Aaron Pryor & Sugar Ray Leonard

[Ambling Alp II]

You can't "dominate" two weight classes? Earlier you said that Arguello, Chavez,and Jones did and Armstrong dominated three. You are contradicting yourself for the umpteenth time.

Look at Robinson's beat great competition at middleweight when he retired in 1952: He had already beat better competition than Monzon and Hagler did. His only loss was a fight just 9 days after his previous fight. If that was one of your favorites, you would be making an excuse for him. He beat the guy in a rematch.

He was awesome at welterweight. He a lot of great fighters and some good ones as well. However, he was human and occasionally he struggled. He barely beat Marty Servo and California Johnny Wilson. How many times have you said that he didn't deserve a decision against Gavilan? He doesn't get one of these decisions, he would have had the same amount of losses as he did at middleweight during his prime.

The evidence clearly shows that he had no problem moving up to middleweight and was as good of a middleweight as he was a welterweight until he got old.

[elmersalsa]

You can't "dominate" two weight classes? Earlier you said that Arguello, Chavez,and Jones did and Armstrong dominated three. You are contradicting yourself for the umpteenth time.

Look at Robinson's beat great competition at middleweight when he retired in 1952: He had already beat better competition than Monzon and Hagler did. His only loss was a fight just 9 days after his previous fight. If that was one of your favorites, you would be making an excuse for him. He beat the guy in a rematch.

He was awesome at welterweight. He a lot of great fighters and some good ones as well. However, he was human and occasionally he struggled. He barely beat Marty Servo and California Johnny Wilson. How many times have you said that he didn't deserve a decision against Gavilan? He doesn't get one of these decisions, he would have had the same amount of losses as he did at middleweight during his prime.

The evidence clearly shows that he had no problem moving up to middleweight and was as good of a middleweight as he was a welterweight until he got old.

I have said, almost most of the boxers OF THE WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD, that became champions in one class, cannot dominate another class like the forms one.

Robinson, compared to other fighters, did great going up in weight. Why? his frame was adept to go up in class. He was almost 6' feet tall.
At welter? Invincible....At middle? mmmmm...Lost too many fights, too many.
Randy Turpin schooled him and almost won the rematch.
Rocky Graziano dropped him.
He lost to the great Jake LaMotta.
He lost to Joey Maxim.

Above welterweight? He lost. At 147??? Invincible. He is not an exception. Ask the great Roy Jones, Jr about that.

[Counter-puncher]

what, you mean the Roy Jones who was better at 175 than he was at 168?

[Ambling Alp II]

You can't "dominate" two weight classes? Earlier you said that Arguello, Chavez,and Jones did and Armstrong dominated three. You are contradicting yourself for the umpteenth time.

Look at Robinson's beat great competition at middleweight when he retired in 1952: He had already beat better competition than Monzon and Hagler did. His only loss was a fight just 9 days after his previous fight. If that was one of your favorites, you would be making an excuse for him. He beat the guy in a rematch.

He was awesome at welterweight. He a lot of great fighters and some good ones as well. However, he was human and occasionally he struggled. He barely beat Marty Servo and California Johnny Wilson. How many times have you said that he didn't deserve a decision against Gavilan? He doesn't get one of these decisions, he would have had the same amount of losses as he did at middleweight during his prime.

The evidence clearly shows that he had no problem moving up to middleweight and was as good of a middleweight as he was a welterweight until he got old.

I have said, almost most of the boxers OF THE WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD, that became champions in one class, cannot dominate another class like the forms one.

Robinson, compared to other fighters, did great going up in weight. Why? his frame was adept to go up in class. He was almost 6' feet tall.
At welter? Invincible....At middle? mmmmm...Lost too many fights, too many.
Randy Turpin schooled him and almost won the rematch.
Rocky Graziano dropped him.
He lost to the great Jake LaMotta.
He lost to Joey Maxim.

Above welterweight? He lost. At 147??? Invincible. He is not an exception. Ask the great Roy Jones, Jr about that.

elmer said yesterday, "You cannot dominate two classes." That means nobody can.

elmer-Turpin did not "school" Robinson in the first fight. Turpin won a decision. You also keep ignoring the fact that the fight was just 9 days after Robinson's last previous fight. Robinson could not possibly have been at this best. If it was one of favorites (say Duran, Pedroza, Cuevas) you would not consider this fight at all.
Not exactly damning evidence.

