BoxRec

elmersalsa wrote: IT IS A "GREAT COINCIDENCE" THAT THE FIGHTS WITH GAVILAN ARE NOT ON FILM..

Perhaps that's because almost none of Robinson's Welterweight fights, including all but one of his Welterweight title bouts, were never filmed. But of course a serious boxing fan like yourself would know that...

Duran beat Leonard once in three fights. A win over Barney Ross is good, Armstrong beat other Hall of Famers like Ambers. But Robinson beat more Hall of Fame opposition than any other fighter in boxing history. I know that you want to paint Robinson's two wins over Gavilan as losses to help your argument, bu the first fight was very close and there was no questions over who the winner was in the rematch, to my knowledge, which was a title bout. And LaMotta and Fullmer are hardly opponents that one should scoff at.

Ezzard wrote:I do agree that Maxin deserves more credit and it seems a bit unfair that Robinson gets a moral victory in this one.

Great effort by Robinson and the defeat, IMO, takes nothign away from him but maxim won the fight.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Joey Maxim. Joey Maxim has one of the best lists of opponents that you can think of. He fought Robinson, Charles, Moore, Patterson, Walcott, Olson, Bivins, was never KO'd by any of them, and managed to score wins over some of those men. That is exceptional. That doesn't mean that his win over Robinson isn't open to question, and if they had fought under ordinary circumstances, or if they had fought a rematch, Robinson likely would have won. I would not use the Robinson-Maxim fight as a way to prop up Robinson, but if people are going to play "what if" games with Armstrong, then Robinson should be entitled to the same thing. Robinson was screwed out of the Lightweight title, and had some bad luck challenging for the Light Heavyweight title, so why are we so hung up about Armstrong and this questionable Middleweight title bout? It's not even clear to me that it was a legitimate Middleweight title bout; boxrec doesn't list it as one in their list of Armstrong's record.

You can't accept excuses for one fighter and not the other.

I Feel Fine wrote:

elmersalsa wrote: IT IS A "GREAT COINCIDENCE" THAT THE FIGHTS WITH GAVILAN ARE NOT ON FILM..

Perhaps that's because almost none of Robinson's Welterweight fights, including all but one of his Welterweight title bouts, were never filmed. But of course a serious boxing fan like yourself would know that...

Duran beat Leonard once in three fights. A win over Barney Ross is good, Armstrong beat other Hall of Famers like Ambers. But Robinson beat more Hall of Fame opposition than any other fighter in boxing history. I know that you want to paint Robinson's two wins over Gavilan as losses to help your argument, bu the first fight was very close and there was no questions over who the winner was in the rematch, to my knowledge, which was a title bout. And LaMotta and Fullmer are hardly opponents that one should scoff at.

Yeah, but we see clips of him stopping every lightweight and welterweight in history. Duran lost to Leonard in two out of three, when the last fight both of them were not even 1/4 of themselves. And if we look at Armstrong's ledger, he BEAT MORE HALL OF FAMERS THAN ROBINSON. Jimmy McLarnin did beat more hall of famers than Robinson too. Duran beat 12 world champions. Robinson beat 15. Armstrong beat 15 too. And like I said before: "LaMotta nor Fullmer were in Leonard's or Ross' league"

We could see Ike Williams defeating Beau Jack and Sandy Saddler beating Willie Pep on film in 1948, but NOW somehow, the great Sugar Ray Robinson fights with the great Kid Gavilan are no where to be found? Were Williams and Pep more highly profound boxers than Robinson?

Something is wrong here. And we could also see Armstrong vs Ambers clips and McLarnin vs Ross on film but Robinson-Gavilan fights not???

We could see Ike Williams defeating Beau Jack and Sandy Saddler beating Willie Pep on film in 1948, but NOW somehow, the great Sugar Ray Robinson fights with the great Kid Gavilan are no where to be found? Were Williams and Pep more highly profound boxers than Robinson?

Something is wrong here. And we could also see Armstrong vs Ambers clips and McLarnin vs Ross on film but Robinson-Gavilan fights not???

come on elmer...you really believe that there was some conspiracy to destroy the film of the Robinson/Gavilan matches so Ray wouldn't look bad?!

None of Robinson's title fights were filmed, other than the Fusari fight. I've only seen film of three or four Robinson Welterweight fights, including Fusari. Its one thing to make dumb arguments, now you're just making shit up. Conspiracy theorists are idiots, and this is no exception. Why wouldn't they destroy the film of all of Robinson's losses?

Again, I would concede that its possible that Gavilan may have deserved the first decision. The fight was supposedly very close, and some thought Gavilan won. But it wasn't a huge controversy either, I don't think. That said, the rematch, which was the title fight, was not controversial, and no one disputed that Robinson won that one, to my knowledge, anyway.

