be poked in Sugar Rays record? Who didn't he fight and who did he fight in far from ideal circumstances
Did he get any favourable close decisions which may have gone the other way? or get a slightly longer than 10 count?

I think you pick holes in everyone. You just have to be a lot pickier with someone like Robinson.
It is ironic that someone who went way out of his way to fight quality opponents throughout his career gets criticized for not fighting so and so.
The reality is that it's next to impossible to fight every decent fighter around if you are fighting in multiple weight classes, have a long career, and are in an era when there is a ton of depth in your weight classes(s).

If you are fighting Angott multiple times, LaMotta 6x, Zivic 2X, Gavilan 2x, Fullmer 4X, Basilio 2X, Turpin 2x, just for starters, you simply can't cram everyone in.
Some times fights don't happen because two guys are not available at the same time.

Was anyone that Robinson missed fighting all of these guys?

[Ezzard]

Gans, Saddler, Moore, Tunney...

This is why I don't do top ten ATG lists. Apart from the top 3 it gets too interchangeable. I've not really got the historical knowledge to formally a solid one. I'll leave that for the historians.

Hey Frozen, in the end people seem to pick who they like then reverse engineer their reasons.

I gave up criticising unless someone is so way off they need help.

[littlepug]

Charlie burley ( of murderers row ) was apparently avoided by SRR, not that it makes SRR any less great.

[cfang]

On his record, I would say greb is the greatest fighter of all time. However it's debatable. You can't pick holes in srr at welter. He was unbeaten and looked unbeatable. Couldn't have done any more. Perhaps it could be argued that if he was the greatest fighter ever, he should have beaten the fairly average champ maxim despite the heat.

[King Carlos]

Can you make a convincing case for anyone else being better than SRR?

Greb, Armstrong, and maybe Langford.

[King Carlos]

On his record, I would say greb is the greatest fighter of all time. However it's debatable. You can't pick holes in srr at welter. He was unbeaten and looked unbeatable. Couldn't have done any more. Perhaps it could be argued that if he was the greatest fighter ever, he should have beaten the fairly average champ maxim despite the heat.

Maxim was not an average champ.

[BoxBuzz]

On his record, I would say greb is the greatest fighter of all time. However it's debatable. You can't pick holes in srr at welter. He was unbeaten and looked unbeatable. Couldn't have done any more. Perhaps it could be argued that if he was the greatest fighter ever, he should have beaten the fairly average champ maxim despite the heat.

This is a very interesting point of view, and it's not without credibility. However, IF we had never seen Marciano fight, I suppose we could imagine him to be even better. I mean, how does one top perfection? And some of the written record is really over the top in his favor. So Greb's body of work is great, and so was Samson's and Hercules, and maybe the Cyclops. But without seeing them, I think we could also be drawn into some mistaken conclusions.

I'm just saying it's difficult to assess what we can not review or measure for ourselves.

That does not mean Greb was not the best, but to make such an assessment is fraught with quite the great degree of difficulty.

[davie]

Can you make a convincing case for anyone else being better than SRR?

Greb, Armstrong, and maybe Langford.

You could make a case.
But could you make a convincing case for them having a stronger resume than SRR?
You could add Archie Moore and probably 1 or 2 others to that list but making a convincing case is a stretch

[davie]

On his record, I would say greb is the greatest fighter of all time. However it's debatable. You can't pick holes in srr at welter. He was unbeaten and looked unbeatable. Couldn't have done any more. Perhaps it could be argued that if he was the greatest fighter ever, he should have beaten the fairly average champ maxim despite the heat.

This is a very interesting point of view, and it's not without credibility. However, IF we had never seen Marciano fight, I suppose we could imagine him to be even better. I mean, how does one top perfection? And some of the written record is really over the top in his favor. So Greb's body of work is great, and so was Samson's and Hercules, and maybe the Cyclops. But without seeing them, I think we could also be drawn into some mistaken conclusions.

I'm just saying it's difficult to assess what we can not review or measure for ourselves.

That does not mean Greb was not the best, but to make such an assessment is fraught with quite the great degree of difficulty.

You are right to a degree, we have to make some assumptions and leaps of faith when reviewing only records.

But there's a difference between simply looking at the numbers on the win/loss columns and saying "Marciano must be the best" and actually digging into the records of who they beat, who they won and lost to, how they won (we can't say this as conclusively as we might if we viewed it fully, but we can still read reports etc), we can look at the records of their opponents and judge how good they were, if they were at their strongest weight, in their prime etc.
It may still be difficult to fully appreciate how good these guys might have been and how strong their resumes may be without seeing them in the flesh but we can build a pretty solid picture.

[King Carlos]

Can you make a convincing case for anyone else being better than SRR?

Greb, Armstrong, and maybe Langford.

You could make a case.
But could you make a convincing case for them having a stronger resume than SRR?
You could add Archie Moore and probably 1 or 2 others to that list but making a convincing case is a stretch

I'd say it's a lot easier than making a convincing case that Robinson has a superior resume to Greb.

[davie]

Greb, Armstrong, and maybe Langford.

You could make a case.
But could you make a convincing case for them having a stronger resume than SRR?
You could add Archie Moore and probably 1 or 2 others to that list but making a convincing case is a stretch

I'd say it's a lot easier than making a convincing case that Robinson has a superior resume to Greb.

I'm saying that it would be a hard job to make a solid convincing case either way.
Both men have outstanding records and any case could be countered quite easily.

[Ezzard]

Who is this Ray Robertson guy?