BoxRec

raylawpc wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:What's wrong with saying that the great Eusebio Pedroza was more complete as a fighter than the great Sugar Ray Robinson?

Two things: Robinson had superior firepower and a better chin. But Pedroza did not exceed Robinson in any part of the game.

Robinson was one of the most complete fighter that's ever lived, IMO.

First of all, Robinson did not exceed better than Pedroza in all aspects of the game. Robinson was faster and hit harder than Pedroza, and had better chin. Pedroza was a better counter puncher, slicker, moving his head side to side brilliantly in heated exchanges, something that Robinson never did, had better stamina than Robinson, and was better fighter in the inside. A better technician than Robinson.

Secondly, If Robinson was one of the most complete fighters that ever lived, so was the great Eusebio Pedroza...What a fighter!

raylawpc wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:What's wrong with saying that the great Eusebio Pedroza was more complete as a fighter than the great Sugar Ray Robinson?

Two things: Robinson had superior firepower and a better chin. But Pedroza did not exceed Robinson in any part of the game.

Robinson was one of the most complete fighter that's ever lived, IMO.

First of all, Robinson did not exceed better than Pedroza in all aspects of the game. Robinson was faster and hit harder than Pedroza, and had better chin. Pedroza was a better counter puncher, slicker, moving his head side to side brilliantly in heated exchanges, something that Robinson never did, had better stamina than Robinson, and was better fighter in the inside. A better technician than Robinson.

Secondly, If Robinson was one of the most complete fighters that ever lived, so was the great Eusebio Pedroza...What a fighter!

raylawpc wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:What's wrong with saying that the great Eusebio Pedroza was more complete as a fighter than the great Sugar Ray Robinson?

Two things: Robinson had superior firepower and a better chin. But Pedroza did not exceed Robinson in any part of the game.

Robinson was one of the most complete fighter that's ever lived, IMO.

First of all, Robinson did not exceed better than Pedroza in all aspects of the game. Robinson was faster and hit harder than Pedroza, and had better chin. Pedroza was a better counter puncher, slicker, moving his head side to side brilliantly in heated exchanges, something that Robinson never did, had better stamina than Robinson, and was better fighter in the inside. A better technician than Robinson.

Secondly, If Robinson was one of the most complete fighters that ever lived, so was the great Eusebio Pedroza...What a fighter!

'Frilla wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

'Frilla wrote: How many? and who?

I could name you about eight or seven:
Marvin Hagler
Eusebio Pedroza
Sugar Ray Leonard
Ezzard Charles
Roberto Duran
Salvador Sanchez
Ismael Laguna
Eder Jofre

All great fighters mate, but imo WW SRR is the G.O.A.T

Nobody is disputing that he was the greatest. I am saying that these guys, were more complete fighters than Robinson, in my IMO.

elmersalsa wrote:

'Frilla wrote:

elmersalsa wrote: I could name you about eight or seven:
Marvin Hagler
Eusebio Pedroza
Sugar Ray Leonard
Ezzard Charles
Roberto Duran
Salvador Sanchez
Ismael Laguna
Eder Jofre

All great fighters mate, but imo WW SRR is the G.O.A.T

Nobody is disputing that he was the greatest. I am saying that these guys, were more complete fighters than Robinson, in my IMO.

What makes a complete fighter, in your opinion? Which skills or attributes?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

'Frilla wrote: All great fighters mate, but imo WW SRR is the G.O.A.T

Nobody is disputing that he was the greatest. I am saying that these guys, were more complete fighters than Robinson, in my IMO.

What makes a complete fighter, in your opinion? Which skills or attributes?

I'm pretty sure you need to speak fluid Spanish or lose to someone who did.

elmersalsa wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:What's wrong with saying that the great Eusebio Pedroza was more complete as a fighter than the great Sugar Ray Robinson?

Two things: Robinson had superior firepower and a better chin. But Pedroza did not exceed Robinson in any part of the game.

Robinson was one of the most complete fighter that's ever lived, IMO.

First of all, Robinson did not exceed better than Pedroza in all aspects of the game. Robinson was faster and hit harder than Pedroza, and had better chin. Pedroza was a better counter puncher, slicker, moving his head side to side brilliantly in heated exchanges, something that Robinson never did, had better stamina than Robinson, and was better fighter in the inside. A better technician than Robinson.

Secondly, If Robinson was one of the most complete fighters that ever lived, so was the great Eusebio Pedroza...What a fighter!

What a moron.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

elmersalsa wrote: Nobody is disputing that he was the greatest. I am saying that these guys, were more complete fighters than Robinson, in my IMO.

What makes a complete fighter, in your opinion? Which skills or attributes?

I'm pretty sure you need to speak fluid Spanish or lose to someone who did.

Hmmm I wonder if Elmer is Panamanian . . .just a hunch!!!

