BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

Kalan wrote:
I saw Sugar Ray Robinson fight LIVE a number of times in the 1950's... I know a great deal more about him than YOU know... I sure as Hell know know crude swingers like Tommy Bell, Artie Lavine, Jake LaMotta, and Rocky Graziano knocked the easy to hit Robbie down HARD... and that NOBODY ever knocked GGG down EVER.. I also know that SRR's record in Midddleweight Title Defenses is 3-3 with 2 KO wins.. and GGG's is 16-0 with 16 KO wins.

I know that GGG has a superior jab and jabbed Middleweight Champion David Lemieux with a record number of jabs in their World Middleweight Title Unification Fight.. I also know Robinson's jab wasn't as sharp or smooth and that Ralph Jones LOST 5 straight fights - but then clearly outboxed and dominated Robinson when SRR was younger then GGG is today.. I also note that SRR padded his record with 150 second raters including fighting 8 cherry picks in 4 months AFTER he won the Middleweight Title and BEFORE he fought his FIRST Title Defense against Randy Turpin - a fight that SRR lost. GGG is much more of a ring general, controlling the ring space with his footwork and jab.. Robinson's record was kind of average on Middleweight Title Defenses because he was a bit sloppy with his jab and footwork.. If GGG ever lost a fight he would catch unbelievable condemnation.. Ray Robinson could lose several Title fights and nobody turned a hair... Things were different in my day. You have to be God today.

Now we have somebody to disprove rumors that grass was greener then.

In every sport, current athletes are better (most of the times WAY better) than those from 50s, 70s or even 90s. Boxing is no exception. Only blind can deny that.

ikorolev wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ikorolev wrote:
Now we have somebody to disprove rumors that grass was greener then.

In every sport, current athletes are better (most of the times WAY better) than those from 50s, 70s or even 90s. Boxing is no exception. Only blind can deny that.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

In every sport, current athletes are better (most of the times WAY better) than those from 50s, 70s or even 90s. Boxing is no exception. Only blind can deny that.

Very solid argument. Are you a first-grader ?

Kalan wrote:

Badhusker wrote: Comparing SRR to GGG? You obviously know very little about SRR's career, or his opponents

I saw Sugar Ray Robinson fight LIVE a number of times in the 1950's... I know a great deal more about him than YOU know... I sure as Hell know know crude swingers like Tommy Bell, Artie Lavine, Jake LaMotta, and Rocky Graziano knocked the easy to hit Robbie down HARD... and that NOBODY ever knocked GGG down EVER.. I also know that SRR's record in Midddleweight Title Defenses is 3-3 with 2 KO wins.. and GGG's is 16-0 with 16 KO wins.

I know that GGG has a superior jab and jabbed Middleweight Champion David Lemieux with a record number of jabs in their World Middleweight Title Unification Fight.. I also know Robinson's jab wasn't as sharp or smooth and that Ralph Jones LOST 5 straight fights - but then clearly outboxed and dominated Robinson when SRR was younger then GGG is today.. I also note that SRR padded his record with 150 second raters including fighting 8 cherry picks in 4 months AFTER he won the Middleweight Title and BEFORE he fought his FIRST Title Defense against Randy Turpin - a fight that SRR lost. GGG is much more of a ring general, controlling the ring space with his footwork and jab.. Robinson's record was kind of average on Middleweight Title Defenses because he was a bit sloppy with his jab and footwork.. If GGG ever lost a fight he would catch unbelievable condemnation.. Ray Robinson could lose several Title fights and nobody turned a hair... Things were different in my day. You have to be God today.

He fought LaMotta and gave up 15 lbs at the scale. Would GGG do that? No, he was afraid to test himself against Ward going up 8 lbs, but was fine doing it for a couple of lesser fighters. He is all about dropping to 154 for Floyd, but no one else. Comparing the two after SRR's lifetime accomplishments after 25 years in the ring, starting out at 135 or close to it, makes me laugh. SRR sloppy footwork, jab, etc? You must be smoking some good stuff. He was on about fight 130 when he fought Turpin. Yet you say he cherry picked and had a padded record. Ok.

