Robinson, Armstrong or Duran: Who is the greatest???

[elmersalsa]

The referee was going to stop the fight because of the cut, and Robinson had to score a KO in that round. So... Robinson took Turpin's head off. Not impressive enough?

Basically you're shitting on everything Robinson did, while not holding Armstrong to task for anything, and then concluding that Armstrong is better. You don't mention that Armstrong had more losses and more draws than Ray. Or how Armstrong beat Ambers to win the Lightweight title, but lost the rematch. Or how Armstrong lost to Zivic twice, while Robinson beat Zivic twice and KO'd him. Robinson had only been a professional for two years. Or how about Armstrong never being champion again after the age of 28. Robinson was champion at 39. You keep harping on these Gavilan fights, but I think most people would credit Robinson for beating such a formidable fighter... and you're vastly and unconscionably playing up the controversy, when it seems rather clear that Robinson had the better of the two fights... not to mention the two decision victories.

As for Armstrong and Robinson, they of course fought each other and Robinson dominated Armstrong. I wouldn't normally use Robinson's win over Armstrong as a way of saying that Robinson is better, because I understand the circumstances of the fight. Armstrong was shot and needed money. But whats ironic is that if the situation was reversed, and a prime Henry Armstrong hypothetically beat an old, shot Robinson; you wouldn't think twice about using that as a way to say that Armstrong was better than Robinson, because "Armstrong beat Ray". If I tried to say that Ray was old, I would be accused of making excuses for Ray. So, if you're going to shit on everything Robinson did, then why shouldn't I use the win that Robinson has over Armstrong as a way to counter your bias, by simply saying "Robinson beat Armstrong, so Robinson is the better fighter." Seems fair to me. Robinson dominated Armstrong and even went easy on him. That's "what happened."

And afterall, Armstrong even said himself after the fight that he felt that he could never have beaten Ray. What do you think of that?

He, he, he, he....Now, I am shitting on Robinson because I question those "wins" against Kid Gavilan??? First fight, A ROBBERY OF THOSE THAT SAW THE FIGHT LIVE. Second fight??? Robinson has a cut, a deep cut, and the fight is NOT STOPPED??? If Gavilan had the cut, the fight would have been stopped long time. But well, this is Sugar Ray Robinson, the media darling of the 1940s and 50s that the media and American historians wanted him to be the best, regardless of outcomes.

It is so IRONIC that those 2 fights are not on video. It is so IRONIC, that a guy like Kid Gavilan, a foreign Cuban, could not win the title against the beloved Sugar Man. It seems to me that for the judges, this guy could never lose to Gavilan in no time at all. Gavilan had to stop him to win. Gavilan had the crown in his hands, but the referees and judges did not want to stop it.

THESE FIGHTS ARE SO HUSHED, HUSHED AND BURIED THAT FOR THE NEXT GENERATIONS OF FANS LIKE YOU, THE MEDIA WANTED YOU TO BELIEVE THAT ROBINSON REALLY BEAT GAVILAN. WELL I DO NOT BUY IT....THIS IS HOGWASH AND BALONEY.

So what if Armstrong had more losses than Robinson. Ain't Ali had more losses than Marciano? Nobody in here believes that Marciano was better right? Nobody in here believes that Greb was better than Robinson right? Ain't Robinson has more losses than Greb?

Armstrong nor Duran NEVER received gift decisions like Robinson, Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard had. Every major win they had in their careers, were won legitimately and in extraordinary fashion. Those two, are the most IMPRESSIVE AND UNBELIAVABLE FIGHTERS that I have EVER seen on tape and paper. You mentioned that Henry never won titles after 28 and Robinson won titles until he was 39. But, look at this:

1. Has Robinson ever went 20 pounds to win a title against an extraordinary top-notch fighter like Barney Ross? NO. In fact, Robinson never beat a fighter taller, stronger or bigger than he. Duran and Armstrong did it at least twice.

2. Has Robinson ever scored 27 straight KOs in a row in one year? Has he defended the welter crown more than 10 times? Armstrong defended it 19 times, 3 times in a month!!! Duran defended the lightweight crown 12 times, more than Robinson ever did at welter. 10 of those first title defenses weres consecutively won by KO, which was a world record until the great Wilfredo Gomez broke it at super bantamweight with 17.

3. Armstrong beat more hall of famers than Robinson. Got screwed in the Ceferino Garcia fight for the middleweight title. It would have been too much for a little Black man from St. Louis to win 4 titles at the time, that is why the judges screwed him.

