Probably been done before but how do you see this going? Most of the footage I’ve seen of Robinson is from when he was likely past prime and at middleweight. Still looked to have incredible tools though. Leonard, who I’m sure we’ve all seen more of, was clearly stunningly good at 147.
Tough call?
Ray Robinson v Ray Leonard at 147
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 15668
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
Re: Ray Robinson v Ray Leonard at 147
The same I feel when it was Sugar Ray Robinson vs Roberto Duran.
At 147lbs and below, Leonard.
At 154lbs and up, Robinson.
At 147lbs and below, Leonard.
At 154lbs and up, Robinson.
Re: Ray Robinson v Ray Leonard at 147
SRR-points.
Re: Ray Robinson v Ray Leonard at 147
Based on what's available, Leonard obviously looked better. Anyway, Robinson couldn't have those supplies, so in matching them how they were you gotta pick Leonard.
Re: Ray Robinson v Ray Leonard at 147
My late father said SRR was even better at Welterweight. Coming from a guy who saw him fight on several occasions.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Re: Ray Robinson v Ray Leonard at 147
From everything I have ever read and studied about boxing it was always said that Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest welterweight there ever was. That as great as he was as a middleweight he was even greater at 147. It's just a shame virtually no film exists of him from this time for us to be able to see.
But the 147 Robinson defeated the likes of Kid Gavilan, Jimmy Doyle, Tommy Bell, Henry Armstrong, Jake LaMotta, Fritzie Zivic, Charley Fusari, Sammy Agnott, etc. often multiple times. I think it's comparable to what Ray Leonard did for sure.
I will say as time goes on the more I appreciate Ray Leonard and the less I appreciate Ray Robinson but both of these guys were in the same stratosphere so it's definitely a 50/50 fight whether it's 147, 154, or even 160. But Ray Robinson before losing to Randy Turpin in 1951 only lost once (pro debut 1940) and that was the second fight of five with Jake LaMotta in 1943.
He was certainly the far busier man and fought at a higher level for a longer period of time in my view than Ray Leonard who perpetually kept retiring and coming out of retirement getting himself high profile matches that weren't really warranted and yet he got all the rules and equipment and locations his way.
I reckon the main difference between Robinson and Leonard is that Robinson didn't need special treatment to stay on top or to keep proving he was the best while Leonard was a political animal that needed the connections he had to perpetually stay on top.
I could see Leonard winning one out of a series and it's possible there might have been a draw but in a one-off encounter I have to go with Ray Robinson only because I think he had the harder road and he could not only box beautifully he could also dig down deep and fight hard and knock people out which was something Leonard had to develop after fights with Duran and Hearns.
How can you compare a man really who had 200 some odd fights to a man who had less than 40? How can you really compare a man who not only proved to be the best welterweight in the world but also the best middleweight in the world, to a man who kept getting out of the sport and waiting for people to start losing their edge before facing them?
But the 147 Robinson defeated the likes of Kid Gavilan, Jimmy Doyle, Tommy Bell, Henry Armstrong, Jake LaMotta, Fritzie Zivic, Charley Fusari, Sammy Agnott, etc. often multiple times. I think it's comparable to what Ray Leonard did for sure.
I will say as time goes on the more I appreciate Ray Leonard and the less I appreciate Ray Robinson but both of these guys were in the same stratosphere so it's definitely a 50/50 fight whether it's 147, 154, or even 160. But Ray Robinson before losing to Randy Turpin in 1951 only lost once (pro debut 1940) and that was the second fight of five with Jake LaMotta in 1943.
He was certainly the far busier man and fought at a higher level for a longer period of time in my view than Ray Leonard who perpetually kept retiring and coming out of retirement getting himself high profile matches that weren't really warranted and yet he got all the rules and equipment and locations his way.
I reckon the main difference between Robinson and Leonard is that Robinson didn't need special treatment to stay on top or to keep proving he was the best while Leonard was a political animal that needed the connections he had to perpetually stay on top.
I could see Leonard winning one out of a series and it's possible there might have been a draw but in a one-off encounter I have to go with Ray Robinson only because I think he had the harder road and he could not only box beautifully he could also dig down deep and fight hard and knock people out which was something Leonard had to develop after fights with Duran and Hearns.
How can you compare a man really who had 200 some odd fights to a man who had less than 40? How can you really compare a man who not only proved to be the best welterweight in the world but also the best middleweight in the world, to a man who kept getting out of the sport and waiting for people to start losing their edge before facing them?
Re: Ray Robinson v Ray Leonard at 147
SSR by decision after exchanging jabs and combinations in their classic matchup.
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 15668
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
Re: Ray Robinson v Ray Leonard at 147
I picked Leonard. I deeply believe that he was much more complete fighter than the great Sugar Ray Robinson ever was. In my view, there are at least 10 fighters (on top off my head) that were much more complete than Robinson:
1. Eusebio Pedroza
2. Roberto Duran
3. Salvador Sanchez
4. Marvelous Marvin Hagler
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Mike McCallum
7. James Toney
8. Ezzard Charles
9. Charley Burley
10. Miguel "Happy" Lora
That Robinson was the most complete fighter pound per pound ever in the eyes of many, does not convince me. I give him credit about his speed, punching power, stamina, ring generalship, but he couldn't fight inside. I am sorry. Fighting inside is one of boxing's greatest arts. It is a lost art today.
I rank him #2 all-time pound per pound because of his achievements. Not because of his boxing skills.