Holy Crap you make me laugh. SRR is regarded as the number one pfp of all time by most experts, except you of course. You must be about Arum's age, unless you lie as bad as you judge a boxer's skill. GGG is great, but is far from the #1 GOAT that you and a couple others seem to think. Its like someone saying they saw Ali in the mid and late 70's and he wasn't that good.

ikorolev wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ikorolev wrote:
In every sport, current athletes are better (most of the times WAY better) than those from 50s, 70s or even 90s. Boxing is no exception. Only blind can deny that.

Very solid argument. Are you a first-grader ?

Nah, I'm a big boy that won't waste his time trying to teach a buffoon.

Badhusker wrote:

Kalan wrote:

Badhusker wrote: Comparing SRR to GGG? You obviously know very little about SRR's career, or his opponents

I saw Sugar Ray Robinson fight LIVE a number of times in the 1950's... I know a great deal more about him than YOU know... I sure as Hell know know crude swingers like Tommy Bell, Artie Lavine, Jake LaMotta, and Rocky Graziano knocked the easy to hit Robbie down HARD... and that NOBODY ever knocked GGG down EVER.. I also know that SRR's record in Midddleweight Title Defenses is 3-3 with 2 KO wins.. and GGG's is 16-0 with 16 KO wins.

I know that GGG has a superior jab and jabbed Middleweight Champion David Lemieux with a record number of jabs in their World Middleweight Title Unification Fight.. I also know Robinson's jab wasn't as sharp or smooth and that Ralph Jones LOST 5 straight fights - but then clearly outboxed and dominated Robinson when SRR was younger then GGG is today.. I also note that SRR padded his record with 150 second raters including fighting 8 cherry picks in 4 months AFTER he won the Middleweight Title and BEFORE he fought his FIRST Title Defense against Randy Turpin - a fight that SRR lost. GGG is much more of a ring general, controlling the ring space with his footwork and jab.. Robinson's record was kind of average on Middleweight Title Defenses because he was a bit sloppy with his jab and footwork.. If GGG ever lost a fight he would catch unbelievable condemnation.. Ray Robinson could lose several Title fights and nobody turned a hair... Things were different in my day. You have to be God today.

He fought LaMotta and gave up 15 lbs at the scale. Would GGG do that? No, he was afraid to test himself against Ward going up 8 lbs, but was fine doing it for a couple of lesser fighters. He is all about dropping to 154 for Floyd, but no one else. Comparing the two after SRR's lifetime accomplishments after 25 years in the ring, starting out at 135 or close to it, makes me laugh. SRR sloppy footwork, jab, etc? You must be smoking some good stuff. He was on about fight 130 when he fought Turpin. Yet you say he cherry picked and had a padded record. Ok.

Holy Crap you make me laugh. SRR is regarded as the number one pfp of all time by most experts, except you of course. You must be about Arum's age, unless you lie as bad as you judge a boxer's skill. GGG is great, but is far from the #1 GOAT that you and a couple others seem to think. Its like someone saying they saw Ali in the mid and late 70's and he wasn't that good.

That kids dad wasn't old enough to watch Robinson fight live.

ikorolev wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ikorolev wrote:
Now we have somebody to disprove rumors that grass was greener then.

In every sport, current athletes are better (most of the times WAY better) than those from 50s, 70s or even 90s. Boxing is no exception. Only blind can deny that.

No, boxing IS an exception. World records in athletics have improved because of better tracks, better shoes, better starting blocks and a larger population. Similar advancements have not occurred in boxing. In fact, the talent pool in most countries has become smaller, as boxing loses popularity as a sport and more of the best athletes are going into other sports. Only the blind can watch heavyweight boxing from the 70s, 80s and 90s, then watch more recent fights and believe today's heavyweights are superior. The difference isn't so big in other weight divisions, but it's there.

jezzamundo wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

In every sport, current athletes are better (most of the times WAY better) than those from 50s, 70s or even 90s. Boxing is no exception. Only blind can deny that.

No, boxing IS an exception. World records in athletics have improved because of better tracks, better shoes, better starting blocks and a larger population. Similar advancements have not occurred in boxing. In fact, the talent pool in most countries has become smaller, as boxing loses popularity as a sport and more of the best athletes are going into other sports. Only the blind can watch heavyweight boxing from the 70s, 80s and 90s, then watch more recent fights and believe today's heavyweights are superior. The difference isn't so big in other weight divisions, but it's there.

Yes, this debate has been done many times here, and better elsewhere also.

