BoxRec

3 of the greatest fighters in history that are more talked about in many ways than one. Why we say that the great Sugar Ray Robinson is the greatest of all-time when the greats Henry Armstrong and Roberto Duran did UNBELIAVABLE FEATS in the ring also.

Robinson only went up to middleweight after dominating the welterweight class, and that's about it. Meanwhile, Armstrong and Duran went to weight classes way out of their ranges and won titles... To many people, something is wrong here. Robinson went to light-heavy and lost to Joey Maxim. That was the only fight he did over 160 pounds. Armstrong jumped from 126 pounds to 147 pounds, a 21 pound difference, taking the title from one of the 50 best fighters pound per pound in Barney Ross. Then, he went back down to 135 pounds, and won another title. That is amazing to think about. Duran started at bantamweight and won titles in 4 different weight classes. His last world title, he won it while being in 22 years in pro boxing, at 37 years old, washed up, against someone much bigger, stronger, taller, younger, natural middleweight in Iran Barkley, who was a good fighter and not anybody's walkover.

Can Armstrong or Duran replace Robinson as the best ever?

Your premise is totally wrong. Robinson started out as a Lightweight and beat the reigning Lightweight champion in a non-title bout, before moving up to win titles at Welterweight and Middleweight. He dominated Maxim but lost by an act of God. Armstrong and Duran fought and beat many great fighters, but Robinson beat more Hall of Famers than any other fighter in boxing history, and Robinson can hardly be accused of not being a great fighter at several of weight classes, he's the greatest Welterweight of all time and one of the top four greatest Middleweight's of all time. Duran for one certainly didn't dominate any weight classes north of Lightweight, and if 140 and 154 and 168 existed in Robinson's era he probably would have won titles at all those weight classes.

The only fighter I can see being ranked ahead of Robinson is Ali. The fact that he beat arguably 5 of the 15 greatest heavyweights ever means alot to me.
The rest of my top ten would be like this:

3. Armstrong
4. Greb
5. Ray Leonard
6 and 7 Whitaker(most underrated fighter ever) and Duran in either order in my book
8. Charles
9. Pep
10. Chavez- I may be overrating my favorite fighter of all time, but I'm certain its, at the very least, a respectable choice.

Personally I'd go for Armstrong, pound for pound his acheivements are unmatched... Robinson comes close but how can you go against a guy who was a natural Featherweight yet beat the best right up to middleweight...

I`d place Robinson above the two other mentioned because at welterweight he was probably the best ever and even when fighting at midddleweight he would be evens to beat just about any middle there has been.

Armstrong without doubt is an alltime great, but in all the weight classes he held titles I`d place quite a few before him...and Barney Ross was an old man when he fought him...


And Duran`s exploits were something else, he moved up in weight when most fighters of that weight class are almost at the end of their careers, and stand in front of him and the great fighter and boxer he was would bust you up slowly but surely...but he could be outboxed, so once again at the weights he won titles there would have to be quite a few placed higher than him.

Dream fight for me would be Duran and Robinson at welter.

It's tough to say for sure & it's extremely close IMO, but I have always ranked Henry Armstrong as the greatest ever boxer, just ahead of Sugar Ray Robinson.

My top 5 fighters are:-

1) Henry Armstrong

2) Sugar Ray Robinson

3) Roberto Duran

4) Muhammad Ali

5) Willie Pep

i rank
armstrong
robinson
duran
pep
whitaker


in that order.i know not every one will agree,but this is how i see it

theone wrote:The only fighter I can see being ranked ahead of Robinson is Ali. The fact that he beat arguably 5 of the 15 greatest heavyweights ever means alot to me.
The rest of my top ten would be like this:

3. Armstrong
4. Greb
5. Ray Leonard
6 and 7 Whitaker(most underrated fighter ever) and Duran in either order in my book
8. Charles
9. Pep
10. Chavez- I may be overrating my favorite fighter of all time, but I'm certain its, at the very least, a respectable choice.

Wow, you rank Ali ahead of Robinson! I have Robinson P4P No.1, Armstrong at 2, and I'm not 100% who actually comes after that.

Not saying your opinion is a bad one, just that it shows how followers of boxing, how different our views can be.

Wow, you rank Ali ahead of Robinson! I have Robinson P4P No.1, Armstrong at 2, and I'm not 100% who actually comes after that.

Not saying your opinion is a bad one, just that it shows how followers of boxing, how different our views can be.

Yeah, but its far from a conviction. I wouldn't strongly debate anyone who has Robinson first.

I Feel Fine wrote:Your premise is totally wrong. Robinson started out as a Lightweight and beat the reigning Lightweight champion in a non-title bout, before moving up to win titles at Welterweight and Middleweight. He dominated Maxim but lost by an act of God. Armstrong and Duran fought and beat many great fighters, but Robinson beat more Hall of Famers than any other fighter in boxing history, and Robinson can hardly be accused of not being a great fighter at several of weight classes, he's the greatest Welterweight of all time and one of the top four greatest Middleweight's of all time. Duran for one certainly didn't dominate any weight classes north of Lightweight, and if 140 and 154 and 168 existed in Robinson's era he probably would have won titles at all those weight classes.

