jaclem3 wrote:my comment was about kalan/s screw loose posts about srr vs. srl. good lord...can you imagine when leonard was still a welterweight fighting jake lamotta all those times. these are just examples. this guy is, as i say, either doing a crude attempt at putting us on or he needs therapy.
OK, so by good boxer, we are not necessarily talking good punch avoidance, fair enough. What would you say he excelled at as a boxer? I agree with you that he did seem to relish getting into physical battles with guys. He would have seemed to have advantages in terms of speed, accuracy, and overall boxing acumen against some of his opponents and yet he got into some pretty serious slugfests when one has to wonder if he might have been able to box his way to a less physically punishing win, or on the other hand, maybe his opponents were a little better than they looked; that I suppose depends on whom you ask. But, understanding all that, I still don't see why he was so great?? I mean he lost a bunch of times to these slow, crude fighters and had his hands full a number of times even when he won. And, let's not even get started on the Ralph Jones debacle..Kalan wrote:You know what??? If a guy is a good boxer and puncher it doesn't necessarily mean he's not easy to hit. Julio Cesar Chavez... Oscar De La Hoya... Muhammad Ali... Ray Robinson... Marvin Hagler... Joe Louis... Tommy Hearns... Wilfredo Benitez... Felix Trinindad... and Carl Froch were all good boxers and all easy to hit... Some of them because they were very aggressive.. They had a lot of faith in their chins and punching power.. They enjoyed "going to war" i.e. trading punches, and loved to knock people out.. It's an intoxicating feeling "better than sex" as they say.. Louis, Hagler, Hearns, Robinson, Trinidad, and Froch were guilty of this. They weren't all Jack Dempsey in the chin department, but they had the blood lust to go for the kill.
Now, I don't think that's a real smart way to fight... I like the way Mayweather did it... but nobody can call you a boring fighter if you take a few to land a few... Of course guys like Louis, De La Hoya, Froch, Benitez, Hearns, Trinidad, Robinson, and Ali had technical flaws as well... You could line them up for a shot. Robinson could absorb punches beautifully.. He was decked by Bell, LaMotta, Levine, Graziano etc. but he recovered very quickly and went back to war.
Ray Robinson was like Jack Dempsey in the way the fans adored him... He was larger than life and extremely charismatic... Ali had it, Tyson had it, Duran had it to a degree.. If you have it you don't have to be the greatest fighter.. You don't have to win every fight... Robinson looked the part with his straight hair, handsome face, sleek boxer's body, perfectly fitted trunks and shoes tied to perfection.. He drove his "Flamingo Cadillac" If you called his car pink he would correct you.. He was always turned out well.. He worked hard to exude class and style -- and he largely succeeded..jas80s wrote:OK, so by good boxer, we are not necessarily talking good punch avoidance, fair enough. What would you say he excelled at as a boxer? I agree with you that he did seem to relish getting into physical battles with guys. He would have seemed to have advantages in terms of speed, accuracy, and overall boxing acumen against some of his opponents and yet he got into some pretty serious slugfests when one has to wonder if he might have been able to box his way to a less physically punishing win, or on the other hand, maybe his opponents were a little better than they looked; that I suppose depends on whom you ask. But, understanding all that, I still don't see why he was so great?? I mean he lost a bunch of times to these slow, crude fighters and had his hands full a number of times even when he won. And, let's not even get started on the Ralph Jones debacle..Kalan wrote:You know what??? If a guy is a good boxer and puncher it doesn't necessarily mean he's not easy to hit. Julio Cesar Chavez... Oscar De La Hoya... Muhammad Ali... Ray Robinson... Marvin Hagler... Joe Louis... Tommy Hearns... Wilfredo Benitez... Felix Trinindad... and Carl Froch were all good boxers and all easy to hit... Some of them because they were very aggressive.. They had a lot of faith in their chins and punching power.. They enjoyed "going to war" i.e. trading punches, and loved to knock people out.. It's an intoxicating feeling "better than sex" as they say.. Louis, Hagler, Hearns, Robinson, Trinidad, and Froch were guilty of this. They weren't all Jack Dempsey in the chin department, but they had the blood lust to go for the kill.