Yes he got knocked down for about a second against Graziano, a very hard puncher. So what? He knocked him out in the same round.
He was not a middleweight when he fought LaMotta. He only weighed 144.5 while LaMotta weighed 160.5. That means Robinson was still a welterweight.
You are really counting the Maxim fight against him? He weighed 157.5 against a the light heavyweight champion that weighed 173.5. Robinson did not lose to a middleweight here.

Close to his prime, Robinson only had one loss when he was a middleweight against another middleweight. It was against a very good opponent, he wasn't at this best, and he avenged it. He also had several big wins at middleweight.

Robinson had no problem at all adjusting to being a little bigger as a middleweight, and until he got old, he was as good at middleweight as he was at welterweight.

[elmersalsa]

The great Sugar Ray Rpbinson was way better at welterweight. The record sometimes don't lie.

Robinson got schooled by Randy Turpin in London. Then in NYC, Turpin was schooling him again and winning the fight. It was Robinson that suckered up and did the rest.

Robinson was so dominant at welter, that he had to have middleweight bouts in between. He even lasted 5 years as world welterweight champion. While at middleweight, he couldn't hold the title for more than a year.

Even though that I believe that one of my favorite fighters, the great Kid Gavilan, beat him, but didn't get the decision, still, Robinson if he lost that fight, would've been seen more dominant than at middleweight

[Ambling Alp II]

Now Turpin was schooling him the 2nd fight? He wasn't even ahead; Robinson was!

By all means lets look at the record:
What did Robinson at middleweight: I counted 57 fights that Robinson had where he weighed over 150 pounds before he retired in 1952. Besides the first Turpin fight, the only one that he lost were to the light heavyweight champion, so that doesn't count as a middleweight fight.
So one loss in 56 fights at middleweight and he avenged it.
He also had several other fights where he was technically over the welterweight limit (more than 147 but not more than 150). He never lost any of those.

Lets look at title fights, which you like to do when it favors your guy. If he doesn't get the decision against Gavilan, his record is 4-1 in welterweight title fights.
His record in middleweight title fights? 4-1.

How about the competition in those title fights? At welterweight, he did fight some good opponents, no question about it. Bell, Doyle, Taylor,Fusari were sold pros and Gavilan was a Hall of Famer.

How about at middleweight? In those middleweight title fights, all 5 were against a Hall of Famer.

So no, he wasn't "way better at welterweight". When he moved up he was about the same until he retired in 1952.

[elmersalsa]

Now Turpin was schooling him the 2nd fight? He wasn't even ahead; Robinson was!

By all means lets look at the record:
What did Robinson at middleweight: I counted 57 fights that Robinson had where he weighed over 150 pounds before he retired in 1952. Besides the first Turpin fight, the only one that he lost were to the light heavyweight champion, so that doesn't count as a middleweight fight.
So one loss in 56 fights at middleweight and he avenged it.
He also had several other fights where he was technically over the welterweight limit (more than 147 but not more than 150). He never lost any of those.

Lets look at title fights, which you like to do when it favors your guy. If he doesn't get the decision against Gavilan, his record is 4-1 in welterweight title fights.
His record in middleweight title fights? 4-1.

How about the competition in those title fights? At welterweight, he did fight some good opponents, no question about it. Bell, Doyle, Taylor,Fusari were sold pros and Gavilan was a Hall of Famer.

How about at middleweight?

Randy Turpin was schooling Sugar Ray for the last 3 rounds. I am going to see this fight again. I don't want to see any biasedness in the scoring.

Also, I will look carefully on Sugar Man's record. I am saying that he was way better at welterweight. It was like he didn't had any competition. He didn't lose a single fight at 147, but, like always, YOU ALWAYS WANT TO MAKE THE IMPOSSIBLE OR THE NONFACTUAL POSSIBLE OR FACTUAL.

Robinson CLEARLY was better at 147. His best weight.

[Ambling Alp II]

So now he was "schooling him" for three rounds? Before you said it was until the last round. You are changing your story again.
Robinson lost 3 rounds in several of his fights at welterweight.

The bottom line is that he was winning the fight, and most importantly, stopped a really good fighter while at middleweight.

"YOU ALWAYS WANT TO MAKE THE IMPOSSIBLE OR THE NONFACTUAL POSSIBLE OR FACTUAL."
You really do need to start using a Dictionary.
"Biasedness" is not a word.
Look up words like impossible and factual.

