Terence Crawford vs. Sugar Ray Robinson ?

I can flip it the same way. Who has Sugar Ray Robinson fought that possessed all of Terence Crawfords attributes? The answer is no one and don't you dare say Jake LaMotta.

That's what makes fantasy flights interesting. We have to use our imagination to speculate

 

No he didn't haha. Maybe Ray Leonard but not Ray Robinson.

For his time maybe but not for modern day standards.

That's life.

I want you to keep in mind that we're talking about someone who fought nearly 100 years ago.

In 100 years it will probably be the same thing with the new guy vs Terence Crawford.

People on this forum just don't like to live in reality

 

Ray Leonard is being humble

He was obviously more skilled than Sugar Ray Robinson

As far as accomplishments go that's debatable (I'd still go with Ray Leonard cause beating Hearns > knocking out 40 people no one regards highly)

And yes boxing does evolve like every other sport in life.

You thinking it doesn't just shows your delusional/bias towards the black and white era

 

And yes I have seen a lot of Sugar Ray Robinson and am not impressed

I also doubt that any serious boxer would use tape of Sugar Ray Robinson as a way to study proper technique.

The same way they don't use tape from the 40s and 50 in the NBA, NFL or MLB (or probably any sport

 

Outside of power I disagree. Maybe Ray was faster maybe but he's definitely not as fluid and no where near as refined

 

I honestly think you just like to troll now and like to say controversial things that aren't popular to appear like a hipster.

I think you're a numpty to be quite honest and some of your posts in this thread are shockingly bad which has been quite a trend for you in recent times.

 

I just say what I feel and don't subscribe to nonsensical ideology like most on these forums like boxers from the 40s are better than the ones now

 

Boxing is the only sport where the fans think that the participtants from the 40s were better than the ones today

Its actually amazing how stupid it is when you really think about it.

 

SRR wins but Crawford has plenty of tools to make a competitive bout, especially with his switch hitting.

 

Footage exists, and boxing is way older than those other sports, you've always had a large population of people boxing

 

I've soon the footage

Not great

 

I've seen the footage. Robinson looks great, and many agree. You're probably biased to high definition. Think about the styles too, Crawfords never seen that combination of speed, larger frame, volume.

 

I have seen the footage and no it does not look great in comparison to modern day greats

Guess we'll just have to disagree

 

I think it's even more stupid to suggest a fighter is automatically better based on being modern.

Fights are decided on how fighters match up and their overall resume who have have they fought ? Who's more proven at the upper echelon level.

How many great fighters has Robinson fought ? How many great fighters has Crawford fought ?

You've said some utterly moronic things in this thread.

Like first suggesting Robinson has basic footwork which is an embarrassing post.

And then you're trying discrediting Robinson's resume ? When his resume blows Crawfords resume out of the water who probably has one of the more forgettable resumes for a top P4P fighter in regards to who's he's fought.

I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about quite honestly.

 

Robinson footwork was extremely basic

I'm sorry but it's the truth

Resume doesn't determine who wins fights but it can help you get an idea

Just doesn't really help when it comes to a fighter that fought nearly 100 years ago

In fact resume is the most overrated thing on these forums when it comes to discussing head to head matchups

Ali beat Liston

Lopez beat Lomachenko

Crawford walloped Spence

Bivol beat Canelo

Fury beat Klitschko etc

Those resumes didn't help them