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

[p4p1]

i think ray is the top fighter for me closely followed by amstrong and ali.... i dont think duran was as good as these fighters i like duran but he wasnt as good as them on any night robinson beat the world champion at 135 but was screwed out of a title and lost a shot for a world title at 175 40lbs... amstrong won at 126 and lost at 160 so 34lbs i really dont think even if you dont count robinson at 135 then he still is greater he was just a simply better fighter than armstrong IMO i dont think its fair to say robinsons opponents were all washed up or had there best yet to come or were bums

[I Feel Fine]

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!...

Read the freaking thread, we've been talking about that stupid fight for three pages now. Armstrong is no more a Middleweight champion than Robinson is a Lightweight champion.

[silkov]

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!...

Read the freaking thread, we've been talking about that stupid fight for three pages now. Armstrong is no more a Middleweight champion than Robinson is a Lightweight champion.

Rubbish, look up his record you fool, he fought for the 160 title and was robbed with by a crooked decision.... what part of this dont you understand!???.... if not for the crooked ref (who never worked again) Armstrong would have been crowned middleweight champion as well!... hence 4th title!.... hence you dont know what youre talking about!!.... Robinson never fought for the 135 title Armstrong did fight for the 160 title and should have been awarded it.... fact!... look it up!!!...

[p4p1]

would of, could of well by the same theory robinson was world lightweight champion he beat the guy recognised 1lb over the weight because the bloke didnt want to lose his title so theres your 4th title i think the best judge is the fighters and most of the time when asked who was the greatest fighter of all time they say robinson

[silkov]

would of, could of well by the same theory robinson was world lightweight champion he beat the guy recognised 1lb over the weight because the bloke didnt want to lose his title so theres your 4th title i think the best judge is the fighters and most of the time when asked who was the greatest fighter of all time they say robinson

Well if you cant see the difference between fighting for a title and being robbed of it and beating someone who isnt even at that divisions weight then maybe you should move on to UFC mate. And by the way, Robinson won 2 titles not 3!.
As for going by other peoples opinions, just as many people who saw them both at the time have said that Armstrong was the greatest ever, but how about having an opinion of your own or is that too hard??....

[dagosd2000]

Robinsin was the better fighter of these two. Duran was made to order for the taller Hearns. Robinson would have connected a right hand like he hit
Graziano with. Duran at 147 or heavier would have not gotten inside on Ray to cause any serios damage. He lost a lot of his power when he moved up in weight. Ray also had a great uppercut and would have done to Armstrong what Zivic did to him.. Ray was smart and could adapt to an opponent's style. Ray had trouble with bigger fighters who pressed him later in his career. Like Joe DiMaggio,Ray's legs were gone.

[elmersalsa]

Robinsin was the better fighter of these two. Duran was made to order for the taller Hearns. Robinson would have connected a right hand like he hit
Graziano with. Duran at 147 or heavier would have not gotten inside on Ray to cause any serios damage. He lost a lot of his power when he moved up in weight. Ray also had a great uppercut and would have done to Armstrong what Zivic did to him.. Ray was smart and could adapt to an opponent's style. Ray had trouble with bigger fighters who pressed him later in his career. Like Joe DiMaggio,Ray's legs were gone.

Sugar Ray Robinson had problems with fighters less skilled than Leonard, Hagler and Duran. I cannot see Robinson outboxing a Duran when he was on top of his game.

[I Feel Fine]

Rubbish, look up his record you fool, he fought for the 160 title and was robbed with by a crooked decision.... what part of this dont you understand!???.... if not for the crooked ref (who never worked again) Armstrong would have been crowned middleweight champion as well!... hence 4th title!.... hence you dont know what youre talking about!!.... Robinson never fought for the 135 title Armstrong did fight for the 160 title and should have been awarded it.... fact!... look it up!!!...

I'm well aware that Armstrong challenged for the Middleweight title. Perhaps if you could pause your orgiastic praise of Armstrong for a moment and read through the thread you might discover that.

Angott did not want to fight Robinson for the title, so the fight was held a pound above the Lightweight limit. If you want to go back in time and change the contract, change the judges, change the referee and whatever else it is that you want to go back and change to give Armstrong his fourth title, one could say the same for Robinson and Angott's cowardly demand that prevented Robinson from taking the Lightweight title, which he easily would have won. You can't revise history for one fighter and not the other.

The point is null either way, however. Armstrong could have won that fourth title and he still would not be the greatest fighter of all time. The difference of one fight is not the difference between Robinson and Armstrong.

Leonard, Hagler and Duran all struggled with fighters who were not as skilled as Robinson... namely, each other.