I have not said anything that is impossible. I have not said anything that is "nonfactual".
I have made several points to support the opinion that Robinson had no problem at middleweight. You have not come up with anything legitimate that he was not.

Until he got old, Robinson was clearly about as good at middleweight as he was at welterweight.

[palooka]

Robinson was unbeaten amateur and pro as a welter, he didn't start to lose until he'd been boxing for donkeys years and had a lot of milage on the clock.

[elmersalsa]

Anybody that believes that Sugar Ray Robinson dominated the middleweight division just like the welters, got to be delusional. He lost 18 fights there. He at least lost 2 fights in his prime at middleweight. At 147, he WAS INVINCIBLE. We can't say he was invincible at 160. The record shows that is not a lie this time.

I haven't seen a fighter dominate the upper class as good like he did in the former one. That is a natural thing in boxing. Only a quite few did. And that's because the bigger champ was not as good as the guy going up. Plain and simple.

Robinson had 59 fights at welterweight. He didn't lose a fight in that class. Record: 58-0-1, 35KOs

At middleweight, his overall record was 98-18-5, 2NC, with 53KOs

In his prime, at middleweight, Robinson record was 54-2-1, 1NC, with 31KOs. That means, in the almost amount of fights in both classes, he could not win 4 fights in 58 clashes at middleweight.

THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR AND PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING. Robinson was better at welterweight. He even had more KOs at 147 than at 160. Another proof that going up in class is harder to stop BIGGER FOLKS, Ambling Alp.

[elmersalsa]

Robinson record at welterweight championship fights was 6-0, 2KOs. Held crown for 5 years

Robinson's record at middleweight championship fights was 4-1, 3KOs. Couldn't hold the crown for a whole year. And that was Robinson's prime years

Ambling Alp always making the non factual as factual and the impossible as possible.

[Ambling Alp II]

I said Robinson would have been 4-1 if he didn't get the decision that you didn't think he dserves against Gavilan. It should have been 5-1.
He was 4-1 at middleweight title fights during his prime.
I mentioned that the competition was better at middleweight. All 5 fights of his middleweight title fights were against HOFers at and only title fight against a HOF vs welterweights.
Considering the competition, his record in middleweight title fights is as impressive as his record in welterweight title fights.

As for your overall numbers: You are counting fights up to when he 44 years old. I'm not talking about fights when he was past it..


I don't know where you are coming up with the 2nd loss during his prime at middleweight. Turpin was was the only one when he was a middleweight and his opponent was a middleweight as well. So no you can't count the LaMotta fight or the Maxim fight.

A no-contest is not the same as a draw or a loss. It is just that a "no-contest". It doesn't count at all. It doesn't mean a fighter fought poorly.
He had a draw at each weight class.

His record at middleweight during his prime is virtually identical to welterweight.

His first fight with Turpin was just 9 days after his previous fight. Do you think that could have any effect on the fight?

[ClivePatrickLyons]

Robinson record at welterweight championship fights was 6-0, 2KOs. Held crown for 5 years

Robinson's record at middleweight championship fights was 4-1, 3KOs. Couldn't hold the crown for a whole year. And that was Robinson's prime years

Ambling Alp always making the non factual as factual and the impossible as possible.

elmersalsa you take the cake and eat it ..........I see some rubbish typed before but you are the KING.....

[elmersalsa]

I said Robinson would have been 4-1 if he didn't get the decision that you didn't think he dserves against Gavilan. It should have been 5-1.
He was 4-1 at middleweight title fights during his prime.
I mentioned that the competition was better at middleweight. All 5 fights of his middleweight title fights were against HOFers at and only title fight against a HOF vs welterweights.
Considering the competition, his record in middleweight title fights is as impressive as his record in welterweight title fights.

As for your overall numbers: You are counting fights up to when he 44 years old. I'm not talking about fights when he was past it..


I don't know where you are coming up with the 2nd loss during his prime at middleweight. Turpin was was the only one when he was a middleweight and his opponent was a middleweight as well. So no you can't count the LaMotta fight or the Maxim fight.

A no-contest is not the same as a draw or a loss. It is just that a "no-contest". It doesn't count at all. It doesn't mean a fighter fought poorly.
He had a draw at each weight class.

His record at middleweight during his prime is virtually identical to welterweight.

His first fight with Turpin was just 9 days after his previous fight. Do you think that could have any effect on the fight?