Saying Pedroza was a more complete fighter than Robinson is ludricrous . . Elmer routinely makes way out of leftfield, nonsensical comments like this and then when people respond to how ridiculous they are it's like "hey . .what did I say?" and plays dumb.

dempseyfire wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote: What makes a complete fighter, in your opinion? Which skills or attributes?

I'm pretty sure you need to speak fluid Spanish or lose to someone who did.

Hmmm I wonder if Elmer is Panamanian . . .just a hunch!!!

Saying Pedroza was a more complete fighter than Robinson is ludricrous . . Elmer routinely makes way out of leftfield, nonsensical comments like this and then when people respond to how ridiculous they are it's like "hey . .what did I say?" and plays dumb.

He isn't playing.

sugar ray dude. smh

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: I'm pretty sure you need to speak fluid Spanish or lose to someone who did.

Hmmm I wonder if Elmer is Panamanian . . .just a hunch!!!

Saying Pedroza was a more complete fighter than Robinson is ludricrous . . Elmer routinely makes way out of leftfield, nonsensical comments like this and then when people respond to how ridiculous they are it's like "hey . .what did I say?" and plays dumb.

He isn't playing.

He isnt playing dumb. Ironically, he's too stupid to manage it.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

'Frilla wrote: All great fighters mate, but imo WW SRR is the G.O.A.T

Nobody is disputing that he was the greatest. I am saying that these guys, were more complete fighters than Robinson, in my IMO.

What makes a complete fighter, in your opinion? Which skills or attributes?

What makes a complete fighter, in my opinion?
Someone that can box well in and out, could fight in the inside, great punch, stamina, great or good chin, good speed of foot and hands, great mental concentration, ability and versatility to adapt against certain styles, cut off the ring, block and slip punches, switch to plan B if plan A is not working, and have the mental aptitude of when the going gets tough and good counterpunching skills. And ah, an excellent jab.

The great Eusebio Pedroza had all those qualities. Watch him fight. So did the greats Eder Jofre, Salvador Sanchez, Sugar Ray Leonard, Marvin Hagler, Roberto Duran, Ezzard Charles and Ismael Laguna. They were extremely good. Very complete fighters in my view.

The great Sugar Ray Robinson was a complete fighter, too. But he is not the epitomy of a perfect fighter. He had lots of flaws that you guys probably see but are scared to tell in this forum. Robinson's speed and power was the key of his success against slow guys of his time. You guys know who they are. I have never seen Robinson fight well in the inside, nor move his head in heated exchanges like Pedroza nor have the technical skills of those mentioned. Pedroza knew how to throw different kind of punches in different angles and was much more technical equipped than Robinson. So did the others above mentioned.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

dempseyfire wrote: I'm pretty sure you need to speak fluid Spanish or lose to someone who did.

Hmmm I wonder if Elmer is Panamanian . . .just a hunch!!!

Saying Pedroza was a more complete fighter than Robinson is ludricrous . . Elmer routinely makes way out of leftfield, nonsensical comments like this and then when people respond to how ridiculous they are it's like "hey . .what did I say?" and plays dumb.

He isn't playing.

He isnt playing dumb. Ironically, he's too stupid to manage it.[/quote]

I don't appreciate your name calling, sir. I could also do that, but I am not gonna play your childish games

elmersalsa wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

elmersalsa wrote: Nobody is disputing that he was the greatest. I am saying that these guys, were more complete fighters than Robinson, in my IMO.

What makes a complete fighter, in your opinion? Which skills or attributes?

What makes a complete fighter, in my opinion?
Someone that can box well in and out, could fight in the inside, great punch, stamina, great or good chin, good speed of foot and hands, great mental concentration, ability and versatility to adapt against certain styles, cut off the ring, block and slip punches, switch to plan B if plan A is not working, and have the mental aptitude of when the going gets tough and good counterpunching skills. And ah, an excellent jab.

The great Eusebio Pedroza had all those qualities. Watch him fight. So did the greats Eder Jofre, Salvador Sanchez, Sugar Ray Leonard, Marvin Hagler, Roberto Duran, Ezzard Charles and Ismael Laguna. They were extremely good. Very complete fighters in my view.

The great Sugar Ray Robinson was a complete fighter, too. But he is not the epitomy of a perfect fighter. He had lots of flaws that you guys probably see but are scared to tell in this forum. Robinson's speed and power was the key of his success against slow guys of his time. You guys know who they are. I have never seen Robinson fight well in the inside, nor move his head in heated exchanges like Pedroza nor have the technical skills of those mentioned. Pedroza knew how to throw different kind of punches in different angles and was much more technical equipped than Robinson. So did the others above mentioned.

Awesome

Update to the Things We Learned From Boxrec thread for me this week...

1. The WBA didnt exist prior to the 60's.
2. Pedroza >>> Robinson --- Buchanan >>> Armstrong --- Laguna >>> All.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Update to the Things We Learned From Boxrec thread for me this week...