Great reply first up

Sugar Ray Robinson is comfortably the all time number one pound for pound in my book.

silkov wrote:Personally I'd go for Armstrong, pound for pound his acheivements are unmatched... Robinson comes close but how can you go against a guy who was a natural Featherweight yet beat the best right up to middleweight...

And Robinson went from Lightweight to Light Heavyweight. Armstrong failed to capture the Middleweight title, Robinson the Light Heavyweight title, but under ordinary circumstances they would have both won those titles. The difference is Robinson has better overall opposition.

People also focus a lot on the losses Robinson had at the end of his career, but Armstrong has more career losses and draws than Robinson did, and Robinson was able to stay champion into his late 30's, while Armstrong was never champion again after 28. Whatever negative spin you can say about Robinson you can say about Armstrong.

My personal 5 are:

1. Robinson/Armstrong
2. Armstrong/Robinson
3. Ali
4. Louis
5. Duran

Robinson
Armstrong
Charles
Greb
Langford

What myth? The referee had to be taken out of the fight. Doesn't sound like ordinary circumstances to me.

Maxim lasted the heat because he didn't do anything for 10 rounds. Under ordinary circumstances Robinson wins the fight.

I wouldn't argue that Robinson was better than Armstrong because of the Maxim fight, but if people are going to support Armstrong under the premise that he should have won Middleweight title, then one could say the same for Robinson and the Light Heavyweight title.

I wouldn't argue that Robinson was better than Armstrong because of the Maxim fight, but if people are going to support Armstrong under the premise that he should have won Middleweight title, then one could say the same for Robinson and the Light Heavyweight title.

I agree with most of what you were saying but i have an issue with the last statement. Armstrong Shoulda won the middleweight title because he did everything he had to do to win but was shafted by the judges. (Admittingly I'm assuming by what I've heard and read...I never actually saw the Armstrong/Garcia bout.)

Robison coulda won the fight...which is a big difference. He didn't get shafted by a bad decision. It was within his power to pace himself in the heat unless Maxim was forcing him to fight all out, which would then leave Robinson less of an excuse.

But what I'm saying is that under ordinary circumstances they both likely would have won. I also know that some dispute whether or not Armstrong was fighting for the legitimate Middleweight title when he fought Garcia.

I also know that some dispute whether or not Armstrong was fighting for the legitimate Middleweight title when he fought Garcia.

Really? I have never heard that before.

I Feel Fine wrote:Your premise is totally wrong. Robinson started out as a Lightweight and beat the reigning Lightweight champion in a non-title bout, before moving up to win titles at Welterweight and Middleweight. He dominated Maxim but lost by an act of God. Armstrong and Duran fought and beat many great fighters, but Robinson beat more Hall of Famers than any other fighter in boxing history, and Robinson can hardly be accused of not being a great fighter at several of weight classes, he's the greatest Welterweight of all time and one of the top four greatest Middleweight's of all time. Duran for one certainly didn't dominate any weight classes north of Lightweight, and if 140 and 154 and 168 existed in Robinson's era he probably would have won titles at all those weight classes.

Robinson did not dominate the middleweights either. 18 of his 19 losses against middleweights could attest to that. Armstrong and Duran beat clearly unbelievable fighters like Barney Ross and Sugar Ray Leonard. Robinson never beat Gavilan CLEARLY according to some sources. SOME SAY THAT GAVILAN WON ONE OF THE FIGHTS, AND GOT ROBBED. And Gavilan was the most skilled fighter that Robinson ever faced.

Robinson did not dominate the middleweights either. 18 of his 19 losses against middleweights could attest to that. Armstrong and Duran beat clearly unbelievable fighters like Barney Ross and Sugar Ray Leonard. Robinson never beat Gavilan CLEARLY according to some sources. SOME SAY THAT GAVILAN WON ONE OF THE FIGHTS, AND GOT ROBBED. And Gavilan was the most skilled fighter that Robinson ever faced.

Interesting point elmer, especially about Robinson not beating Gavilan clearly, I've read this before. However as impressive as Armstrong beating Ross and Duran beating Leonard was, I think Robinsons wins against Lamotta while fighting under the welterweight limit is at least as if not more of an accomplishment.

elmersalsa wrote:Robinson did not dominate the middleweights either. 18 of his 19 losses against middleweights could attest to that. Armstrong and Duran beat clearly unbelievable fighters like Barney Ross and Sugar Ray Leonard. Robinson never beat Gavilan CLEARLY according to some sources. SOME SAY THAT GAVILAN WON ONE OF THE FIGHTS, AND GOT ROBBED. And Gavilan was the most skilled fighter that Robinson ever faced.