It doesn't matter if he fought HOFs at middleweight. The competition was fiercer there because of TALENT AND BIGGER FOES. I have never mentioned the Joey Maxim fight. Sugar Ray Robinson at welterweight was INVINCIBLE that he had to take some middleweight bouts in between. He couldn't win 4 fights at middleweight. At welterweight, he drew one fight. Give it up, Ambling Alp. Admit that Robinson at welter was much better, even in prime stages before 1952.

[Ambling Alp II]

Of course the competition matters. The competition that he had in his middleweight title fights was much better than the competition that he fought in welterweight title fights. The middleweight division happened to be loaded at the time. Sometimes the welterweight division is better; sometimes the middleweight. In this case, it was the middleweight.

You never mentioned Joey Maxim? Yet again, you don't even know what you said earlier.

On August 25 you said,
I have said, almost most of the boxers OF THE WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD, that became champions in one class, cannot dominate another class like the forms one.

Robinson, compared to other fighters, did great going up in weight. Why? his frame was adept to go up in class. He was almost 6' feet tall.
At welter? Invincible....At middle? mmmmm...Lost too many fights, too many.
Randy Turpin schooled him and almost won the rematch.
Rocky Graziano dropped him.
He lost to the great Jake LaMotta.
He lost to Joey Maxim.

You also somehow counted the LaMotta loss, when Robinson was still a welterweight.

He couldn't win 4 fights at middleweight?
The No-Contest doesn't count. Do you know what a no-contest means?
Again only he only had one loss when he was a middleweight and his opponent was a middleweight in his prime.
If you can name someone besides Turpin, go ahead and name him. Otherwise shutup about it.

To sum it up, he had a loss and a draw at middleweight. Thats 2 fights he didn't win.
He had a draw at welterweight. He also had the Gavilan fight which you claim he should not have got the decision. He also had two other very close decision wins at welterweight that could have been losses or draws.

And you keep ducking the question of whether consideration the loss to Turpin which was just 9 days after his previous fight. I would think you would since you clam that Duran's loss to Leonard was too soon since it was 5 months after the first one.

He was just as good at middleweight before he retired the first time as he was at welterweight.

[elmersalsa]

Of course the competition matters. The competition that he had in his middleweight title fights was much better than the competition that he fought in welterweight title fights. The middleweight division happened to be loaded at the time. Sometimes the welterweight division is better; sometimes the middleweight. In this case, it was the middleweight.

You never mentioned Joey Maxim? Yet again, you don't even know what you said earlier.

On August 25 you said,
I have said, almost most of the boxers OF THE WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD, that became champions in one class, cannot dominate another class like the forms one.

Robinson, compared to other fighters, did great going up in weight. Why? his frame was adept to go up in class. He was almost 6' feet tall.
At welter? Invincible....At middle? mmmmm...Lost too many fights, too many.
Randy Turpin schooled him and almost won the rematch.
Rocky Graziano dropped him.
He lost to the great Jake LaMotta.
He lost to Joey Maxim.

You also somehow counted the LaMotta loss, when Robinson was still a welterweight.

He couldn't win 4 fights at middleweight?
The No-Contest doesn't count. Do you know what a no-contest means?
Again only he only had one loss when he was a middleweight and his opponent was a middleweight in his prime.
If you can name someone besides Turpin, go ahead and name him. Otherwise shutup about it.

To sum it up, he had a loss and a draw at middleweight. Thats 2 fights he didn't win.
He had a draw at welterweight. He also had the Gavilan fight which you claim he should not have got the decision. He also had two other very close decision wins at welterweight that could have been losses or draws.

And you keep ducking the question of whether consideration the loss to Turpin which was just 9 days after his previous fight. I would think you would since you clam that Duran's loss to Leonard was too soon since it was 5 months after the first one.

He was just as good at middleweight before he retired the first time as he was at welterweight.

First of all, YOU GOT TO RESPECT ME AND LIKE ADULTS, SPEAK RIGHT TO ME, MISTER! I don't condone your actions by telling me to shut up. I am not your child. Tell that to your children if you have one.

Second, you dismiss always the notion that Sugar Ray at middleweight was not as dominant as in welterweight. You mentioned that middleweight had better fighters, but you WANT TO FORGET THAT THE GUYS WERE STRONGER AND BIGGER. That happened to almost every fighter in history, including Robinson. I differ that at middleweight, by his first retirement, he fought better opponents. The great Kid Gavilan was better than any fighter Robinson fought at middleweight, including the great Jake LaMotta. Am I right? The other was Fritzie Zivic, you forgot? Randy Turpin, nor Bobo Olson nor Rocky Graziano (a washed up version when Ray beat him) were not better than Zivic. If you want to throw Graziano in, then, we should throw in at welterweight a washed up great Henry Armstrong. How about that? Don't forget Sammy Angott in their second meeting when he fought him at 147. Don't forget Jose Basora and George Costner.