4. Armstrong in only 14 years as a pro, had more fights per year than Robinson. That is why Robinson lasted longer. Give Armstrong the same amount of fights that Robinson had per year and he probably would have had much more success.

5. Now comparing the quality of opposition between Armstrong/Duran vs the quality of oppostion of Robinson, those two beat better fighters than Robinson...LIKE IT OR NOT. LET'S SEE THEN:

Armstrong beat Barney Ross, Baby Arizmendi and Lou Ambers...clearly, with no controversy, in extraordinary fashion

Duran beat Sugar Ray Leonard, Ken Buchanan, Esteban DeJesus and Carlos Palomino in extraordinary fashion

Robinson now, his biggest win was against Jake LaMotta on the St Valentine's Massacre on Feb 14, 1951. A great fighter that he already beaten 4 times? A fighter that is not on Sugar Ray Leonard or Barney Ross' class? Who else did he beat clearly in extraordinary fashion?

Kid Gavilan??? QUESTIONABLE WINS!!! Still something in the air tells us that those fights got something under the sleeve.

Carmen Basilio??? Basilio had to go up to middleweight to kick his ass. Did not win the second fight because he could not see. Basilio was also weighting 153 pounds to Robinson's 160.

He never faced FIGHTING MACHINES LIKE Charley Burley, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Marcel Cerdan, and Holman Williams.

Even Sugar Ray Leonard beat BETTER quality fighters than Robinson. Robinson never beat someone of Thomas Hearns' league for cripe's sake.

Now the names of fighters that he beat:
Henry Armstrong: A SHOT FIGHTER BY THEN
Fritzie Zivic: EVERYBODY BEAT HIM
Gene Fullmer: Rugged boxer that is not in Sugar Ray Leonard nor Barney Ross' class. Beat Robinson 2 out of 4. Robinson was not in his PRIME. I KNOW THAT.
Sammy Angott: Probably the most impressive win of all the fighters above.

Randy Turpin: Still not in Barney Ross nor Sugar Ray Leonard's league

Rocky Graziano: This guy was already washed up when Robinson got a hold of him, and still managed to drop Robinson.

That is it? This is the best that Robinson has ever beat? From now on, I got to call Henry Armstrong as the greatest fighter of all-time

Thanks for debating with me

[I Feel Fine]

Wow. And I thought my posts were too long.

Basically I'm not going to debate with you any further on the Gavilan fights. From what I can tell, the first fight had a lot of people who thought Robinson won, and a lot of people that thought Gavilan won. Ray won the rematch clearly from my understanding of it. And that's all there is to say. The conspiracy shit you're trying to spread is stupid, its like I said earlier, if thats the case then why don't people try to hide Robinson's actual losses? Film of his losses to Turpin, Maxim, Fullmer, Basilio, Pender and whoever else are all available.

Ali got two gifts in his career, when he was an old fighter. Leonard got one gift in his career, and the Hagler decision could have gone either way. Robinson didn't get any gifts, and that includes the first Gavilan fight which was apparently a very close fight with most of the sports writers favoring Ray while the crowd (and who gives a shit about them?) went with Gavilan. He didn't get any gifts at Middleweight, thats for sure, and in fact many thought he should have won the third Fullmer fight, which was scored a draw. These god damned conspiracy theories you and granberry and dave have going are bullshit. You're taking isolated incidents and stretching it, trying to make whole careers out to be one big gift when its really never more than a couple of fights.

You're only focusing in on the Gavilan wins because you recognize that Gavilan is a big part of what separates Robinson from Armstrong. Yet you keep naming Ambers, when Armstrong lost to Ambers in the rematch. Two close wins over Gavilan is better than 1-1 with Ambers.

Saying that Ray never beat a fighter bigger and stronger than him is an amazingly stupid claim; ever heard of LaMotta? LaMotta wasn't taller, but bigger and stronger? LaMotta had up to 16 pounds on Ray in their first five fights. I don't think too many of Ray's best opponents were taller than him, but Olson and Gavilan were around his height.

Armstrong defended his title sucessfully 18 times, but he lost the title in the ring, which Ray didn't. I would agree that Armstrong's Welterweight title reign might be more impressive than Ray's, since Ray didn't have too many defenses. But Ray's overall resume as a Welterweight in title bouts and non-title bouts is more impressive than Armstrong's stay at Welterweight.

