BoxRec

jaclem3 wrote:my comment was about kalan/s screw loose posts about srr vs. srl. good lord...can you imagine when leonard was still a welterweight fighting jake lamotta all those times. these are just examples. this guy is, as i say, either doing a crude attempt at putting us on or he needs therapy.

I'd say he's just passionate, confident, and highly highly opinionated. In grievous error on occasion, but never in doubt.

You know what??? If a guy is a good boxer and puncher it doesn't necessarily mean he's not easy to hit. Julio Cesar Chavez... Oscar De La Hoya... Muhammad Ali... Ray Robinson... Marvin Hagler... Joe Louis... Tommy Hearns... Wilfredo Benitez... Felix Trinindad... and Carl Froch were all good boxers and all easy to hit... Some of them because they were very aggressive.. They had a lot of faith in their chins and punching power.. They enjoyed "going to war" i.e. trading punches, and loved to knock people out.. It's an intoxicating feeling "better than sex" as they say.. Louis, Hagler, Hearns, Robinson, Trinidad, and Froch were guilty of this. They weren't all Jack Dempsey in the chin department, but they had the blood lust to go for the kill.

Now, I don't think that's a real smart way to fight... I like the way Mayweather did it... but nobody can call you a boring fighter if you take a few to land a few... Of course guys like Louis, De La Hoya, Froch, Benitez, Hearns, Trinidad, Robinson, and Ali had technical flaws as well... You could line them up for a shot. Robinson could absorb punches beautifully.. He was decked by Bell, LaMotta, Levine, Graziano etc. but he recovered very quickly and went back to war.

Kalan wrote:You know what??? If a guy is a good boxer and puncher it doesn't necessarily mean he's not easy to hit. Julio Cesar Chavez... Oscar De La Hoya... Muhammad Ali... Ray Robinson... Marvin Hagler... Joe Louis... Tommy Hearns... Wilfredo Benitez... Felix Trinindad... and Carl Froch were all good boxers and all easy to hit... Some of them because they were very aggressive.. They had a lot of faith in their chins and punching power.. They enjoyed "going to war" i.e. trading punches, and loved to knock people out.. It's an intoxicating feeling "better than sex" as they say.. Louis, Hagler, Hearns, Robinson, Trinidad, and Froch were guilty of this. They weren't all Jack Dempsey in the chin department, but they had the blood lust to go for the kill.

Now, I don't think that's a real smart way to fight... I like the way Mayweather did it... but nobody can call you a boring fighter if you take a few to land a few... Of course guys like Louis, De La Hoya, Froch, Benitez, Hearns, Trinidad, Robinson, and Ali had technical flaws as well... You could line them up for a shot. Robinson could absorb punches beautifully.. He was decked by Bell, LaMotta, Levine, Graziano etc. but he recovered very quickly and went back to war.

OK, so by good boxer, we are not necessarily talking good punch avoidance, fair enough. What would you say he excelled at as a boxer? I agree with you that he did seem to relish getting into physical battles with guys. He would have seemed to have advantages in terms of speed, accuracy, and overall boxing acumen against some of his opponents and yet he got into some pretty serious slugfests when one has to wonder if he might have been able to box his way to a less physically punishing win, or on the other hand, maybe his opponents were a little better than they looked; that I suppose depends on whom you ask. But, understanding all that, I still don't see why he was so great?? I mean he lost a bunch of times to these slow, crude fighters and had his hands full a number of times even when he won. And, let's not even get started on the Ralph Jones debacle..

You are as verbose and analytical as any poster on this site, but when I asked for an explanation of why he was great I got a decidedly non-descript, because he can "box and punch". I still say, if we argue that he fought scrubs for the most part, was easy to hit, and lost a high number of times to lesser fighters, I don't see greatness. Yes, his power seemed to be good, but not top 10 and again, the less than stellar performances against slow, crude fighters who routinely took him the distance. That would seem to suggest that his greatness comes from having a great chin.

I don't mean to monopolize your time so feel free to discontinue our discussion. But, if you are up for it, please delve into this guy. Really break it down, why was he great? Or was he really? Even if we list some things that he did well, would it even matter if his opponents are slow and crude?
If he never beat anyone that can be considered great? And I am talking in an all time, across eras sense here.