Now, I don't think that's a real smart way to fight... I like the way Mayweather did it... but nobody can call you a boring fighter if you take a few to land a few... Of course guys like Louis, De La Hoya, Froch, Benitez, Hearns, Trinidad, Robinson, and Ali had technical flaws as well... You could line them up for a shot. Robinson could absorb punches beautifully.. He was decked by Bell, LaMotta, Levine, Graziano etc. but he recovered very quickly and went back to war.
You are as verbose and analytical as any poster on this site, but when I asked for an explanation of why he was great I got a decidedly non-descript, because he can "box and punch". I still say, if we argue that he fought scrubs for the most part, was easy to hit, and lost a high number of times to lesser fighters, I don't see greatness. Yes, his power seemed to be good, but not top 10 and again, the less than stellar performances against slow, crude fighters who routinely took him the distance. That would seem to suggest that his greatness comes from having a great chin.
I don't mean to monopolize your time so feel free to discontinue our discussion. But, if you are up for it, please delve into this guy. Really break it down, why was he great? Or was he really? Even if we list some things that he did well, would it even matter if his opponents are slow and crude?
If he never beat anyone that can be considered great? And I am talking in an all time, across eras sense here.
Most sports I have to begrudgingly give that performers are getting better, boxing is the only sport where I wonder, I think I know where you are on that question so I only say that to make the point that that is what makes the breakdown of SRR so interesting.
I don't imagine we will see that description of the "greatness of Sugar Ray Robinson" anywhere near his plaque in Canastota. But, actually it was pretty much the answer I was looking for. You have been pretty consistent in your appraisal of SRR on this board, and that is why it struck me as odd that you, a polarizing poster if ever there was one, would go out of your way to say something so...politically correct in boxing terms, like Ray Robinson was a "great fighter". Everything you say about him belies that conclusion. I just wanted to see where you truly were on him and your answers here have done that for me. It's a lot clearer for me now, and your pick of SRL to easily dispatch him makes more sense.Kalan wrote:Ray Robinson was like Jack Dempsey in the way the fans adored him... He was larger than life and extremely charismatic... Ali had it, Tyson had it, Duran had it to a degree.. If you have it you don't have to be the greatest fighter.. You don't have to win every fight... Robinson looked the part with his straight hair, handsome face, sleek boxer's body, perfectly fitted trunks and shoes tied to perfection.. He drove his "Flamingo Cadillac" If you called his car pink he would correct you.. He was always turned out well.. He worked hard to exude class and style -- and he largely succeeded..jas80s wrote:OK, so by good boxer, we are not necessarily talking good punch avoidance, fair enough. What would you say he excelled at as a boxer? I agree with you that he did seem to relish getting into physical battles with guys. He would have seemed to have advantages in terms of speed, accuracy, and overall boxing acumen against some of his opponents and yet he got into some pretty serious slugfests when one has to wonder if he might have been able to box his way to a less physically punishing win, or on the other hand, maybe his opponents were a little better than they looked; that I suppose depends on whom you ask. But, understanding all that, I still don't see why he was so great?? I mean he lost a bunch of times to these slow, crude fighters and had his hands full a number of times even when he won. And, let's not even get started on the Ralph Jones debacle..Kalan wrote:You know what??? If a guy is a good boxer and puncher it doesn't necessarily mean he's not easy to hit. Julio Cesar Chavez... Oscar De La Hoya... Muhammad Ali... Ray Robinson... Marvin Hagler... Joe Louis... Tommy Hearns... Wilfredo Benitez... Felix Trinindad... and Carl Froch were all good boxers and all easy to hit... Some of them because they were very aggressive.. They had a lot of faith in their chins and punching power.. They enjoyed "going to war" i.e. trading punches, and loved to knock people out.. It's an intoxicating feeling "better than sex" as they say.. Louis, Hagler, Hearns, Robinson, Trinidad, and Froch were guilty of this. They weren't all Jack Dempsey in the chin department, but they had the blood lust to go for the kill.
Now, I don't think that's a real smart way to fight... I like the way Mayweather did it... but nobody can call you a boring fighter if you take a few to land a few... Of course guys like Louis, De La Hoya, Froch, Benitez, Hearns, Trinidad, Robinson, and Ali had technical flaws as well... You could line them up for a shot. Robinson could absorb punches beautifully.. He was decked by Bell, LaMotta, Levine, Graziano etc. but he recovered very quickly and went back to war.
