Many people consider Sugar Ray Robinson the GOAT...

[Street Lethal]

Originally Posted by Manassa

Robinson was GOOD but, barney ross was the greast OF all time.

Why do you say that?

[fists of fury]

Originally Posted by China_hand_Joe

If you want to go on believing boxing is the only sport which has not advanced in the last 60 years because it is 'special', then be my guest.

It is so obvious I'm not even going to elaborate further, we don't even need to look at the causes.

You are classic boxing fans, so you think boxing is somehow different, whatever the reasons, pretty much all sports have progressed over that period of time.

I am aware you will come out with counter-arguments, I don't care though. You can argue pretty much any ridiculous thing (flying spaghetti monster for example). The fact is advancements across the board in sports in substancial evidence. All the subject rubbish Pep-perts come out with is not. Debate over.

Sure the sport has evolved in certain respects. The fighters today are almost certainly physically stronger and in better condition. The trainer and boxers today have over 100 years of boxing history to learn from.

On the other hand, today's fighter's fight maybe 3 times a year. There is a lot less wear and tear on their bodies. Joe is a 40+ fight 'veteran.' Ray had 201 fights. Joe has had ample time between fights to mentally and physically recover between bouts. Most fighter of the 40's just never had such a luxury.
So when we see a Ray Robinson on film, we must take into account this is a Robinson who has had well over 100 fights. A Robinson that probably also fought only 2 or 3 months before.
Squash another 100 fights into Joe's record and he'd look more than a little jaded.

That's not to say Robinson looks bad on film. I think he looks great, especially taking into account the circumstances. (Age, wear and tear, quality of opponent etc.)
See, it's easy to look like a destroyer when the quality of opposition just isn't that great, and even Calzhage's most ardent fans cannot deny that for the most part, his opposition has been remarkably soft for such a long-standing champion.
That's the thing today - because of the proliferation of titles, a champion can easily go his whole career without fighting the best (ie. other champions) in his weight class.
Calzhage is fighting Kessler only now, but in the 40's these two would have probably squared off before even fighting for the title. Back then, top fighters actually fought each other, and not only in title fights.

I realise it must be quite frustrating as a Calzhage fan to realise he'll never get (in their eyes) his just due. Well, you reap what you sow. If you hide away from the boxing limelight and fight softies for the majority of your career, that's bound to happen.

[China_hand_Joe]

Originally Posted by tobkhan

The difference between Armstrong and Veit is, when you look at Armstrong´s resume you see a guy who beat the best of his time, won and hold titles in three different weightclasses at the same time and made a record defence of the WW title. When you look at Veit´s resume you see a guy who beat some B-level fighters and lost everytime when he stepped up, JC and Inkin, and never won a title. Huge difference.

I know mate. I think you might be agreeing with the initial post.

Armstrong beat some of the best of in his time. But they were all from a weak era, which we overlook for Armstrong, it wasn't his faut.

Likewise Calzaghe took on all challengers (everyone but the American elites like Hopkins with too much to lose), it isn't his fault they weren't better. We can therefore overlook this too.

[China_hand_Joe]

Originally Posted by fists of fury

Sure the sport has evolved in certain respects. The fighters today are almost certainly physically stronger and in better condition. The trainer and boxers today have over 100 years of boxing history to learn from.

On the other hand, today's fighter's fight maybe 3 times a year. There is a lot less wear and tear on their bodies. Joe is a 40+ fight 'veteran.' Ray had 201 fights. Joe has had ample time between fights to mentally and physically recover between bouts. Most fighter of the 40's just never had such a luxury.
So when we see a Ray Robinson on film, we must take into account this is a Robinson who has had well over 100 fights. A Robinson that probably also fought only 2 or 3 months before.
Squash another 100 fights into Joe's record and he'd look more than a little jaded.

That's not to say Robinson looks bad on film. I think he looks great, especially taking into account the circumstances. (Age, wear and tear, quality of opponent etc.)
See, it's easy to look like a destroyer when the quality of opposition just isn't that great, and even Calzhage's most ardent fans cannot deny that for the most part, his opposition has been remarkably soft for such a long-standing champion.
That's the thing today - because of the proliferation of titles, a champion can easily go his whole career without fighting the best (ie. other champions) in his weight class.
Calzhage is fighting Kessler only now, but in the 40's these two would have probably squared off before even fighting for the title. Back then, top fighters actually fought each other, and not only in title fights.

I realise it must be quite frustrating as a Calzhage fan to realise he'll never get (in their eyes) his just due. Well, you reap what you sow. If you hide away from the boxing limelight and fight softies for the majority of your career, that's bound to happen.

