Re: Why is Sugar Ray Robinson to you the Greatest Pound Per Pound Fighter of All-time?
Posted: 07 Dec 2019, 14:01
One thing we know for sure, Armstrong could never make it to 131-1.
X2
No I don't think your right..i try not to respond to idiotic posts...you don't get to be known as one of the best fighters ever without being well rounded.....no footwork? Well how .did he get inside all those bigger opponents? ...you need to do more research... That's like saying all Larry Holmes had was a jab and nothing else..elmersalsa wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 13:21Did I have ever called you a name? Don't follow some people's footsteps, gilgamesh. That's evil. You are not being your own self. You are better than that. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, is an idiot. It's just a matter of opinion.gilgamesh wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 13:09
Alright look guy. You've expressed your opinion. We've expressed ours. Ours is based on in-ring fact that we've shown video evidence of. Yours is based off of "Well I think he...."
Well stop thinking because you weaken the nation.
You're making yourself look like an absolute idiot, an asshole, a guy that disagrees for the sake of disagreeing because he can't get laid...all of the above.
Calm down.
You don't think Robinson was a great fighter...fine. You're an idiot, but fine. Shut up about it.
I asked someone about the great Henry Armstrong's boxing skills like jab, footwork and countering. He didn't answer me. He knew that I was right. He didn't called me names.
Please, bro. Be your own man. Don't follow the evil. Think for yourself. Think outside the box and see it yourself.
The great Sugar Ray Robinson was not the all COMPLETE fighter that we thought when were kids. Something that old school boxing history buffs like Bert Sugar and Curt Gowdy, for example, put us to believe. I mentioned 10 fighters! Ten fighters that were MORE COMPLETE than he was. So, for that I am an idiot?
See those ten that I have mentioned. Maybe you will have a change of heart. That's if you don't let pride and ego be in your way.
Idiotic posts? Please don't follow other's folly. Did you see Armstrong's jab?Duran1970 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 14:18No I don't think your right..i try not to respond to idiotic posts...you don't get to be known as one of the best fighters ever without being well rounded.....no footwork? Well how .did he get inside all those bigger opponents? ...you need to do more research... That's like saying all Larry Holmes had was a jab and nothing else..elmersalsa wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 13:21
Did I have ever called you a name? Don't follow some people's footsteps, gilgamesh. That's evil. You are not being your own self. You are better than that. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, is an idiot. It's just a matter of opinion.
I asked someone about the great Henry Armstrong's boxing skills like jab, footwork and countering. He didn't answer me. He knew that I was right. He didn't called me names.
Please, bro. Be your own man. Don't follow the evil. Think for yourself. Think outside the box and see it yourself.
The great Sugar Ray Robinson was not the all COMPLETE fighter that we thought when were kids. Something that old school boxing history buffs like Bert Sugar and Curt Gowdy, for example, put us to believe. I mentioned 10 fighters! Ten fighters that were MORE COMPLETE than he was. So, for that I am an idiot?
See those ten that I have mentioned. Maybe you will have a change of heart. That's if you don't let pride and ego be in your way.
Absolute nonsense.
I have never been inside a ring, you're right. But, to say that Armstrong did had excellent footwork, I may say that his footwork was good for a slugger standards. He wasn't like the great Alexis Arguello's weak footwork, but not as equal as Sugar Ray's either.Duran1970 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 15:54 How could he accomplish all what you said if he had no footwork...how could he get in position to throw all those punches without balance..yes balance is footwork...the guy had fast feet..just because he didn't dance like Robinson or Ali doesn't mean he had no footwork... obviously you have never boxed.
He was 26-0 in 1937 alone. From 1937 to 1940, he had an amazing ring record of 57-1, winning 3 world championships in 3 different weight classes simultaneously. Nobody has ever done that before.Onetimeonly wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 14:01 One thing we know for sure, Armstrong could never make it to 131-1.
He was 0-1.elmersalsa wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 18:54He was 26-0 in 1937 alone. From 1937 to 1940, he had an amazing ring record of 57-1, winning 3 world championships in 3 different weight classes simultaneously. Nobody has ever done that before.Onetimeonly wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 14:01 One thing we know for sure, Armstrong could never make it to 131-1.
Nobody has ever done that beforeelmersalsa wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 18:54He was 26-0 in 1937 alone. From 1937 to 1940, he had an amazing ring record of 57-1, winning 3 world championships in 3 different weight classes simultaneously. Nobody has ever done that before.Onetimeonly wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 14:01 One thing we know for sure, Armstrong could never make it to 131-1.
Henry was washed up.gilgamesh wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 21:46Nobody has ever done that beforeelmersalsa wrote: ↑07 Dec 2019, 18:54
He was 26-0 in 1937 alone. From 1937 to 1940, he had an amazing ring record of 57-1, winning 3 world championships in 3 different weight classes simultaneously. Nobody has ever done that before.
can be uttered about a lot of Robinson's accomplishments as well.
Oh...and Robinson beat Armstrong.
Yet, Robinson just couldn't hack it against Joey Maxim was your attitude right?
Henry was washed up when he fought Sugar Ray. That was a fact.gilgamesh wrote: ↑08 Dec 2019, 13:51Yet, Robinson just couldn't hack it against Joey Maxim was your attitude right?
So excuses are allowed for YOUR guy, but they're not allowed for others?
"Robinson never went 4 weight classes above his natural weight which was Welterweight. Once he went to light-heavyweight, Joey Maxim sent him back to the middleweights."
So heat exhaustion in a fight you were winning handily makes you a p*ssy, but losing because you're old is fine?
You're bending over backwards here trying to argue that Armstrong is better. Why didn't you just start with Greb or Langford. You wouldn't have to try so hard.
Everybody losses. There ain't no excuses. At least Armstrong "fought his fight", right?Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑09 Dec 2019, 11:47 Armstrong also lost to Zivic twice, Arizmendi twice, the legendary Joe Conde, the one and only Richie Fontaine. Love to hear the excuses for these losses.
What’s your point here Elmo?elmersalsa wrote: ↑09 Dec 2019, 13:23Everybody losses. There ain't no excuses. At least Armstrong "fought his fight", right?Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑09 Dec 2019, 11:47 Armstrong also lost to Zivic twice, Arizmendi twice, the legendary Joe Conde, the one and only Richie Fontaine. Love to hear the excuses for these losses.
Ambling Alp knows what I am talking about.Wee Tommy wrote: ↑09 Dec 2019, 13:33What’s your point here Elmo?elmersalsa wrote: ↑09 Dec 2019, 13:23
Everybody losses. There ain't no excuses. At least Armstrong "fought his fight", right?
At least someone does.
Everybody don't lose 4 of their first 5 fights.elmersalsa wrote: ↑09 Dec 2019, 13:23Everybody losses. There ain't no excuses. At least Armstrong "fought his fight", right?Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑09 Dec 2019, 11:47 Armstrong also lost to Zivic twice, Arizmendi twice, the legendary Joe Conde, the one and only Richie Fontaine. Love to hear the excuses for these losses.
Or the loss to the debuting Eddie Trujillo who would go on to amass a 11-8-2 record, never scoring a KO victory.Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑09 Dec 2019, 11:47 Armstrong also lost to Zivic twice, Arizmendi twice, the legendary Joe Conde, the one and only Richie Fontaine. Love to hear the excuses for these losses.
At least Floyd Mayweather is still undefeatedAmbling Alp II wrote: ↑09 Dec 2019, 11:47 Armstrong also lost to Zivic twice, Arizmendi twice, the legendary Joe Conde, the one and only Richie Fontaine. Love to hear the excuses for these losses.