[silkov]

Rubbish, look up his record you fool, he fought for the 160 title and was robbed with by a crooked decision.... what part of this dont you understand!???.... if not for the crooked ref (who never worked again) Armstrong would have been crowned middleweight champion as well!... hence 4th title!.... hence you dont know what youre talking about!!.... Robinson never fought for the 135 title Armstrong did fight for the 160 title and should have been awarded it.... fact!... look it up!!!...

I'm well aware that Armstrong challenged for the Middleweight title. Perhaps if you could pause your orgiastic praise of Armstrong for a moment and read through the thread you might discover that.

Angott did not want to fight Robinson for the title, so the fight was held a pound above the Lightweight limit. If you want to go back in time and change the contract, change the judges, change the referee and whatever else it is that you want to go back and change to give Armstrong his fourth title, one could say the same for Robinson and Angott's cowardly demand that prevented Robinson from taking the Lightweight title, which he easily would have won. You can't revise history for one fighter and not the other.

The point is null either way, however. Armstrong could have won that fourth title and he still would not be the greatest fighter of all time. The difference of one fight is not the difference between Robinson and Armstrong.

Leonard, Hagler and Duran all struggled with fighters who were not as skilled as Robinson... namely, each other.

And your point is??.... it seems to be that you think Robinson is the better fighter and thats that, but its just your opinion and I disagree as do many others, and I happen to be a Robinson fanatic and have probably seen more of his fights than you've even dreamed about, so I suggest you just go and have a lie down and accept that not everyone shares your closed minded rather warped opinions (how does the Angott situation have any bearing on whether Robinson was better than Armstrong??) and learn to live with it!.....

[I Feel Fine]

... I can use emoticons too.

To your comment about Robinson's fights, just list the number of Robinson fights you've seen and I'll list the ones I've seen.

Now, I haven't said that no one should say that Armstrong is better than Robinson, though I disagree. So your characterization of me is false. But what I have said is that you can't revise history to give Armstrong that title, no more than you can revise history to give Robinson the Lightweight or Light Heavyweight titles. That was my point in reference to you.

And if you're so familiar with Robinson's career, why did you make the absurd statement about Armstrong being "the one" to have fought much bigger men, as if Robinson hadn't. Not exactly accurate reporting.

[silkov]

... I can use emoticons too.

To your comment about Robinson's fights, just list the number of Robinson fights you've seen and I'll list the ones I've seen.

Now, I haven't said that no one should say that Armstrong is better than Robinson, though I disagree. So your characterization of me is false. But what I have said is that you can't revise history to give Armstrong that title, no more than you can revise history to give Robinson the Lightweight or Light Heavyweight titles. That was my point in reference to you.

And if you're so familiar with Robinson's career, why did you make the absurd statement about Armstrong being "the one" to have fought much bigger men, as if Robinson hadn't. Not exactly accurate reporting.

Armstrong was 5 feet 5 and a half and at his peak weighted 126-130 yet he often gave away well over a stone when he fought at welterweight.... its well known that he used to drink beer to put his weight up.... Robinson on the other hand was 5 feet 10 and by the time he moved up to middle was a natural middleweight.... he used to have to starve himself to make 147 during his welter reign..... figure it out for yourself!!!.... I'll make it easier for you, Robinson moved up in weight as he grew while Armtrong went up in weight while he could still have made the lower weights.... he was never more than a Junior lightweight at most!.
As I said before you need to read a lot more about Armstrong, .....and Robinson as well by the sounds of it........

[elmersalsa]

Leonard, Hagler and Duran all struggled with fighters who were not as skilled as Robinson... namely, each other.

Those 3 would have beaten Robinson

[I Feel Fine]

... I can use emoticons too.

To your comment about Robinson's fights, just list the number of Robinson fights you've seen and I'll list the ones I've seen.

Now, I haven't said that no one should say that Armstrong is better than Robinson, though I disagree. So your characterization of me is false. But what I have said is that you can't revise history to give Armstrong that title, no more than you can revise history to give Robinson the Lightweight or Light Heavyweight titles. That was my point in reference to you.

And if you're so familiar with Robinson's career, why did you make the absurd statement about Armstrong being "the one" to have fought much bigger men, as if Robinson hadn't. Not exactly accurate reporting.

Armstrong was 5 feet 5 and a half and at his peak weighted 126-130 yet he often gave away well over a stone when he fought at welterweight.... its well known that he used to drink beer to put his weight up.... Robinson on the other hand was 5 feet 10 and by the time he moved up to middle was a natural middleweight.... he used to have to starve himself to make 147 during his welter reign..... figure it out for yourself!!!.... I'll make it easier for you, Robinson moved up in weight as he grew while Armtrong went up in weight while he could still have made the lower weights.... he was never more than a Junior lightweight at most!.
As I said before you need to read a lot more about Armstrong, .....and Robinson as well by the sounds of it........