Armstrong did not beat more Hall of Famers than Robinson.

Ali had more losses than Marciano, but Ali had twelve more fights (which I think is significant, you wonder if Marciano could have gone undefeated for twelve more fights) and more importantly the difference in opposition between Ali and Marciano is night and day. I would say Robinson's opposition is better than Armstrong's, you'll disagree, but even if they had the same level of opposition it is certainly important that Armstrong had more losses and more draws than Robinson. The knock people have on Robinson is his losses. And he only had 19 in 200 fights, and most of them came when he was 39+ years old. So my contention is that if people are going to focus so heavily on Robinson's losses, even on those that should not be considered due to the fact that he was old and was probably only fighting for money, then I would say that the same should be done to Armstrong. And if the same is done to Armstrong, then the fact that Armstrong has more losses and more draws is very relevant. You can't knock Robinson up and down about his losses when Henry had more. And Robinson had a lot more wins than Armstrong did.

Homicide Henry has said that in the Garcia fight it was agreed that the winner had to score a knockout or it would be called a draw. I don't know if its true or not, but perhaps homicide henry has a source. Either way, blaming it on race isn't exactly fair, was Robinson white? How long did Robinson go without getting a title shot? He should have been Lightweight champion, but Angott refused to fight him for the title. Robinson beat him, but it was at 136. I don't think race played into that, but it was certainly unfair and most people agree Robinson should have gotten a title shot much sooner.

Criticizing the number of fights per year that Robinson had is absurd, Robinson fought a shit load of times each year and even then, he was a championship caliber fighter for eleven years longer than Armstrong; that is clearly superior longevity.

Everybody beat Fritzie Zivic? Perhaps, but Armstrong was beaten by him twice and he took Armstrong's title. Zivic stopped him in the rematch. Robinson, only two years into his pro career, took on Zivic and beat him twice, and knocked Zivic out.

You know that you would never accept any excuses for Robinson if an old Robinson lost to a prime Armstrong. You don't even recognize Robinson's age as a factor in his loss to Basilio. So I'm not going to let Armstrong off the hook on that. Armstrong got beat by Robinson, and Armstrong said later that he could have never beaten Robinson.

Anyway, as far as comparing their overall opposition; they both beat Angott. Robinson beat Zivic who beat Armstrong 2/3. Armstrong beat Ambers but lost the rematch, as I said earlier, Robinson's wins over Gavilan rank over that. Ross was a great fighter, I suppose he's Armstrong's best win, but I'll say that Robinson's wins over LaMotta and Fullmer combined more than trump Ross. I don't know much about Arizmendi, to be fair, but Ray had plenty of nice wins over guys like Olson (who beat Gavilan and Maxim) and Graziano and Servo and whoever else... I'm sure one or a combination of these names must match, if not surpass, Armstrong's wins over Arizmendi.

I certainly think Robinson-Armstrong is worth debating, and I do rank Armstrong as the second best fighter of all time. But overall I don't think he can be above Robinson, and I think it is because Robinson did have greater wins and greater longevity.

And I'm purposely leaving Duran out of this, because I don't even consider it a valid debating point. No boxing fan would ever seriously consider ranking Duran over Robinson. Duran was a great Lightweight champion and all, but he did not beat the names at Lightweight that Robinson beat at Welterweight. Robinson became a top two to four Middleweight, some even rank him #1, while no one would put Duran in any top 20's above Lightweight. I respect Duran and all and he's one of my favorite fighters to watch, I probably like watching old Duran fights more than I do any other fighter besides Ali. I take the Armstrong debate seriously, and I think a case can be made for Armstrong even if I disagree with it, but I don't take this one seriously. Robinson in Duran's era could have won belts from 135-175, including the extra weight classes like 140 and 154 etc.

[Ambling Alp]

Elmer, come on. Are you really this clueless about Sugar Ray Robinson?

Armstrong was a great fighter,but he wasn't quite as good as Robinson. Robinson was certainly better than Duran.
You mention that Armstrong beat Baby Arizmendi, a good fighter. He also lost to him three times.
You mock Robinson wins over Fritzie Zivic? Well Zivic did beat Armstrong twice.
You don't think it was a big deal that Robinson beat La Motta 5 times? Do you realize that La Motta was a full fledged middleweight and that Robinson didn't weigh more than 150 for the first four times that beat La Motta?

Do you seriously think that Duran at 150 or less could beat a great middleweight like La Motta? Four times?

