BoxRec

Posted: **28 Sep 2007, 15:07**

ben k wrote:Duran would get slaughtered at 147 against Robinson, Monzan at 160 and Foster at 175 have the best chance. I cant see Hagler beating him if he couldnt beat a worse version of SRR in SRL.

That was the ghost of Marvin Hagler, the original post was about fighters in their peak.
Hagler and Monzon would have the best chance of beating SRR.
Leonard would be competitive at 147lbs, Duran would get outboxed. Foster would be too big and powerful

Posted: **28 Sep 2007, 18:16**

dr_devious wrote:
ben k wrote:Duran would get slaughtered at 147 against Robinson, Monzan at 160 and Foster at 175 have the best chance. I cant see Hagler beating him if he couldnt beat a worse version of SRR in SRL.
That was the ghost of Marvin Hagler, the original post was about fighters in their peak.
Hagler and Monzon would have the best chance of beating SRR.
Leonard would be competitive at 147lbs, Duran would get outboxed. Foster would be too big and powerful

NOBODY OUTBOXES ROBERTO DURAN AT HIS VERY BEST.

Ken Buchanan a masterful technician could not do it.
Esteban DeJesus got dropped and crawled like a 10 month old baby.
Sugar Ray Leonard could not do it. Duran whupped him in every facet of the game in Montreal.

Robinson is great, and I do not have a problem with him at #1 of the all time greats, but these 5 great fighters (Leonard, Duran, Hagler, Monzon and Foster) were totally exceptional and extraordinary. You put them in Robinson's era, and he probably would have ducked them, or had a lots of more L's in his ledger.

Posted: **28 Sep 2007, 21:58**

Terry D... your inability to follow these discussion is getting old very quickly.

Terry D wrote:So Ray was 73 when he lost to Basillo, that explains a lot.

They had two fights in two different years.

Robinson, if I remember correctly, was 36 years old in the first Basilio fight, which took place in 1957, and 37 in the rematch, which took place in 1958. Anyone with a second grade reading level or a rudimentary knowledge of Robinson or Basilio's careers would have understood what I was saying there.

How is this Elmer guy wrong if you are saying either man could win and he is saying Hagler would win? Could becomes a would fairly easily so why the dispute?

Anyone with a first grade reading level would understand the difference between "could" and "would." "Could" means that Hagler can or might beat Robinson. "Would" means that Hagler beats Robinson no questions asked. I don't have a problem with someone saying that Hagler is the favorite in the fight, but anyone who thinks that Robinson has absolutely no chance against Hagler is crazy.

As for the age thing, it is just as banal as saying "Robinson is taller than Hagler" and expecting that to be the definitive word.

That's ridiculous. Fighters get older and lose some of their physical gifts. No one with any knowledge of boxing would claim that Robinson at 37 was as good as Robinson at 31.

For me Hagler is the more rounded and strong fighter at the weight. He did not struggle with strength when guys came up in weight to fight him at middleweight or with natural middleweights.

I'm not disputing that Hagler could or couldn't beat Robinson. If you favor Hagler over Robinson, then God bless you.

Nor did he suffer greatly with mobility despite the myths based on his fight with Leonard. If Hagler was not mobile he would not have tracked down a retreating Hearns.

I've always felt the same.

Hagler, Monzon and Foster are the names for me and nothing I've seen here has made me change my mind on that.

Congratulations.

Edit: I didn't notice it until now, but elmer's last post in response to me is so retarded it warrants no answer; just on the comments about 9/11 alone, forgetting his total ignorance of the history of sport of boxing.

Posted: **29 Sep 2007, 00:32**

NOBODY OUTBOXES ROBERTO DURAN AT HIS VERY BEST.

Dejesus did in their first fight. Doesn't that mean that a better boxer like Whitaker would have stood a chance?

Posted: **29 Sep 2007, 10:52**

Five fighters who would beat Sugar Ray Robinson:

Jack Dempsey

Joe Louis

Rocky Marciano

Jim Jeffries

Sonny Liston

Posted: **29 Sep 2007, 12:38**

Decagon wrote:
theone wrote:
NOBODY OUTBOXES ROBERTO DURAN AT HIS VERY BEST.
Dejesus did in their first fight. Doesn't that mean that a better boxer like Whitaker would have stood a chance?
Duran wasn't at his very best, though.

According to some of you Duran was never at his very best when he lost. And yet he already had a win over Buchanan when he lost to De Jesus. I could use the same argument with De Jesus. De Jesus was not at his very best when he lost to Duran because he was washed up, not on his prime, had to go to the bathroom...

