BoxRec

Fortunatelly, there is a lot for to be the number one; in my opinion, he is


HENRY ARMSTRONG

Let's look at Robinson's pre-retirement losses. He retired in 1952, not 1954:

• LUD10 Jake LaMotta:Outweighed by 16 pounds, against one of the greatest middleweights of all time.
• LUD15 Randy Turpin: Turpin fought an excellent, multidimensional fight, unlike Buster Douglas simply throwing the 1-2 all night long and Mike Tyson being befuddled by it. He was outweighed by four pounds.
• LTKO14 Joey Maxim: 104-degree heat, against a man 16 pounds heavier.

Big Bad John wrote:Let's look at Robinson's pre-retirement losses. He retired in 1952, not 1954:

• LUD10 Jake LaMotta:Outweighed by 16 pounds, against one of the greatest middleweights of all time.
• LUD15 Randy Turpin: Turpin fought an excellent, multidimensional fight, unlike Buster Douglas simply throwing the 1-2 all night long and Mike Tyson being befuddled by it. He was outweighed by four pounds.
• LTKO14 Joey Maxim: 104-degree heat, against a man 16 pounds heavier.

i disagree with that comment. buster was brilliant for one night. yes the jab was his best punch but he had everything going that night. he would have been hell for any heavy ever on that night.

Throwing that one-two, he would've been easy pickings for Lennox Lewis. Joe Louis would've stopped him EASILY. You don't beat great fighters with simple gameplans.

Ali or Louis. they were bigger than the sport.

lb 4 lb all-time - robinson, langford, armstrong

most talented - RJJ

Big Bad John wrote:Throwing that one-two, he would've been easy pickings for Lennox Lewis. Joe Louis would've stopped him EASILY. You don't beat great fighters with simple gameplans.

i agree about lennox but remember tyson was a small heavy for his day. the one-two would keep him out of range. joe louis would have had trouble when tyson caught him. tyson was about 20 lbs bigger than him. tyson's problem is that when the fight got tough, he folded up every time.

Joe Louis was a solid 3" or 4" taller than Mike Tyson, he was more focused, he was more technically sound and he had a solid record against taller opponents like 6'4", 255.5-pound Abe Simon; 6'6", 250-pound Buddy Baer; and 6'5.5", 260-pound Primo Carnera. It would be an easy, easy fight for the Brown Bomber, one that would leave Buster Douglas, lying on the floor, either cringing in pain, refusing to get up; or unconscious, receiving medical attention.

Big Bad John wrote:Joe Louis was a solid 3" or 4" taller than Mike Tyson, he was more focused, he was more technically sound and he had a solid record against taller opponents like 6'4", 255.5-pound Abe Simon; 6'6", 250-pound Buddy Baer; and 6'5.5", 260-pound Primo Carnera. It would be an easy, easy fight for the Brown Bomber, one that would leave Buster Douglas, lying on the floor, either cringing in pain, refusing to get up; or unconscious, receiving medical attention.

ok, sorry were talking about louis vs. douglas, not louis vs. tyson. all those guys you listed sucked. that's why they were in the bum of the month club. douglas would fall in that category in most of his fights but the way he fought against tyson would have given louis hell. good jab and good movement on that night.

Buster Douglas was on Tyson's Bum of the Year tour. Abe Simon knocked out Jersey Joe Walcott. Buddy Baer beat Tony Galento, Lee Savold and Abe Simon. Primo Carnera had been World Heavyweight Champion. All three were top-ranked heavyweights.

Douglas was an average HW on his best night (in historical terms). He showed up determined and focused and not frightened...

optkliluzn wrote:yes, I think he should be excused for Douglas. He is a boxer he always had a punchers chance...look at Sugar Ray Robinson, in 1951 he boxed Randy Turpin who has NEVER went beyond 8 rounds before, this was Robinson's first title defense. They went 15 rounds in which Turpin dominated the fight and won the title only to lose it in the rematch. Sounds like Tyson but there was NO rematch his career was over.