Boxing has undoubtably evolved mate, 60 years is such a large timescale.

Robinson looks good in a few pieces of film, but also very unspecial in others. Then people start throwing out meaningless names like LaMotta to explain why he looked poor, to try and justify their beliefs in 1940s fighters.

No fighter as open to the jab as Robinson would achieve such acclaim today, especially one open to 1940s slow motion jabs.

The fighters habit of fighting too much is another reason they never got good. They were always too burnt out to do proper training for extended periods of time. Robinson was talented no doubt, but he would be far, far better were he around today. Talents like Robinson were wasted in the 40s.


Robinson actually being remotely good, seems to be the exception back then. The rest of the so called legends with few exceptions would so much as be elite fighters if they fought in the state they were in back then.

[fists of fury]

Originally Posted by China_hand_Joe

Boxing has undoubtably evolved mate, 60 years is such a large timescale.

Robinson looks good in a few pieces of film, but also very unspecial in others. Then people start throwing out meaningless names like LaMotta to explain why he looked poor, to try and justify their beliefs in 1940s fighters.

I won't dispute that Robinson looked average sometimes. After all, having so many fights it's bound too happen. Thing is, when he needed to be great, he was.
Also, 99% of footage of Rayrob was at middleweight were he was a 100+ fight veteran.
More's the pity we don't see much footage of the welterweight version.

One thing we all do on occasion is expect these ring immortals to look great ALL the time. I don't think there has been a fighter in history that has looked fantastic all the time.

Originally Posted by China_hand_Joe

The fighters habit of fighting too much is another reason they never got good. They were always too burnt out to do proper training for extended periods of time. Robinson was talented no doubt, but he would be far, far better were he around today. Talents like Robinson were wasted in the 40s.

In part, I agree.
I don't dispute a Robinson now would be a better fighter overall for the points made earlier.
We must also bare in mind the pretty much worst-kept secret in sports: the use of ahem, chemical agents.

On the other hand, the guys back then never got out of shape much. They never really had a chance to. Experience as they say, is also a great teacher and most of the contenders back then were vastly experienced campaigners by the time they got a title shot.

So, while I do see your point and in some ways agree, I think you're also being a bit harsh on some of the old-timers and the circumstances back then.

[Sweet Science]

Originally Posted by China_hand_Joe

Despite the fact he fought in the 40s, an undoubtably weaker era (it would be practically impossible to match his numbers today against the better athletes).



Well here is something to think about and agree with:

We can name Sugar Ray Robinson the best, the greatest ever. We can overlook the fact he fought in the 40s. It wasn't his fault everyone else was so bad, it just was, but we overlook it...

Why can't we overlook the fact that Joe Calzaghe has few worthy elite challengers? It is almost exactly the same, both have built up terrific number against less than stella opponents. It is double standards if we overlook it in the case of Robinson, but are ultra critical about Calzaghe for it.

It wasn't Robinson's fault the opponents back then were unworthy. Just as it isn't Joe Calzaghe's fault he has no truly worthy challengers. We should overlook these unfortunalities in Joe's career, just as we do for Sugar Ray.

We should be able to place Calzaghe amongst the top ten ever, immune to critism of his resume, just as Robinson fans are can do. There is no difference when you compare their respective opponents head to head, arguably Joe with his 'zero' against solid modern opposition comes out on top.

Joe Calzaghe is a highly overrated, brittle boned, slapper. He wouldn't even have beaten a number of previous UK fighters such as prime Benn, Eubank and Watson. Let alone world class opposition such as prime Jones, Toney and Hopkins. Even Nunn would have soundly outpointed Calzaghe.

[China_hand_Joe]

Originally Posted by Sweet Science

Joe Calzaghe is a highly overrated, brittle boned, slapper. He wouldn't even have beaten a number of previous UK fighters such as prime Benn, Eubank and Watson. Let alone world class opposition such as prime Jones, Toney and Hopkins. Even Nunn would have soundly outpointed Calzaghe.

UK fighters are only UK fighters, Americans are all world class?

Robin Reid could beat Toney and Starie and Woodhall might be a match for Nunn.

[Sweet Science]

Originally Posted by China_hand_Joe

UK fighters are only UK fighters, Americans are all world class?

Robin Reid could beat Toney and Starie and Woodhall might be a match for Nunn.

Nope not all Americans are world class, but Toney, RJJ and Hopkins are superior to Eubank, Benn and Watson.

