I don’t think Robinson had a bad chin. How do you define a good chin? a person that takes punches without going down?. A person that can get up from shots to the chin? I don’t think being knocked down has anything to do with having a bad chin, I think being wobbled on your feet and being knocked out shows a bad chin. Lot of knockdowns is from being off balance, Lamotta didn’t move around as much as Robinson, so that might explain why he never suffered flash knockdowns like Robinson did (just a thought?)
Barry, you said researching old-time boxing is very accurate on the counts of many experts of the time. But i think if film wasn’t invented, guys like Gatti, klits brothers would be hyped up as great fighters by boxing experts today, and the true understanding of the ability of these guys would be really lost in the hype.
Although I do think old-time research books etc are a good account, i don’t think it could be as accurate as watching film for yourself.
Criticizing Robinson
re
>>>Barry, you said researching old-time boxing is very accurate on the counts of many experts of the time. But i think if film wasn’t invented, guys like Gatti, klits brothers would be hyped up as great fighters by boxing experts today, and the true understanding of the ability of these guys would be really lost in the hype.<<<
Gatti, probably...Klits...no way in hell! There is plenty of video of Klit's and people will still try to place them as all-time greats, but I don’t know of any respected boxing writer who does, or who would praise fighters like the Klits for any more than they’re actual worth in the ring. Now that’s not to say that there were not old timers who were very bias toward the older fighters because there are certainly a large number of them, but that’s where overall research comes in and studying the writings of many writers, but as has been said, that takes time and a lot of it.
>>>Although I do think old-time research books etc are a good account, i don’t think it could be as accurate as watching film for yourself.<<<
Of course there is nothing as good as seeing with your own eyes, but one can learn just as much from written word if they put forth the time and effort. Watching a fight you immediately get an idea about a fighter, but those that video don't exist for, or those that only a little video exists for you have to put in a lot of time, but it is very possible to find out everything one needs to know from written words. Instead of a couple of days that it might take to watch a catalogue of fights one would have to spend years of researching written word, but one can learn just as much from written word as one can from video...but as I said, it will just take years to do so and with the instant gratification generation of today, written research just takes too long for some to even consider!
Reporting has changed a lot over the years as well. Back in the early teens and before a person could read a fight report which is very, very detailed…each round in fact were most of the time very detailed whereas today you have a short blurb that tells of the winners and losers and maybe a couple of highlights of a fight…the old days was different…a person could read four, or five very detailed reports of a fight, like the reports of the era I mention, and it is just as good as being there, well not as good, but certainly just as informative.
Gatti, probably...Klits...no way in hell! There is plenty of video of Klit's and people will still try to place them as all-time greats, but I don’t know of any respected boxing writer who does, or who would praise fighters like the Klits for any more than they’re actual worth in the ring. Now that’s not to say that there were not old timers who were very bias toward the older fighters because there are certainly a large number of them, but that’s where overall research comes in and studying the writings of many writers, but as has been said, that takes time and a lot of it.
>>>Although I do think old-time research books etc are a good account, i don’t think it could be as accurate as watching film for yourself.<<<
Of course there is nothing as good as seeing with your own eyes, but one can learn just as much from written word if they put forth the time and effort. Watching a fight you immediately get an idea about a fighter, but those that video don't exist for, or those that only a little video exists for you have to put in a lot of time, but it is very possible to find out everything one needs to know from written words. Instead of a couple of days that it might take to watch a catalogue of fights one would have to spend years of researching written word, but one can learn just as much from written word as one can from video...but as I said, it will just take years to do so and with the instant gratification generation of today, written research just takes too long for some to even consider!
Reporting has changed a lot over the years as well. Back in the early teens and before a person could read a fight report which is very, very detailed…each round in fact were most of the time very detailed whereas today you have a short blurb that tells of the winners and losers and maybe a couple of highlights of a fight…the old days was different…a person could read four, or five very detailed reports of a fight, like the reports of the era I mention, and it is just as good as being there, well not as good, but certainly just as informative.
-
AndreWardFan2006
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 259
- Joined: 19 Oct 2005, 12:53
You want to see a good chin? watch Tex Cobb and his fight with Larry Holmes, that'll give you an example of what a chin is.Trent wrote:I don’t think Robinson had a bad chin. How do you define a good chin? a person that takes punches without going down?. A person that can get up from shots to the chin?
