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

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 20 Oct 2007, 18:42

Decagon wrote:The only way I can give a fighter a break for quitting is when he literally can't continue, like Ali against Holmes, Greb against Graves, or Robinson against Maxim; guys who were never stopped in pretty much any other fight, despite fighting years past their respective primes. Ali had that greatness. Greb had that greatness. Robinson had that greatness. Armstrong had that greatness.

Duran didn't. He could have been the best ever, but he wasn't. Joe Louis was closer to being the greatest fighter ever, pound-for-pound than Duran was. So was Sam Langford.

Would you carry on fighting if you'd poohed your pants???..... looking at his career I dont think you can really fault Durans heart.... he was sick against Leonard, it happens.... its the reason Boza Edwards was pulled out against Arguello.... body punches from Arguello made him lose control of himself...

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 21 Oct 2007, 02:31

I Feel Fine wrote:
silkov wrote:
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.

That is a BULLSHIT LIE. The ONLY time Robinson fought a guy heavier and taller than he was with Joey Maxim. Still, the disparity in weight is not even closer than when Armstrong fought an exceptional fighter who was bigger, faster and taller than he in Barney Ross. Even Sam Langford, Roberto Duran, Harry Greb, Joe Walcott and Mickey Walker fought bigger men more often than Robinson.

theone · Post by **theone** » 21 Oct 2007, 03:34

Armstrong fought an exceptional fighter who was bigger, faster and taller than he in Barney Ross

It wasn't exactly David vs Goliath. Ross was a small welterweight who didn't have exceptional power. He was a fantastic fighter but i doubt he was stronger than Armstrong.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 21 Oct 2007, 06:37

theone wrote:
Armstrong fought an exceptional fighter who was bigger, faster and taller than he in Barney Ross
It wasn't exactly David vs Goliath. Ross was a small welterweight who didn't have exceptional power. He was a fantastic fighter but i doubt he was stronger than Armstrong.

Armstrong was stronger than most middleweights, that was one of his great attributes, but in terms of size Ross was definately a fullfledged welter by the time they fought and Armstrong was little more than a featherweight... their weights were 131 to 146 I believe....

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 21 Oct 2007, 06:45

Decagon wrote:
silkov wrote:Would you carry on fighting if you'd poohed your pants???..... looking at his career I dont think you can really fault Durans heart.... he was sick against Leonard, it happens.... its the reason Boza Edwards was pulled out against Arguello.... body punches from Arguello made him lose control of himself...
Would Muhammad Ali have quit a fight because someone punched him in the armpit? And if we're going to get into gastrointestinal problems, wasn't the story of Ali-Norton I that Ali really, really had to piss, and was terrified that if Norton hit him just right, it'd all come flowing out?

I havent heard that!... I thought the main problem in that fight was the broken jaw, which by itself was more than enough.... doctors who examined him after the fight couldnt believe he had fought on with the injury without passing out... but Ali was exceptionally brave, ....one of the bravest I've seen.... not many fighters can live up to him. As for Durans 'quit' against Lawlor, ....he tore his rotator cuff in that fight which meant that he was basically one armed, so again his pulling out of the fight is understandable. Ofcourse in both cases, the Leonard and Lawlor fight it was Durans fault for being in such poor condition that these things happened to him, the Leonard thing was caused by him using diretics to lose weight.... its well known that Leonard asked for a quick rematch with Duran because he knew he would be partying hard after the first fight.
Durans biggest failing was his lack of discipline in his latter career rather than a lack of heart....

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 21 Oct 2007, 12:34

theone wrote:
Armstrong fought an exceptional fighter who was bigger, faster and taller than he in Barney Ross
It wasn't exactly David vs Goliath. Ross was a small welterweight who didn't have exceptional power. He was a fantastic fighter but i doubt he was stronger than Armstrong.

He was still bigger than Armstrong...and exceptional too

for the title fight he was 9 pounds heavier than Armstrong.

jimglen · Post by **jimglen** » 21 Oct 2007, 15:51

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/cbzforum ... #post82252

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 22 Oct 2007, 01:20

I don't consider a height advantage to mean that a fighter is necessarily bigger. That would be like saying that Hearns is bigger than Tyson, or Foster bigger than Frazier. I said the same in another thread recently, how I felt that Marciano was bigger than Ezzard Charles (who, by the way, is a better candidate for #1 than Roberto Duran... hell, so is Ali [disclaimer: I rank Robinson and Armstrong ahead of Ali; I'm just saying]) even though Charles was taller.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 22 Oct 2007, 10:25

I Feel Fine wrote:I don't consider a height advantage to mean that a fighter is necessarily bigger. That would be like saying that Hearns is bigger than Tyson, or Foster bigger than Frazier. I said the same in another thread recently, how I felt that Marciano was bigger than Ezzard Charles (who, by the way, is a better candidate for #1 than Roberto Duran... hell, so is Ali [disclaimer: I rank Robinson and Armstrong ahead of Ali; I'm just saying]) even though Charles was taller.