Most of Robinson's losses came when he was a shot fighter. As I mentioned earlier, Armstrong has more career losses than Robinson, so Armstrong supporters are in no position to harp on Robinson's losses.

I've read that the first fight was close, but there was no controversy to my knowledge over Robinson-Gavilan II. Robinson also beat Olson four times, and Olson held a win over Gavilan. Robinson also beat other exceptionally great fighters in LaMotta and Fullmer. You also failed to mention Duran's losses to Leonard in the rematches.

And for the record I do rank Armstrong as the second greatest fighter of all time.

Terry D wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:What myth? The referee had to be taken out of the fight. Doesn't sound like ordinary circumstances to me.

Maxim lasted the heat because he didn't do anything for 10 rounds. Under ordinary circumstances Robinson wins the fight.

I wouldn't argue that Robinson was better than Armstrong because of the Maxim fight, but if people are going to support Armstrong under the premise that he should have won Middleweight title, then one could say the same for Robinson and the Light Heavyweight title.

So Maxim paced the fight better with one eye on the TKO win. My respect for him grows.

It was not ordinary circumstances and Robinson failed to adapt to them. Maxim boxed under the same heat also.

It was a fair win.

I do agree that Maxin deserves more credit and it seems a bit unfair that Robinson gets a moral victory in this one.

Great effort by Robinson and the defeat, IMO, takes nothign away from him but maxim won the fight.

"Maxim lasted the heat because he didn't do anything for 10 rounds"

Except for getting beaten on by Robinson presumably?

Sport is about so many factors and one of them is adapting to the conditions and circumstances in order to win. Maxim did this and outlasted Robinson. Fair play to him.

In the world cup in 1990 Brazil hammered the Argies but lost 1-0. I doubt many Brazilians would consider this a moral victory...

I Feel Fine wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Robinson did not dominate the middleweights either. 18 of his 19 losses against middleweights could attest to that. Armstrong and Duran beat clearly unbelievable fighters like Barney Ross and Sugar Ray Leonard. Robinson never beat Gavilan CLEARLY according to some sources. SOME SAY THAT GAVILAN WON ONE OF THE FIGHTS, AND GOT ROBBED. And Gavilan was the most skilled fighter that Robinson ever faced.

Most of Robinson's losses came when he was a shot fighter. As I mentioned earlier, Armstrong has more career losses than Robinson, so Armstrong supporters are in no position to harp on Robinson's losses.

I've read that the first fight was close, but there was no controversy to my knowledge over Robinson-Gavilan II. Robinson also beat Olson four times, and Olson held a win over Gavilan. Robinson also beat other exceptionally great fighters in LaMotta and Fullmer. You also failed to mention Duran's losses to Leonard in the rematches.

And for the record I do rank Armstrong as the second greatest fighter of all time.

You mentioned that most of Robinson's losses were when he was a shot fighter...So also are the Duran losses. Compared to Robinson, Duran is equally match in terms of accomplishments. In a way, Armstrong and Duran were better than him. Robinson in his prime was 130-1 in his first 11 years as a pro. Duran was 72-1 in his first 13 years as a pro. The edge??? I probably give it to Robinson, but not by much. But Duran at lightweight was MORE DOMINANT THAN ROBINSON at welterweight. Plus, like Armstrong and Duran did respectively, ROBINSON NEVER BEAT AN EXECEPTIONAL FIGHTER GOING UP IN WEIGHT. IT IS A "GREAT COINCIDENCE" THAT THE FIGHTS WITH GAVILAN ARE NOT ON FILM.

Fullmer, Olson nor LaMotta are not in the level of Barney Ross or Sugar Ray Leonard.

Robinson beat 3 hall of famers (Im not countling Armstrong who was well past his prime)in their prime before winning the welterweight title. One of them a full fledge middleweight; without having to move up himself. Robinson may have had a tough time with Gavilan but Duran lost clearly to DeJesus who was not on par with Gavilan.

Terry D wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:What myth? The referee had to be taken out of the fight. Doesn't sound like ordinary circumstances to me.

Maxim lasted the heat because he didn't do anything for 10 rounds. Under ordinary circumstances Robinson wins the fight.

I wouldn't argue that Robinson was better than Armstrong because of the Maxim fight, but if people are going to support Armstrong under the premise that he should have won Middleweight title, then one could say the same for Robinson and the Light Heavyweight title.

So Maxim paced the fight better with one eye on the TKO win. My respect for him grows.

It was not ordinary circumstances and Robinson failed to adapt to them. Maxim boxed under the same heat also.

It was a fair win.

He didn't pace himself with an eye on the TKO... he did nothing for 10-12 rounds because Robinson was so thoroughly out boxing him.

It's a fair win, but not a definitive win.