Duran fought in an era where there was a whole world of paper titles that didn't exist in Robinson's era. Robinson to my knowledge beat more Hall of Famers than Armstrong did. To my recollection Armstrong beat seven and Robinson ten. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure.

Armstrong beat 9 hall of famers; Robinson beat 10. Duran beat 4.

Interesting, thanks. I was sure Robinson had more, but I couldn't remember the exact number for Armstrong.

theone wrote:

We could see Ike Williams defeating Beau Jack and Sandy Saddler beating Willie Pep on film in 1948, but NOW somehow, the great Sugar Ray Robinson fights with the great Kid Gavilan are no where to be found? Were Williams and Pep more highly profound boxers than Robinson?

Something is wrong here. And we could also see Armstrong vs Ambers clips and McLarnin vs Ross on film but Robinson-Gavilan fights not???

come on elmer...you really believe that there was some conspiracy to destroy the film of the Robinson/Gavilan matches so Ray wouldn't look bad?!

Of course there was! In The Cranky zone, that is.

theone wrote:

We could see Ike Williams defeating Beau Jack and Sandy Saddler beating Willie Pep on film in 1948, but NOW somehow, the great Sugar Ray Robinson fights with the great Kid Gavilan are no where to be found? Were Williams and Pep more highly profound boxers than Robinson?

Something is wrong here. And we could also see Armstrong vs Ambers clips and McLarnin vs Ross on film but Robinson-Gavilan fights not???

come on elmer...you really believe that there was some conspiracy to destroy the film of the Robinson/Gavilan matches so Ray wouldn't look bad?!

I agree. Elmer's contention that they've been hidden to uphold the Robinson legacy is ridiculous. Esp. since his other welterweight fights are not available, in which he apparently looked awesome!

So Holmes-Cobb wasn't definitive because it went the distance? I don't agree.

And this wasn't that kind of stoppage, anyway. Its like saying that Julio Diaz's KO win over Jesus Chavez is a definitive win. Chavez hurt his leg, went down, and got counted out. Is that definitive? Not to say that Diaz probably wouldn't have won anyway.

I would say definitive is when a fighter can win under reasonable circumstances. Maxim won the fight, but it was the circumstances that really defeated Robinson. Its a fair win for Maxim, it wasn't a robbery. Heat is certainly a factor in boxing, if its a little hot its not necessarily a big deal. But when its so hot that the referee can't even last 15 rounds then I call into question the circumstances of the bout.

Either way, I think you're intentionally missing the point. The point isn't that Robinson could have beaten Maxim, the point is that if Armstrong under ordinary circumstances beats Garcia and wins whatever version of the Middleweight title it was, then my contention is that Robinson under ordinary circumstances would probably have beaten Maxim and won the Light Heavyweight title. That's what my point is in this debate. You can't make "what if" scenarios for Armstrong in a debate about who had the better career, and then say that we can't do the same for Robinson.

theone wrote:

We could see Ike Williams defeating Beau Jack and Sandy Saddler beating Willie Pep on film in 1948, but NOW somehow, the great Sugar Ray Robinson fights with the great Kid Gavilan are no where to be found? Were Williams and Pep more highly profound boxers than Robinson?

Something is wrong here. And we could also see Armstrong vs Ambers clips and McLarnin vs Ross on film but Robinson-Gavilan fights not???

come on elmer...you really believe that there was some conspiracy to destroy the film of the Robinson/Gavilan matches so Ray wouldn't look bad?!

Yes, the one...Tomorrow, I will give you the great coincidence.

I've never heard the heat cited as the reason for Frazier losing to Ali in Manila...

theone wrote:Robinson beat 3 hall of famers (Im not countling Armstrong who was well past his prime)in their prime before winning the welterweight title. One of them a full fledge middleweight; without having to move up himself. Robinson may have had a tough time with Gavilan but Duran lost clearly to DeJesus who was not on par with Gavilan.

Maybe DeJesus was not Gavilan, but he was an excellent fighter that would have beaten that night (1st fight with Duran) any lightweight in history.

theone wrote:Armstrong beat 9 hall of famers; Robinson beat 10. Duran beat 4.

Well the one, I know you know your boxing and your boxing knowledge is DEEP and we do not agree in many things, but I got to disagree on this one again.

No fighter has beaten more HOFs than Jimmy McLarnin...Nobody.