You are as verbose and analytical as any poster on this site, but when I asked for an explanation of why he was great I got a decidedly non-descript, because he can "box and punch". I still say, if we argue that he fought scrubs for the most part, was easy to hit, and lost a high number of times to lesser fighters, I don't see greatness. Yes, his power seemed to be good, but not top 10 and again, the less than stellar performances against slow, crude fighters who routinely took him the distance. That would seem to suggest that his greatness comes from having a great chin.
I don't mean to monopolize your time so feel free to discontinue our discussion. But, if you are up for it, please delve into this guy. Really break it down, why was he great? Or was he really? Even if we list some things that he did well, would it even matter if his opponents are slow and crude?
If he never beat anyone that can be considered great? And I am talking in an all time, across eras sense here.
Most sports I have to begrudgingly give that performers are getting better, boxing is the only sport where I wonder, I think I know where you are on that question so I only say that to make the point that that is what makes the breakdown of SRR so interesting.
Of course there's a lot of fans who don't like people like Robinson.. They think they're phonies.. Those are the haters who come to see them lose.. But whether they love them or hate them they talk about them.. And everybody wants to fight them because they're big box office.. Now you have guys like Naseem Hamed.. Everybody was talking about him, but one loss and he seemed to be destroyed emotionally. His career was over.. Whereas Robinson shook off losses like shaking off a nasty cold.. Once it's over with you forget about it like it never happened.. Who GAS, let's win the next one ... There should be more of that and fighters today should share some of that.
Kalan wrote:Robinson went to sleep out there half the time --- Lost to Turpin.. Lost to the small, short Basilio.. Lost to wide open Gene Fullmer.. Quit versus Joey Maxim.. Lost to Ralph Jones.. Decked by Artie Levine.. Decked by LaMotta.. Decked by Graziano.. Decked by Tommy Bell.. Robbie would fight furiously but he would start running and flagging as he gassed out and he was easy to hit.. You never saw him in a Chris Eubank vs Nick Blackwell type of fight with murderous, sustained, pinpoint combinations ripping.. You never saw that in your life from Ray Robinson.
I mean Robinson was a great fighter and everything.. He was charismatic as Hell.. But who did SRR ever fight who could box like Ray Leonard??? Certainly none of the above slowpokes who beat SRR or floored him.. Who did SRR ever fight who could beat Marvin Hagler??? ... There's your answer.
Did I say Sugar Ray Leonard would easily dispatch SRR??? ... NO I didn't.. It would go the distance.. It would surprise people like the Hagler upset, because Leonard would indeed win. When I said SRL would rip him a new one that was a little boxing hyperbole. It didn't include dispatching SRR. He was dispatched once in 200 fights -- albeit by carefully selected opponents.jas80s wrote:I don't imagine we will see that description of the "greatness of Sugar Ray Robinson" anywhere near his plaque in Canastota. But, actually it was pretty much the answer I was looking for. You have been pretty consistent in your appraisal of SRR on this board, and that is why it struck me as odd that you, a polarizing poster if ever there was one, would go out of your way to say something so...politically correct in boxing terms, like Ray Robinson was a "great fighter". Everything you say about him belies that conclusion. I just wanted to see where you truly were on him and your answers here have done that for me. It's a lot clearer for me now, and your pick of SRL to easily dispatch him makes more sense.Kalan wrote:Ray Robinson was like Jack Dempsey in the way the fans adored him... He was larger than life and extremely charismatic... Ali had it, Tyson had it, Duran had it to a degree.. If you have it you don't have to be the greatest fighter.. You don't have to win every fight... Robinson looked the part with his straight hair, handsome face, sleek boxer's body, perfectly fitted trunks and shoes tied to perfection.. He drove his "Flamingo Cadillac" If you called his car pink he would correct you.. He was always turned out well.. He worked hard to exude class and style -- and he largely succeeded..jas80s wrote:
OK, so by good boxer, we are not necessarily talking good punch avoidance, fair enough. What would you say he excelled at as a boxer? I agree with you that he did seem to relish getting into physical battles with guys. He would have seemed to have advantages in terms of speed, accuracy, and overall boxing acumen against some of his opponents and yet he got into some pretty serious slugfests when one has to wonder if he might have been able to box his way to a less physically punishing win, or on the other hand, maybe his opponents were a little better than they looked; that I suppose depends on whom you ask. But, understanding all that, I still don't see why he was so great?? I mean he lost a bunch of times to these slow, crude fighters and had his hands full a number of times even when he won. And, let's not even get started on the Ralph Jones debacle..