Remember Tyson won the heavy weight title at 20, lost to douglas 4 years later then a year later went to jail for 4 years! He fought Evander holyfield when he was "30" THAT WAS NOT THE QUICK, STRONG TYSON ANYMORE!

1) Um, actually, Robinson had several successful title defenses in his career, well before he ever fought Turpin, and at least one of them was against a future Hall of Fame great (Gavilan).

2) If you check Robinson's age, you'll see he too was around "30" when he fought Turpin, and had probably had 2-3 times as many fights Tyson had had by the time he fought Holyfield.

3) I don't know why you said it, but Turpin did not "dominate" Robinson in their first fight, it was a competitive fight for two-thirds of the way though, and Turpin won it with a closing rally in the championship rounds. By contrast, Douglas won almost every second of his fight with Tyson except the last 10 seconds of round 8, and Tyson couldn't even last past the 10th round. Tyson showed almost none of the class or resilience that great fighters are supposed to show even when they lose.

4) Though he was a sizeable underdog, Turpin was still considered a legitimate top contender and had beaten every fighter he ever fought up to that time, and would remain a top contender for another 2-3 years after losing the title. Douglas was a career journeyman who had only just broken into the rankings with one big win (over Berbick) and was considered just another tomato can. And he never won a fight again for close to SEVEN YEARS after beating Tyson.


Also, in using Tyson's layoff as an excuse for losing to (a nearly washed up) Holyfield at the age of 30, you failed to explain how Robinson's own layoff isn't an excuse for losing to Pender at the age of 40. Especially since you insisted that Robinson basically stayed in shape by being active, that would mean that a layoff would have to hurt him more than Tyson. I'm very interested in seeing what your explaination for this apparent contradiction would be.

delete

My2Sense wrote:

optkliluzn wrote:yes, I think he should be excused for Douglas. He is a boxer he always had a punchers chance...look at Sugar Ray Robinson, in 1951 he boxed Randy Turpin who has NEVER went beyond 8 rounds before, this was Robinson's first title defense. They went 15 rounds in which Turpin dominated the fight and won the title only to lose it in the rematch. Sounds like Tyson but there was NO rematch his career was over.

Remember Tyson won the heavy weight title at 20, lost to douglas 4 years later then a year later went to jail for 4 years! He fought Evander holyfield when he was "30" THAT WAS NOT THE QUICK, STRONG TYSON ANYMORE!

1) Um, actually, Robinson had several successful title defenses in his career, well before he ever fought Turpin, and at least one of them was against a future Hall of Fame great (Gavilan).

2) If you check Robinson's age, you'll see he too was around "30" when he fought Turpin, and had probably had 2-3 times as many fights Tyson had had by the time he fought Holyfield.

3) I don't know why you said it, but Turpin did not "dominate" Robinson in their first fight, it was a competitive fight for two-thirds of the way though, and Turpin won it with a closing rally in the championship rounds. By contrast, Douglas won almost every second of his fight with Tyson except the last 10 seconds of round 8, and Tyson couldn't even last past the 10th round. Tyson showed almost none of the class or resilience that great fighters are supposed to show even when they lose.

4) Though he was a sizeable underdog, Turpin was still considered a legitimate top contender and had beaten every fighter he ever fought up to that time, and would remain a top contender for another 2-3 years after losing the title. Douglas was a career journeyman who had only just broken into the rankings with one big win (over Berbick) and was considered just another tomato can. And he never won a fight again for close to SEVEN YEARS after beating Tyson.


Also, in using Tyson's layoff as an excuse for losing to (a nearly washed up) Holyfield at the age of 30, you failed to explain how Robinson's own layoff isn't an excuse for losing to Pender at the age of 40. Especially since you insisted that Robinson basically stayed in shape by being active, that would mean that a layoff would have to hurt him more than Tyson. I'm very interested in seeing what your explaination for this apparent contradiction would be.

Tyson was the favorite against Holy...Holy was supposed to be washed up...He was coming off losses against Michael Moorer and Riddick Bowe...The first time Tyson was an underdog was his fight against Lenox Lewis...

Tyson has lost every must win fight he had after winning his title from Trevor Berbick...