But height is part of size.... a taller boxer is more likely to move up weights through natural growth rather than because he simply puts on weight. Hearns for instance was never going to stay at 147.... Duran on the other hand moved up because he couldnt keep his weight down but not because he 'grew' bigger naturally....
I would put Ali in the top 5 p4p all time fighters, maybe at about 3rd.... he's definately the highest ranked heavyweight for me.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 22 Oct 2007, 10:27

silkov wrote:
Decagon wrote:
silkov wrote:Would you carry on fighting if you'd poohed your pants???..... looking at his career I dont think you can really fault Durans heart.... he was sick against Leonard, it happens.... its the reason Boza Edwards was pulled out against Arguello.... body punches from Arguello made him lose control of himself...
Would Muhammad Ali have quit a fight because someone punched him in the armpit? And if we're going to get into gastrointestinal problems, wasn't the story of Ali-Norton I that Ali really, really had to piss, and was terrified that if Norton hit him just right, it'd all come flowing out?
I havent heard that!... I thought the main problem in that fight was the broken jaw, which by itself was more than enough.... doctors who examined him after the fight couldnt believe he had fought on with the injury without passing out... but Ali was exceptionally brave, ....one of the bravest I've seen.... not many fighters can live up to him. As for Durans 'quit' against Lawlor, ....he tore his rotator cuff in that fight which meant that he was basically one armed, so again his pulling out of the fight is understandable. Ofcourse in both cases, the Leonard and Lawlor fight it was Durans fault for being in such poor condition that these things happened to him, the Leonard thing was caused by him using diretics to lose weight.... its well known that Leonard asked for a quick rematch with Duran because he knew he would be partying hard after the first fight.
Durans biggest failing was his lack of discipline in his latter career rather than a lack of heart....

"It was well known that Leonard asked for a quick rematch with rematch becasue he knew he would be partying hard after the first fight"

Silkov-Do you really believe this BS ? Come on. The second fight was 5 months after the first one.
Leonard was supposed to know that Duran was going to be partying for 5 months? 5 months? duran didn't have time to get his act together in 5 months?

How about the truth - Leonard was better than Duran, Duran knew he wasn't going to win, and quit. The end.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 22 Oct 2007, 10:36

Its well known that Leonard insisted on the quick rematch. As for the second fight its not as if Duran was getting beat up or anything, they were actually even on points and Leonard was showboating rather than boxing, the truth is Duran was ill, you can see his lack of movement in the last two rounds..... I'll never believe Duran quit because he was afraid of taking a beating, he was afraid of what was happening with his stomach and thats a whole different situation.... the bravest of men doesnt want to soil himself in front of millions of people....

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 22 Oct 2007, 12:57

Once again, the 2nd fight was 5 months after the first. 5 months isn't a quick rematch. It's certainly enough time for Duran to do his partying and train for the fight. The "quick rematch" excuse makes absolutely no sense.

-They weren't "even on points". The official scorecards were close, but all had Leonard ahead. It was pretty obvious that Leonard should have been way ahead. Duran wasn't getting beat up, but he was being outclassed. Duran knew he wasn't going to win, so he quit.
You actually believe that Duran quit because he had to go the bathroom? He could have gone to the bathroom before the fight. If he was that sick, he would have postponed the fight. Are you really that desperate for an excuse?
Just imagine what people would say if Leonard would have quit like that.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 22 Oct 2007, 14:14

Ambling Alp wrote:Once again, the 2nd fight was 5 months after the first. 5 months isn't a quick rematch. It's certainly enough time for Duran to do his partying and train for the fight. The "quick rematch" excuse makes absolutely no sense.

-They weren't "even on points". The official scorecards were close, but all had Leonard ahead. It was pretty obvious that Leonard should have been way ahead. Duran wasn't getting beat up, but he was being outclassed. Duran knew he wasn't going to win, so he quit.
You actually believe that Duran quit because he had to go the bathroom? He could have gone to the bathroom before the fight. If he was that sick, he would have postponed the fight. Are you really that desperate for an excuse?
Just imagine what people would say if Leonard would have quit like that.