Posted: **29 Sep 2007, 13:02**

Borinken25 wrote:
According to some of you Duran was never at his very best when he lost. And yet he already had a win over Buchanan when he lost to De Jesus. I could use the same argument with De Jesus. De Jesus was not at his very best when he lost to Duran because he was washed up, not on his prime, had to go to the bathroom...

Borinken,

that's the way the clueless do it.

If their man loses, "It doesn't count."

They have the mentalities of low grade imbeciles.

Posted: **29 Sep 2007, 16:56**

Terry D wrote:Foster, Monzon and Hagler.

Too big for Robinson.

Was Hagler "too big" for fat, old, tired LIGHTWEIGHT Roberto Duran?

LOL

Posted: **29 Sep 2007, 17:00**

granberry wrote:
Borinken25 wrote:
According to some of you Duran was never at his very best when he lost. And yet he already had a win over Buchanan when he lost to De Jesus. I could use the same argument with De Jesus. De Jesus was not at his very best when he lost to Duran because he was washed up, not on his prime, had to go to the bathroom...
Borinken,

that's the way the clueless do it.

If their man loses, "It doesn't count."

They have the mentalities of low grade imbeciles.

vs the High grade version of imbeciles?

Posted: **29 Sep 2007, 17:04**

While on that subject, why did Duran wait 16 months to give a title shot to the first man to defeat him ?

Posted: **29 Sep 2007, 19:15**

Terry D wrote:I'm following the discussion just fine. Although the ellipses make me think you're missing text out. That would explain a lot.

I picked three fighters to beat Ray. I have absolutely no problem justifying them. You flagged Hagler's size. That drags you into explaining Ray losing to smaller guys. Now it is a debate about his age when he lost. I'm about to flip that on you so it will then, I presume, move onto 'Ray beat A who is better than B who Hagler beat etc'. I'll flip that also.

Firstly I was being insolent, it is the best approach. I probably should have pointed out that a taller fighter against a shorter one should be able to work out a way to make his advantage tell despite his age.

Why did Ray lose to this guy? He was old right? Or maybe Basillo used his tools well. Ray had pretty much pitch perfect punch positioning and technique. Pretty much. However every four or five shots he may widen one of the shots and lean in a little as he delivers. My perception is that Basillo came through the arc of these shots, pressured Ray and fought a good fight.

I would not lecture on English or use of words when failing to understand that the term 'would' does not have the subclause 'in a one-sided fight'.

You can say: Hagler would beat Ray in a close fight. Hagler would KO Ray in a tough fight. Hagler would win an easy fight against Ray. I say Hagler would beat Ray in a close fight but the would does not give you the reason, just the judgement. I am allowed to say this with resolution if I wish to. I even doubled-checked the rules of the forum.

Would does not mean 'no chance', it means would, as in "I am resolute in this view (because I basically know my onions)". I speako the English, not sure what language you are speaking but it is heavily loaded and it must be a bummer when you go to the shops. Having a big debate with the shopkeeper about whether he would or could pass the onions is not my idea of fun, I just say would you and he will do.

Hagler would beat Ray over 15 rounds. Floor him with a straight shot from the southpaw stance on one of the occasions Ray comes on straight and his size at MW would tell in terms of his strength of extension on his shots.

Basically you're giving, or trying to give, two lectures in this post. One is to the wrong poster, since as far as I can tell you're referring to dempseyfire's post, since he was talking about Robinson's size, not me. All I said was that you can't use Robinson's loss to Basilio as an example of why he would lose to a Hagler, which is true, because Robinson at his best would probably not lose to Basilio, and it also ignores that Robinson did beat Basilio in a rematch. If you want to talk about a 36 or 37 year old Robinson vs. Hagler at his best, then that's another story, but it doesn't strike me as fair.

The second smart ass lecture is about English, which is correctly addressed to me. My take on this thread is that elmer is suggesting that these five men "would" beat Robinson, without question or the possibility of Robinson ever beating them. Perhaps elmer doesn't mean it that way, but that's how I took it. Perhaps we should ask the wise man himself. But my contention is that while these man can beat Robinson (though I wouldn't give Duran much of a chance) saying that they "would" beat him, in the sense that he could never beat them, is incorrect. I'm not sure who I would favor in a match between, say, Marvelous Marvin and Robinson. I can see it going either way. What I don't see is Hagler beating Ray ten times out of ten.

But thank you for your note. Perhaps you should check the forum rules again to see if it says anything about being an asshole. I'm sure that's allowed, but you never know.

Posted: **29 Sep 2007, 20:35**

Terry D wrote:Concerning the lecture issue I don't think you have added anything worthy of further consideration.

I'm glad. Next time make sure that you're addressing the right poster. Each post is clearly marked with the name of the poster who has submitted the said post... maybe the forum rules can further elaborate on that, I'll have to check..