We could say that Olson was in Marty Servo's class. Whatever. Both of them were punching bags for Sugar Ray at best.

Robinson lost 2 fights at middleweight before first retirement. Let's not forget that. Turpin schooled him in England, and was schooling at The Polo Grounds. (I had the fight 88-87, in favor of Turpin at time of stoppage).

Third, Robinson couldn't hold the crown for a year at 160. At 147, he was champion for 5 years. Explain that to me that he was as dominant?

Fourth, At welter, sometimes he couldn't get fights. So that is why he was jumping up and down to 160 and back to 147. He DID NOT LOSE A DAMN FIGHT AT WELTER...NOT ONE!

He was good at middleweight because of his frame can carry the weight (5'11" tall). And still, was not near as invincible as in 147. How could that be the same?

[Giancarlo]

First of all, YOU GOT TO RESPECT ME AND LIKE ADULTS, SPEAK RIGHT TO ME, MISTER! I don't condone your actions by telling me to shut up. I am not your child. Tell that to your children if you have one.

Pure comedy gold

[elmersalsa]

First of all, YOU GOT TO RESPECT ME AND LIKE ADULTS, SPEAK RIGHT TO ME, MISTER! I don't condone your actions by telling me to shut up. I am not your child. Tell that to your children if you have one.

Pure comedy gold

I gotta put him check. He ain't gonna disrespect me. No, sir.

[palooka]

I'm out of here.

[Ambling Alp II]

I said that Robinson only lost one fight when he was a middleweight against another middleweight before he retired in 1952. You keep saying there was two. I said to either name it or shutup about it. Once again you said there were but can't name it.
I give you the respect someone deserves who constantly refuses to answer my questions, (even though I show you the courtesy of answering yours) who once again claims he didn't something that he did, and constantly annoys people.

I will ask again it again.. name the other loss?

2. Of course middleweights on average are bigger and stronger. Guess what? Robinson was bigger and stronger when he was a middleweight than he was a welterweight. See how that works? Not that complicated.
I don't know if Gavilan was better than LaMotta. Certainly arguable either way. I don't think Graziano was washed up. I don't think he was a great fighter, but he had something left. I was comparing Robinson's middleweight title fights to his welterweight title fights. I think the group of Graziano, LaMotta, Olson and Turpin twice, is much hard to beat than the group of Bell, Doyle,Taylor,Docusen, Gavilan and Fusari.

No I don't think Servo was as good as Olson. I think Olson was better. Moreover look at the what happened.
At welterweight, Robinson barely beat Servo.
At middleweight, he defeated Olson easily.
Yet more evidence that he was as good at middleweight as welterweight.

No he only lost one at middleweight during his prime, as I have said many times. It's up to you to find the other he lost while he was a middleweight to another middleweight.
Schooling doesn't mean you are up by one point. Schooling (like whupped) means you are winning easily. And most people thought Robinson was winning the fight. Doesn't really matter, because he stopped Turpin anyway.

Thanks for bringing up Costner and Basora. He fought Basora the first time at 149 and half (essentially a welterweight in a non-title fight.) When Robinson was a middleweight at 154 and half, he knocked Basora out in the first round. He did better at a higher weight. Imagine that.
He knocked Costner out in the first round when he was a middleweight. Imagine did better at a higher weight.
Thanks for helping make my case that Robinson was as good at middleweight.

3. It doesn't matter how long someone the champion. What matters to me is how many major wins he has in tha time. He only had 6 welterweight title fights in 5 years against inferior competition than his middleweight title fights.

Johnny Kilbane was the featherweight champion for almost 12 years. He sin't consider the best because he rarely made any defenses. It's not the time, it's what you do during that time.


4. No he didn't lose one at welterweight. I agree. He did have some close calls.
Both he and California Jackie Wilson weighed 142 and half in a fight that Robinson barely won.
They each weighed 150 and half in another fight. This time Robinson beat Wilson easily. More evidence for his case at middleweight.

He only only lost once at middleweight in his prime and that was coming off a fight just 9 days earlier. I asked you if that could have been an impact on the first Turpin fight and you have not shown me the courtesy of answering.