Robin Reid couldn't even imagine beating Toney unless he happended to be having a wet dream.

[Sweet Science]

Originally Posted by China_hand_Joe

UK fighters are only UK fighters, Americans are all world class?

The only great fighters to Hail from the UK were:

Ken Buchanan
Lennox Lewis (unless you class him as Canadian)
Jimmy Wilde
Lloyd Honeyghan
Randy Turpin


Those who had the talent & could have been great but didn't quite make it were:

Howard Winston
Nigel Benn
Naseem hamed
John Conteh
Chris Eubank

The rest who were any good can be tentatively summarised under the category of 'game loser'. That may be harsh but I'm afraid thats the truth.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by China_hand_Joe

I'm truly sorry you see things this way mate.

My points have been solid, you all however have been brainwashed. You are sheep.

People may bring up a name, like say Armstrong, congratulations. There is a problem however, which a limited amount of video (and of questionable quality) available we have to go by a fighters record.

Let me tell you this though my friend. In 2057, on these very classic forums, I'll be pulling the same trick. With Mario Veit. Super Mario was undefeated for yonks, with the exception of two fights against Calzaghe.

In 2057 there will not be a great deal of video evidence around on Mario, so I'll be pulling the exact same trick. "Oh no, Calzaghe's resume is brilliant, just look at all those great names! Veit for instance."

This is an exact parrellel with each any every name on Robinson's record. You are all hyping up wins over Mario Veit.

Nobody will be talking about Veit like that in 50 years though. Records can be very decieving, sure, but generally people know which records are strong and which aren't. On paper, just the numbers alone, Veit has a better record than someone like Bert Cooper. Cooper was the better fighter and beat better opposition, and therefore a win over Cooper is worth more than a win over Veit.

In reality, not many people just look at the numbers. Armstrong has legitimately great fighters on his record. Veit doesn't. Despite them both having good records, there is a vast difference in the quality of opposition faced.

Veit is just another guy with a padded record. In 50 years he won't be looked upon like Armstrong. He'll probably be rated be like Sven Ottke. Good record but one which does his talent more justice than it's worth.

[Sweet Science]

Originally Posted by tobkhan

You forgot Calzaghe and Hatton in the second list. They imo deserve a mention.

I suppose there could be an argument for hatton but I didn't put Hatton in there because his career is not yet over and he could yet still be a great (in the unlikley event he beats Mayweather).

Calzaghe, on the other hand will never be great or anywhere near it.

[China_hand_Joe]

Originally Posted by Jack

In reality, not many people just look at the numbers. Armstrong has legitimately great fighters on his record. Veit doesn't. Despite them both having good records, there is a vast difference in the quality of opposition faced.

Great fighters?

Why are they great?

I'll tell you why, because the American boxing media hyped them up to be so, also they had never seen Joe Calzaghe.

There is nothing special at all about great fighters.

[ThePlugInBabies]

Originally Posted by Sweet Science

The only great fighters to Hail from the UK were:

Ken Buchanan
Lennox Lewis (unless you class him as Canadian)
Jimmy Wilde
Lloyd Honeyghan
Randy Turpin


Those who had the talent & could have been great but didn't quite make it were:

Howard Winston
Nigel Benn
Naseem hamed
John Conteh
Chris Eubank

The rest who were any good can be tentatively summarised under the category of 'game loser'. That may be harsh but I'm afraid thats the truth.

ted 'kid' lewis? bob fitzsimmons? alan minter? freddie mills? jim driscoll?

[Sweet Science]

Originally Posted by ThePlugInBabies

ted 'kid' lewis? bob fitzsimmons? alan minter? freddie mills?

I Left Bob fitzsimmons out for one reason. I have a problem with any white "World Heavyweight Champion" before Tommy Burns. As they all refused to match their skills against worthy black opponents, who were in many cases superior fighters. That is not a racist comment it's the truth as I see it.

[Boro chris]

Originally Posted by Sweet Science

Joe Calzaghe is a highly overrated, brittle boned, slapper. He wouldn't even have beaten a number of previous UK fighters such as prime Benn, Eubank and Watson. Let alone world class opposition such as prime Jones, Toney and Hopkins. Even Nunn would have soundly outpointed Calzaghe.

Jones would've been too much for him I agree.Watson and Benn would've been competitve but I see Joe winning. Eubank(prime),Toney and Hopkins...well they're very interesting and its a shame we didn't see them happen.Those four are very even in talent(but not achievement obviously).

Whereas there are some posters who highly overate JC, I think your doing the opposite.