You've obviously have never had a severe case of the runs mate, sure he could have gone before the fight but when you need to go all the time its a different matter. I'm not desperate for an excuse, Duran more than made up for the Leonard 2 fight in his latter career, ...it seems some people are desperate to paint Duran as a coward when the truth is that he was ill in the Leonard rematch, its as simple as that, ok it was his own fault because of his poor preparation, but its different from him quitting just because he didnt want to be beaten up....

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 22 Oct 2007, 16:34

It never ceases to amaze me how some people will believe almost any excuse for one of their own fighters. I can't believe you possibly believe that this is what happened.

Judging by his whole career, I wouldn't call Duran a coward. However, it was pretty obvious that he flat out quit in the Leonard fight. His own trainer said that.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 23 Oct 2007, 00:56

Full disclosure, I do have to take silkov's side on that one thing. No disrespect to alp, who I like a great deal. But I have heard Leonard say that he wanted the Duran rematch ASAP because he felt Duran would gain weight inbetween fights and would struggle to lose it in a short time. I think I heard Leonard say it on or "Beyond the Glory" or one of those things. Whether or not this really impacted Duran is another thing. I tend to think Leonard wins the second fight regardless of Duran's problems, whatever or how many there were. I could be wrong.

As for the height question, I'm not even saying that it doesn't contribute, but I think weight is more important. Not many Welterweights make it to Light Heavyweight as Hearns did, I think height clearly separates him there. But that doesn't mean that Hearns' height made him "bigger" than a Hagler or a Barkley, to me they were clearly stronger. I feel the Marciano-Moore and Marciano-Charles comparison is also a good one, to me Marciano was clearly the "bigger man" even if he was shorter than those two. Marciano was always a natural Heavyweight while they started out at Middleweight, and Marciano had the power and chin that I would attribute more to a Heavyweight, while I don't think Charles and Moore had that. I think if Charles and Moore had been more natural to the weight class that they would have very likely beaten Marciano. So to me height is deceptive, it doesn't always indicate who the bigger, stronger man is. LaMotta was much shorter than Robinson, but I doubt anyone is going to dispute that LaMotta was the stronger man in their fights, especially in the first five fights with the huge weight disparities. Robinson simply did fight "bigger" men, even if he happened to be taller.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 23 Oct 2007, 00:57

Interesting

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 23 Oct 2007, 01:18

I'm learning to enjoy tantum's posts more and more. He just adds so much to the thread... literally.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 23 Oct 2007, 10:11

Yeah, his posts are.... well, ....interesting!... :x

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 23 Oct 2007, 16:46

I guess I just don't get the quick rematch theory. If they didn't fight relatively soon, when would they? Duran was at some time going to move up to 154 and wasn't going to go back down. The rematch almost had to be in 1980 or early 1981.
This "partying" excuse is nonsense. It's not like the rematch was the night after the first fight. It was 5 months after the first fight. This isn't really that strange at all. Duran had plenty of time to get in shape for this fight.

One thing that you often hear from Duran fans is that Duran wasn't a "natural welterweight". This despite the fact that Duran had 9 fights at this weight before Leonard and had been a welterweight for more than two years. (It's seldom mentioned that Leonard's middleweight fight with Hagler was Leonard's first as a middleweight.)
He can't even make the welterweight limit any more, yet we are supposed to believe that he was just a overblown lightweight who was at a severe disadvantage against everyone else. Therefore, none of his losses except for DeJesus is supposed to count against him. It's like Duran is the only guy to ever move up in weight.

I think this a lot more simple than some people try to make it out to be.
1.Duran was a lightweight for several years.
2.Then like most fighters, he naturally grew out of his weight class. Most fighters grow bigger and stronger during their 20's. He was a welterweight for several fights before he fought Leonard. That was the weight class that he was the best at this stage of his career. If it wasn't he would have stayed at lightweight.
3. He beat Leonard in a tough fight.
4. In the rematch, he was losing and had little chance of winning so he quit.
5. He then moved up in weight again.
Why is this so hard for people to understand? Why do we continue to hear these weak excuses and ridiculaus stories?

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 23 Oct 2007, 16:53

Yeah, I'm just saying what Leonard said. What impact it had on Duran, if any, I don't know. But Leonard did think that the sooner the rematch the better, going by Leonard's words.