5. He was good at middleweight because he was bigger and stronger. He traded a little quickness for a little strength. Not exactly brain surgery here. Happens to fighters all of the time. I gave you over 100 examples on another thread.

If you want to end this discussion, fine with me.

If you are going to continue, show me the courtesy of answering the questions that I have asked you, since I have shown you that courtesy.
Don't lie and deny that you didn't say something that you said previously.
Use terms like school and whupped appropriately. Thinking that your guy is winning doesn't mean necessarily mean it's a schooling or a whupping.
Stop contradicting yourself.
Stop saying the same point over and over that the other person has countered as if they did not counter it.

[elmersalsa]

I said that Robinson only lost one fight when he was a middleweight against another middleweight before he retired in 1952. You keep saying there was two. I said to either name it or shutup about it. Once again you said there were but can't name it.
I give you the respect someone deserves who constantly refuses to answer my questions, (even though I show you the courtesy of answering yours) who once again claims he didn't something that he did, and constantly annoys people.

I will ask again it again.. name the other loss?

2. Of course middleweights on average are bigger and stronger. Guess what? Robinson was bigger and stronger when he was a middleweight than he was a welterweight. See how that works? Not that complicated.
I don't know if Gavilan was better than LaMotta. Certainly arguable either way. I don't think Graziano was washed up. I don't think he was a great fighter, but he had something left. I was comparing Robinson's middleweight title fights to his welterweight title fights. I think the group of Graziano, LaMotta, Olson and Turpin twice, is much hard to beat than the group of Bell, Doyle,Taylor,Docusen, Gavilan and Fusari.

No I don't think Servo was as good as Olson. I think Olson was better. Moreover look at the what happened.
At welterweight, Robinson barely beat Servo.
At middleweight, he defeated Olson easily.
Yet more evidence that he was as good at middleweight as welterweight.

No he only lost one at middleweight during his prime, as I have said many times. It's up to you to find the other he lost while he was a middleweight to another middleweight.
Schooling doesn't mean you are up by one point. Schooling (like whupped) means you are winning easily. And most people thought Robinson was winning the fight. Doesn't really matter, because he stopped Turpin anyway.

Thanks for bringing up Costner and Basora. He fought Basora the first time at 149 and half (essentially a welterweight in a non-title fight.) When Robinson was a middleweight at 154 and half, he knocked Basora out in the first round. He did better at a higher weight. Imagine that.
He knocked Costner out in the first round when he was a middleweight. Imagine did better at a higher weight.
Thanks for helping make my case that Robinson was as good at middleweight.

3. It doesn't matter how long someone the champion. What matters to me is how many major wins he has in tha time. He only had 6 welterweight title fights in 5 years against inferior competition than his middleweight title fights.l

Johnny Kilbane was the featherweight champion for almost 12 years. He sin't consider the best because he rarely made any defenses. It's not the time, it's what you do during that time.


4. No he didn't lose one at welterweight. I agree. He did have some close calls.
Both he and California Jackie Wilson weighed 142 and half in a fight that Robinson barely won.
They each weighed 150 and half in another fight. This time Robinson beat Wilson easily. More evidence for his case at middleweight.

He only only lost once at middleweight in his prime and that was coming off a fight just 9 days earlier. I asked you if that could have been an impact on the first Turpin fight and you have not shown me the courtesy of answering.

5. He was good at middleweight because he was bigger and stronger. He traded a little quickness for a little strength. Not exactly brain surgery here. Happens to fighters all of the time. I gave you over 100 examples on another thread.

If you want to end this discussion, fine with me.

If you are going to continue, show me the courtesy of answering the questions that I have asked you, since I have shown you that courtesy.
Don't lie and deny that you didn't say something that you said previously.
Use terms like school and whupped appropriately. Thinking that your guy is winning doesn't mean necessarily mean it's a schooling or a whupping.
Stop contradicting yourself.
Stop saying the same point over and over that the other person has countered as if they did not counter it.

Well, you are coming with some facts THAT ARE NOT TRUE. And once again, Robinson was a great middleweight fighter. NOBODY IS DENYING THAT. The KEY was is he was AS DOMINANT AS HE WAS AT WELTERWEIGHT. That was the whole argument. You said that it was equal. I said he was not. The record shows it. History shows it and the videos at middleweight shows it.

1. You want to know what middleweight Robinson lost to when he was at middleweight? The great Jake LaMotta.
was going up and down in his prime. He started to be fighting more often middleweight bouts by 1947. He was considered middleweight contender by 1950.