You mean the Spinks fight wasn't a "must win" fight?

Big Bad John wrote:You mean the Spinks fight wasn't a "must win" fight?

You can argue every fight is a "must win" fight...

But the fights he really needed were the two Holy fights, the Lewis fight, the Williams fight, and the McBride fight...I know those fights came at different times in his career but he needed all of them for his legacy...

For instance Ali needed the rematches with Norton, Frazier, and Spinks for his legacy...He actually needed the rematches with Frazier and Norton to remain the #1 contender...If he loses to Norton in Ingelwood I don't think he would be considered the GOAT...

Oh, he needed the Liston and Foreman fights too...

The Spinks fight is the fight that created his legacy in the first place. If he'd lost that instead of one of the Holyfield fights, his career doesn't raise eyebrows. He needed the Spinks fight more than any other for his legacy. If the first Holyfield fight was so meaningful for his legacy, then why did he get paid the same amount as Holyfield for the second one?

HomicideHenry wrote:Sam langford, no question.

Often wondered the same thing . He is certainly one of the most ignored in polls like this . Can't think of anyone else so gifted at such a high level , accross the board other than Robinson . Although his hand speed was good but not blinding , his extrodinary reach a more than compensated for that .

Big Bad John wrote:The Spinks fight is the fight that created his legacy in the first place. If he'd lost that instead of one of the Holyfield fights, his career doesn't raise eyebrows. He needed the Spinks fight more than any other for his legacy. If the first Holyfield fight was so meaningful for his legacy, then why did he get paid the same amount as Holyfield for the second one?

Because Tyson was more important to the gate.... What were the odds against Spinks...

I think Tyson was only a underdog once in his entire career;against Lewis...

There are quite a few to choose from

Sam Langford
Willie Pep
Wouldnt Bennie Leonard fit here?
And perhaps Henry Armstrong
Ray Robinson of course
Can Ricardo Lopez be considered? He was boxer/slugger but pretty well rounded.
Can Boxer/Slugger's fit in this catagory? If they made it work well?
Are we talking about pure refined technique? Or pragmatic results? The list shifts a bit depending on the definition.
But you can't argue with pure success no matter how it comes about I suppose.

Anyway that's my Sam Adams contribution.

George Godfrey ? Funny as well this is the first thread of this type that Ali's name has not popped up , though I would not support that suggest myself . Unless i have missed it .

BoxBuzz wrote:There are quite a few to choose from

Sam Langford
Willie Pep
Wouldnt Bennie Leonard fit here?
And perhaps Henry Armstrong
Ray Robinson of course
Can Ricardo Lopez be considered? He was boxer/slugger but pretty well rounded.Can Boxer/Slugger's fit in this catagory? If they made it work well?
Are we talking about pure refined technique? Or pragmatic results? The list shifts a bit depending on the definition.
But you can't argue with pure success no matter how it comes about I suppose.

Anyway that's my Sam Adams contribution.

No. Lopez avoided the best possible opposition. While he had great skills in the ring, he had a lot of opportunities to prove that he was great. He didn't. End of story.

optkliluzn wrote:Trying to compare Tyson to Robinson is like comparing soldiers of WWII to soldiers of today!

Very interesting, maybe you've forgotten that Tyson's trainer trained in Robinson's era, and Patterson just about had the same style as Tyson.

Terry D wrote:Marvin Hagler. Please, no "you need to see more fights" replies. I've seen plenty. Hagler is the man.

No, you just need to pay more attention to the fights you've seen. Are you one of those people who goes through Boxrec on his laptop while "watching" a fight on TV?

Terry D wrote:Marvin Hagler. Please, no "you need to see more fights" replies. I've seen plenty. Hagler is the man.

Can't say I have ever seen Hagler offered up as number one ....maybe not even at all in p4p . Middle weight sure .But everyone has a right to their own opinion.

Realrobroy wrote: Can't say I have ever seen Hagler offered up as number one ....maybe not even at all in p4p . Middle weight sure .But everyone has a right to their own opinion.

I agree. I think it's very questionable that he'd even be considered the best in his division, let alone the whole of boxing history.