Re: re
Barry, you just have no sense of reason. I thought you were an intelligent fan.barry wrote:You're right, Armstrong was KO'd in his first bout...Harry Greb was KO'd early in his career also, yet they are both considered to have A+ chins! But according to some, that doesn't count with others and doesn't matter, only Robinson.
Armstrong and Greb were piling into their opponents head-first and took many more punches than Robinson.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Ok, some people seem to think that Robinson had a A+ chin, most who disagree think he had an A chin. That's not really much of criticism.
It was mentioned that he didn't fight Charlie Burley, althought I don't believe anyone really thinks he ducked him.
It was mentioned that Robinson would sometimes go toe to toe with an opponent that he could have easily outboxed (Basilio, Fullmer etc).
As a middleweight he did struggle against several guys, although many were when he was getting on in years.
As someone mentioned, he never lost to another welterweight when he was a welterweight. He did have a couple of close call, but that is bound tohappen in over 100 fights at that weight.
The Maxim fight was brought up and to me that is my biggest criticism of Robinson. Yes it was extremely hot, but it was also really hot for his opponent who didn't quit. All Robinson had to do was last 2 more rounds and he would have won the lightheavyweight title.
It was mentioned that he didn't fight Charlie Burley, althought I don't believe anyone really thinks he ducked him.
It was mentioned that Robinson would sometimes go toe to toe with an opponent that he could have easily outboxed (Basilio, Fullmer etc).
As a middleweight he did struggle against several guys, although many were when he was getting on in years.
As someone mentioned, he never lost to another welterweight when he was a welterweight. He did have a couple of close call, but that is bound tohappen in over 100 fights at that weight.
The Maxim fight was brought up and to me that is my biggest criticism of Robinson. Yes it was extremely hot, but it was also really hot for his opponent who didn't quit. All Robinson had to do was last 2 more rounds and he would have won the lightheavyweight title.
re
So it is alright for you to talk about the likes of McCall, Antuerfermo, Hagler, or any other fighter you have named to support yourself, but when I bring up a Grim or Ali is does not count, or it's inane...get real!
As has been said, this debate has run it's course...fact Robinson had a great chin, A+ chin as is evident from the facts of his career! Nothing fact has been presented to prove otherwise...the knockdowns he suffered were brought out, discussed and detailed and from such it would present Robinson as I have been stating...an A+ chin, one of the top chins.
DoubleM---You have presented nothing, Terrance has at least had some reasoning to his debate, but you....well...?
>>>Armstrong and Greb were piling into their opponents head-first and took many more punches than Robinson.<<<
You should do some reading on Greb and Armstrong! Neither man was a head-first fighter...they both were aggressive, but neither took any kind of punch that they could easily avoid first. They both were tough with great chins and both could take as well as they gave, but they both were swarming fighters who had good defenses...especially Greb...they were not of the Tex Cobb variety of taking punches to wear your opponent down!!
As has been said, this debate has run it's course...fact Robinson had a great chin, A+ chin as is evident from the facts of his career! Nothing fact has been presented to prove otherwise...the knockdowns he suffered were brought out, discussed and detailed and from such it would present Robinson as I have been stating...an A+ chin, one of the top chins.
DoubleM---You have presented nothing, Terrance has at least had some reasoning to his debate, but you....well...?
>>>Armstrong and Greb were piling into their opponents head-first and took many more punches than Robinson.<<<
You should do some reading on Greb and Armstrong! Neither man was a head-first fighter...they both were aggressive, but neither took any kind of punch that they could easily avoid first. They both were tough with great chins and both could take as well as they gave, but they both were swarming fighters who had good defenses...especially Greb...they were not of the Tex Cobb variety of taking punches to wear your opponent down!!
Re: re
Barry, what exactly is wrong with you? Maybe you have trouble reading, I don't know.barry wrote:So it is alright for you to talk about the likes of McCall, Antuerfermo, Hagler, or any other fighter you have named to support yourself, but when I bring up a Grim or Ali is does not count, or it's inane...get real!