If you are going to criticize Robinson for losing to Basilio at the age of 36, then Duran should be criticized a lot more for losing to people like Kirkland Laing and Robbie Sims. Lets don't forget that Benitez beat Duran and that Hearns knocked him silly. And of course he quit like a baby against Leonard.

I have know idea why you are crying about Gavilan not getting the decision against Robinsoin in the first fight when you haven't even seen it.
That's sort of like you complaining about De La Hoya getting the decision against Molina when you hadn't seen the fight. (Which by the way, De La Hoya won easily).

You can make a comparison of Armstrongs wins compared to Robinson, however if you look hard you have to come to the conclusion that Robinson had a better career.

Comparing Duran's Hall of Fame wins to Robinson's Hall of Fame wins isn't even close.

Duran beat 4 Hall of Famers. Leonard was of course a great win. His other three were against Buchanan,Cuevas, and Palomino. Robinson could have fought those guys 10 times each and never lost to them. He never would have lost to De Jesus either. Cuevas and Palomino are borderline cases as to whether they should even be in the Hall of Fame. The great Andy Price beat both Palomino and Cuevas as well.
Cuevas lost to the legendary Roger Stafford in his last fight before he fought Duran.

Robinson beat 10 Hall of Famers.
1. Angott
2. Zivic
3. La Motta
4. Armstrong
5.Gavilan
6. Olson
7. Graziano
8. Fullmer
9. Basilio
10. Turpin

Armstrong beat 9:
1. Wolgast
2. Bass
3. Wright
4.Ross
5. Ambers
6. Jenkins
7. Zivic
8. Angott
9. Montanez

Not that it's the most important thing, but Robinson beat more Hall of Famers than Armstrong. Stop saying that Armstrong beat more.

Of these 3 guys, they aren't that hard to rate.
It should be:
1.Robinson
2.Armstrong
3. Duran

[I Feel Fine]

Another point that should be made about Duran is the idea that Duran never got any gifts. I thought he lost to Barkley rather clearly. I thought it was a great performance, but come on, the scores for Duran were ridiculous. 116-112? 118-112?

[elmersalsa]

Another point that should be made about Duran is the idea that Duran never got any gifts. I thought he lost to Barkley rather clearly. I thought it was a great performance, but come on, the scores for Duran were ridiculous. 116-112? 118-112?

Gift my ass...Duran kicked his ass.

[elmersalsa]

Wow. And I thought my posts were too long.


Ali got two gifts in his career, when he was an old fighter. Leonard got one gift in his career, and the Hagler decision could have gone either way. went with Gavilan. He didn't get any gifts at Middleweight, thats for sure, and in fact many thought he should have won the third Fullmer fight, which was scored a draw. These god damned conspiracy theories you and granberry and dave have going are bullshit. You're taking isolated incidents and stretching it, trying to make whole careers out to be one big gift when its really never more than a couple of fights.


Armstrong defended his title sucessfully 18 times, but he lost the title in the ring, which Ray didn't. I would agree that Armstrong's Welterweight title reign might be more impressive than Ray's, since Ray didn't have too many defenses. But Ray's overall resume as a Welterweight in title bouts and non-title bouts is more impressive than Armstrong's stay at Welterweight.

Armstrong did not beat more Hall of Famers than Robinson.

Ali had more losses than Marciano, but Ali had twelve more fights (which I think is significant, you wonder if Marciano could have gone undefeated for twelve more fights) and more importantly the difference in opposition between Ali and Marciano is night and day. I would say Robinson's opposition is better than Armstrong's, you'll disagree, but even if they had the same level of opposition it is certainly important that Armstrong had more losses and more draws than Robinson. The knock people have on Robinson is his losses. And he only had 19 in 200 fights, and most of them came when he was 39+ years old. So my contention is that if people are going to focus so heavily on Robinson's losses, even on those that should not be considered due to the fact that he was old and was probably only fighting for money, then I would say that the same should be done to Armstrong. And if the same is done to Armstrong, then the fact that Armstrong has more losses and more draws is very relevant. You can't knock Robinson up and down about his losses when Henry had more. And Robinson had a lot more wins than Armstrong did.

Homicide Henry has said that in the Garcia fight it was agreed that the winner had to score a knockout or it would be called a draw. I don't know if its true or not, but perhaps homicide henry has a source. Either way, blaming it on race isn't exactly fair, was Robinson white? How long did Robinson go without getting a title shot? He should have been Lightweight champion, but Angott refused to fight him for the title. Robinson beat him, but it was at 136. I don't think race played into that, but it was certainly unfair and most people agree Robinson should have gotten a title shot much sooner.

