The best fighter of the 1940s

The best fighter of the 1940s

Willie Pep
6
12%
Sugar Ray Robinson
33
66%
Joe Louis
2
4%
Ike Williams
0
No votes
Ezzard Charles
9
18%
Manuel Ortiz
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 50

SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: The best fighter of the 1940s

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

Bobbyptsd wrote:Well I meant in that most of you guys seem to know a fair bit about boxing and the history and whatnot.

I've seen some of his posts before, he certainly has some strange views imo.
He isn't without knowledge, he's just brutally biased and unfortunately those are his favorite topics.
elmersalsa
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 15695
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50

Re: The best fighter of the 1940s

Post by elmersalsa »

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Bobbyptsd wrote:Well I meant in that most of you guys seem to know a fair bit about boxing and the history and whatnot.

I've seen some of his posts before, he certainly has some strange views imo.
He isn't without knowledge, he's just brutally biased and unfortunately those are his favorite topics.
Without knowledge? Brutally biased? Everybody has a bias in 'em.

What are the biased topics? What do you mean? On what you base it upon. I think I know a lot about the history of boxing, maybe not all the history, but I know what I know.
elmersalsa
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 15695
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50

Re: The best fighter of the 1940s

Post by elmersalsa »

Some people like saad have to grow up in this forum. It does not annoy me what he thinks about me, but he annoys others very much. He is not much more different than that Ronald McDonald clown.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15173
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: The best fighter of the 1940s

Post by Ambling Alp II »

I always preferred Mayor McCheese myself; though I know for some people Grimace or Hamburglar was their favorite.
Borinken25
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 721
Joined: 08 Jul 2005, 12:28

Re: The best fighter of the 1940s

Post by Borinken25 »

Bobbyptsd wrote:Well I meant in that most of you guys seem to know a fair bit about boxing and the history and whatnot.

I've seen some of his posts before, he certainly has some strange views imo.
Elmo loves to discredit Robinson because he wants to convince people that his deity "Duran" is the greatest boxer that ever lived. If you want to hear his rants just mention Benitez vs Duran. He could never accept that Benitez took Duran to school. :OhYes:

Just wait for it.
elmersalsa
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 15695
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50

Re: The best fighter of the 1940s

Post by elmersalsa »

Borinken25 wrote:
Elmo loves to discredit Robinson because he wants to convince people that his deity "Duran" is the greatest boxer that ever lived. If you want to hear his rants just mention Benitez vs Duran. He could never accept that Benitez took Duran to school. :OhYes:

Just wait for it.[/quote]


I have never rated Duran above Robinson. I said that he was more complete fighter. Benitez took Duran to school with a Duran at the time he was not at his peak. Duran was washed up by 1982.
Borinken25
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 721
Joined: 08 Jul 2005, 12:28

Re: The best fighter of the 1940s

Post by Borinken25 »

elmersalsa wrote:
Borinken25 wrote:
Elmo loves to discredit Robinson because he wants to convince people that his deity "Duran" is the greatest boxer that ever lived. If you want to hear his rants just mention Benitez vs Duran. He could never accept that Benitez took Duran to school. :OhYes:

Just wait for it.
I have never rated Duran above Robinson. I said that he was more complete fighter. Benitez took Duran to school with a Duran at the time he was not at his peak. Duran was washed up by 1982.
[/quote]


According to you Eusebio Pedroza was also a more complete fighter than Robinson too.

Face it, Benitez took Duran to school that night and there is nothing you could say to change that fact. :shame:
elmersalsa
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 15695
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50

Re: The best fighter of the 1940s

Post by elmersalsa »

Borinken25 wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:
Borinken25 wrote:
Elmo loves to discredit Robinson because he wants to convince people that his deity "Duran" is the greatest boxer that ever lived. If you want to hear his rants just mention Benitez vs Duran. He could never accept that Benitez took Duran to school. :OhYes:

Just wait for it.
I have never rated Duran above Robinson. I said that he was more complete fighter. Benitez took Duran to school with a Duran at the time he was not at his peak. Duran was washed up by 1982.

According to you Eusebio Pedroza was also a more complete fighter than Robinson too.

Face it, Benitez took Duran to school that night and there is nothing you could say to change that fact. :shame:[/quote]

Yes he was. Pedroza was a better inside fighter. Robinson had better speed. Watch them closely.

As of Duran vs Benitez, the fight was in a time when Duran was considered washed up. If you believe that that was Duran's prime, and Duran's weight, and Duran's decade like the 70s, then you are a delusional patriotic bluff.

At least Esteban De Jesus beat Duran in Duran's prime. Did Benitez did it in Duran's prime? Did he wanted Duran then? I think not.
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: The best fighter of the 1940s

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

That wasn't Duran's prime, actually; as a fighter, he was at his best at 147.
Chuck1052
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4285
Joined: 11 Dec 2003, 22:08

Re: The best fighter of the 1940s

Post by Chuck1052 »

I believe that Roberto Duran was at his best as a lightweight. Afterwards, Duran certainly had some success, but often was out of shape and inconsistent.

- Chuck Johnston
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: The best fighter of the 1940s

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

Chuck1052 wrote:I believe that Roberto Duran was at his best as a lightweight. Afterwards, Duran certainly had some success, but often was out of shape and inconsistent.

- Chuck Johnston
He was pretty damn consistent at 147. To me he was just the perfect blend of offense and defense at that point in his career. You can throw in the final DeJesus fight too, but for much of his reign at 135 he used brute force as much as skill.
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: The best fighter of the 1940s

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

elmersalsa wrote:Some people like saad have to grow up in this forum. It does not annoy me what he thinks about me, but he annoys others very much. He is not much more different than that Ronald McDonald clown.
Yes, you're so mature. :roll:
raylawpc
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4871
Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 17:21

Re: The best fighter of the 1940s

Post by raylawpc »

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Chuck1052 wrote:I believe that Roberto Duran was at his best as a lightweight. Afterwards, Duran certainly had some success, but often was out of shape and inconsistent.

- Chuck Johnston
He was pretty damn consistent at 147. To me he was just the perfect blend of offense and defense at that point in his career. You can throw in the final DeJesus fight too, but for much of his reign at 135 he used brute force as much as skill.
Wasn't it at 147 that he quit against Leonard?
elmersalsa
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 15695
Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50

Re: The best fighter of the 1940s

Post by elmersalsa »

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:Some people like saad have to grow up in this forum. It does not annoy me what he thinks about me, but he annoys others very much. He is not much more different than that Ronald McDonald clown.
Yes, you're so mature. :roll:
Yes!!!, I am!!!
SaadOffTheDeck
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 19602
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 07:38

Re: The best fighter of the 1940s

Post by SaadOffTheDeck »

:zzz:
Post Reply