McLarnin beat 13 HOFs: Lou Ambers, Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross, Young Corbett III, Benny Leonard, Lou Brouillard, Billy Petrolle, Sammy Mandell, Louis "Kid" Kaplan, Charles " Bud" Taylor, Jackie Fields, Pancho Villa, and Fidel LaBarba. If we include FUTURE HOFs Al Singer and Young Jack Thompson, (that there is no question in my mind that they will be one day enshrined in Canastota) that would be 15 HOFs


Who's next in line? Surprise!!! Henry Armstrong!!! He beat more HOFs than Sugar Ray Robinson. He beat 10 HOFs: Sammy Angott, Lew Jenkins, Fritzie Zivic, Pedro Montanez, Lou Ambers, Baby Arizmendi, Barney Ross, Chalky Wright, Benny Bass, and Midget Wolgast... But if we include Tippy Larkin, Willie Joyce, Petey Sarron, and Mike Belloise that there is no doubt in my mind that they would be inducted some day that is 14 HOFs.


Robinson beat 12 HOFs...10 already are inducted: Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio, Bobo Olson, Rocky Graziano, Randy Turpin, Jake LaMotta, Kid Gavilan (questionable, but well, what can we do?), Sammy Angott, Henry Armstrong and Fritzie Zivic. The other 2 that Sugar Ray beat, and that will be in the hall some day are Ralph Dupas and Denny Moyer...That makes it 12.


Duran beat 7 HOFs in my view: Ken Buchanan, Ray Leonard, Carlos Palomino, Pipino Cuevas, Esteban DeJesus (will be inducted some day), Ernesto Marcel (will be inducted some day) and Iran Barkley (clearly a HOF)

I Feel Fine wrote:Interesting, thanks. I was sure Robinson had more, but I couldn't remember the exact number for Armstrong.

ARMSTRONG HAS BEATEN MORE HOFs than Robinson

theone wrote:

We could see Ike Williams defeating Beau Jack and Sandy Saddler beating Willie Pep on film in 1948, but NOW somehow, the great Sugar Ray Robinson fights with the great Kid Gavilan are no where to be found? Were Williams and Pep more highly profound boxers than Robinson?

Something is wrong here. And we could also see Armstrong vs Ambers clips and McLarnin vs Ross on film but Robinson-Gavilan fights not???

come on elmer...you really believe that there was some conspiracy to destroy the film of the Robinson/Gavilan matches so Ray wouldn't look bad?!

Check this the one:

"Although most sportswriters agreed that Robinson had won, the fans "disagreed violently with the verdict in Robinson’s favor" and "set up such a roar of disagreement that the introduction of the championship principals was delayed until order was restored." (James P. Dawson, New York Times)

The people that saw the fight live, saw that Gavilan won it clearly. This is the same as Norton vs Ali fights in a way.

And now to protect the Sugar Man's reputation like Ali's:

"The contest was a most interesting and satisfying one. Gavilan's performance was such as to make Ray admit that he feared to take chances. In the fourth round Sugar Ray suffered a cut over the right eye that bled throughout the bout..For the first six rounds it was anybody's fight..But after the sixth, there was not doubt about Ray (having the better of it)." (The Ring, September 1949, pp. 10-11.)

This is some kind of hogwash and baloney. What did the people said of the fight then? Now the people do not count? Oh, I guess the fight was not in Havana, Cuba or in some part of Latin America. Robinson could never lose to a foreigner, especially in his own country, no, no, no, no, no way. He (Robinson) suffered a cut and won the fight? And look who covered the fight: The Ring Magazine?

There is no question in my mind, and I BELIEVE THAT THOSE TAPES ARE HIDDEN OR THROWN AWAY.

So I guess by that logic Victoriano Sosa beat Mayweather, since the crowd boo'd the decision? C'mon.

Terry D wrote:You are the one floating "what if it was Autumn" scenarios. I'm talking about the "what happened".

Terry D wrote: I'm not concerned with the Armstrong-Ray side of things. I was specifically talking about the Robinson-Maxim bout.

Right, exactly. I am talking about "what if's" and not "what happened" because that was a point being discussed in this Robinson-Armstrong discussion, which is the point of this thread, which you don't want to follow. "What if's" are being made for Armstrong, so I'm responding by making a counter "what if" for Robinson. You're basically interrupting a discussion, because you want to talk about something else; which is that Maxim should get more credit for his win. If you want to have a discussion about Robinson-Maxim independent of this Robinson-Armstrong-Duran thread, then start another thread. But in this thread, where "what if's" are being made for Armstrong, I am going to respond by making "what if's" for Robinson.

And if you do make that thread, I'll tell you the same thing I told you here, that under normal temperatures Robinson beats Maxim... which anyone who has seen the fight knows.

Who's next in line? Surprise!!! Henry Armstrong!!! He beat more HOFs than Sugar Ray Robinson. He beat 10 HOFs: Sammy Angott, Lew Jenkins, Fritzie Zivic, Pedro Montanez, Lou Ambers, Baby Arizmendi, Barney Ross, Chalky Wright, Benny Bass, and Midget Wolgast... But if we include Tippy Larkin, Willie Joyce, Petey Sarron, and Mike Belloise that there is no doubt in my mind that they would be inducted some day that is 14 HOFs.