Criticizing the number of fights per year that Robinson had is absurd, Robinson fought a shit load of times each year and even then, he was a championship caliber fighter for eleven years longer than Armstrong; that is clearly superior longevity.

Everybody beat Fritzie Zivic? Perhaps, but Armstrong was beaten by him twice and he took Armstrong's title. Zivic stopped him in the rematch. Robinson, only two years into his pro career, took on Zivic and beat him twice, and knocked Zivic out.

You know that you would never accept any excuses for Robinson if an old Robinson lost to a prime Armstrong. You don't even recognize Robinson's age as a factor in his loss to Basilio. So I'm not going to let Armstrong off the hook on that. Armstrong got beat by Robinson, and Armstrong said later that he could have never beaten Robinson.

Anyway, as far as comparing their overall opposition; they both beat Angott. Robinson beat Zivic who beat Armstrong 2/3. Armstrong beat Ambers but lost the rematch, as I said earlier, Robinson's wins over Gavilan rank over that. Ross was a great fighter, I suppose he's Armstrong's best win, but I'll say that Robinson's wins over LaMotta and Fullmer combined more than trump Ross. I don't know much about Arizmendi, to be fair, but Ray had plenty of nice wins over guys like Olson (who beat Gavilan and Maxim) and Graziano and Servo and whoever else... I'm sure one or a combination of these names must match, if not surpass, Armstrong's wins over Arizmendi.

I certainly think Robinson-Armstrong is worth debating, and I do rank Armstrong as the second best fighter of all time. But overall I don't think he can be above Robinson, and I think it is because Robinson did have greater wins and greater longevity.


Well I am going to debate even more. Look at this:

Basically I'm not going to debate with you any further on the Gavilan fights. From what I can tell, the first fight had a lot of people who thought Robinson won, and a lot of people that thought Gavilan won. Ray won the rematch clearly from my understanding of it. And that's all there is to say. The conspiracy shit you're trying to spread is stupid, its like I said earlier, if thats the case then why don't people try to hide Robinson's actual losses? Film of his losses to Turpin, Maxim, Fullmer, Basilio, Pender and whoever else are all available.

Nice job my friend. But you are gonna tell me that the MAJORITY OF THE CROWD was mixed in the verdict? You want TO BELIEVE that MANY PEOPLE thought Robinson won the first fght???? Okay, go ahead...See, these medias and books often lie to protect Sugar Ray Robinson's image. It's clear that at the time, America needed heroes after WWII. How can the conspiracy theory is stupid??? You cannot see??? Robinson could NEVER LOSE IN AMERICA. IF THE FIGHT WAS IN CUBA OR ANY OTHER PART OF THE WORLD, I BET YOU THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER OUTCOME just like the Turpin fight. If fight #2 was not a conspiracy, why they did not stopped Robinson-Turpin II or the second fight with Gavilan? Why those Gavilan fights are not on tape?

I TOTALLY BELIEVE THAT GAVILAN WON BOTH FIGHTS.
I TOTALLY BELIEVE THAT THE JUDGES DECISIONS WERE TO PROTECT ROBINSON'S REPUTATION.

Robinson didn't get any gifts, and that includes the first Gavilan fight which was apparently a very close fight with most of the sports writers favoring Ray while the crowd (and who gives a shit about them?)

Yes he had gifts...Gavilan fights and maybe the second Basilio fight...Now, the crowd that saw the fight live do not count?...The referee does not stop the fight in the second encounter with Gavilan?...Something smells very bad in those fights...Admit that they were ROBBERIES MY FRIEND...ADMIT IT.


Now this:

You're only focusing in on the Gavilan wins because you recognize that Gavilan is a big part of what separates Robinson from Armstrong. Yet you keep naming Ambers, when Armstrong lost to Ambers in the rematch. Two close wins over Gavilan is better than 1-1 with Ambers.