I'm aware that Armstrong even as Welterweight champion usually came in around 140, sometimes lower than that, but the idea that Robinson didn't also fight much bigger men is false. The LaMotta fights being the greatest, though not the only example. The weight disparities that Armstrong had to deal with weren't much greater than those Welterweight Robinson had to deal with. Armstrong never had to fight anyone up to fifteen pounds heavier than he was, either. So, your assertion that Armstrong was "the one" to face bigger men, as if Robinson didn't or didn't do so as much as Armstrong did, is false.

[nickcat0]

Great thread guys .......

It's impossible to say for sure , and Armstrong did hold titles at 3 weights at the same time , a feat unlikely to be equalled , but I give the edge to Robinson .
He was unbeaten as an amateur and only lost 1 fight before his 30th birthday .
When he retired for the first time , he'd only lost 3 times and had avenged 2 of those defeats , La Motta and Turpin ; yet he's won over 130 professional fights at that time .
I don't believe that the fact he came back in his mid 30's and lost 18 more fights , should detract from how superior he was to the competition , and some pretty stiff competition , in his prime .
Plus there are the intangibles beyond stats ; his ability to knock men out whilst retreating ; his power in both hands ; his speed of foot etc .

[silkov]

... I can use emoticons too.

To your comment about Robinson's fights, just list the number of Robinson fights you've seen and I'll list the ones I've seen.

Now, I haven't said that no one should say that Armstrong is better than Robinson, though I disagree. So your characterization of me is false. But what I have said is that you can't revise history to give Armstrong that title, no more than you can revise history to give Robinson the Lightweight or Light Heavyweight titles. That was my point in reference to you.

And if you're so familiar with Robinson's career, why did you make the absurd statement about Armstrong being "the one" to have fought much bigger men, as if Robinson hadn't. Not exactly accurate reporting.

Armstrong was 5 feet 5 and a half and at his peak weighted 126-130 yet he often gave away well over a stone when he fought at welterweight.... its well known that he used to drink beer to put his weight up.... Robinson on the other hand was 5 feet 10 and by the time he moved up to middle was a natural middleweight.... he used to have to starve himself to make 147 during his welter reign..... figure it out for yourself!!!.... I'll make it easier for you, Robinson moved up in weight as he grew while Armtrong went up in weight while he could still have made the lower weights.... he was never more than a Junior lightweight at most!.
As I said before you need to read a lot more about Armstrong, .....and Robinson as well by the sounds of it........

I'm aware that Armstrong even as Welterweight champion usually came in around 140, sometimes lower than that, but the idea that Robinson didn't also fight much bigger men is false. The LaMotta fights being the greatest, though not the only example. The weight disparities that Armstrong had to deal with weren't much greater than those Welterweight Robinson had to deal with. Armstrong never had to fight anyone up to fifteen pounds heavier than he was, either. So, your assertion that Armstrong was "the one" to face bigger men, as if Robinson didn't or didn't do so as much as Armstrong did, is false.

I'm afraid youre boring me now, as I said before you need to read up on Armstrong, if you did then you'd know what a silly statement it is when you say that Armstrong never gave away 15 pounds to an opponent!!!... you obviously know very little about the guy......

[Ezzard]

IMO guys like Robinson, Armstrong, Grebb, Charles, Saddler, etc... are all in with a shout at the top spot and really comes down to personal preference.

[I Feel Fine]

I'm afraid youre boring me now, as I said before you need to read up on Armstrong, if you did then you'd know what a silly statement it is when you say that Armstrong never gave away 15 pounds to an opponent!!!... you obviously know very little about the guy......

Perhaps you find facts boring when they don't meet your predetermined conclusions, but they are facts. Look up the weights on boxrec, the most Armstrong gave up was twelve pounds, Robinson had larger weight disparities than that against some of his opponents. As I said earlier, you my friend are the one in need or reading up on these fighters.

I also find it ammusing the way you can't back up your claim that Armstrong was "the one" to fight bigger men, not Robinson. Perhaps its because its absolute bullshit.

[silkov]

I'm afraid youre boring me now, as I said before you need to read up on Armstrong, if you did then you'd know what a silly statement it is when you say that Armstrong never gave away 15 pounds to an opponent!!!... you obviously know very little about the guy......

Perhaps you find facts boring when they don't meet your predetermined conclusions, but they are facts. Look up the weights on boxrec, the most Armstrong gave up was twelve pounds, Robinson had larger weight disparities than that against some of his opponents. As I said earlier, you my friend are the one in need or reading up on these fighters.

I also find it ammusing the way you can't back up your claim that Armstrong was "the one" to fight bigger men, not Robinson. Perhaps its because its absolute bullshit.