As I said earlier, I tend to think that Leonard would beat Duran regardless. I think Leonard's change in style was the main difference in the rematch.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 24 Oct 2007, 17:58

Something gotta be wrong in comparing Armstrong vs Robinson...Armstrong's achievements nevertheless were extraordinary. Armstrong has 9 things over Sugar Ray:

1. Armstrong won 3 titles in 3 different weight classes...All of them he held them at one time...Robinson had 2 world titles in 2 weight divisions

2. Armstrong beat 15 world champions: Frankie Klick, Leo Rodak, Midget Wolgast, Juan Zurita, Mike Belloise, Benny Bass, Petey Sarron, Chalky Wright, Barney Ross, Lou Ambers, Fritzie Zivic, Lew Jenkins, Tippy Larkin, Sammy Angott and Baby Arizmendi (that if you want him as champ or not)
Robinson beat 13 champions: Ralph Dupas, Denny Moyer, Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio, Bobo Olson, Rocky Graziano, Randy Turpin, Jake LaMotta, Kid Gavilan (questionable to me), Sammy Angott, Marty Servo, Armstrong and Fritzie Zivic

3. Armstrong beat 15 Hall of Famers...10 are already in: Angott, Jenkins, Zivic, Pedro Montanez, Ambers, Arizmendi, Ross, Wright, Bass, and Wolgast. 5 more are going in: Willie Joyce, Tippy Larkin, Petey Sarron, Mike Belloise and Lew Feldman
Meanwhile Robinson beat 14 HOFs...10 are already in: Fullmer, Basilio, Olson, Graziano, Turpin, LaMotta, Gavilan (questionable), Angott, Armstrong and Zivic. 4 more are going in: Dupas, Moyer, Georgie Abrams and Servo.

4. Armstrong won 46 in a row...Robinson highest was 40.

5. Armstrong won 27 in a row in a year...Robinson 20 in 1941

6. Armstrong stopped 27 opponents in a row which is 10th in the all-time list...Robinson stopped only 9 straight.

7. Armstrong world title fight record is 22-3-1, 16KOs for a .846 winning pct. Robinson did poorly...He is 14-7-1, 8KOs for a measly .619 winning pct.

8. Armstrong fought 182 fights in 14 years. Robinson fought 200 in 25 years as a pro and had a layoff of 2 and a half years on top of that. Armstrong had an average of 13 fights a year and Robinson had an average of 8 fights per year.

9. Armstrong had 19 title defenses...11 in one year...3 times in one month...Robinson??? Only 5 title defenses in 5 years???

10. Armstrong went up 20 pounds and defeated a legendary and exceptional fighter like Barney Ross, who outweighted Henry for 9 pounds...Robinson NEVER WENT UP 20 POUNDS AND BEAT SOMEONE AS EXCEPTIONAL AS BARNEY ROSS or at least in Ross' class.

The numbers are so clear as water...Armstrong to me, gotta be the best fighter of all-time pound per pound.

My personal top 10 list now is:
1. Henry Armstrong: Hail to the new king
2. Sugar Ray Robinson
3. Roberto Duran
4. Muhammad Ali
5. Joe Gans
6. Willie Pep
7. Joe Louis
8. Sam Langford
9. Harry Greb
10. Jack Johnson

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 25 Oct 2007, 15:40

Numbers in boxing can very decieving. You are cherrypicking stats that favor Armstrong and ignoring stats that favor Robinson. You are also not taking into consideration that Robinson was well past his best in almost all of his losses. Some of your stats are made up (counting 5 guys that Armstrong beat will make the Hall of Fame. Larkin, Joyce,Sarron,Bellouise, Feldman? Doubtful any will make it, much less all 5). You are also not taking the quality of competiton into consideration.

However, if you want to play that game:

1. Robinson won 175 fights. Armstrong only won 151.
2. Robinson only lost 19 fights. Armstrong lost 21.
3. Robinson only lost once during his prime. Armstrong lost several times.
4. When Armstrong retired, he was only 32. He had 21 losses. At the age of 32, Robinson only had 3 losses.
5. Robinson had a winning streak of at least 30 three different times.
Armstrong only did this once.
6. Armstrong lost to Arizmendi three times. Robinson never lost to anyone three times.
7. Armstrong was stopped twice. Robinson was only stopped once.
8. Robinson had 109 knockouts, Armstrong only had 101.
9. Robinson had 128 career wins before he lost his 2nd fight. Armstrong had 1 career win before he lost his 2nd loss.
10. Robinson beat Armstrong in their head to head meeting. You have to count this since you are counting Robinson's losses when he was past his prime.

Please stop saying Robinson's wins over Gavilan decision are questionable. You never even saw them fight.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 26 Oct 2007, 17:42

Ambling Alp wrote:Numbers in boxing can very decieving. You are cherrypicking stats that favor Armstrong and ignoring stats that favor Robinson. You are also not taking into consideration that Robinson was well past his best in almost all of his losses. Some of your stats are made up (counting 5 guys that Armstrong beat will make the Hall of Fame. Larkin, Joyce,Sarron,Bellouise, Feldman? Doubtful any will make it, much less all 5). You are also not taking the quality of competiton into consideration.