Most sports I have to begrudgingly give that performers are getting better, boxing is the only sport where I wonder, I think I know where you are on that question so I only say that to make the point that that is what makes the breakdown of SRR so interesting.

It's common knowledge that benitez was easy to hit.

Straight punches got him... That's why Leonard stopped him... Benitez fought slightly off his front foot and tried to slip everything you threw... Guys who do that you crack slick hard jabs at them and straight rights.. Leonard started nailing him with the jab right away. He floored Benitez with a hard jab on the chin -- rarely done.. WB was very slippery, but if you cracked him quickly enough you started messing up his radar.. Hearns beat Benitez easily too, but I thought he would stop him.. And I thought Duran would beat him.. Some nights Duran didn't show, like for his Kirkland Laing fight and Robbie Sims fights, he didn't have it. Duran had the tools but Wilfred got his rhythm going. You had to stay busy and ignore all his BS feints and movement like Leonard did.

jas80s wrote:

Kalan wrote:You know what??? If a guy is a good boxer and puncher it doesn't necessarily mean he's not easy to hit. Julio Cesar Chavez... Oscar De La Hoya... Muhammad Ali... Ray Robinson... Marvin Hagler... Joe Louis... Tommy Hearns... Wilfredo Benitez... Felix Trinindad... and Carl Froch were all good boxers and all easy to hit... Some of them because they were very aggressive.. They had a lot of faith in their chins and punching power.. They enjoyed "going to war" i.e. trading punches, and loved to knock people out.. It's an intoxicating feeling "better than sex" as they say.. Louis, Hagler, Hearns, Robinson, Trinidad, and Froch were guilty of this. They weren't all Jack Dempsey in the chin department, but they had the blood lust to go for the kill.

Now, I don't think that's a real smart way to fight... I like the way Mayweather did it... but nobody can call you a boring fighter if you take a few to land a few... Of course guys like Louis, De La Hoya, Froch, Benitez, Hearns, Trinidad, Robinson, and Ali had technical flaws as well... You could line them up for a shot. Robinson could absorb punches beautifully.. He was decked by Bell, LaMotta, Levine, Graziano etc. but he recovered very quickly and went back to war.

OK, so by good boxer, we are not necessarily talking good punch avoidance, fair enough. What would you say he excelled at as a boxer? I agree with you that he did seem to relish getting into physical battles with guys. He would have seemed to have advantages in terms of speed, accuracy, and overall boxing acumen against some of his opponents and yet he got into some pretty serious slugfests when one has to wonder if he might have been able to box his way to a less physically punishing win, or on the other hand, maybe his opponents were a little better than they looked; that I suppose depends on whom you ask. But, understanding all that, I still don't see why he was so great?? I mean he lost a bunch of times to these slow, crude fighters and had his hands full a number of times even when he won. And, let's not even get started on the Ralph Jones debacle..

You are as verbose and analytical as any poster on this site, but when I asked for an explanation of why he was great I got a decidedly non-descript, because he can "box and punch". I still say, if we argue that he fought scrubs for the most part, was easy to hit, and lost a high number of times to lesser fighters, I don't see greatness. Yes, his power seemed to be good, but not top 10 and again, the less than stellar performances against slow, crude fighters who routinely took him the distance. That would seem to suggest that his greatness comes from having a great chin.

I don't mean to monopolize your time so feel free to discontinue our discussion. But, if you are up for it, please delve into this guy. Really break it down, why was he great? Or was he really? Even if we list some things that he did well, would it even matter if his opponents are slow and crude?
If he never beat anyone that can be considered great? And I am talking in an all time, across eras sense here.

Most sports I have to begrudgingly give that performers are getting better, boxing is the only sport where I wonder, I think I know where you are on that question so I only say that to make the point that that is what makes the breakdown of SRR so interesting.

Ray Robinson was like Jack Dempsey in the way the fans adored him... He was larger than life and extremely charismatic... Ali had it, Tyson had it, Duran had it to a degree.. If you have it you don't have to be the greatest fighter.. You don't have to win every fight... Robinson looked the part with his straight hair, handsome face, sleek boxer's body, perfectly fitted trunks and shoes tied to perfection.. He drove his "Flamingo Cadillac" If you called his car pink he would correct you.. He was always turned out well.. He worked hard to exude class and style -- and he largely succeeded..

