How do Robinson's close controversal fights in his prime affect his legacy?

You forgot Marty Servo and Rocky Castellani, the latter of which should be landing on Boilermaker's next top 10 pound for pound list. To answer the question: not much, if at all. All very good, if not great fighters and as mostly everyone is aware, it's difficult to be at 100% every time out when fighting as frequently and against such consistently top notch opposition.

I've not heard any legitimate evidence of any of these fights being actual robberies, either. The crowd's emotionally charged, and often biased response is rarely the way to go, and in the case of the first Gavilan fight, I believe I've read the decision was just.

 

What about the fight with artie Levine Nov 6,1946,where Robinson was dropped and had the ref ,for whatever reasons fuddle around for maybe
17 seconds,before Levine was allowed to attack again...Very peculiar
that event...i recall reading the papers the next day about that odd
fight.i knew Artie Levine's aunt...
Robinson was the greatest fighter I ever saw, but he was human...
But for this very reason i pick Greb over Ray, for Greb's astounding record
against LARGER and better Hall Of Famers...Harry was sturdier than Ray...

 

To be honest when i'm looking at resumes i'm not looking at the manner of victory, i'm looking for legitimate w's and l's, if i think the decision is wrong (if i've viewed it) then i'll take that into account and judge it the way I saw it. But i only really look into how a fight played out for the purposes of assessing hypothetical head to head matches. So close fights don't really alter my opnion on his greatness tbh.

 

Another good thread PP.

First of all, I think this mainly is useful to put things into perspective. A popular fighter winning several key close/controversial decisions didn't start with Ali. Several ATGs could have had a different career path if some close decisions went the other way.

That Robinson had a handful of very close fight is not very surprising, though, considering how many fights he had against good opposition and during how many years. But it is worth noting that almost all his wins over his best opponents (LaMotta, Bell, Gavilan, Basilio) were pretty close. He did undoubtly come out on top when all is said and done, but when matching him up with ATGs of other eras this shows that blow out victories probably isn't that likely, since he didn't have many against the best of his own era.

People laughing at the idea that for example Mayweather could cause him any trouble at all should remember that Bell took a prime Robinson to the limit in one of the most important fights of his career. Perhaps the most important.

 

That's the thing though, i rate the fights according to how i saw them, and i had Quartey and Sturm beating him and him drawing with the past prime Whitaker, so they're not wins for me. I had him beating Tito though which is in his favour. If you struggle to a win over a great fighter, then the way i see it is you did what you had to do to win and you deserve props. Nothing would annoy me more if i was a fighter and worked my arse off for a win and everyone was taking it away from me by crediting the win to other factors. Credit to the winners for me. Anyway, on the case of De La Hoya, the wins you mentioned were not wins by my judgement, i can only speak for myself though, so that's not an imposition on anybody else.

 

but the thing is these guys used to fight one or twice a month. So its not the same. When you fight twice a year you are expected to be at your 100% peak on fight night. There is no margin for error. When you fight every three weeks like Moore or Robinson used to do, its not the same.

Look how one of the best fighters today, Floyd, took a 20 month R&R hiatus from the sport when his body was starting to break down. In the 50s that might've translated into several years of poor performances and upsets.

That has to count for something.

 

:good

 

A comfortable win will always beat a close win for me, everything else equal. If Jones had just squeked by Toney it would still be a great win, but what makes it truly special is that he made it seem almost like he was putting a plucky sparring partner in his place.

And Hearns earning a close decision against Duran wouldn't be that impressive, considering the difference in size and age. What makes that win so awesome is how he obliterated Duran, who several years later would stand up to the best Barkley had to offer.

 

I clearly see your sentiment, but i hope you see mine too. The way a fight plays out is just more a measure of how good the fighter is for me, sure i don't mind people using at as a greatness criteria, because it's justifiable, i used to do so myself, i can still find a place for it now actually. It's just that resume is the main factor there for me, pure resume, legitimate wins, they back your greatness up undisputedly the way i see it. I know Roy Jones is one of the best fighters ever, you can see it in the nature of his wins, and i'd be hard pressed to pick many over him in a fantasy fight. But Robinson, who had more close fights in his prime, earned a better resume. He EARNED it, that's the thing what people overlook imo, if you earn something hard, and then people make it look small, i'd wanna ****in kill them! When i'm talking the best to do it though, i'll give all the credit in the world to those who performed well., like Jones, Pep etc.