As has been said, this debate has run it's course...fact Robinson had a great chin, A+ chin as is evident from the facts of his career! Nothing fact has been presented to prove otherwise...the knockdowns he suffered were brought out, discussed and detailed and from such it would present Robinson as I have been stating...an A+ chin, one of the top chins.
DoubleM---You have presented nothing, Terrance has at least had some reasoning to his debate, but you....well...?
>>>Armstrong and Greb were piling into their opponents head-first and took many more punches than Robinson.<<<
You should do some reading on Greb and Armstrong! Neither man was a head-first fighter...they both were aggressive, but neither took any kind of punch that they could easily avoid first. They both were tough with great chins and both could take as well as they gave, but they both were swarming fighters who had good defenses...especially Greb...they were not of the Tex Cobb variety of taking punches to wear your opponent down!!
The evidence to dispute the 'fact' Robinson had an A+ chin (the absolute best you can get) is that he was floored several times and though he wasn't stopped, never fought a great puncher. He fought some hard hitters (though not many), but none of them had the skill to consistently land on him and test his chin. The best fighters he fought were never big hitters - LaMotta, Gavilan, Angott, Zivic... Armstrong was past his prime, Basilio was a good puncher at welterweight but not middleweight, and did you see how many punches it took Fullmer to stop Paret? Turpin was a good puncher but he wasn't in the class of Charley Burley, Archie Moore or Rocky Marciano, adversaries of Ezzard Charles, who is sometimes wrongly criticized for having a shaky chin.
The evidence I presented for Hagler & Antuofermo having better beards is that I've seen them take massive punches on film and treat them with disdain. What else can I do? I'd present you a load of little .gifs if I knew how to.
Listen, Barry - I do not need to research Greb and Armstrong. Apart from reading most of what there is to read on the two, I also own all the Armstrong footage that exists and he's one of my favourite fighters. By 'head first' I don't mean they fought like Tex Cobb. I mean they were aggressive swarmers who took more punches than Robinson because of their style...
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
I didn't forget about him - if you read back you'll see that I mentioned him. But Graziano plainly wasn't a very good fighter overall... He hit Robinson with one meaningful shot to the neck. He just lacked the skill to hit Robinson with anything special.The Great John L wrote:Sorry to intrude in this debate -- but Graziano wasn’t a big puncher? Maybe you just forgot about him?
-
The Great John L
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4351
- Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 19:37
Yes you are correct you did say that the punchers he faced lacked the skill to hit him solidly. And I agree that Graziano was a very limited fighter. However, few big punchers throughout history have been skilled in addition to having a big punch. You could also say that Hagler and Monzon never faced a skilled big puncher either. Seldom does a fighter with a great punch also possess great skills. But maybe your argument is that Hagler wasn’t as skilled as SRR because he was caught flush by the limted Mugabi?DoubleM wrote:I didn't forget about him - if you read back you'll see that I mentioned him. But Graziano plainly wasn't a very good fighter overall... He hit Robinson with one meaningful shot to the neck. He just lacked the skill to hit Robinson with anything special.The Great John L wrote:Sorry to intrude in this debate -- but Graziano wasn’t a big puncher? Maybe you just forgot about him?
BTW, I would agree that SRRs chin was great, but not quite in the A+ category. Hardly a real weakness however.
re
Well we will have to agree to disagree, but it is really a very small thing that we are arguing...whether Robinson had an A, or A+ chin. Now I will always consider him in the A+ class, but the very top, in my opinion, goes to LaMotta, or maybe Chuvalo.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Re: re
What more do you want on a forum, Barry? Loads of little .gifs to demonstrate what I'm talking about?barry wrote:Must have forgot. The debate's over though...at least for me unless I hear something that sounds very thought-provoking, very well thought out and very well backed by solid, undeniable evidence!
re
>>>Loads of little .gifs to demonstrate what I'm talking about?<<<
Nah...just a little more than, "I saw Antuerfermo take hellious shots from Eugene Hart and Hagler from Mugabi!" That's doesn't really tell anything except that you saw the fights...I saw 'em too!
Nah...just a little more than, "I saw Antuerfermo take hellious shots from Eugene Hart and Hagler from Mugabi!" That's doesn't really tell anything except that you saw the fights...I saw 'em too!