Posted: **29 Sep 2007, 21:47**

Decagon wrote:
Borinken25 wrote:According to some of you Duran was never at his very best when he lost. And yet he already had a win over Buchanan when he lost to De Jesus. I could use the same argument with De Jesus. De Jesus was not at his very best when he lost to Duran because he was washed up, not on his prime, had to go to the bathroom...
Perhaps, but how does that prove that Duran was at his best in the first fight?

How can you prove that he wasn't? Undefeated with 31 fights and a win over legitimate Buchanan. And if I’m not mistaken De Jesus was a big underdog in that fight. By the way the first fight of Duran vs De Jesus was then one that made me a boxing fan and I still remember my father and uncles not giving De Jesus a chance to win that fight.

Posted: **29 Sep 2007, 21:59**

I would never say that Duran couldn't be beaten at his best, but that said, Duran in the rematch was twice the fighter he was in the first fight. Duran in the first fight was a one dimensional fighter by comparison. He became a better fighter after (and perhaps because of) his loss to De Jesus.

Posted: **30 Sep 2007, 01:34**

Decagon wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:If anything Robinson was bigger than Hagler. Hagler was a small middleweight.
Robinson was three inches taller than Hagler, but when Robinson was at his best as a middleweight, he weighed at 152 to 154 pounds. Also, Hagler had a longer reach by 2 or 3 inches. Hagler was bigger in some ways, and Robinson was bigger in others. I'd say that Hagler was bigger myself, but that's just my opinion.

fingertip to fingertip is the wrong way to gauge reach.it's supposed to exclusively be armpit to closed fist.when you measure fttft,you have other factors like finger length and especially shoulder width.hagler had much broader shoulders than robinson and that's why his fttft treach was longer but a.p.t.c.f reach would probably be even or maybe even an edge to robinson.
and,as far as height goes,hagler 5'9.5" and robinson,6'0 or slightly taller,so he's got 2.5" of height on hagler.I think that early stage mw robinson wins by fighting tall(using height advantage leverage) punching down instead of up thus using less energy and outworks hagler,takes hag's punches and has too much stamina plus 2nd and 3rd winds.
fought at 152-154 yes but 155 would'nt be much of an added stomach stretch.that much less leaning down would only add more natural power,offense output,stamina,resiliance and muscle endurance for rob.
he'd clearly be the bigger man in there using his height advantage as a natural form of punch levarage advantage.would absorb hagler's offensive onslaughts,outwork em,out manuever em and come out the victor in a classic "styles make fights" scenario.

Posted: **30 Sep 2007, 11:20**

Here I was thinking this sort of thing was escapism - the fight game version of going to the cinema, instead of watching documentaries....

I never realised it was 'freakish'!

Roy Jones Junior vs Robinson at 168?
I call no odds, but I would have liked to have seen it.

Thing is, we all know anything can happen in there, people like Mosley, Winky, De La Hoya, might not be on an exact par with Sugar Ray Robinson, but on their day...

Posted: **30 Sep 2007, 23:09**

I Feel Fine wrote:I would never say that Duran couldn't be beaten at his best, but that said, Duran in the rematch was twice the fighter he was in the first fight. Duran in the first fight was a one dimensional fighter by comparison. He became a better fighter after (and perhaps because of) his loss to De Jesus.

Rightly said my buddy I feel Fine... I do not have excuses of that loss against Esteban. Duran trained for the fight, was in his prime, and lost. Everybody losses in prime or not. But if Duran never fought DeJesus again after the first fight, would it means that DeJesus was better than him? No. If Robinson never fights LaMotta after he lost to him in 1943, does that means that LaMotta was better? No. If Ali never fought Frazier again afiter the first fight, does that mean Frazier was better? No.

But Duran in his complete prime years 1972-80, only lost 1 fight. Robinson in his complete prime years 1943-51, only lost 1 fight.

Posted: **01 Oct 2007, 10:20**

elmersalsa wrote:
dr_devious wrote:
ben k wrote:Duran would get slaughtered at 147 against Robinson, Monzan at 160 and Foster at 175 have the best chance. I cant see Hagler beating him if he couldnt beat a worse version of SRR in SRL.
That was the ghost of Marvin Hagler, the original post was about fighters in their peak.
Hagler and Monzon would have the best chance of beating SRR.
Leonard would be competitive at 147lbs, Duran would get outboxed. Foster would be too big and powerful
NOBODY OUTBOXES ROBERTO DURAN AT HIS VERY BEST.

Sugar Ray Leonard could not do it. Duran whupped him in every facet of the game in Montreal.
.

I say the first Leonard fight could've gone either way. Extremely close fight. To claim Duran "whupped him in every facet" is an old wife's tale.