Of course there's a lot of fans who don't like people like Robinson.. They think they're phonies.. Those are the haters who come to see them lose.. But whether they love them or hate them they talk about them.. And everybody wants to fight them because they're big box office.. Now you have guys like Naseem Hamed.. Everybody was talking about him, but one loss and he seemed to be destroyed emotionally. His career was over.. Whereas Robinson shook off losses like shaking off a nasty cold.. Once it's over with you forget about it like it never happened.. Who GAS, let's win the next one ... There should be more of that and fighters today should share some of that.

Kalan wrote:

jas80s wrote:

Kalan wrote:You know what??? If a guy is a good boxer and puncher it doesn't necessarily mean he's not easy to hit. Julio Cesar Chavez... Oscar De La Hoya... Muhammad Ali... Ray Robinson... Marvin Hagler... Joe Louis... Tommy Hearns... Wilfredo Benitez... Felix Trinindad... and Carl Froch were all good boxers and all easy to hit... Some of them because they were very aggressive.. They had a lot of faith in their chins and punching power.. They enjoyed "going to war" i.e. trading punches, and loved to knock people out.. It's an intoxicating feeling "better than sex" as they say.. Louis, Hagler, Hearns, Robinson, Trinidad, and Froch were guilty of this. They weren't all Jack Dempsey in the chin department, but they had the blood lust to go for the kill.

Now, I don't think that's a real smart way to fight... I like the way Mayweather did it... but nobody can call you a boring fighter if you take a few to land a few... Of course guys like Louis, De La Hoya, Froch, Benitez, Hearns, Trinidad, Robinson, and Ali had technical flaws as well... You could line them up for a shot. Robinson could absorb punches beautifully.. He was decked by Bell, LaMotta, Levine, Graziano etc. but he recovered very quickly and went back to war.

OK, so by good boxer, we are not necessarily talking good punch avoidance, fair enough. What would you say he excelled at as a boxer? I agree with you that he did seem to relish getting into physical battles with guys. He would have seemed to have advantages in terms of speed, accuracy, and overall boxing acumen against some of his opponents and yet he got into some pretty serious slugfests when one has to wonder if he might have been able to box his way to a less physically punishing win, or on the other hand, maybe his opponents were a little better than they looked; that I suppose depends on whom you ask. But, understanding all that, I still don't see why he was so great?? I mean he lost a bunch of times to these slow, crude fighters and had his hands full a number of times even when he won. And, let's not even get started on the Ralph Jones debacle..

You are as verbose and analytical as any poster on this site, but when I asked for an explanation of why he was great I got a decidedly non-descript, because he can "box and punch". I still say, if we argue that he fought scrubs for the most part, was easy to hit, and lost a high number of times to lesser fighters, I don't see greatness. Yes, his power seemed to be good, but not top 10 and again, the less than stellar performances against slow, crude fighters who routinely took him the distance. That would seem to suggest that his greatness comes from having a great chin.

I don't mean to monopolize your time so feel free to discontinue our discussion. But, if you are up for it, please delve into this guy. Really break it down, why was he great? Or was he really? Even if we list some things that he did well, would it even matter if his opponents are slow and crude?
If he never beat anyone that can be considered great? And I am talking in an all time, across eras sense here.

Most sports I have to begrudgingly give that performers are getting better, boxing is the only sport where I wonder, I think I know where you are on that question so I only say that to make the point that that is what makes the breakdown of SRR so interesting.

Ray Robinson was like Jack Dempsey in the way the fans adored him... He was larger than life and extremely charismatic... Ali had it, Tyson had it, Duran had it to a degree.. If you have it you don't have to be the greatest fighter.. You don't have to win every fight... Robinson looked the part with his straight hair, handsome face, sleek boxer's body, perfectly fitted trunks and shoes tied to perfection.. He drove his "Flamingo Cadillac" If you called his car pink he would correct you.. He was always turned out well.. He worked hard to exude class and style -- and he largely succeeded..

Of course there's a lot of fans who don't like people like Robinson.. They think they're phonies.. Those are the haters who come to see them lose.. But whether they love them or hate them they talk about them.. And everybody wants to fight them because they're big box office.. Now you have guys like Naseem Hamed.. Everybody was talking about him, but one loss and he seemed to be destroyed emotionally. His career was over.. Whereas Robinson shook off losses like shaking off a nasty cold.. Once it's over with you forget about it like it never happened.. Who GAS, let's win the next one ... There should be more of that and fighters today should share some of that.