I wasn't aware Pedro Montanez was enshrined. So officially, at least for now, it's a tie.

Iran Barkley (clearly a HOF)

Not too sure about this. He had two title wins over Hearns; both titles were lost in his first defense; a title win against the underwhelming "Schoolboy" Van Horn and a handful of exciting but losing efforts against good fighters.

I'm a Barkley fan but I'm not convinced he belongs in the HOF.

Let me try to explain this as simply as I can. I am not talking about how Robinson could have beaten Maxim because I am trying to build up Robinson. You keep accusing me of making excuses for Robinson. But there is no reason for you to accuse me of making excuses for Robinson, because I am openly making excuses for Robinson. I am purposely making excuses for Robinson. Not because I am trying to make Robinson's career look better, per se, but because I am addressing a specific point being made by Armstrong's supporters. They are making excuses for Armstrong, they are making hypothetical what ifs for Armstrong. So, I am responding with a hypothetical what if about Robinson. If you want to accuse anyone of not discussing "what happened", as you did earlier, it should be the Armstrong supporters for initiating these what ifs.

That said, I made no "error" about Robinson-Maxim, and I stand by the statement that Robinson under normal temperatures would beat Joey Maxim. I totally agree that this should have no relevance in how one judges Robinson's actual career, but I have not said that it should impact how we judge Robinson's career. I only bring it up because people are bringing up hypothetical what ifs for Armstrong, that Armstrong should have gotten a win over Garcia. But Armstrong didn't get the decision, so I don't see why this should be used as an argument to build up Armstrong. I remember homicidehenry saying that the winner had to score a knock out to win the fight, or the fight would be declared a draw. Armstrong scored no knock out, so it was a called draw. Under ordinary circumstances, Armstrong would have won a decision. But they were not ordinary circumstances, so its a draw. If you want to say Armstrong would win that title under ordinary circumstances, I would agree, but I would then say the same for Robinson and the Light Heavyweight title. That was the point of me bringing up Robinson-Maxim.

I have no qualms about debating with you all month over something, if I feel that I legitimately disagree with you. But I think we're disagreeing here because you don't seem to understand why it is that I am bringing up this Robinson-Maxim fight.

theone wrote:

Iran Barkley (clearly a HOF)

Not too sure about this. He had two title wins over Hearns; both titles were lost in his first defense; a title win against the underwhelming "Schoolboy" Van Horn and a handful of exciting but losing efforts against good fighters.

I'm a Barkley fan but I'm not convinced he belongs in the HOF.

If Curtis Cokes, made it to the hall, Bobby Chacon and others, there is no denying Barkley in it, too. You will see, he's gonna be there. He got credentials.

I Feel Fine wrote:So I guess by that logic Victoriano Sosa beat Mayweather, since the crowd boo'd the decision? C'mon.

Well, Robinson had a cut in the second fight with Gavilan and the referee did not stop the fight?

Robinson had a cut with Randy Turpin in the rematch and the fight is not stopped? They stopped Mantequilla Napoles with Billy Backus ain't it?

More and more, I am leaning to Armstrong as the best ever. What an incredible fighter he was. He did more unbelievable stuff than the original Sugar Ray.

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

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

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

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

BoxRec's All Time Ratings say:

1. Harry Greb
2. Carlos Ortiz
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Archie Moore
5. Gene Tunney

Opponent quality is important, not only titles.

Terry D wrote:Armstrong went way above his weight and was outpointed.

Well, lets see. Robinson was in his fourth weight class. Armstrong was in his fourth weight class. So Armstrong was no higher than Robinson... that's a rather meaningless observation you have there.

As to the rest of your point, about comparing Robinson's performance to Armstrong's; Robinson was fighting a Hall of Fame Light Heavyweight champion who in his career scored close wins over Floyd Patterson and Jersey Joe Walcott. Armstrong was fighting a weak and short lived Middleweight champion who had come up from Welterweight. So advantage Armstrong? I don't see it.

Maxim started to muscle Robinson after Robinson was already exhausted from the heat. He rarely touched Robinson prior to that. I don't know that a Middleweight would have beaten Robinson that night, Robinson might have knocked out a Middleweight by then, but clearly it was Robinson's constant moving in that heat that did it more so than Maxim bullying Robinson.

At the end of the day, neither man won a title at their highest weight class, which I think is the underlying point. Robinson got a loss, Armstrong a draw. Overall, though, Armstrong has more career losses than Ray. So this point that the Armstrong supporters are raising is sort of weak when judging what happened in their careers. And, even if Armstrong had won that title, that one thing wouldn't necessarily make Armstrong the GOAT, either.