Most of the advancements in performance across ALL sports coincide with changes in technology, the actual change in human performance is absolutely miniscule. Consider than since records began, only 1 second has been knocked off the 100 meter time, from 10.6 to 9.58. That's less than a 10% improvement, going from amateurs running on cinder tracks, to full time athletes running on rubberised tracks with lightweight running shoes, and still less than 10% improvement in about 70 years and the rate of improvement has been slowing for a long time.

Fast as Usain Bolt is, modern running tracks have allowed him to run so fast - it's noticeable over the last 20 years there's been a sudden spike in people running sub 10 seconds routinely, this is due to modern running tracks being geared toward producing records in the flagship sprint events.

Bolt is also unusual, in that he turned down running 400, in preference to 200 and 100 against the advice of his coaches. At 6'5 he may usher in a new wave of much taller 100 meter runners, though few people are built quite like Bolt.

In running, we see less progress, because it is not technique reach. Also, I would question accuracy of measurements 100 years ago. Manual measurements usually produce lower results.

In technique reach swimming on the other hand, the 100-meter freestyle record improved by 24%. Of course, better suites have their share in that improvement, but I doubt that it would be less than 20% anyway.

Dude, boxing isn't merely an athletic exercise. Skills, or in the modern era the lack of them, make a much bigger contribution than mere athleticism

Otherwise jermain Taylor would be an ATG.

jezzamundo wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

In every sport, current athletes are better (most of the times WAY better) than those from 50s, 70s or even 90s. Boxing is no exception. Only blind can deny that.

No, boxing IS an exception. World records in athletics have improved because of better tracks, better shoes, better starting blocks and a larger population. Similar advancements have not occurred in boxing. In fact, the talent pool in most countries has become smaller, as boxing loses popularity as a sport and more of the best athletes are going into other sports. Only the blind can watch heavyweight boxing from the 70s, 80s and 90s, then watch more recent fights and believe today's heavyweights are superior. The difference isn't so big in other weight divisions, but it's there.

If athleticism was the main component, we should be preparing for a long reign by Gerald Washington.

I think I just beat you to that one

Counter-puncher wrote: I think I just beat you to that one

LOL

Counter-puncher wrote:Dude, boxing isn't merely an athletic exercise. Skills, or in the modern era the lack of them, make a much bigger contribution than mere athleticism

Otherwise jermain Taylor would be an ATG.

Of course, it isn't. But if a good MW fights a good WW, who would win ?

Christ on a bike

Counter-puncher wrote:Christ on a bike

Badhusker wrote: He fought LaMotta and gave up 15 lbs at the scale. Would GGG do that? No, he was afraid to test himself against Ward ... 25 years in the ring, starting out at 135 ... SRR sloppy footwork, jab, etc? You must be smoking some good stuff. He was on about fight 130 when he fought Turpin ... SRR is regarded as the number one pfp of all time by most experts ... You must be about Arum's age ... GGG is great, but is far from the #1 GOAT that you and a couple others seem to think. Its like someone saying they saw Ali in the mid and late 70's and he wasn't that good

That's a lot of emotional crap and BS you just wrote...do you need a crying towel??? LaMotta was a super hittable punching bag and lost a ton of fights. He had a KO ratio of 28% so he was no puncher either. He knocked Robinson down and beat him in 1 fight as terrible as he was .... Robinson wasn't 130 for Turpin. Don't talk like and idiot .... Golovkin WANTED to fight Ward but his coach Abel Sanchez wanted an acclimation fight at 168 FIRST!!! They tried to get 168 acclimation fights with Rodriguez, Oosthuizen, Chavez, and Froch at 168. All those fights were mysteriously scuttled. Ward wants THREE (3) acclimation fights before he fights Kovalev and Golovkin can't have ONE (1)??? .... Ward was a HUGE Super Middleweight and Golovkin is a small Middleweight. But Golovkin will DIFINITELY fight Ward in a few years and beat him easy at 175 and beat Kovalev too .... Robinson fought til he was past 40 and Golovkin can do the same. He had 350 amateur fights so he got a very late start as a pro. Then you have all the duckers like Martinez, Cotto, and Canelo who slowed down GGG's progress. The powers that be are trying to age GGG so they can get him beat .... If GGG fought 20 times in a year like Robinson did some years he'd have 200 fights by now. But he doesn't knock over 20 bums to pad his record and then lose to a good fighter like Robinson did .... A boxer's record in Title Defense is more important than his overall record because it's tougher to fight bums in Title Fights. Robinson's record in Middleweight Title defenses is 3-3 with 2 KO's and GGG's is 16-0 with 16 KO's .... If Robinson had such a masterful jab and footwork as Golovkin has, why did SRR LOSE to such unskilled swingers as LaMotta, Fullmer, Jones, Basilio, Turpin, and Pender??? .... Boxing Experts are full of crap. They never boxed and their blatherings are laughable .... I'm not as old as Bob Arum is. He's older than dirt .... I didn't say GGG was the GOAT but he's the top Middleweight .... Ali lost to the much shorter and smaller Joe Frazier (a wide-open walk-in left hooker) and to the very hittable and chinny Ken Norton when he was much younger than Triple-G is today. Ali wasn't as consistent, disciplined or as astute a trainer as GGG is and neither was Sugar Ray Robinson... That's why they started falling off a lot earlier... GGG HAS to be disciplined because he's not an American, he's a Kazakh and it's been much tougher for him fighting the Boxing Establishment ... Ali was my hero as a kid because I was dead against the stupid Viet Nam War. So I think Ali's a great human being but he wasn't the best Heavyweight ever. He was a little light on defense and punching power.