2. Of course, duh! Robinson is going to get stronger than when he was at 147. And of course he's going to be stronger at zlight-heavyweight than when he's fighting at 160. Everybody gets stronger. The question for the MAJORITY OF BOXERS IS, Can you have the SAME SPEED as your former stay class? The answer? NOT TOO MANY FIGHTERS CAN DO THAT. Only few exceptions, like The great Roy Jones, Jr or in somewhat in that respect, the great Thomas Hearns and Robinson. They got the frame to carry the weight and have almost the same speed. And you are going to lie to me, on my face, that Rocky Grazianoiz was not washed up? He was Ko'd cold by Tony Zale. Zale ended his career. It was just another big payday for Rocky. The fight should have been made 6 years earlier, around 1946 when Graziano was still prime.
And yes, Randy was schooling Ray. The last 3 rounds was all Randy Turpin's. He even cut Robinson eye for cripes sake. Sugar Ray solved the puzzle. That's a mark of a great fighter. The cut was a blessing in disguise. I don't know what the judges were watching. Maybe they were bia$$$ed. They probably had a thing against the Englishman. Because THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL, IN MY VIEW, THAT ROBINSON WAS WINNING THAT BOUT. TURPIN HAD THE FIGHT UNDER CONTROL until the stoppage.

3. Now, Jose Basora. You're bringing something that has nothing to do with the subject. Basora and Robinson were both welterweights that moved up. Robinson proved to be better going up in weight. The same scenario with George Costner.

4. At title fights, I give it to you that he beat better opponents. The best at 147 title fight was the great Kid Gavilan. But, we are talking overall performance at the weight class and the opponents. I differ that he had way better opponents at 160. They were STRONGER, NOT BETTER. But, ain't the champion got to fight the mandatory challengers? That's what was in front of him.

5. The second fight with California Jackie Wilson, by my standards, if both were below 155lbs, is considered to me, to me, A welterweight fight.

We could keep it up. I am still here. If disrespect is your game, I could get uglier just like I told Keith. I refused to be disrespected by anybody on this forum. You call names, I do the same. So, let's watch the words, now!

[Ambling Alp II]

You are hilarious.
1. No Robinson was not a middleweight when he lost to LaMotta. He weighed 144.5 pounds. That is what this is all about, how did he do when he moved up in weight. He did not move up in weight yet.
Not to mention the loss to LaMotta was in 1943, seven years before he was a ranked middleweight contender.

2. Yes Robinson lost a little speed when he got heavier. didn't matter since his middleweight opponents were slower as well. How on earth can you not figure this out?
So now Turpin had the 2nd fight in control? You yourself only had him winning by one point. Being ahead by point is not being in control.
Graziano was winning the 3rd Zale fight before he got knocked out. In fact he was schooling him.

3. I was just showing how well Robinson did better moving up in weight. He scored first round knockouts against Basora and Costner at middleweight.
4. I think his overall resume at welterweight and middleweight (up until he retired the first time) is about the same. This is what I have been saying the whole time.

5. Below 155 is a welterweight fight? Well first of all, you are contradicting yourself yet again. He only weighed 144.5 against LaMotta yet you somehow consider that a middleweight fight!
I don't consider a fight at say 154 a welterweight fight. It's way over the 147 pound limit.

Are you ever going to answer my question about the first Turpin fight? I asked several times if his having a fight just 9 days before could have made a difference in his performance. You have not shown me the courtesy of answering this.

Would you mind answering these questions as well?
Can you really not see how Robinson' would still have a speed advantage against middleweights?
Do you really think that winning a fight by 1 point (on your scorecard) is schooling someone?

Please if you want to continue, answer my questions since I answer yours.

[elmersalsa]

You are hilarious.
1. No Robinson was not a middleweight when he lost to LaMotta. He weighed 144.5 pounds. That is what this is all about, how did he do when he moved up in weight. He did not move up in weight yet.
Not to mention the loss to LaMotta was in 1943, seven years before he was a ranked middleweight contender.

2. Yes Robinson lost a little speed when he got heavier. didn't matter since his middleweight opponents were slower as well. How on earth can you not figure this out?
So now Turpin had the 2nd fight in control? You yourself only had him winning by one point. Being ahead by point is not being in control.
Graziano was winning the 3rd Zale fight before he got knocked out. In fact he was schooling him.