I don't imagine we will see that description of the "greatness of Sugar Ray Robinson" anywhere near his plaque in Canastota. But, actually it was pretty much the answer I was looking for. You have been pretty consistent in your appraisal of SRR on this board, and that is why it struck me as odd that you, a polarizing poster if ever there was one, would go out of your way to say something so...politically correct in boxing terms, like Ray Robinson was a "great fighter". Everything you say about him belies that conclusion. I just wanted to see where you truly were on him and your answers here have done that for me. It's a lot clearer for me now, and your pick of SRL to easily dispatch him makes more sense.

Kalan wrote:Robinson went to sleep out there half the time --- Lost to Turpin.. Lost to the small, short Basilio.. Lost to wide open Gene Fullmer.. Quit versus Joey Maxim.. Lost to Ralph Jones.. Decked by Artie Levine.. Decked by LaMotta.. Decked by Graziano.. Decked by Tommy Bell.. Robbie would fight furiously but he would start running and flagging as he gassed out and he was easy to hit.. You never saw him in a Chris Eubank vs Nick Blackwell type of fight with murderous, sustained, pinpoint combinations ripping.. You never saw that in your life from Ray Robinson.

I mean Robinson was a great fighter and everything.. He was charismatic as Hell.. But who did SRR ever fight who could box like Ray Leonard??? Certainly none of the above slowpokes who beat SRR or floored him.. Who did SRR ever fight who could beat Marvin Hagler??? ... There's your answer.

You speak of Basiliio, Fulmer, Maxim, Lamotta...as if they are chopped liver. Are they?

Why is it that SO MANY people just don't understand Robinson's limitations? And is there ANYONE else who you find yourself in agreement with when it comes to your many analysis? You do seem to give props at times to Robinson, Ali, heck I think I've seen you say some nice things about Armstrong.....but very contextual kudos in limited ways. None of the top names from most "experts" appear to be in your top listings. And...I think I'm seeing a pattern that in your opinion the modern day boxers, are genuinely getting better.....and we have among us, in todays crop some of the best of the best.

K bros, Valero..(Ok he's gone but still a contemporary) Joshua...GGG etc.

Why do you suppose that is? What is it that you are seeing that 95% of the boxing observers are not seeing?

OR....could you be missing something?

I have to say, I had the sneaking suspicion that the sport is evolving.....so I almost want to buy into some of your controversial stuff. But the Valero statements were just outside of my ability to absorb. I like him, he was exciting to watch, but in the ring, as in life....he looked to be inevitably heading for trouble with the serious top class contenders.

Valero had brain damage from a horrific motorcycle crash that almost ended his life...before he ever fought a professional fight.. That caused his emotional problems.. Yet he became a 2-Division World Champion just like Robinson did... The difference is, Valero never lost a fight or EVER failed to knock an opponent out. He had speed, elusiveness, intelligence, science, and other fistic assets largely absent in Henry Armstrong... Did you ever study their respective fights like you promised???? ... NO you didn't, so how would you know that Armstrong led with his head and was easy to hit??? ... You rely on myths.

jas80s wrote:

Kalan wrote:

jas80s wrote:
OK, so by good boxer, we are not necessarily talking good punch avoidance, fair enough. What would you say he excelled at as a boxer? I agree with you that he did seem to relish getting into physical battles with guys. He would have seemed to have advantages in terms of speed, accuracy, and overall boxing acumen against some of his opponents and yet he got into some pretty serious slugfests when one has to wonder if he might have been able to box his way to a less physically punishing win, or on the other hand, maybe his opponents were a little better than they looked; that I suppose depends on whom you ask. But, understanding all that, I still don't see why he was so great?? I mean he lost a bunch of times to these slow, crude fighters and had his hands full a number of times even when he won. And, let's not even get started on the Ralph Jones debacle..

You are as verbose and analytical as any poster on this site, but when I asked for an explanation of why he was great I got a decidedly non-descript, because he can "box and punch". I still say, if we argue that he fought scrubs for the most part, was easy to hit, and lost a high number of times to lesser fighters, I don't see greatness. Yes, his power seemed to be good, but not top 10 and again, the less than stellar performances against slow, crude fighters who routinely took him the distance. That would seem to suggest that his greatness comes from having a great chin.