About going back to the size discussion, my point was regarding Hagler-Robinson was that size would NOT be a real factor in that bout, as one poster had said Hagler would be "too big" for Robinson. Ray was bigger in some aspects, Hagler in others.

Posted: **01 Oct 2007, 10:46**

Yes, the first Duran-Leonard fight was close, and Leonard didnt get "whupped in every facet". Duran did in the second fight, whether he was in the best condition or not. I still hold that Robinson would beat Duran at least 9 times out of 10 at WW

Posted: **01 Oct 2007, 17:04**

Terry D wrote:
I Feel Fine wrote:
Terry D wrote:Concerning the lecture issue I don't think you have added anything worthy of further consideration.
I'm glad. Next time make sure that you're addressing the right poster. Each post is clearly marked with the name of the poster who has submitted the said post... maybe the forum rules can further elaborate on that, I'll have to check..
By all means read the forum rules. Have fun. Still, nothing much further to consider so adios.

Right back at'cha.

Posted: **01 Oct 2007, 21:11**

dempseyfire wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:
dr_devious wrote: That was the ghost of Marvin Hagler, the original post was about fighters in their peak.
Hagler and Monzon would have the best chance of beating SRR.
Leonard would be competitive at 147lbs, Duran would get outboxed. Foster would be too big and powerful
NOBODY OUTBOXES ROBERTO DURAN AT HIS VERY BEST.

Sugar Ray Leonard could not do it. Duran whupped him in every facet of the game in Montreal.
.
I say the first Leonard fight could've gone either way. Extremely close fight. To claim Duran "whupped him in every facet" is an old wife's tale

Watch the fight again, and it will change your mind....That fight was not even close at all. Duran whupped him in every facet of the game. Every thing that Leonard tried, Duran answer it. There was nothing that was going to deny Duran that night....Nothing.

Posted: **01 Oct 2007, 21:14**

dr_devious wrote:Yes, the first Duran-Leonard fight was close, and Leonard didnt get "whupped in every facet". Duran did in the second fight, whether he was in the best condition or not. I still hold that Robinson would beat Duran at least 9 times out of 10 at WW

Leonard made it looked close by clutching and grabbing than instead of fighting. It seemed a close fight, but in reality the fight was competitive to say at least.

Duran almost won every damn round. He was better in all the areas. Watch the fight again.

Sugar Ray Robinson could not whip Kid Gavilan in his best years, how could he beat the great Roberto Duran in Montreal?

Posted: **01 Oct 2007, 22:49**

elmer- You yourself said on another post that you had Duran winning by 3 points. That is quite a bit different than Duran "winning almost every damn round".

Posted: **02 Oct 2007, 00:15**

..elmer..seriously...i do not understand your insistance that gavilan beat robinson. sugar ray had to step it up, but he clearly outpointed the keed. i remember during the radio broadcast of the first fight hearing the announcer say "robinson is very superior now".....i just can't find any way why anyone, let alone you who knows a bit about boxing, get the idea that roibinson lost to him when it wasn't even one of his toughest fights. he did get cut early and fought more defensively than usual, but that was it. i mentioned earlier somewhere ...here i guess..that docusen was holding his own until robinson turned it on, scored a knockdown and finished strong. for sugar ray's toughest welter title fight is the one he won against tommy bell for the vacant title. bell even had him down....and made him really earn that title.

if you have something that makes you think gavilan got robbed, please post it here.

Posted: **08 Oct 2007, 00:27**

Jaclem wrote:..elmer..seriously...i do not understand your insistance that gavilan beat robinson. sugar ray had to step it up, but he clearly outpointed the keed. i remember during the radio broadcast of the first fight hearing the announcer say "robinson is very superior now".....i just can't find any way why anyone, let alone you who knows a bit about boxing, get the idea that roibinson lost to him when it wasn't even one of his toughest fights. he did get cut early and fought more defensively than usual, but that was it. i mentioned earlier somewhere ...here i guess..that docusen was holding his own until robinson turned it on, scored a knockdown and finished strong. for sugar ray's toughest welter title fight is the one he won against tommy bell for the vacant title. bell even had him down....and made him really earn that title.

if you have something that makes you think gavilan got robbed, please post it here.

I see your point jaclem and I respect that. But in my view, I see that Robinson got protected from the media and the writers as well. The crowd booed the decision. That tells me right there that something was wrong. Now in the second fight, he, Robinson, gets a cut and the fight is not stopped? That sounds to me like the fight that Sean O'Grady had with a Japanese in Oregon that I do not remember his name. The stadium was run by O'Grady's father. O'Grady had a huge cut in the eyelids and the fight was never stopped. I bet if the Gavilan fights were in Cuba, Gavilan would have won both fights.

We will see the truth. Someday.

BoxRec

Sugar Ray Robinson: 5 guys that would have beaten him