I put my money on Leonard if the fight is at welterweight. The same I said when he was pit with Duran. I think that both of them would beat him at 147lbs and had much more skills than he.
But, at 154lbs and above, I got Robinson. Why? Duran nor Leonard did not show me consistency above 147lbs.
Meanwhile Robinson above 147lbs, showed much more consistency because he was much more taller than the two. Robinson was almost 6' feet tall.
But, skill for skill, Duran and Leonard were much more complete than Robinson
1. Eusebio Pedroza
2. Roberto Duran
3. Salvador Sanchez
4. Marvelous Marvin Hagler
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Mike McCallum
7. James Toney
8. Ezzard Charles
9. Charley Burley
10. Miguel "Happy" Lora
That Robinson was the most complete fighter pound per pound ever in the eyes of many, does not convince me. I give him credit about his speed, punching power, stamina, ring generalship, but he couldn't fight inside. I am sorry. Fighting inside is one of boxing's greatest arts. It is a lost art today.
I rank him #2 all-time pound per pound because of his achievements. Not because of his boxing skills.
I put my money on Leonard if the fight is at welterweight. The same I said when he was pit with Duran. I think that both of them would beat him at 147lbs and had much more skills than he.
But, at 154lbs and above, I got Robinson. Why? Duran nor Leonard did not show me consistency above 147lbs.
Meanwhile Robinson above 147lbs, showed much more consistency because he was much more taller than the two. Robinson was almost 6' feet tall.
But, skill for skill, Duran and Leonard were much more complete than Robinson
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 15668
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
Re: Ray Robinson v Ray Leonard at 147
I picked Leonard. I deeply believe that he was much more complete fighter than the great Sugar Ray Robinson ever was. In my view, there are at least 10 fighters (on top off my head) that were much more complete than Robinson:
1. Eusebio Pedroza
2. Roberto Duran
3. Salvador Sanchez
4. Marvelous Marvin Hagler
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Mike McCallum
7. James Toney
8. Ezzard Charles
9. Charley Burley
10. Miguel "Happy" Lora
That Robinson was the most complete fighter pound per pound ever in the eyes of many, does not convince me. I give him credit about his speed, punching power, stamina, ring generalship, but he couldn't fight inside. I am sorry. Fighting inside is one of boxing's greatest arts. It is a lost art today.
I rank him #2 all-time pound per pound because of his achievements. Not because of his boxing skills.
I put my money on Leonard if the fight is at welterweight. The same I said when he was pit with Duran. I think that both of them would beat him at 147lbs and had much more skills than he.
But, at 154lbs and above, I got Robinson. Why? Duran nor Leonard did not show me consistency above 147lbs.
Meanwhile Robinson above 147lbs, showed much more consistency because he was much more taller than the two. Robinson was almost 6' feet tall.
But, skill for skill, Duran and Leonard were much more complete than Robinson
1. Eusebio Pedroza
2. Roberto Duran
3. Salvador Sanchez
4. Marvelous Marvin Hagler
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Mike McCallum
7. James Toney
8. Ezzard Charles
9. Charley Burley
10. Miguel "Happy" Lora
That Robinson was the most complete fighter pound per pound ever in the eyes of many, does not convince me. I give him credit about his speed, punching power, stamina, ring generalship, but he couldn't fight inside. I am sorry. Fighting inside is one of boxing's greatest arts. It is a lost art today.
I rank him #2 all-time pound per pound because of his achievements. Not because of his boxing skills.
I put my money on Leonard if the fight is at welterweight. The same I said when he was pit with Duran. I think that both of them would beat him at 147lbs and had much more skills than he.
But, at 154lbs and above, I got Robinson. Why? Duran nor Leonard did not show me consistency above 147lbs.
Meanwhile Robinson above 147lbs, showed much more consistency because he was much more taller than the two. Robinson was almost 6' feet tall.
But, skill for skill, Duran and Leonard were much more complete than Robinson
-
Ambling Alp II
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 15128
- Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31
Re: Ray Robinson v Ray Leonard at 147
These were clearly the two best welterweights of all time. It is the best welterweight fight that you can come up with. Those two were complete (and I don't mean Pedroza BS complete). They were very good-great at everything. It is too bad that not more video is available of Robinson at welter. Just going by how he looked when past his best at middleweight says a lot. Simply the fact that as a welterweight, that he did as well as he did against LaMotta who was a great middleweight says a lot.
Re: Ray Robinson v Ray Leonard at 147
I grew up watching SRL's fights live on TV. As for SRR, I've seen some but not all of his films. Also, I don't know enough about SRR's generation to judge the quality of his opposition. For these reasons, I'm not prepared to offer an opinion on SRL vs. SRR.
Of course I've seen SRR's record as a welterweight. It's incredibly impressive.
Something I will say concerns Andy Smith, the trainer-manager of Davey "Boy" Green and Joe Bugner. After SRL knocked out Green with a single left hook in 1980, Smith told Angelo Dundee (SRL's trainer) that SRL was the very best fighter who had ever fought at 147 lbs.
Was Smith just flattering Dundee, or did he mean what he said? I don't know. But it's interesting to think about.
Of course I've seen SRR's record as a welterweight. It's incredibly impressive.
Something I will say concerns Andy Smith, the trainer-manager of Davey "Boy" Green and Joe Bugner. After SRL knocked out Green with a single left hook in 1980, Smith told Angelo Dundee (SRL's trainer) that SRL was the very best fighter who had ever fought at 147 lbs.
Was Smith just flattering Dundee, or did he mean what he said? I don't know. But it's interesting to think about.