Sugar Ray Robinson's 10 Greatest Wins

I'd add in Fullmer II, Turpin II, and Olsen III

 

Why can't we use the same boxer twice, just curious? Still, playing by the rules I have the following list:

1.) KO 13-Jake Lamotta
2.) KO 5-Gene Fullmer
3.) W 15-Kid Gavilan (second fight)
4.) KO 10-Randy Turpin
5.) KO 2-Bobo Olson
6.) KO 1-Jose Basora
7.) KO 3-Rocky Graziano
8.) W 15-Carmen Basilio
9.) W 15-Tommy Bell
10.) W 15-Robert Villemin

 

I think his beating Sammy Angott would be up there while Angott was a champion.

 

Angott and Graziano need to be there.

 

Yeah, I guess that does make things more interesting.

 

Villemain is probably the most underrated win/opponent. The Villemain wins have a case for being better ones than the Lamotta wins. Villemain beat Lamotta and was also robbed against him. He beat Nardico and Dautuhille twice who both are also beat Lamotta, he also beat Gavilian in an SD. He was also the European Champion when that was similar to winning an ABC title belt.

 

To be fair we don't if he did get robbed. He fought the defensive fight, la motta fought the attacking fight.

Without footage we can't declare it a robbery.

 

angott was a big win as stated.so was lamotta and one of the zivic victories, also randy turpin, the fullmer ko and basilio.on paper armstrong was too

 

If you want to take that stance that's fine but I'll give you more background as it's 1 of histories most controersial none filmed fights.

13-1 of newspaper writers had Villemain winning, the crowd booed the decision, their were rumours Lamotta was paid to lose, the commisioner Eagan who attended demanded an investigation and Lamotta himself is rumoured to have complained about the decision. Eagen then suspended 2 judges for scoring it to Lamotta

Here's some more background

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...XgbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Y00EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6622,4249892

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...dtXAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YfYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5622,5073241


http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...gBQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hlUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3642,5864330

 

"Jake LaMotta won an unpopular split 12 round decision over Robert Villemain of France after a great fight Friday night before 11,491 fans at MSG. The fans booed the decision for more than 5 minutes. They hooted LaMotta as Jake climbed down from the ring and they gave the Frenchman a great ovation. There were no knockdowns during the bout but LaMotta appeared to be staggered in at least three rounds. Villemain won the fans with his persistent short-hooking attack to the head that caused far more damage than LaMotta's wide swings. And it was the Frenchman that did most of the forcing. Both scappers were bleeding from gashes over their left brows at the final bell." -United Press
Scorecards

• Referee Harry Ebbetts - 6-4-2 LaMotta
• Judge Harold Barnes - 6-5-1 LaMotta
• Judge Charley Shortell - 7-4-1 Villemain

• Unofficial UP scorecard - 7-3-2 Villemain
• 13 ringside reporters polled had it for Villemain 12-1

• On March 28, 1949, three days after the bout, NYSAC chairman Eddie Eagan suspended indefinitely referee Harry Ebbetts and judge Harold Barnes because of their scoring in the bout, with them not to receive assignments for an indefinite period. Eagan stated, "In view of the international importance of the bout and the fact that their cards were contrary to the viewpoint of practically all those who witnessed the contest, especially the members of the commission, it was felt that disciplinary action was required."

Retrieved from "http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Jake_LaMotta_vs._Robert_Villemain_(1st_meeting)&oldid=220393"


This is pretty damning evidence of a robbery. What I like is how the commission took these officials to task over the decision. This was back when people cared. What did Nevada do to the officials that robbed Pac against Bradley? They assigned them more fights and more title fights. That;s what they did.

 

that's fair points.

at what point do we draw the line and class a fight a robbery.

how abouw walcott-louis 1 or walcott- charles 4

 

I think Walcott-Louis 1 was very likely a robbery, the commision investiaged the judging in that one too, the crowd booed it, the ringside reports were closer though. So it's a little less controversial but still pretty much up there.

Walcott-Charles 4 seems less outragous but also a less high profile fight. I think Charles probably did well but it's likely to be closer than Walcott-Louis 1 or Lamotta-Villemain

Also we must ask how many close fights were investigated? I haven't read about many, so if their is an investigation one would have to assume it all the more controversial. Louis had close fights with Godoy and Farr, Charles close fight with Walcott, Marciano a close fight with Charles. I don't remember reading about those being investigated, so you'd assume more people thought Villemain and Walcott won than the other somewhat controversial high profile fights.

I suppose as a mathematician you work around what's probable? And ofcourse to protect your interests with such a risk based sport it has always made sense to stack a deck

 

as a mathematician I'd love a hard and fast rule i.e if 75% of polled scorecards disagree then it's a robbery.