1. The WBA didnt exist prior to the 60's.
2. Pedroza >>> Robinson --- Buchanan >>> Armstrong --- Laguna >>> All.

What do you got against Pedroza, Buchanan and Laguna, mister? What is your beef?

Another reason why I vote Armstrong over Robinson. Armstrong fought almost everybody from featherweight to welterweight. Maybe 2 or 3 guys he missed from facing them like the greats Tony Canzoneri, Freddie Miller and Jimmy McLarnin, but overall, he fought almost everyone.

Robinson? Well, now how come nobody says that he did not fight these guys: Tony Zale, Cocoa Kid, Holman Williams, Charley Burley, Eddie Booker, Ezzard Charles at middleweight, and Archie Moore? At least the great Jake LaMotta fought Holman Williams.

How could he be voted by The Ring Magazine as best fighter of the 1940s, if he did not beat these guys?

That is why to me, the great Willie Pep was the best fighter pound per pound of that era. He fought everybody at featherweight. And dominated the division.

You're ranking Pep over Robinson based on competition faced!?

Man alive, you are in rare form lately, Elmer D

elmersalsa wrote:Another reason why I vote Armstrong over Robinson. Armstrong fought almost everybody from featherweight to welterweight. Maybe 2 or 3 guys he missed from facing them like the greats Tony Canzoneri, Freddie Miller and Jimmy McLarnin, but overall, he fought almost everyone.

Robinson? Well, now how come nobody says that he did not fight these guys: Tony Zale, Cocoa Kid, Holman Williams, Charley Burley, Eddie Booker, Ezzard Charles at middleweight, and Archie Moore? At least the great Jake LaMotta fought Holman Williams.

How could he be voted by The Ring Magazine as best fighter of the 1940s, if he did not beat these guys?

That is why to me, the great Willie Pep was the best fighter pound per pound of that era. He fought everybody at featherweight. And dominated the division.

Beating guys like LaMotta, Gene Fullmer, Carl 'Bobo' Olson, Henry Armstrong :P , Randy Turpin, Rocky Graziano and Kid Gavilan was enough.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:You're ranking Pep over Robinson based on competition faced!?

I never said that I rate Pep over Robinson. All-time, Robinson was better. But in the 1940s, Pep fought almost everybody if not everybody at his weight class, while Robinson, the supposed to be best figther of that decade by the Ring, did not had the quality of opposition that Pep had in the 40s.

What happened to Robinson that he never fought the Holman Williams, Charley Burleys and Cocoa Kids of the world? They were welterweights in SRR time. Weren't they?

'Frilla wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Another reason why I vote Armstrong over Robinson. Armstrong fought almost everybody from featherweight to welterweight. Maybe 2 or 3 guys he missed from facing them like the greats Tony Canzoneri, Freddie Miller and Jimmy McLarnin, but overall, he fought almost everyone.

Robinson? Well, now how come nobody says that he did not fight these guys: Tony Zale, Cocoa Kid, Holman Williams, Charley Burley, Eddie Booker, Ezzard Charles at middleweight, and Archie Moore? At least the great Jake LaMotta fought Holman Williams.

How could he be voted by The Ring Magazine as best fighter of the 1940s, if he did not beat these guys?

That is why to me, the great Willie Pep was the best fighter pound per pound of that era. He fought everybody at featherweight. And dominated the division.

Beating guys like LaMotta, Gene Fullmer, Carl 'Bobo' Olson, Henry Armstrong :P , Randy Turpin, Rocky Graziano and Kid Gavilan was enough.

He fought the MAJORITY of those guys in the 1950s...Only Armstrong, LaMotta and Gavilan he fought them in the 1940s...What happened the fights with Charley Burley or Holman Williams and Cocoa Kid? what about Tony Zale and Ezzard Charles?

Armstrong was past his best in the 1940s.

So from above, he only fought Gavilan and LaMotta...Pep in the 1940s fought the greats Manuel Ortiz and Sandy Saddler. He fought Chalky Wright, Sammy Angott, Ted "Red Top" Davis, Willie Joyce, Sal Bartolo, and Joey Archibald. He fought THE CREAM OF THE CROP of the featherweight division of the 1940s. Robinson? He did not fight in the 1940s THE VERY BEST.

The only thing that Pedroza was better than Robinson was busting balls with his bolo punch.

His bolo punch to the balls or whatever you want to call it was a devastating punch

LOL Pedroza more complete than Robinson.

I see Elmer is hallucinating again. Please Elmer take my advice stop using drugs they are seriously affecting you judgement.

Borinken25 wrote:The only thing that Pedroza was better than Robinson was busting balls with his bolo punch.

His bolo punch to the balls or whatever you want to call it was a devastating punch

LOL Pedroza more complete than Robinson.

I see Elmer is hallucinating again. Please Elmer take my advice stop using drugs they are seriously affecting you judgement.

Dont give hallucinogenic drugs a bad name by attributing Elmo's judgement to their impact.