However, if you want to play that game:

1. Robinson won 175 fights. Armstrong only won 151.
2. Robinson only lost 19 fights. Armstrong lost 21.
3. Robinson only lost once during his prime. Armstrong lost several times.
4. When Armstrong retired, he was only 32. He had 21 losses. At the age of 32, Robinson only had 3 losses.
5. Robinson had a winning streak of at least 30 three different times.
Armstrong only did this once.
6. Armstrong lost to Arizmendi three times. Robinson never lost to anyone three times.
7. Armstrong was stopped twice. Robinson was only stopped once.
8. Robinson had 109 knockouts, Armstrong only had 101.
9. Robinson had 128 career wins before he lost his 2nd fight. Armstrong had 1 career win before he lost his 2nd loss.
10. Robinson beat Armstrong in their head to head meeting. You have to count this since you are counting Robinson's losses when he was past his prime.

Please stop saying Robinson's wins over Gavilan decision are questionable. You never even saw them fight.

Feldman, Larkin, Belloise, and Joyce will be in the hall of fame alp, you know that well....Look at their records and body of work.

Well, alp...your emotions are getting to you. Armstrong fought Arizmendi 5 times and Armstrong won the last three fights. Both Robinson and Armstrong has losses against a man twice: Robinson lost twice to Fulllmer...He lost twice to Pender....Armstrong lost twice to Zivic...He also lost twice to Arizmendi.

I gotta say that those "wins" over Gavilan are questionable...That is the way I feel about those fights. It was like Norton vs Ali in the welter class. The crowd boooed the first fight and thought that the Keed should get the nod...He got screwed big time. The second fight, we got a cut and the referee does not stop the fight??? mmmmmmm I am very skeptical about that.

Robinson got better numbers because he fought longer, plus he had 2 and a half years of layoff. Armstrong losing 3 fights in his first 4, does not mean anything to nobody. He corrected it and became a winner afterwards. Now, if you take the loss to Lou Ambers, which the referee snub him and penalized him 5 times, a fight that Henry clearly won, then we had a 58 fight win streak from 1937 to 1940...

Robinson did his run of 91 bouts without a loss...But if you look at his record well, he lost to Jose Basora in a fight that many thought Basora won. He lost to Gavilan TWICE, EVEN THOUGH GAVILAN DID NOT GET THE NOD.

Armstrong had many losses at the beginning, maybe he was raw and need to be polished. But once he got the winning streak, boy, he was unbeliavable. One thing you are not going to deny that Robinson NEVER BEAT SOMEONE BIGGER AND EXCEPTIONAL like Armstrong did with Barney Ross. Robinson even probably DUCKED the very best fighters of the welter and middle class: Holman Williams, Charley Burley, Marcel Cerdan, Ezzard Charles and to tell me that he fought LaMotta, the ONLY MIDDLEWEIGHT IN HIS LEDGER that was great and not the others is OVERRATED...

Armstrong in the other hand, fought EVERYBODY AVAILABLE FROM FEATHERWEIGHT TO WELTERWEIGHT, AND BEAT MOST OF THEM IN BRUTAL FASHION.

Now, you want to count that Robinson beat Armstrong in head to head when Armstrong already was way past his very best. That is like saying Marciano beating Louis and Holmes beating Ali past their primes we are going to suggest that they would have lost to them also whe they were at their very best.

Let's not play games here...Let us look closely at their records and we see that Armstrong was more amazing than Robinson.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 27 Oct 2007, 02:27

Debating with elmer is like debating with someone who believes in intelligent design over evolution. Not really worth bothering with.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 27 Oct 2007, 12:15

I do want to say that I thought Armstrong lost to Arizmendi 3 times. However,he only lost to him twice.

Elmer you are being silly when you keep making a big deal about about the Gavilan-Robinson fights. You never saw the fight.

No, I don't "know" that all those guys Armstrong beat will make the Hall of Fame. Neither do you. they are hardly all-time greats. I don't even think they all will. Wouldn't be surprised if none of them do.

Just look at their records and I will see that Armstrong was better?
Well, they both fought great competition.
Robinson won 175, Armstrong only won 151.
Armstrong lost 21 times, Robinson only lost 19 times. Almost all of them came when he was past his prime.

Robinson won the head to head matchup. If you count this since you are counting all of Robinson's losses when he was well past it.

It's obvious that Armstrong was indeed one of the All-Time greats. however, it's just as obvious that Robinson was even better.

I Feel Fine - Yes sometimes it hard to decide whether it's worth debating with elmer. Once we back and forth because he didn't understand what "in a row means". I still wonder if he does.