So Armstrong being a natural 130 pounder and fighting welters and middles wasnt giving away more in size and weight than Robinson whp was a natural middleweight by the time he moved up to 160!!!... anyone who knows anything about these guys knows that Robinson was killing himself to make 147 before he moved up to 160 while Armstrong used to drink beer and milk to push his weight past 130.... think about it and try and figure it out for yourself, its not rocket science!!!.... 8)

[I Feel Fine]

Robinson when he was a Welterweight was fighting naturally bigger men. LaMotta was a naturally bigger man than Robinson. Levine was. Zivic at the time that they fought was. There are other examples. The weight advantages that Robinson's opponents had over him when he was a Welterweight are the same and sometimes greater than those Armstrong's opponents had over him when he was a Welterweight. Robinson did grow into the Middleweight division, but when he was a Welterweight in his younger years he was at a significant size disadvantage to many of his opponents, as Armstrong was when he fought at Welterweight. You're focusing on the last year or so of Robinson's Welterweight career and making it sound like Robinson was always a Middleweight shrinking down to Welterweight, when he clearly wasn't. Robinson, for example, had trouble losing weight for his fight with Fusari, his last defense, but earlier in his reign I've read that Robinson actually struggled to gain weight for his Gavilan fights.

Point being, and this is not rocket science, Robinson did fight significantly bigger men, and you cannot make the statement that Armstrong was "the one" to have fought bigger men, when they clearly both did.

When Zivic beat Armstrong, Zivic weighed three and a half pounds more in the first fight, five pounds more than him in the second fight where Zivic knocked Armstrong out. When Robinson beat Zivic the first time, Zivic weighed six pounds more than Robinson, seven pounds more when Robinson knocked Zivic out in the rematch. Robinson was only a few years into his pro career, he was still growing, and he showed in this instance to be more capable of fighting a bigger man than Armstrong was. And I'm not even saying that Armstrong when he fought Zivic wasn't "smaller" than Robinson was when he fought Zivic, but the weight disparities were greater when Zivic fought Robinson, and Robinson was still a young man just coming up from Lightweight, he was not yet a Middleweight... by any means.

LaMotta's weight advantages over Robinson were greater than Ross's weight advantage over Armstrong. Maxim's weight advantage over Robinson was greater than Garcia's weight advantages over Armstrong. But according to you, Armstrong was "the one" to fight bigger men, not Robinson. I say you are incorrect.

[silkov]

Wow, I bet youre descended from those people that refused to believe that the world wasnt flat and made of cheese. Really this whole argument has become tiresome. Lets just agree to disagree, lifes too short mate, and my other half is wondering why I'm spending so long on the pc lately!.... 8)

[silkov]

by the way here is a list of my complete Robinson fights....
vs
Lamotta, Turpin 1, Graziano, Olsen 2, 3, 4, Jones, Basilo 1, Fullmer 1, 2, 3, 4, Pender 1, Maxim, Stock, moyer1, 2, Dykes, .....this is not counting many other fights in long highlights such as Pender2, Basilo 2, Downes etc.... many others that I cant recall too!... 8)

[I Feel Fine]

Well, I'm giving you real numbers, you're giving me real distorton.

I've seen a bit more Robinson fights than that. LaMotta VI, highlights of Turpin I and Turpin II, highlights of Olson II, Graziano, Maxim, highlights of Tiger Jones and Castellani, Olson III, Olson IV, Fulmer I-IV, Basilio I-II, highlights of Pender I and II, highlights of Archer... I've also seen very brief clips of some of Robinson's Welterweight fights, no more than 10-20 seconds but still interesting, like Angott II for example. I've seen maybe two rounds of the Fusari fight. I've seen the fights from his European tours against Stock, Walzack, Stretz, van Dam... I don't believe I've seen the Moyer fight, I may have seen the Dykes fight.

[silkov]

Well, I'm giving you real numbers, you're giving me real distorton.

I've seen a bit more Robinson fights than that. LaMotta VI, highlights of Turpin I and Turpin II, highlights of Olson II, Graziano, Maxim, highlights of Tiger Jones and Castellani, Olson III, Olson IV, Fulmer I-IV, Basilio I-II, highlights of Pender I and II, highlights of Archer... I've also seen very brief clips of some of Robinson's Welterweight fights, no more than 10-20 seconds but still interesting, like Angott II for example. I've seen maybe two rounds of the Fusari fight. I've seen the fights from his European tours against Stock, Walzack, Stretz, van Dam... I don't believe I've seen the Moyer fight, I may have seen the Dykes fight.

How have you seen more Robinson fights???.... youve only seen highlights of fights I have in full and I have loads of fights in highlights that I havent listed (as I said!). It seems you cant read whats before your eyes and you tell me that I'm distorting things!!!?. I'd like to know how you having fights in highlights that I have in full means that you've seen more of Robinson than me???...... I'd like to know the answer to this latest twist in logic!....

[silkov]

If you'd like to buy some fights I sell them at a very reasonable price!.... 8)

[I Feel Fine]

Now you're debating length? Fine, on length you've seen more.