I don't mean to monopolize your time so feel free to discontinue our discussion. But, if you are up for it, please delve into this guy. Really break it down, why was he great? Or was he really? Even if we list some things that he did well, would it even matter if his opponents are slow and crude?
If he never beat anyone that can be considered great? And I am talking in an all time, across eras sense here.

Most sports I have to begrudgingly give that performers are getting better, boxing is the only sport where I wonder, I think I know where you are on that question so I only say that to make the point that that is what makes the breakdown of SRR so interesting.

Ray Robinson was like Jack Dempsey in the way the fans adored him... He was larger than life and extremely charismatic... Ali had it, Tyson had it, Duran had it to a degree.. If you have it you don't have to be the greatest fighter.. You don't have to win every fight... Robinson looked the part with his straight hair, handsome face, sleek boxer's body, perfectly fitted trunks and shoes tied to perfection.. He drove his "Flamingo Cadillac" If you called his car pink he would correct you.. He was always turned out well.. He worked hard to exude class and style -- and he largely succeeded..

Of course there's a lot of fans who don't like people like Robinson.. They think they're phonies.. Those are the haters who come to see them lose.. But whether they love them or hate them they talk about them.. And everybody wants to fight them because they're big box office.. Now you have guys like Naseem Hamed.. Everybody was talking about him, but one loss and he seemed to be destroyed emotionally. His career was over.. Whereas Robinson shook off losses like shaking off a nasty cold.. Once it's over with you forget about it like it never happened.. Who GAS, let's win the next one ... There should be more of that and fighters today should share some of that.

I don't imagine we will see that description of the "greatness of Sugar Ray Robinson" anywhere near his plaque in Canastota. But, actually it was pretty much the answer I was looking for. You have been pretty consistent in your appraisal of SRR on this board, and that is why it struck me as odd that you, a polarizing poster if ever there was one, would go out of your way to say something so...politically correct in boxing terms, like Ray Robinson was a "great fighter". Everything you say about him belies that conclusion. I just wanted to see where you truly were on him and your answers here have done that for me. It's a lot clearer for me now, and your pick of SRL to easily dispatch him makes more sense.

Did I say Sugar Ray Leonard would easily dispatch SRR??? ... NO I didn't.. It would go the distance.. It would surprise people like the Hagler upset, because Leonard would indeed win. When I said SRL would rip him a new one that was a little boxing hyperbole. It didn't include dispatching SRR. He was dispatched once in 200 fights -- albeit by carefully selected opponents.

Kalan wrote:

jas80s wrote:

Kalan wrote:
Ray Robinson was like Jack Dempsey in the way the fans adored him... He was larger than life and extremely charismatic... Ali had it, Tyson had it, Duran had it to a degree.. If you have it you don't have to be the greatest fighter.. You don't have to win every fight... Robinson looked the part with his straight hair, handsome face, sleek boxer's body, perfectly fitted trunks and shoes tied to perfection.. He drove his "Flamingo Cadillac" If you called his car pink he would correct you.. He was always turned out well.. He worked hard to exude class and style -- and he largely succeeded..

Of course there's a lot of fans who don't like people like Robinson.. They think they're phonies.. Those are the haters who come to see them lose.. But whether they love them or hate them they talk about them.. And everybody wants to fight them because they're big box office.. Now you have guys like Naseem Hamed.. Everybody was talking about him, but one loss and he seemed to be destroyed emotionally. His career was over.. Whereas Robinson shook off losses like shaking off a nasty cold.. Once it's over with you forget about it like it never happened.. Who GAS, let's win the next one ... There should be more of that and fighters today should share some of that.

I don't imagine we will see that description of the "greatness of Sugar Ray Robinson" anywhere near his plaque in Canastota. But, actually it was pretty much the answer I was looking for. You have been pretty consistent in your appraisal of SRR on this board, and that is why it struck me as odd that you, a polarizing poster if ever there was one, would go out of your way to say something so...politically correct in boxing terms, like Ray Robinson was a "great fighter". Everything you say about him belies that conclusion. I just wanted to see where you truly were on him and your answers here have done that for me. It's a lot clearer for me now, and your pick of SRL to easily dispatch him makes more sense.

