BoxRec

this topic has been talked about ad nausem, but, I have to get my two cents in. I have to go with billy conn, who started off as a welterweight, and wound up fighting heavyweights like joe Louis.

I don't think sugar ray was the greatest lb for lb because he was a failure as a light heavyweight.

what do you guys think?

I think you are delusional.

I agree with Rex. Cannot understand the view that SRR wasn't the greatest fighter of all time cos he 'failed' at lt heavy. Conn was a great fighter and all all time top 10 lt heavy but he's not in the same ballpark as SRR. A whole different level of greatness and his record proves it without doubt.

This has been debated to death and the only fighters to compare to SRR are the same names that keep on coming up over and over again on these forums when talking p4p. Those are Greb, Langford, Armstrong and maybe Charles.

Greb because he was so damn fast, no camera could actually catch him throwing a punch in a pro bout.

Rexob wrote:I think you are delusional.

Tell us what you really think.

Anyone that thinks anything but the HEAT BEAT SRR the night he fought MAXIM are goose's.

BoxBuzz wrote:Greb because he was so damn fast, no camera could actually catch him throwing a punch in a pro bout.

Priceless

Flyweight fighters cannot get the votes as the best ever?

Rexob wrote:I think you are delusional.

in order to be the best lb for lb. you would have to fight above your weight class, as conn did. robinson never fought any heavyweights,

robinson was great no doubt, but, he was beat many times, turpin beat him, tiger jones beat him, fullmer beat him, basilio beat him.

pender beat him twice, both the moyer brothers beat him, downes beat him, tommy bell had him down when he won the welter title'

robinson lost 19 fights, billy conn lost 10. pal, you are the one who isn't thinking right,

ClivePatrickLyons wrote:Anyone that thinks anything but the HEAT BEAT SRR the night he fought MAXIM are goose's.

wasn't it just as hot for joey maxim? maybe the body shots made the sugar man quit.

Sam langford. I cant think of any other man who from 130-200 pounds could of probably picked up a world championship at all the weights between those. I maintain its the matter of who is #2 and onward, that is the most difficult question to answer.

L.A. kidd wrote:

Rexob wrote:I think you are delusional.

in order to be the best lb for lb. you would have to fight above your weight class, as conn did. robinson never fought any heavyweights,

robinson was great no doubt, but, he was beat many times, turpin beat him, tiger jones beat him, fullmer beat him, basilio beat him.

pender beat him twice, both the moyer brothers beat him, downes beat him, tommy bell had him down when he won the welter title'

robinson lost 19 fights, billy conn lost 10. pal, you are the one who isn't thinking right,

And you aren't thinking at all.
The Robinson never fought any heavyweights criticism is priceless.

Robinson did beat fighters above his weight class. For example, he beat LaMotta while he was still under the welterweight limit.

Conn only lost 10 times so that makes him the best? By that faulty logic, anyone that lost less than 10 times was better than Conn. Therefore Conn could not have been the best.

SRR is considered the greatest lb for lb boxer by most cos if you establish a list of all the things that make a boxer or sportsperson really, great, he'd tick more boxes than anyone else. Off the top of my head - achievements, quality of opp, longevity, innovation, historical impact, winning out of weight class, beating fighters of other generations not just his own etc etc. SRR gets like a 10 in every category. Langford also gets 10s as does greb - hard to split those 3.

One of those categories ofc is longevity. SRR was in his prime in the 40s as a welter. In that time he beat pretty much everyone put in front of him from Light up to middle. His first 11 years his record was 128-1-2 with 84 kos. His first 2 years as a pro he won like 40 fights, beat a whole host of ex world champs and prob the world's best middle..as a welter. His only loss was to lamotta who was the uncrowned middle champ through most of the 40s. The losses to fighters years younger than him when he was 10-15 years past his prime just show how great he really was.

Conn's record is a million miles away from SRRs. Great fighter but hed get low marks in a few of those categories - like longevity, innovation and quite a few others. His rep is based on his showings in fights lost to some degree.

ok, I see im not going to win this one, but every man to his own opinion.

L.A. kidd wrote:ok, I see im not going to win this one, but every man to his own opinion.

Thanks for your opinion

thank you , sir.

All very amicable :-)

L.A. kidd wrote:

Rexob wrote:I think you are delusional.

in order to be the best lb for lb. you would have to fight above your weight class, as conn did. robinson never fought any heavyweights,

robinson was great no doubt, but, he was beat many times, turpin beat him, tiger jones beat him, fullmer beat him, basilio beat him.

pender beat him twice, both the moyer brothers beat him, downes beat him, tommy bell had him down when he won the welter title'

robinson lost 19 fights, billy conn lost 10. pal, you are the one who isn't thinking right,

Robinson was way past it when he lost to most of those guys. In his first 128 or so fights, Robinson only lost once.

I saw the Pender fights. About the only fighting I saw Pender do was in clinches when he continued to hit Robinson with rabbit punches. The fight was in Pender's hometown of Boston both times, so Pender got a couple of hometown decisions. He should have been disqualified both times, IMO. Robinson was about 39 at the time. He should never have fought Pender in Boston.

cfang wrote:All very amicable :-)

Non of you know anything

So many things wrong with this post, many of them have already been mentioned but using your strange rating criteria if Robinson (real TBE) is considered a 'failure' at light heavy, then surely Conn is a failure at heavyweight also?

L.A. kidd wrote:
billy conn, who started off as a welterweight, and wound up fighting heavyweights like joe Louis.

Georges Carpentier fought from flyweight and fought Jack Dempsey at heavy. SRR has to be the greatest.

where are we going to rate a guy like willie pep who put up something over 70 wins in a row, now, that is incredible.

just saying.......................

By that logic Georges Carpentier has to be the greatest of all time.

HomicideHenry wrote:Sam langford. I cant think of any other man who from 130-200 pounds could of probably picked up a world championship at all the weights between those. I maintain its the matter of who is #2 and onward, that is the most difficult question to answer.

Beat Joe Gans and drew with WW great Barbados Demon Joe Walcott, then gave Ketchel all he could handle along with Jack Johnson, Sam McVea, Joe Jeanette and Harry Wills while weighing around 165-185lbs. I think hed have beaten Robinson at middleweight. Incredible fighter.

In my view, nobody was better than the great Henry Armstrong.
My top 5:
Henry Armstrong
Sugar Ray Robinson
Sam Langford
Roberto Duran
Willie Pep