No I am not focusing in only the Gavilan "wins". Still, Gavilan was a superb fighter and he could be in Ross' and Leonard's league. But Gavilan was a welterweight just like Robinson and Robinson did not win those fights. They gave the decisions to him to protect his record and reputation. What SEPARATES Armstrong from Robinson is that Armstrong went up 21 pounds to challenge an exceptional fighter like Barney Ross. That would be the same equivalent measure if Robinson, being a welterweight champ, goes 20 pounds and beat Ezzard Charles or Archie Moore for the 175lb title. Armstrong got ROBBED with the second Ambers fight. They penalized him more than 3 times and still almost win the fight against a perfect fighting machine like Ambers. You know his record (Ambers). Armstrong was going up and down in weight challenging the best fighters out there and he cleaned them all between 1937 and 1940. There was nobody else out there after him. You cannot say that Robinson beat Gavilan when first, you do not have no tape. Second, the reporters are saying something else of what you are saying.



Now this:

Saying that Ray never beat a fighter bigger and stronger than him is an amazingly stupid claim; ever heard of LaMotta? LaMotta wasn't taller, but bigger and stronger? LaMotta had up to 16 pounds on Ray in their first five fights. I don't think too many of Ray's best opponents were taller than him, but Olson and Gavilan were around his height.

LaMotta was 4 or 5 inches shorter than Robinson. Do not compare LaMotta with Ross or Leonard, please.

And I'm purposely leaving Duran out of this, because I don't even consider it a valid debating point. No boxing fan would ever seriously consider ranking Duran over Robinson. Duran was a great Lightweight champion and all, but he did not beat the names at Lightweight that Robinson beat at Welterweight. Robinson became a top two to four Middleweight, some even rank him #1, while no one would put Duran in any top 20's above Lightweight. I respect Duran and all and he's one of my favorite fighters to watch, I probably like watching old Duran fights more than I do any other fighter besides Ali. I take the Armstrong debate seriously, and I think a case can be made for Armstrong even if I disagree with it, but I don't take this one seriously. Robinson in Duran's era could have won belts from 135-175, including the extra weight classes like 140 and 154 etc.

Who did Robinson beat at welterweight? Sammy Angott was a lightweight.
I gotta go, but I am not finished yet. Duran nor Armstrong never fought someone over the hill or someone smaller than them.

[I Feel Fine]

So, basically, you hate "robberies" when its a fighter you don't like, like Robinson or Ali. But when its a fighter you do like, like Duran, its not a robbery. Convenient.

Once again, the crowd opinion does not mean anything. If you go by the crowd, De La Hoya is undefeated. The reports we have of the fights say that they were close but clear wins for Robinson, not much else. Jaclem had said that he was around at the time and heard the fights on the radio and it seemed to him that Robinson had won legitimately.

As I said earlier, you don't want Robinson to have two wins over Gavilan. It hurts your claim that Armstrong was better than Robinson. You recognize the importance of those wins, so you're trying to deny that they ever happened. Its like granberry with Clay-Liston I. It must have been a fix.

It must have... if you're in denial.

[elmersalsa]

So, basically, you hate "robberies" when its a fighter you don't like, like Robinson or Ali. But when its a fighter you do like, like Duran, its not a robbery. Convenient.

Once again, the crowd opinion does not mean anything. If you go by the crowd, De La Hoya is undefeated. The reports we have of the fights say that they were close but clear wins for Robinson, not much else. Jaclem had said that he was around at the time and heard the fights on the radio and it seemed to him that Robinson had won legitimately.

As I said earlier, you don't want Robinson to have two wins over Gavilan. It hurts your claim that Armstrong was better than Robinson. You recognize the importance of those wins, so you're trying to deny that they ever happened. Its like granberry with Clay-Liston I. It must have been a fix.

It must have... if you're in denial.

Even if we put those "wins" over Gavilan, still, I cannot see now how Robinson was better than Armstrong. Like I have said before. Robinson never went 20 pounds up and fought somebody exceptional like Barney Ross (Armstrong's win).

I like Robinson and Ali, but the media and the experts made them more than what they are. They got a lot of GIFTS in their careers. It just seems to me something FISHY AND WRONG with those Gavilan fights. No video, the crowd booed, second fight there is a cut and the referee does not stop it, etc, etc, etc...

I ranked from now on, Armstrong in front of Robinson as the greatest fighter of all-time pound per pound.

Now my list looks like this:
1. Henry Armstrong
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Roberto Duran
5. Joe Gans
6. Willie Pep
7. Joe Louis

All because looking at Armstrong's record, he was more UNBELIEVABLE than Robinson. I bet you if Armstrong was a welterweight and middleweight, he would have fought Charley Burley, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, and Holman Williams. Something that tells me that Robinson kind of avoided those fighting machines. He (Robinson) probably avoided Marcel Cerdan???...I don't know.