Did I say Sugar Ray Leonard would easily dispatch SRR??? ... NO I didn't.. It would go the distance.. It would surprise people like the Hagler upset, because Leonard would indeed win. When I said SRL would rip him a new one that was a little boxing hyperbole. It didn't include dispatching SRR. He was dispatched once in 200 fights -- albeit by carefully selected opponents.

I was merely using the term "easily dispatch" more like vanquish or defeat; as a synonym for "rip him a new one". There was no specific literal intent. In my eyes, those things are virtually synonymous. In fact, whether it was a KO is largely irrelevant, the imprortant thing about your pick in this one is that you feel SRL would win with relative ease and your certainty of it......or is "relative ease" now something that is absolutely NOT what you mean when you say, "rip him a new one"? I wouldn't want to misrepresent your view.

There's a reason Ray Robinson ducked Charley Burley like the plague. The same reason he'd lose to Leonard.

jas80s wrote:

Kalan wrote:

jas80s wrote:
I don't imagine we will see that description of the "greatness of Sugar Ray Robinson" anywhere near his plaque in Canastota. But, actually it was pretty much the answer I was looking for. You have been pretty consistent in your appraisal of SRR on this board, and that is why it struck me as odd that you, a polarizing poster if ever there was one, would go out of your way to say something so...politically correct in boxing terms, like Ray Robinson was a "great fighter". Everything you say about him belies that conclusion. I just wanted to see where you truly were on him and your answers here have done that for me. It's a lot clearer for me now, and your pick of SRL to easily dispatch him makes more sense.

Did I say Sugar Ray Leonard would easily dispatch SRR??? ... NO I didn't.. It would go the distance.. It would surprise people like the Hagler upset, because Leonard would indeed win. When I said SRL would rip him a new one that was a little boxing hyperbole. It didn't include dispatching SRR. He was dispatched once in 200 fights -- albeit by carefully selected opponents.

I was merely using the term "easily dispatch" more like vanquish or defeat; as a synonym for "rip him a new one". There was no specific literal intent. In my eyes, those things are virtually synonymous. In fact, whether it was a KO is largely irrelevant, the imprortant thing about your pick in this one is that you feel SRL would win with relative ease and your certainty of it......or is "relative ease" now something that is absolutely NOT what you mean when you say, "rip him a new one"? I wouldn't want to misrepresent your view.

What a brilliant way to engage a troll.

NateJR wrote:There's a reason Ray Robinson ducked Charley Burley like the plague. The same reason he'd lose to Leonard.

LOL, another myth like the McCallum shit. You're a cute little know nothing.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

NateJR wrote:There's a reason Ray Robinson ducked Charley Burley like the plague. The same reason he'd lose to Leonard.

LOL, another myth like the McCallum poo. You're a cute little know nothing.

What exactly makes it a myth? Since your smart ass seems to know all, oh wise one.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

jas80s wrote:

Kalan wrote:
Did I say Sugar Ray Leonard would easily dispatch SRR??? ... NO I didn't.. It would go the distance.. It would surprise people like the Hagler upset, because Leonard would indeed win. When I said SRL would rip him a new one that was a little boxing hyperbole. It didn't include dispatching SRR. He was dispatched once in 200 fights -- albeit by carefully selected opponents.

I was merely using the term "easily dispatch" more like vanquish or defeat; as a synonym for "rip him a new one". There was no specific literal intent. In my eyes, those things are virtually synonymous. In fact, whether it was a KO is largely irrelevant, the imprortant thing about your pick in this one is that you feel SRL would win with relative ease and your certainty of it......or is "relative ease" now something that is absolutely NOT what you mean when you say, "rip him a new one"? I wouldn't want to misrepresent your view.

What a brilliant way to engage a troll.

Once he called SRR a great fighter, I was really interested to see which way he was going to go as he had given concrete examples of such diametrically opposed viewpoints. As it turned out, when pressed for answers, he couldn't find anything that impressed him about Robinson, other than his beard, his straight hair, and MAYBE, his car... mystery solved.

I can't say I have a problem with minority viewpoints and I give him credit, he didn't lose his cool or yell at me. But, in the end, I think he likes to argue more than really discuss this stuff.

Gotta chime in here and comment. If sugar ray was hesitant to fight Burley it was a smart move. I'd want a whole lot of money to fight that guy if I was Ray.

