boxing
Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-30-2012, 09:24 AM   #1
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Who doesn't rate Robinson #1?

Pound-for-pound of course.

Those who don't, who's number one for you instead?
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 12-30-2012, 09:39 AM   #2
Vysotsky
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,409
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Who doesn't rate Robinson #1?

Greb
Armstrong
Langford
Leonard
Robinson
Fitz
Pep
Charles
Duran
Vysotsky is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 09:42 AM   #3
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 23,035
vCash: 75
Default Re: Who doesn't rate Robinson #1?

I have number 1. Armstrong and Greb bring up the rear.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 11:37 AM   #4
GPater11093
Barry
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 19,025
vCash: 836
Default Re: Who doesn't rate Robinson #1?

If Greb is real, I think surely he has to be numero uno
GPater11093 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 11:41 AM   #5
dyna
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,363
vCash: 1551
Default Re: Who doesn't rate Robinson #1?

Robinson called Charley Burley the greatest pound for pound boxer of all time.
dyna is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 11:47 AM   #6
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,855
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Who doesn't rate Robinson #1?

The Rock above those cowards Robinson and Greb.
Seamus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 11:50 AM   #7
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Who doesn't rate Robinson #1?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GPater11093 View Post
If Greb is real, I think surely he has to be numero uno
1. Greb
2. Armstrong
3. Robinson

They are definites.

4. Sam Langford
5. Benny Leonard

You could swap those two around but I give Langford the benefit of the doubt. I think either can hold a legitimate #1 claim.

6. Charles

No lower than that for Charles, but no higher either. Just right.

7. Duran
8. Pep

You could switch these around also. I definitely don't like anyone who leaves either of them out.

9. Moore
10. Gans

Again, swapable. I like Moore because his career is unbelievable.

I've never been big on Fitzsimmons; he rates alongside the next lot, including Ross, Walker, Louis, Ali, Canzoneri, McLarnin and so on.

Then there's Packey McFarland, but I'm undecided.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 11:55 AM   #8
GPater11093
Barry
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 19,025
vCash: 836
Default Re: Who doesn't rate Robinson #1?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa View Post
1. Greb
2. Armstrong
3. Robinson

They are definites.

4. Sam Langford
5. Benny Leonard

You could swap those two around but I give Langford the benefit of the doubt. I think either can hold a legitimate #1 claim.

6. Charles

No lower than that for Charles, but no higher either. Just right.

7. Duran
8. Pep

You could switch these around also. I definitely don't like anyone who leaves either of them out.

9. Moore
10. Gans

Again, swapable. I like Moore because his career is unbelievable.

I've never been big on Fitzsimmons; he rates alongside the next lot, including Ross, Walker, Louis, Ali, Canzoneri, McLarnin and so on.

Then there's Packy McFarland, but I'm undecided.
That is solid there pal, no disagreements from me.

However, I find boxing to be so hard to compare say Pacquiao to Langford because of the era's and rulesets, I would use the Walker Law to be the cut off where I start rating fighters. So in your list I would take out Gans, Langford, McFarland, Fitzsimmons...

Saying that I would say Fitzsimmons needs to be in a top 10, I just cant see how he does not fit in. I tend to rate Charles higher but I actually like your ranking there.

Id like to hear why you rate Armstrong over SRR though?
GPater11093 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 12:06 PM   #9
Pachilles
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 3,159
vCash: 75
Default Re: Who doesn't rate Robinson #1?

Only hipsters rate fighters above Robinson
Pachilles is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 12:24 PM   #10
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Who doesn't rate Robinson #1?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GPater11093 View Post
That is solid there pal, no disagreements from me.

However, I find boxing to be so hard to compare say Pacquiao to Langford because of the era's and rulesets, I would use the Walker Law to be the cut off where I start rating fighters. So in your list I would take out Gans, Langford, McFarland, Fitzsimmons...

Saying that I would say Fitzsimmons needs to be in a top 10, I just cant see how he does not fit in. I tend to rate Charles higher but I actually like your ranking there.

Id like to hear why you rate Armstrong over SRR though?
It is a different sport now, and somehow I try to fathom that and reason with it and juggle things around and conclude that so-and-so was 'this good' in 'his time' and he relates to history 'this much.'



Fitzsimmons, well, perhaps he should be in the top ten; three weight champion and all that, but I hold my reservations about his opposition quality and how he performed against them, or how they may have helped along his reputation. This almost seems in contrast to the above paragraph but it's not; I'll be more honest - I dispute greatly Fitzsimmons' quality of opposition and his performances against it, and the main reason he features as high as #11 or 12 is because of those other reasons above; he was excellent for his time and accomplished a lot. Great fighter regardless of my reservations - he must have been something special.

Armstrong over Robinson? Well, I do find Robinson slightly overrated. Don't get me wrong - he's still the go-to boxer when you want to show off the old school to anyone who's interested - but he did have his struggles. Armstrong recorded a period of dominance over a solid-to-great level of competition that I don't believe has ever been equalled nor surpassed. 59-1-1 (51) from '37 to '40 which could easily have been 61-0 - and with all those defences out of his comfort zone; like what Jose Napoles did, except imagine Napoles even smaller and making even more defences and marching head first into every single one. Armstrong had a few difficulties at welterweight but you could be more specific and claim he was by far and away the best fighter ever under 135lbs (and even top five all-time in that division as well). Starting '36 with two losses, Armstrong went 37-1 (a disqualification) with 32 knockouts, twenty seven of them consecutively, before 1938 even started. Crazy. Sectioning the best portion of his career we can come up with a run that looked like 69-2-1 (56 knockouts, I think) over some great opponents, and of course he was still beating big name fighters right up until he retired. If I were to use my take-the-**** licence I could argue that he really deserved a 72-0, but then we can't go changing official results.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 12:36 PM   #11
burt bienstock
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,978
vCash: 500
Default Re: Who doesn't rate Robinson #1?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna View Post
Robinson called Charley Burley the greatest pound for pound boxer of all time.
Is that why Robinson didn't hook up with Charley Burley ?
burt bienstock is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 12:40 PM   #12
Vysotsky
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,409
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Who doesn't rate Robinson #1?