You are as verbose and analytical as any poster on this site, but when I asked for an explanation of why he was great I got a decidedly non-descript, because he can "box and punch". I still say, if we argue that he fought scrubs for the most part, was easy to hit, and lost a high number of times to lesser fighters, I don't see greatness. Yes, his power seemed to be good, but not top 10 and again, the less than stellar performances against slow, crude fighters who routinely took him the distance. That would seem to suggest that his greatness comes from having a great chin.
I don't mean to monopolize your time so feel free to discontinue our discussion. But, if you are up for it, please delve into this guy. Really break it down, why was he great? Or was he really? Even if we list some things that he did well, would it even matter if his opponents are slow and crude?
If he never beat anyone that can be considered great? And I am talking in an all time, across eras sense here.
Most sports I have to begrudgingly give that performers are getting better, boxing is the only sport where I wonder, I think I know where you are on that question so I only say that to make the point that that is what makes the breakdown of SRR so interesting.
Of course there's a lot of fans who don't like people like Robinson.. They think they're phonies.. Those are the haters who come to see them lose.. But whether they love them or hate them they talk about them.. And everybody wants to fight them because they're big box office.. Now you have guys like Naseem Hamed.. Everybody was talking about him, but one loss and he seemed to be destroyed emotionally. His career was over.. Whereas Robinson shook off losses like shaking off a nasty cold.. Once it's over with you forget about it like it never happened.. Who GAS, let's win the next one ... There should be more of that and fighters today should share some of that.
I was merely using the term "easily dispatch" more like vanquish or defeat; as a synonym for "rip him a new one". There was no specific literal intent. In my eyes, those things are virtually synonymous. In fact, whether it was a KO is largely irrelevant, the imprortant thing about your pick in this one is that you feel SRL would win with relative ease and your certainty of it......or is "relative ease" now something that is absolutely NOT what you mean when you say, "rip him a new one"? I wouldn't want to misrepresent your view.Kalan wrote:Did I say Sugar Ray Leonard would easily dispatch SRR??? ... NO I didn't.. It would go the distance.. It would surprise people like the Hagler upset, because Leonard would indeed win. When I said SRL would rip him a new one that was a little boxing hyperbole. It didn't include dispatching SRR. He was dispatched once in 200 fights -- albeit by carefully selected opponents.jas80s wrote:I don't imagine we will see that description of the "greatness of Sugar Ray Robinson" anywhere near his plaque in Canastota. But, actually it was pretty much the answer I was looking for. You have been pretty consistent in your appraisal of SRR on this board, and that is why it struck me as odd that you, a polarizing poster if ever there was one, would go out of your way to say something so...politically correct in boxing terms, like Ray Robinson was a "great fighter". Everything you say about him belies that conclusion. I just wanted to see where you truly were on him and your answers here have done that for me. It's a lot clearer for me now, and your pick of SRL to easily dispatch him makes more sense.Kalan wrote:
Ray Robinson was like Jack Dempsey in the way the fans adored him... He was larger than life and extremely charismatic... Ali had it, Tyson had it, Duran had it to a degree.. If you have it you don't have to be the greatest fighter.. You don't have to win every fight... Robinson looked the part with his straight hair, handsome face, sleek boxer's body, perfectly fitted trunks and shoes tied to perfection.. He drove his "Flamingo Cadillac" If you called his car pink he would correct you.. He was always turned out well.. He worked hard to exude class and style -- and he largely succeeded..