Let me give you a clue BuzzBox... Robinson targeted Joey Maxim when he won the LHW Title... Maxim was slow, easy to hit, and a very light hitter... After Maxim stopped Robinson the whole world blamed it on the heat except Maxim "It was just as hot for me in there. I paced myself very well and forced Robinson to work like Hell. I could have gone 30 rounds and Robinson couldn't go 13 rounds. If he thinks it was the heat let's have a rematch and see what he says." It was Robinson who turned down the rematch. The only excuse he could come up with was "I'm retiring".

Charley Burley never got a title shot... And after Ralph Jones beat the crap out of Robinson they wanted Robinson to give him a rematch... Robinson said, "Jones beat me real good. I have no complaints about the decision he's a great fighter. But I'm more focused on the World Title and the only way I'm fighting Jones again is in a World Title Fight." or words very close to that ... Boxing is a business more than it is a sport... It's not like Tennis or Golf---which have no weight divisions and the top competitors can't possibly avoid one another for long... They'll go head to head numerous times in a career.

Larry Holmes and George Foreman are very close in age... They're both ATG Heavyweight Champions who's professional boxing careers each span 30 calendar years -- yet they never fought... That's almost like Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe never playing a game of tennis... Only in Boxing can things like this happen... I'm pretty sure Luis Ortiz will get a big money fight at some point as he gets older and slower... But perhaps he never will...we don't know right now... Did Harry Wills ever get a Title Shot???

Both Holmes and Foreman were too good of businessmen to let their fiscal generator become a victim of the others.

Two very powerful funding streams there.


And a very unpredictable ending with a 50/50 outcome....either Foreman catches Holmes...Like Shavers did.....OR Holmes does to Foreman what Ali did to him.

I think when the chips are down Foreman would have caught Larry and ended it....he's enough better than Shavers to make that happen.

And....I KNOW, im in the minority opinion on this. I think George is just slightly smarter than Holmes....and that's why I'd bet in that direction.

Holmes and Foreman were the 2 smartest businessmen among all Heavyweights... But Holmes was 10 X as smart a boxer. Foreman couldn't handle a jab as Jimmy Young proved... Holmes had the best jab in Heavyweight history... So your thinking is all messed up again... Big slow Heavyweights like Bonecrusher Smith didn't bother Holmes or lay any good punches on him...and George was so slow he couldn't nail little Jimmy Young.

Kalan wrote:Holmes and Foreman were the 2 smartest businessmen among all Heavyweights... But Holmes was 10 X as smart a boxer. Foreman couldn't handle a jab as Jimmy Young proved... Holmes had the best jab in Heavyweight history... So your thinking is all messed up again... Big slow Heavyweights like Bonecrusher Smith didn't bother Holmes or lay any good punches on him...and George was so slow he couldn't nail little Jimmy Young.

Agreed.

There's no way Foreman ever beats Holmes IMO.

Foreman might have been able to to hurt Holmes at some point, but Larry had the best recuperative powers I've ever seen on an HW.

Holmes by UD clear.

Like I said....I recognize I'm in the minority and I understand why. I just happen to think that lightening would strike in this case. I would never have imagined Shavers even catching Holmes.

If it goes the distance....it's all Holmes. Just as it was for Holyfield. However...when I'm thinking prime...I'm sort of taking the smart Foreman and the young Foreman together.....and of course that is a fighter that never existed.

Kalan wrote:Holmes and Foreman were the 2 smartest businessmen among all Heavyweights... But Holmes was 10 X as smart a boxer. Foreman couldn't handle a jab as Jimmy Young proved... Holmes had the best jab in Heavyweight history... So your thinking is all messed up again... Big slow Heavyweights like Bonecrusher Smith didn't bother Holmes or lay any good punches on him...and George was so slow he couldn't nail little Jimmy Young.

Ah...a subtle difference I would say Holmes "Boxed Smarter".....I'm not as sure if he was a "Smarter boxer".

Here's a subtle difference... Foreman spent more time on his public image. A couple of his kids reported that he would talk to himself in front of a mirror like he was working on his personality, presentation, and delivery of jokes, smiling and so forth.. A great public image is real.. It works.. and in that respect Foreman was VERY smart and cashed in big time..

He was a smart cherry picker too.. He held onto the Lineal World Title for 3 years.. Most champs wouldn't have been able to fight opponents like that.

Robinson is one strong welter but Leonard was smart with lightning feet and a master of ring generalship. Leonard by UD