Well, let's put this way...You like Robinson at #1. I like Armstrong NOW at #1. Anybody else in here have Armstrong at #1???

[I Feel Fine]

I shouldn't have indulged you for as long as I did, no one else would, but I'm certainly not going to any longer. You're totally lost when it comes to Robinson, or most other things in boxing history, for that matter.

[elmersalsa]

I shouldn't have indulged you for as long as I did, no one else would, but I'm certainly not going to any longer. You're totally lost when it comes to Robinson, or most other things in boxing history, for that matter.

Why are you saying that? Because I feel something else about those fights with Gavilan?...

[Ambling Alp]

elmer;
You think that Gavilan should have gotten the decision against Robinson without seeing the fight.
You think Norton should have the decision in the 2nd Ali-Norton fight without seeing the fight.
You think Molina should got the decision against De La Hoya without seeing the fight.

All three times you think keep making making a big deal about a decision being poor in a fight that you never saw. Each time the guy that got the decision was someone that you are constantly ripping- Robinson, Ali, and De La hoya. Interesting.

[Borinken25]

elmer;
You think that Gavilan should have gotten the decision against Robinson without seeing the fight.
You think Norton should have the decision in the 2nd Ali-Norton fight without seeing the fight.
You think Molina should got the decision against De La Hoya without seeing the fight.

All three times you think keep making making a big deal about a decision being poor in a fight that you never saw. Each time the guy that got the decision was someone that you are constantly ripping- Robinson, Ali, and De La hoya. Interesting.

I have Molina vs De La Hoya fight and I've seen it about a dozen times and no matter how hard I try to score that fight for Molina I just can't. De La Hoya won that fight fair and square, no if's or buts about it. This coming from a Molina fan. The fight was close but clear win for DLH in my opinion.

[Martin Sosa Cameron]

1 Armstrong
2 Durán
3 Robinson

[Collins2000]

elmer;
You think that Gavilan should have gotten the decision against Robinson without seeing the fight.
You think Norton should have the decision in the 2nd Ali-Norton fight without seeing the fight.
You think Molina should got the decision against De La Hoya without seeing the fight.

All three times you think keep making making a big deal about a decision being poor in a fight that you never saw. Each time the guy that got the decision was someone that you are constantly ripping- Robinson, Ali, and De La hoya. Interesting.

[Seamus]

Question. Is it possible to overrate Roberto Duran ?
Answer. YES, when you put him above Sugar Ray Robinson

I seriously doubt Duran goes 69-1 in his first 70 bouts if his competition was as tough as Robinson's was in his first 70. And when Duran fought Leonard, once and for all they were both welterweights, UNLIKE Robinson v LaMotta which was a WW v a Middleweight.

[I Feel Fine]

Armstrong had experience fighting naturally bigger guys. Ross out weighed him by nine pounds, for example. Robinson and Armstrong were both in their fourth weight classes, its a silly excuse to say that one guy was more capable of handling the weight disparity more than the other.

We'll have to agree to disagree on Robinson-Maxim. You say Robinson is a deserved loser because he knew the heat was there and didn't pace himself... which is foolish, he had to use mobility to win the fight. But, the same can be said for Armstrong who knew he needed to score a KO to win... assuming homicidehenry was correct in that claim, I was hoping he would have posted something about it here.

Anyway, as I said repeatedly, basically you guys are making excuses for one guy and saying that its wrong to make excuses for the other. I would submit that with different judges or a different contract Armstrong wins a fourth title, not sure why its so abominable to claim that on a different night Robinson wins his third. And you certainly haven't said anything that makes me reconsider the idea that Robinson beats Maxim on a different night with regular weather. I question if someone has even seen the fight if they claim that Maxim would have won without the excessive heat. Again, even the ref collapsed.

The whole thing is sort of a worthless conversation, anyway. This Armstrong-Garcia II thing is a little overblown. The difference of that one fight isn't necessarily going to make him better than Robinson.

[elmersalsa]

Question. Is it possible to overrate Roberto Duran ?
Answer. YES, when you put him above Sugar Ray Robinson

I seriously doubt Duran goes 69-1 in his first 70 bouts if his competition was as tough as Robinson's was in his first 70. And when Duran fought Leonard, once and for all they were both welterweights, UNLIKE Robinson v LaMotta which was a WW v a Middleweight.

Duran was an overblown lightweight fighting a full fledged welteweight in his prime. A prime Sugar Ray Leonard at 147 is way better than a prime Jake LaMotta at 160.