3. I was just showing how well Robinson did better moving up in weight. He scored first round knockouts against Basora and Costner at middleweight.
4. I think his overall resume at welterweight and middleweight (up until he retired the first time) is about the same. This is what I have been saying the whole time.

5. Below 155 is a welterweight fight? Well first of all, you are contradicting yourself yet again. He only weighed 144.5 against LaMotta yet you somehow consider that a middleweight fight!
I don't consider a fight at say 154 a welterweight fight. It's way over the 147 pound limit.

Are you ever going to answer my question about the first Turpin fight? I asked several times if his having a fight just 9 days before could have made a difference in his performance. You have not shown me the courtesy of answering this.

Would you mind answering these questions as well?
Can you really not see how Robinson' would still have a speed advantage against middleweights?
Do you really think that winning a fight by 1 point (on your scorecard) is schooling someone?

Please if you want to continue, answer my questions since I answer yours.

1. Of course he was not a middleweight yet, but, the fight was a ten round middleweight bout. That's fair enough. Robinson and LaMotta chose to fight, no matter the advantage. The FACT IS HE LOST TO A MIDDLEWEIGHT, NOT A WELTERWEIGHT. Robinson NEVER LOST TO A WELTERWEIGHT. Is that fair enough? At least, in his prime before retiring in '52 shows that he couldn't win 4 fights at 160 or to a middleweight. Fair enough for me. It should be fair enough for everybody else's. He was HUMAN. No shame on that.

2. I have already figured out Robinson's speed at 160 BEFORE YOU DID. I told THE FORUM, he was somewhat a rare case like the great Roy Jones, Jr or Thomas Hearns, that had the speed and power still, going up. Not too many fighters can do that. It's hard to do. If you watch the Second fight with Randy Turpin, you will see that Randy was IN CONTROL. He won the last 3 rounds before being stopped. If no cut would have happened, probably, probably, Turpin would've emerged victorious. He was SCHOOLING SUGAR RAY.

3. Jose Basora was not a natural welterweight. The second George Costner fight was indeed @147. A little bit over the limit. That happens in many fights when the contestants are a little over the weight limit. That has happened many times. It showed you that some fighters could handle the weight better than other fighters going up. The second Basora fight is A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHAT I'M Talking ABOUT.

4. His RESUME at 147, compared to 160 before the first retirement in 1952, WAS NOT THE SAME. Robinson cleaned up the 147 pounders. Just like the great Roberto Duran did at lightweight. Just like the great Sugar Ray Leonard did at 147. Just like the great Carlos Monzon did at middleweight. I cannot say that about Robinson at the time of first retirement at 160. He didn't win 4 fights, there.

5. Yes, I consider a fight under 155lbs a little over the limit of 147. Fair enough. Remember, there were no Jr middleweight/super welter division then as is now. LaMotta was the middleweight. It was a middleweight bout, no matter how Robinson came above his welter limit. The billing was promoted as middleweight bout.

6. The first Turpin bout? Sugar Ray was busy fighting in a tour in Europe. Maybe, he should have wait a little longer and train for the fight. But, then again, he probably was getting an offer in England that it was HARD TO REFUSE. We cannot discount Randy Turpin's win as discredited
He won fair and square. Did Sugar Ray took him maybe too lightly? Did the continuing fights in Europe took a toll on him? I don't know. The fact was that he got SCHOOLED BY THE ENGLISHMAN

[Ambling Alp II]

We have gone over 1-5 before; I have shown your positions to be ridiculous.
For #6, it's yet another case of your bias. Duran didn't have enough time (5 months) before he had to defend the title against Leonard.
Yet you make no concession for Robinson who had only 9 days.

Of all your idiotic comments, I think I have a favorite. That you consider Robinson at 144.5 a middleweight when he lost to LaMotta.
After all, Robinson was a middleweight contender in 1950. Who cares if the fight in 1943?

elmer, I have no respect for you as a poster. I am not going to continue this. If you want to keep up with your nonsense, go ahead.

[elmersalsa]

Ambling Alp. Sugar Ray was busy fighting, according to the reports. I was not around in 1951, so I don't know what really happened. He was making an European tour, in which he fought several fights.

Manos de Piedra was having a party at the Animal House, at least, for 3 months. The fight was 2 months later. I didn't do the documentary. ESPN 30 for 30, did.

I don't know how we ended talking about Robinson, when we started talking about a possible fight of Pryor vs Leonard in '82 or '83.