Ray Robinson & Henry Armstrong Duckers?

I would think if your referring to Jack Johnson ducking those boxers while he was champion or not. When he was champ I'm not sure a fight between two black boxers would have been worth a warm bucket of **** at that time in America. What type of $ could Johnson have drawn? It is a business at the end of the day.
Just adding some perspective. Much of white America was unhappy that Jack Johnson was Heavyweight champion of the World. How would two African Americans have been received fighting for the greatest title in sports? I dont blame Johnson.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but JJ fought some of those boxers before he won the crown. He knew they were good, skilled, not an easy night. $$$.

For the right purse I believe Sugar Ray fights Burley and just about anyone. I dont blame Ray for not fighting one of the greatest boxers for what would have been chump change. Ray was many things arrogant, cocky, proud but dumb? Not at all.

 

I hope people get the point that you can make anyone look bad if you want to, rather than this starting a whole new wave of Robinson and Armstrong "skeptics".

 

Exactly my thoughts.

You can dissect any fighter's resume with enough willful avoidance of context or a lack of historical perspective.

All those champions mentioned were demonstrably great and just because a fight didn't happen doesn't automatically mean someone was ducked.

 

True but in Robinsons case it's quite significant considering the talant on that list.
BTW I never knew Zale used Cocoa Kid as a sparring partner. I have the Zale book by Clay Moyle but havent got to it yet.

 

The difference here, in this blatantly obvious Dempsey apologist thread, is that the more you research Dempseys ducking of his top guys and the context the more you realize he was actively ducking them. The more you research Robinson the more you realize that he wasnt. The idea that Dempsey was this poor clueless fighter being steered by forces he couldnt control and this blameless is a construct of his fanboys both at the time, today, and the power of his legend over the truth. The idea that Robinson was this protected fighter whose record looks better than it was because he was deftly steered is revisionism by arm chair historians. For example, Cocoa Kid is used to denigrate Robinsn and its said that Robinson ducked him while he was rated all this time. Not true. Robinson won his title in December 1946. A week after that Cocoa Kid lost an 8 rounder to 11-2 Eddie Oneill. Two weeks after that he drew with 15-3-3 Oneill Bell. He won 6 of his next 13 fights and ended his career 178-56-11. Yet we are supposed to believe Robinson ran out of a match out of fear with a guy who had been retired a year and lost his last fight which was an 8 rounder to an unknown with a 26-11 record. Big difference between that and Dempsey ducking guys who were active and winning title eliminators in favor of fighting guys he had already beaten, lost eliminators, were dying, etc.

 

"Charley Burley, Holman Williams, Cocoa Kid, Artie Towne, Bert Lytell, Dave Sands, Steve Belloise"

First place. Robinson fought Belloise at Yankee Stadium in 1949 and KO'd him in 7.

"Burley, Williams, Lytell"

Were middleweights when Robinson was the welter champion. Why exactly must any champion or any fighter for that matter fight men in a higher weight class? If this is the criteria, we should go after Hagler for not fighting Spinks, Monzon for not fighting Foster, Carlos Ortiz for not fighting Griffith, etc. This is a stretch criticism.

"Artie Towne"

Well, this fighter was at least rated in the same division as Robinson when Robinson was champion. He was the #10 middle contender at the end of 1955. The #1 contender was ex-champion Bobo Olson. Robinson defended against Olson in 1956 and then against the next #1 contender, Gene Fullmer. Why should he have been fighting Towne? Who was demanding this fight?

"Cocoa Kid"

When is this fight supposed to come off. He was well past it when Robinson got to be welter champ and I don't think he was in the same division either.

"Dave Sands"

The one guy mentioned that there is a case for. He had two wins over Olson, but Robinson defended against Olson. Okay. There is room for criticism. But Sands did lose a few critical fights along the way.

Interestingly the highest rated guy in his own division that Robinson didn't fight, Gene Burton, isn't mentioned. Burton came out of 1947 the #1 welter contender, but lost in early 1948 to Bernard Docusen. Robinson defended that summer against Docusen.

As for folks criticizing Dempsey or Johnson or Jeffries more than Robinson, well, according to the Boxing Register, Robinson fought more rated men than anyone. Second-string guys claiming they were ducked by Robinson doesn't wash with me. Robinson might have picked his spots as a welter fighting middles, but that is hardly a major boxing sin.

 

No, I know, you weren't the target of my comment. I didn't think you were casting doubt on Robinson's greatness, just calling out people who accuse great fighters of ducking.

 

Robinson has an awesome resume. He was fighting Zivic I believe a year or so into his pro career. All though his career he fought good and great fighters.

 

But sometimes that's circumstances. Things we don't know that happens behind the scenes that makes it seems like a fighter is getting ducked, but in actuality it was a plethora of different reasons. Prime example is what happened with Mike Mccallum and the big 4. Why he never received the big fight he craved. 1st, McCallum was very good, 2nd would the risk of fighting McCallum worth the money they would earn? 3rd, McCallum in all his arrogance thought he deserved the money the superstars of the time were getting, and wouldn't except less, plus, he was hard to deal with, going from manager to manager, trainer to trainer. Most of the reasons McCallum didnt receive the "Superfight" was his own doing. Yet he feels and insinuates they were all afraid of him. And probably in 100 yrs if boxing still exists all of his fans will be saying the same thing.