Of course there's a lot of fans who don't like people like Robinson.. They think they're phonies.. Those are the haters who come to see them lose.. But whether they love them or hate them they talk about them.. And everybody wants to fight them because they're big box office.. Now you have guys like Naseem Hamed.. Everybody was talking about him, but one loss and he seemed to be destroyed emotionally. His career was over.. Whereas Robinson shook off losses like shaking off a nasty cold.. Once it's over with you forget about it like it never happened.. Who GAS, let's win the next one ... There should be more of that and fighters today should share some of that.
jas80s wrote:I was merely using the term "easily dispatch" more like vanquish or defeat; as a synonym for "rip him a new one". There was no specific literal intent. In my eyes, those things are virtually synonymous. In fact, whether it was a KO is largely irrelevant, the imprortant thing about your pick in this one is that you feel SRL would win with relative ease and your certainty of it......or is "relative ease" now something that is absolutely NOT what you mean when you say, "rip him a new one"? I wouldn't want to misrepresent your view.Kalan wrote:Did I say Sugar Ray Leonard would easily dispatch SRR??? ... NO I didn't.. It would go the distance.. It would surprise people like the Hagler upset, because Leonard would indeed win. When I said SRL would rip him a new one that was a little boxing hyperbole. It didn't include dispatching SRR. He was dispatched once in 200 fights -- albeit by carefully selected opponents.jas80s wrote:
I don't imagine we will see that description of the "greatness of Sugar Ray Robinson" anywhere near his plaque in Canastota. But, actually it was pretty much the answer I was looking for. You have been pretty consistent in your appraisal of SRR on this board, and that is why it struck me as odd that you, a polarizing poster if ever there was one, would go out of your way to say something so...politically correct in boxing terms, like Ray Robinson was a "great fighter". Everything you say about him belies that conclusion. I just wanted to see where you truly were on him and your answers here have done that for me. It's a lot clearer for me now, and your pick of SRL to easily dispatch him makes more sense.
LOL, another myth like the McCallum shit. You're a cute little know nothing.NateJR wrote:There's a reason Ray Robinson ducked Charley Burley like the plague. The same reason he'd lose to Leonard.
What exactly makes it a myth? Since your smart ass seems to know all, oh wise one.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:LOL, another myth like the McCallum poo. You're a cute little know nothing.NateJR wrote:There's a reason Ray Robinson ducked Charley Burley like the plague. The same reason he'd lose to Leonard.
Once he called SRR a great fighter, I was really interested to see which way he was going to go as he had given concrete examples of such diametrically opposed viewpoints. As it turned out, when pressed for answers, he couldn't find anything that impressed him about Robinson, other than his beard, his straight hair, and MAYBE, his car... mystery solved.SaadOffTheDeck wrote:jas80s wrote:I was merely using the term "easily dispatch" more like vanquish or defeat; as a synonym for "rip him a new one". There was no specific literal intent. In my eyes, those things are virtually synonymous. In fact, whether it was a KO is largely irrelevant, the imprortant thing about your pick in this one is that you feel SRL would win with relative ease and your certainty of it......or is "relative ease" now something that is absolutely NOT what you mean when you say, "rip him a new one"? I wouldn't want to misrepresent your view.Kalan wrote:
Did I say Sugar Ray Leonard would easily dispatch SRR??? ... NO I didn't.. It would go the distance.. It would surprise people like the Hagler upset, because Leonard would indeed win. When I said SRL would rip him a new one that was a little boxing hyperbole. It didn't include dispatching SRR. He was dispatched once in 200 fights -- albeit by carefully selected opponents.
What a brilliant way to engage a troll.
Agreed.Kalan wrote:Holmes and Foreman were the 2 smartest businessmen among all Heavyweights... But Holmes was 10 X as smart a boxer. Foreman couldn't handle a jab as Jimmy Young proved... Holmes had the best jab in Heavyweight history... So your thinking is all messed up again... Big slow Heavyweights like Bonecrusher Smith didn't bother Holmes or lay any good punches on him...and George was so slow he couldn't nail little Jimmy Young.
Kalan wrote:Holmes and Foreman were the 2 smartest businessmen among all Heavyweights... But Holmes was 10 X as smart a boxer. Foreman couldn't handle a jab as Jimmy Young proved... Holmes had the best jab in Heavyweight history... So your thinking is all messed up again... Big slow Heavyweights like Bonecrusher Smith didn't bother Holmes or lay any good punches on him...and George was so slow he couldn't nail little Jimmy Young.