Re: re
Well what evidence are you providing other than 'I heard Artie Levine was a massive puncher and Robinson survived him!' - eh, Mr. Barry?barry wrote:>>>Loads of little .gifs to demonstrate what I'm talking about?<<<
Nah...just a little more than, "I saw Antuerfermo take hellious shots from Eugene Hart and Hagler from Mugabi!" That's doesn't really tell anything except that you saw the fights...I saw 'em too!
-
generic screen name
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 631
- Joined: 11 Feb 2006, 16:28
If the argument is an A+ or A- chin, it doesn't seem like a weakness whatsoever. Hell if I had A- on a test, I'm generally happy.
Defensively he was not among the elite of all time, but his tremendous offense negated some of it.
I liked how Robinson against LaMotta when the referee would break up a clinch, Robinson would move totally away from LaMotta so he can tire LaMotta by walking all the way to him.
Defensively he was not among the elite of all time, but his tremendous offense negated some of it.
I liked how Robinson against LaMotta when the referee would break up a clinch, Robinson would move totally away from LaMotta so he can tire LaMotta by walking all the way to him.
Robinson was able to get out of the 5th versus Levine by running the remaining time of the round. First he was hit by a right to the jaw, retreated to the corner, and while he was trying to hook with a left, he missed and got tagged by his opponent's left hook, and was barely able to beat the count (some say the referee started to count with some delay, thus giving Robinson a few additional seconds) and retreated the rest of the round. In the 9th Levine again hurt Robinson with left hook, but he again was too slow to follow it up and catch Ray. If Levine was a little faster and get at least one more clean shot, Robinson would have been stopped without a doubt.
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 15668
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
The sun was there? When I saw the videotape I think I saw the night. Maybe my sight or my eyes need a little help.Terence wrote:
Also people give Joey Maxim the win over Ray by default. The same sun beat down on them both and sure Robinson was a middleweight yet he threw a huge amount of punches early-on.
The HEAT WAS THERE FOR BOTH FIGHTERS. EVEN THE ORIGINAL REFEREE FAINTED
TEREMCE AND BARRY: DID YOU GUYS SEE THE SUN IN THAT FIGHT? Was there any indication of sunlight in that fight? Maybe I got to see that fight again.
Re: re
Well?DoubleM wrote:Well what evidence are you providing other than 'I heard Artie Levine was a massive puncher and Robinson survived him!' - eh, Mr. Barry?barry wrote:>>>Loads of little .gifs to demonstrate what I'm talking about?<<<
Nah...just a little more than, "I saw Antuerfermo take hellious shots from Eugene Hart and Hagler from Mugabi!" That's doesn't really tell anything except that you saw the fights...I saw 'em too!
re
Well...you have several long threads that I posted to sample that should answer that question for you, but I'm not going to repeat it for you!!! And I'm also not going to waste my time arguing with you either, so unless you have something valuable and enlightening to add to the topic then I'm done with the conversation!!!
As to the sun…it is doubtful there was any sun considering the bout took place in the late evening…though they may have caught the last glimpses of the sun for the first couple of rounds…it was one hot night though regardless!
As to the sun…it is doubtful there was any sun considering the bout took place in the late evening…though they may have caught the last glimpses of the sun for the first couple of rounds…it was one hot night though regardless!
Re: re
Another cheap way out of an argument eh, Barry?barry wrote:Well...you have several long threads that I posted to sample that should answer that question for you, but I'm not going to repeat it for you!!! And I'm also not going to waste my time arguing with you either, so unless you have something valuable and enlightening to add to the topic then I'm done with the conversation!!!
the bottom line is Ray Robinson was a great fighter who possesed the tools for greatness. Despite being at his best as a welterweight he moved up to middleweight and beat arguably 5 of the 25 best ever middleweights(LaMotta, Fullmer, Turpin, Graziano and Olson) Ray Robinson twice outpointed Kid Gavalin, a top 10 welterweight and overall beat excellent opposition.
It's not a rule to have him #1 p4p but he is worthy of consideration for the greatest fighter ever
Robinson sould definately be rated as a top 5 p4p boxer [/i]
It's not a rule to have him #1 p4p but he is worthy of consideration for the greatest fighter ever
Robinson sould definately be rated as a top 5 p4p boxer [/i]