Kalan wrote:

Badhusker wrote: He fought LaMotta and gave up 15 lbs at the scale. Would GGG do that? No, he was afraid to test himself against Ward ... 25 years in the ring, starting out at 135 ... SRR sloppy footwork, jab, etc? You must be smoking some good stuff. He was on about fight 130 when he fought Turpin ... SRR is regarded as the number one pfp of all time by most experts ... You must be about Arum's age ... GGG is great, but is far from the #1 GOAT that you and a couple others seem to think. Its like someone saying they saw Ali in the mid and late 70's and he wasn't that good

That's a lot of emotional crap and BS you just wrote...do you need a crying towel??? LaMotta was a super hittable punching bag and lost a ton of fights. He had a KO ratio of 28% so he was no puncher either. He knocked Robinson down and beat him in 1 fight as terrible as he was .... Robinson wasn't 130 for Turpin. Don't talk like and idiot .... Golovkin WANTED to fight Ward but his coach Abel Sanchez wanted an acclimation fight at 168 FIRST!!! They tried to get 168 acclimation fights with Rodriguez, Oosthuizen, Chavez, and Froch at 168. All those fights were mysteriously scuttled. Ward wants THREE (3) acclimation fights before he fights Kovalev and Golovkin can't have ONE (1)??? .... Ward was a HUGE Super Middleweight and Golovkin is a small Middleweight. But Golovkin will DIFINITELY fight Ward in a few years and beat him easy at 175 and beat Kovalev too .... Robinson fought til he was past 40 and Golovkin can do the same. He had 350 amateur fights so he got a very late start as a pro. Then you have all the duckers like Martinez, Cotto, and Canelo who slowed down GGG's progress. The powers that be are trying to age GGG so they can get him beat .... If GGG fought 20 times in a year like Robinson did some years he'd have 200 fights by now. But he doesn't knock over 20 bums to pad his record and then lose to a good fighter like Robinson did .... A boxer's record in Title Defense is more important than his overall record because it's tougher to fight bums in Title Fights. Robinson's record in Middleweight Title defenses is 3-3 with 2 KO's and GGG's is 16-0 with 16 KO's .... If Robinson had such a masterful jab and footwork as Golovkin has, why did SRR LOSE to such unskilled swingers as LaMotta, Fullmer, Jones, Basilio, Turpin, and Pender??? .... Boxing Experts are full of crap. They never boxed and their blatherings are laughable .... I'm not as old as Bob Arum is. He's older than dirt .... I didn't say GGG was the GOAT but he's the top Middleweight .... Ali lost to the much shorter and smaller Joe Frazier (a wide-open walk-in left hooker) and to the very hittable and chinny Ken Norton when he was much younger than Triple-G is today. Ali wasn't as consistent, disciplined or as astute a trainer as GGG is and neither was Sugar Ray Robinson... That's why they started falling off a lot earlier... GGG HAS to be disciplined because he's not an American, he's a Kazakh and it's been much tougher for him fighting the Boxing Establishment ... Ali was my hero as a kid because I was dead against the stupid Viet Nam War. So I think Ali's a great human being but he wasn't the best Heavyweight ever. He was a little light on defense and punching power.