Quote:
Originally Posted by burt bienstock View Post
Is that why Robinson didn't hook up with Charley Burley ?
Yup and that needs to count for something when he avoided the greatest fighter he could have fought (according to SRR) and rating Robinson against fearless warriors like Greb, Langford and the other P4P greats.
Vysotsky is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 01:12 PM   #13
GPater11093
Barry
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 19,025
vCash: 836
Default Re: Who doesn't rate Robinson #1?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa View Post
It is a different sport now, and somehow I try to fathom that and reason with it and juggle things around and conclude that so-and-so was 'this good' in 'his time' and he relates to history 'this much.'

.
That is as valid as any other reasoning. I just find that very very hard to contrast and compare, but even then its hard to contrast and compare current fighters into a definite top 10 or whatever.

Quote:
Fitzsimmons, well, perhaps he should be in the top ten; three weight champion and all that, but I hold my reservations about his opposition quality and how he performed against them, or how they may have helped along his reputation. This almost seems in contrast to the above paragraph but it's not; I'll be more honest - I dispute greatly Fitzsimmons' quality of opposition and his performances against it, and the main reason he features as high as #11 or 12 is because of those other reasons above; he was excellent for his time and accomplished a lot. Great fighter regardless of my reservations - he must have been something special.
I can understand that completely, the thing with Fitzsimmons (and I will admit it is years since I have properly studied him) he pretty much dominated from Middleweight to Heavyweight until Jeffries came on the go.

He has one absolutly completely great win in NP Jack Dempsey who was the P4P number 1 at the time, and very highly ranked. Then he moved up to Heavyweight whilst still a virtual Middleweight and beat the Heavyweight champion.

Now, I dont rate Corbett that highly however it is a good win in a historical context IMO.

Then you throw in his wins against the top class guys like Choynski and Maher who were also top top guys at the time, you have a pretty serious contender for an ATG top 5 IMO.

Then you have to remember it has been claimed (I think by Janitor, although its not something I would endorse with my little knowledge) that Bob could have been for a breif period the premier Lightweight in the world!

Quote:
Armstrong over Robinson? Well, I do find Robinson slightly overrated. Don't get me wrong - he's still the go-to boxer when you want to show off the old school to anyone who's interested - but he did have his struggles. Armstrong recorded a period of dominance over a solid-to-great level of competition that I don't believe has ever been equalled nor surpassed. 59-1-1 (51) from '37 to '40 which could easily have been 61-0 - and with all those defences out of his comfort zone; like what Jose Napoles did, except imagine Napoles even smaller and making even more defences and marching head first into every single one. Armstrong had a few difficulties at welterweight but you could be more specific and claim he was by far and away the best fighter ever under 135lbs (and even top five all-time in that division as well). Starting '36 with two losses, Armstrong went 37-1 (a disqualification) with 32 knockouts, twenty seven of them consecutively, before 1938 even started. Crazy. Sectioning the best portion of his career we can come up with a run that looked like 69-2-1 (56 knockouts, I think) over some great opponents, and of course he was still beating big name fighters right up until he retired. If I were to use my take-the-**** licence I could argue that he really deserved a 72-0, but then we can't go changing official results.
That is completely valid. I tend to think the ratng of SRR over Armstrong is that Ray is consensuly rated as the top Welterweight and one of the top 3 middleweights. I dont think you can have Armstrong as a top 3 in any of his 3 weight classes, except Lightweight. But on a pound for pound scale his reign at Welterweight is pretty mental IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vysotsky View Post
Yup and that needs to count for something when he avoided the greatest fighter he could have fought (according to SRR) and rating Robinson against fearless warriors like Greb, Langford and the other P4P greats.
I think the Robinson ducking Burley thing is complelty overblown at times there was never really an exact time they should have fought, I think the best chance of making the fight would have been when they were both top contenders (Ray at Welter and Charley at Middle) and fighting each other would have been great for their legacy but not making the match is something you cant hold against them IMO
GPater11093 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 01:20 PM   #14
dyna
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,363
vCash: 1551
Default Re: Who doesn't rate Robinson #1?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vysotsky View Post
Yup and that needs to count for something when he avoided the greatest fighter he could have fought (according to SRR) and rating Robinson against fearless warriors like Greb, Langford and the other P4P greats.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81non05aKX4&gl=NL&hl=nl[/ame]
dyna is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 01:44 PM   #15
Vysotsky
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,409
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Who doesn't rate Robinson #1?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GPater11093 View Post

I think the Robinson ducking Burley thing is complelty overblown at times there was never really an exact time they should have fought, I think the best chance of making the fight would have been when they were both top contenders (Ray at Welter and Charley at Middle) and fighting each other would have been great for their legacy but not making the match is something you cant hold against them IMO
Lytell is another one.

I agree but when talking about P4P ATG's we should be critique them with the utmost veracity. That same rational could be used for everyone on the list especially inside the top 5. Did Greb, Langford, Fitz, have to fight all of the guys they did, Greb having 4 and 5 fight series against bigger ATG LHW's. They went out of their way to fight anyone and everyone while for Robinson the "he was a tough negotiator" scapegoat is always used.
Vysotsky is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump






All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2015