[elmersalsa]

Armstrong had experience fighting naturally bigger guys. Ross out weighed him by nine pounds, for example. Robinson and Armstrong were both in their fourth weight classes, its a silly excuse to say that one guy was more capable of handling the weight disparity more than the other.

We'll have to agree to disagree on Robinson-Maxim. You say Robinson is a deserved loser because he knew the heat was there and didn't pace himself... which is foolish, he had to use mobility to win the fight. But, the same can be said for Armstrong who knew he needed to score a KO to win... assuming homicidehenry was correct in that claim, I was hoping he would have posted something about it here.

Anyway, as I said repeatedly, basically you guys are making excuses for one guy and saying that its wrong to make excuses for the other. I would submit that with different judges or a different contract Armstrong wins a fourth title, not sure why its so abominable to claim that on a different night Robinson wins his third. And you certainly haven't said anything that makes me reconsider the idea that Robinson beats Maxim on a different night with regular weather. I question if someone has even seen the fight if they claim that Maxim would have won without the excessive heat. Again, even the ref collapsed.

The whole thing is sort of a worthless conversation, anyway. This Armstrong-Garcia II thing is a little overblown. The difference of that one fight isn't necessarily going to make him better than Robinson.

Well, show me a thread or an article that Armstrong had to win the fight by KO.

The HEAT was there for both fighters. One was more capable to absorb the heat and the conditions.

[elmersalsa]

Question. Is it possible to overrate Roberto Duran ?
Answer. YES, when you put him above Sugar Ray Robinson

I seriously doubt Duran goes 69-1 in his first 70 bouts if his competition was as tough as Robinson's was in his first 70. And when Duran fought Leonard, once and for all they were both welterweights, UNLIKE Robinson v LaMotta which was a WW v a Middleweight.

Robinson's first 70 fights were not as great level of opposition either.

[elmersalsa]

I have never seen a fighter on record that constantly was going up and down in weight like Armstrong, fighting a world class fighter after another.

That is why he got to be #1 in many people's minds. Armstrong was so INCREDIBLE and UNBELIEVABLE.

[silkov]

For me Armstrong was just phenominal, great as Ray was I just think pound for pound Armstrong has the edge on him....

[barry]

I have Armstrong and Robinson tied as the greatest ever. I find it hard naming either one ahead of the other, but if terms of accomplishment Armstrong is in a league all his own.

To think, that a world champion would have 27 fights in one year, 27-0-0 (26 KO) while he was a champion...hell, 27 fights is half a career today. Armstrong was just incredible and to win world titles, not world title belts, but world titles in three divisions, when there was only eight weight classes, and in a span of what…a couple of years and then drawing in a bout for the fourth division title…no one else in history can match that in such a span of time except maybe Terry McGovern.

If I had to absolutely pick one of the two, Armstrong or Robinson…I would choose Armstrong, but as it is I list both!

[silkov]

Its hard to seperate them, but for me the fact that Armstrong was the one who fought the guys that were naturally so much bigger than him and the 4 world titles, are the deciding factor.... he used to have to drink huge amounts of milk and beer to push his weight up for his welterweight fights... and his activity is amazing, even for his time, especially as he nearly always fought top opposition......

[I Feel Fine]

That's sort of the point silkov... there was no fourth title. Armstrong had three.

Armstrong and Robinson both fought much bigger men.

I think you have more to learn about Robinson, silkov.

-----

Terry... I did not say that Maxim's win wasn't legitimate, I said he likely wouldn't be able to repeat it under different circumstances, which you seem to finally acknowledge as possible. I went to rather great lengths to make that clear. Perhaps you were the one being dogmatic, as you would have picked up on that a couple of pages ago.

[silkov]

That's sort of the point silkov... there was no fourth title. Armstrong had three.

Armstrong and Robinson both fought much bigger men.

I think you have more to learn about Robinson, silkov.

-----

Terry... I did not say that Maxim's win wasn't legitimate, I said he likely wouldn't be able to repeat it under different circumstances, which you seem to finally acknowledge as possible. I went to rather great lengths to make that clear. Perhaps you were the one being dogmatic, as you would have picked up on that a couple of pages ago.

Actually there was a fourth title, Armstrong was robbed of the 160 title when his fight with Garcia was rendered a draw despite him dominating the whole fight!..... you need to learn a lot more about Armstrong it seems, ...this information isnt exactly hard to find!...