Who doesn't rate Robinson #1?

If you use your ****ing head, you'll realize that Duran was probably burning out from eating himself up to 200 pounds and doing mountains of cocaine between fights.

 

Though not as silly.. I just don't get all he greb love sometimes.. How can somebody be rated above SRR when you've never seen him fight? To me, there has to be some decent footage of a fighter for me to rate them so high. Don't get me wrong.. I have greb in my top ten.. sometimes top five.. but number one.. no way.

 

OK. According to that logic then Duran is 18 levels above Mayweather considering he had about 70 wins before he turned 30. Duran beat greater fighters than Mayweather by mile.

 

Are you really bringing up the natural weight bull sh*t? There's no such thing. A lot of boxers fight at weights well below the weight they walk around at. They often starve themselves to get there. This is easier to do when they are younger. There's a reason Mayweather isn't still fighting at 130, and Duran didn't stay at 135. It's not because they need new chalanges. It's that as the grew older it became harder to make weight.
Plenty of Boxers from Latian American countries turn pro at a very young age. Duran is not anything special in this regard. Mayweather is a product of the American Amateur system. He's credited with having 90 fights.Going in to his first championship fight at age 21 Mayweather had 107 total fights. with a 103-4 combined record. Duran at age 21 won his first championship with a 28-0 mark. I cant conferm any Amateur fights. I thought I saw a 13-3 record. that would give him 44 total fights with a 41-3 mark.
At the age Mayweather is Now he has a 43-0 mark as a pro add that to his Amateur mark of 84-6 he has a 127-3 record in 130 total fights. Duran has a 79-6 pro record and an unconfermed 13-3 Amateur mark for a 92-9 mark in 101 total fights.

 

Name one. If you think Duran's better than Mayweather. We clearly disagree. However your statment is without fact. The only fighter he beat who's better than Mayweather is Leonard, and he didn't beat him by a mile. It was a close fight.

 

Agreed his record is legendary and if I made my top 10 based SOLELY on who has the best record Greb would no doubt be number 1, however atm I have him at number 2 simply because there is footage of Robinson and he looks sublime while there is no footage of Greb.

Greb is such an enigma he's almost like a mythical boxing figure.

 

Why rank him at all then ?
If footage is so important, he probably has no more business being in the top five as he has being at number one.
Either way, you're going to be ranking him ahead of some men who look absolutely sublime on film and have amazing records and resumes in their own right .

 

^^^^ OF course, but that is my point, I'll only take it so far. He can't be no.1 imo if I can't see any footage of him.. **** even raw grainy footage would be better than nothing. Point is, I simply can't see how he can be rated ahead of Robinson for one.. and Langford for 2. To me that just isn't right when you have a guy with a comparable resume AND we can see footage of him.

 

No no Duran beat greater fighters than Mayweather beat was what I meant. And yes Leonard was greater than Mayweather anyway. Consider the fact that Duran had so many more wins during the course of his prime. He took chances and yes he eventually lost some fights but playing it safe isnt a recipe for greatness in most boxing fans eyes.

But the best fighters that Floyd Mayweather are not to level of the fighers Duran beat. Has Floyd beaten a better boxer than Ken Buchanon? That doubtful. How about Estaban DeJesus? Corrales? Questionable.

What fighters has Mayweather beaten that were better than Palomino? Cuevas? Barkley? I didnt even have to bring up Leonard`s name did I?

It was too easy.

 

Never really understood Langford as people's #1 rated fighter. I just don't really get it. Terrific fighter, great record, P4P credentials but the skills, record, accomplishments, and versatility of the other three alternatives are far more compelling. I rate Langford #4 below Robinson, Greb, and Armstrong. I also never got Fitzsimmons as a top 5 guy (Even top 10). I'm with Manassa on him.

As for the original question I do rate Robinson as the GOAT. His career and the film to back it up are enough for me to safely put him at the top. I think Greb has a strong case to be #1, as does Armstrong, though. I honestly have more trouble separating Greb and Armstrong then deciding Robinson is most deserving of his near consensus GOAT status.

 

Is that because so many other fighters:
1. Won a world heavyweight title while still light heavyweight (and probably a middleweight).
2. fought and Knocked out every heavyweight he fought for more than 4 rounds until jim Jeffries (who would have been TKOd under modern rules) despite never weighing over the light heavy limit
3. were the best light heavyweight in the world from 1891 to 1905 (14 years)..
4. that he was good enough to win the world heavyweight championship
5. Because he cleaned out the entire middleweight division.
6. Because even when old and completely shot, he still hung around for another 5 years, knocking out and outclassing the average fighters he fought and giving a young world heavyweight challenger all he could handle, before the heat got to him.
7. Perhaps it was because after winning the middleweight title, he went something like - Ko4, W4, Ko2, KO2, TK12, KO2, KO2, ko2, KO3, KO3, KO1, KO1, KO2, KO4, W4, KO2, KO1, KO1, KO3, KO1, KO1, KO1, KO3, KO4, W5, ko3, ko3, Ko4, ko3, ko2, ko2, ko1, KO5, KO2, ko3, KO1, LF8 (ko), KO14.