Terence Crawford vs. Sugar Ray Robinson ?

I haven't really seen much of him cutting off the ring. Same with Joe Louis. I think that was probably something in boxing added later on

 

Nobody is saying that everybody in the 40’s was better.


Just answer a very simple question:

Why can’t a truly great fighter from the 40’s, have been better than SOME of today’s guys?


Why not??


Why couldn’t a truly great fighter from any era, have success in today’s era?

Why not??


Ray Leonard would have had success today. And he fought 45 years ago.

Ali could have had success today, and he fought 60 years ago.


We’ve just seen Usyk become the king of today’s HW division.

He’s the same height.

He’s the same weight.

He has the same reach.

He has only respectable power.

However, he beat the best opponents available, on skills and movement.


There is no logical reason why a great fighter from any era couldn’t have success.

Joe Louis was one of the most technically skilled HW’s that we’ve ever seen. And he was a decent size, where he had huge power, good speed, and where he was a ruthless finisher.

He’s a guy who’d have had mixed success in any era.

He’d have won some and lost some, simply depending on who he’d fought.

Now that is just pure logic and common sense.


What are we going to be saying in 50 years?

That Mayweather couldn’t have competed?

 

If we’re taking generally, then the guys today are more skilled.

But there were many fighters of Ray’s era, and earlier, who were more skilled than many of today’s fighters.

 

Okay.

So then if you haven’t got a cut off date, then don’t automatically write them off, just because they fought in the 40’s or 50’s.


Your opinion on a Crawford fight is fine, apart from the fact that Crawford has never seen anybody as fast, powerful, accurate and overall as offensively skilled.


Why couldn’t Robinson have beaten fellow WW greats?

Many respected fighters, managers, trainers and historians, have him as being the GOAT at WW, and even better than Leonard.

If you look at Leonard’s attributes, they’re almost equal.

Look at Robinson’s attributes and look at the stylistic match ups he’d have had with his fellow WW greats.

If you could create a WW tournament between the greats of every era, he would absolutely have been one of the favourites to have won it.


Go and listen and read the opinions of Leonard and other legendary guys of the past.


You really need to stop this nonsense about his footwork.

Again, he could cut the ring off. Feint. Dance on his toes. Circle, jump in and out range. He had amazing balance. He could attack and retreat in an instant.

The knockout of Fullmer makes you look absolutely foolish Joey.


Also, nothing in the sport which is great and effective, can ever be outdated.

 

Then why are you commenting on it, and being so sure in your opinion?

 

Have you any knowledge of Moore and Charles?

Can you tell me why they couldn’t have had success today?

 

That's fair but I don't think they watch Robinson for footwork. I think they watch for combination punching

 

I like it

 

They'd have success.. just think generally speaking the top newer athletes do better than the old

 

What great fighters has Crawford fought ? Robinson beat Gavilan who's regarded as a top 10 Welterweight of all time.

 

Resume isn't how head to head fights work

 

So basically you're making an assumption Crawford beats the greatest Welterweight in history based on Crawford beating the likes of semi retired Porter, car crash victim Spence, and a close decision win over Madrimov who got beat more convincingly recently by prospect Ortiz.

Robinson has fought many skillful smart boxers what great fighter has Crawford fought in their prime with blistering handspeed and KO power in either hand ?

 

Don’t be ridiculous.


1. Of course they did.

2. Where do you think the combination punching came from??


It would be like a race car designer only focusing upon the power of the engine, and not on the suspension and the wheels/tyres.


A fighters greatest and most important attribute is their foot work.

Their foot placement.

Their balance.

That’s their foundations.

Everything comes from that.

Their whole offensive and defensive work.

 

Okay.

But then why have you scoffed at the idea that a fighter from the 40’s could be better than a modern guy?

In your previous posts, you have ridiculed that line of thinking.

You have sarcastically mocked it.

 

Which surely means that what era they fought in, is irrelevant.