BoxRec

Sugar Ray Robinson was the best pound for pound boxer in the world...If there was no Sugar Ray there would probably have been no Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard...I used to think Ali was the GOAT but in the ring that title belonged to Sugar Ray Robinson...Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) and Ray Charles Leonard were his progeny...

In the eyes of many, he is the greatest fighter ever...But to me, it is the great Henry Armstrong.

No disputing the greatness of Ray Robinson, but I think
Henry Armstrong's fantastic career is over looked and under
appreciated.

Both still hold up well today when you watch and admire
the talents that they displayed.

I used to think Robinson was the best (sorry, not you Kym 8)), however the more I've learned and researched about Armstrong the more I feel he may be the G.O.A.T.

Taking your theory further, if there was no Armstrong there would be no Robinson. Therefore no Armstrong means no Robinson, Clay or Leonard.

That would suck.

If there was no John L Sullivan, there wouldn't be any boxing today... period. Kinda sad...

boxbible wrote:If there was no John L Sullivan, there wouldn't be any boxing today... period. Kinda sad...

Although fighting with fists comes naturally to people, the ancient Greeks were the first to make a sport of it, by giving rules and staging tournaments with professionals. The birth hour of boxing as a sport may mark its allowance as an Olympic game as early as 688 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing

elmersalsa wrote:In the eyes of many, he is the greatest fighter ever...But to me, it is the great Henry Armstrong.

I think its extrmely hard to choose between Armstrong & Robinson in respect of the Number one slot. For me, Robinson is the best there has ever been, the nearest a boxer has been to perfection. However, I'm not about to argue with someone who picks Armstrong because there is a strong case for Henry to be there.

Great, great fighters though! There will never be guys like these in boxing, NEVER! I just cannot see it happening.

Henry Armstrong did in 3 years all the things that a boxer would do in 10, 15 or 20 years...From 1937 to 1940, he went 57-1. That is amazing!!! That is a whole career to many fighters if you look at it.

Well, I do think Robinson is the best fighter of all time. But the thing I don't like is when people say that no one is close, that Robinson is all by himself and that no one is near him in terms of greatness. I disagree with that, it is close in my view, Henry Armstrong and Harry Greb among others are very close to Robinson. I would side with Robinson as the best fighter of all time, but its not a blowout. I think that is something that should be said, regardless of who you think is the best fighter of all time, that it is a tough decision and there is no one fighter who is the 100% clear pick. I do think it should be Robinson, but I couldn't object to someone siding with someone else.

You certainly can't fault someone who has him #1. What I don't like is that so many people say he was #1 as if it's a no-brainer, no reason to consider someone else, case closed.

Obviously Robinson had a phenomenal career and beat many great fighters. At one time he had a record of of 128-1-2, with his only loss to a great fighter (LaMotta) who he had beat 5 times.

However, it's not like he cruised past everyone in his prime.
He had draws with Jose Basora and Henry Brimm.
He got very disputed decisions against Georgie Abrams and Marty Servo.
He won close decisions over Bobby Dykes,California Jackie Wilson,and Rocky Castellani.

Of course when you fight as often as Robinson did it's understandable that you have some close calls. However, just the fact that as many fighters gave him so much trouble shows that no one is light years better than the rest of the greats.

However, if you say something you think Ray Leonard or someone would have given him a really tough time people act as if you are crazy.

You have to look at over 100 years of boxing and fighters in weight classes much bigger and smaller than Robinson. Robinson has to be on the short list with the usual suspects (Ali,Charles,Greb,Armstrong, maybe a few other guys). You certainly can make a case for him. However, there are other guys that you make a legitimate arguement for as well.

in my view, there are 7 fighters that could beat him...I put my money on these guys:
Sugar Ray Leonard
Roberto Duran
Carlos Monzon
Marvin Hagler
Pernell Whitaker
Bob Foster
Ezzard Charles.

When does Ray fight these gentlemen? Pre-1952 or Post-1955?

elmersalsa wrote:in my view, there are 7 fighters that could beat him...I put my money on these guys:
Sugar Ray Leonard
Roberto Duran
Carlos Monzon
Marvin Hagler
Pernell Whitaker
Bob Foster
Ezzard Charles.

You put your money on some of these and you would lose big time, let me know when you want to bet on some fights, you're the kind of guy I like to bet with.

Pernell Whitaker....

Frank, I might want to hedge my bet on a circa 1955-1958 Robinson against a prime Foster and, to a lesser extent, Charles and Monzon.

But if we are talking a pre-Maxim Robinson, I agree with you completely. Foster is the only one who would give me a bit of heartburn against a pre-1952 Robinson.

raylawpc wrote:Frank, I might want to hedge my bet on a circa 1955-1958 Robinson against a prime Foster and, to a lesser extent, Charles and Monzon.

But if we are talking a pre-Maxim Robinson, I agree with you completely. Foster is the only one who would give me a bit of heartburn against a pre-1952 Robinson.

I agree with you, Tom, on Foster, Foster might just have been to big for SRR, but he wasn't as skill as Robby.

I agree. With Foster, when I think Foster might have been too much for Robby, I recall the Ray Anderson and Mark Tessman bouts. Certainly, Foster won both and dominated. But skilled boxers could extend Foster. (In fact, his performance with Tessman almost cost him the shot at Frazier, if memory serves.) And nobody was more skilled than Robby.

And Mike Quarry gave him a pretty good go until Mike ran out of ideas and ran into a big left hook!