I applaud Kalan for having his own opinion and not being afraid to express it. Too many people are just repeating what boxing "experts" say.

jezzamundo wrote: Only the blind can watch heavyweight boxing from the 70s, 80s and 90s, then watch more recent fights and believe today's heavyweights are superior. The difference isn't so big in other weight divisions, but it's there.

LOOK.. I've been around for a very long time and boxers today are better. A lot of "experts" who confidently say a boxer from the past would knock out a fighter today in "5 rounds" if they bet on real fights they'd soon be broke. They have ZERO idea what they're looking at. You can't make water faster and swimmers today are smashing records. Divers, skaters, and gymnasts are preforming at a much higher degree of difficulty. No top Heavyweight of the 70's 80's or 90's had the combination of height, weight, reach, strength, speed, power, and intelligence Joshua has.

Take a list of some top Heavyweights today: 1. Tyson Fury... 2. Anthony Joshua... 3. Luis Ortiz... 4. Deontay Wilder... 5. Wladimir Klitschko... 6. Alexander Povetkin... 7. David Haye... 8. Andy Ruiz... 9. Joseph Parker... 10. Erkan Teper... 11. Bryant Jennings... 12. Hughie Fury... 13. Charles Martin... 14. Kubrat Pulev... 15. Johann Duhaupas... 16. Ruslan Chagaev... 17. Bermane Stiverne... 18. Lucas Browne... 19. Malik Scott... 20. Carlos Takam... 21. Mike Perez... 22. Alexander Ustinov... 23. Dereck Chisora... 24. Christian Hammer... 25. Robert Helenius... 26. Steve Cunningham... 27. Czar Glazkov... 27. Arnold Gjergjaj... 28. Amir Mansour... 30. Artur Szpilka...

And compare them to some of the very small and weak ranked Heavyweight Title Challengers from the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s.. Don Cockell.. Roland LaStarza.. Tom McNeely.. Pete Rademacher.. Brian London.. Henry Cooper.. Alfredo Evangelista.. Jean Pierre Coopman.. Leon Spinks.. Terry Daniels.. Dave Zyglewitz.. Manuel Ramos.. Ron Stander.. Richard Dunn.. Now Chuck Wepner was 6'5" X 225, but he wasn't strong, fast, fit, skilled, elusive, or coordinated. He was very soft and squishy looking. He went 15 with Ali, but he might be gone in 15 seconds with AJ.

A couple ranking numbers are of on my last post but it's a top 30 list.

Kalan wrote: Robinson wasn't 130 for Turpin. Don't talk like and idiot .... .

no, it wasn't his 130th fight, you're correct.

the Turpin fights were his 133rd and 134th fight, which makes you 'and' fucken moron.

Counter-puncher wrote:

Kalan wrote: Robinson wasn't 130 for Turpin. Don't talk like and idiot .... .

no, it wasn't his 130th fight, you're correct.

the Turpin fights were his 133rd and 134th fight, which makes you 'and' fucken moron.

No one should argue with Kalan, he had a ring side seat at the James J. Corbett vs John L. Sullivan fight. He has seen them all.

Counter-puncher wrote:the Turpin fights were his 133rd and 134th fight, which makes you 'and' fucken moron.

No I was right. He wasn't 130 and it wasn't his 130th fight. You're the stupid bastard who got the numbers wrong. So who's the moron? You are.

So if Robinson was fighting every week or 2 and padding his record with incredibly bad boxers Golovkin could do that and be 200-0 by now... The guys Robinson fought in Middleweight title Defenses didn't have stellar records and weren't fabulous boxers... and his record was 3-3 with 2 KO's.. Golovkin hasn't been able to corner Canelo, Sanders, or Jacobs, who are better than anyone Robinson faced as Middleweight Champion... If he lines them up he'll be 20-0 with 20 KO wins in Middleweight Title fights and 19-0 with 19 KO's in Middleweight Title Defenses.

Badhusker wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

Kalan wrote: Robinson wasn't 130 for Turpin. Don't talk like and idiot .... .

no, it wasn't his 130th fight, you're correct.

the Turpin fights were his 133rd and 134th fight, which makes you 'and' fucken moron.

No one should argue with Kalan, he had a ring side seat at the James J. Corbett vs John L. Sullivan fight. He has seen them all.

Yes, I should give him more leeway for his ridiculous posts. Everybody slips at 110 years old.