Let me just start by saying im not an expert on suger so this question might seem stuipd. Its a fairly widly belived fact that ray robinson is the greatest in history but with all the recent talk of ricky hatton not becoming the no1 P4P if he beats pacman i was just wondering was robinson the best fighter P4P in history as bert sugar claims he is or was he just the fighter who achieved the most in his career Thanks
I don't really understand the question or what this has to do with Hatton but yes Sugar Ray Robinson is the best pound for pound fighter to lace up the gloves. Beat many great fighters from lightweight up to middleweight and had some tremendous skills.
He's my choice for number 1, he has a great resume packed full with hall of famers and atg, he is also the best fighter i've seen on film which considering that we don't really have any footage of him at his absolute peak is scary, however there are certainly other worth contenders for the title of best p4p ever like armstrong, greb and langford
sorry a bit vague but what i ment really was it because of him travelling through so mant weight classes or just by beating the best around (like hatton if he wins in may )
Its alright butler08, i'll try and help with you with some unbiased info, its a bold question to ask in these here parts though! Well in my humble opinion when Robinson is labelled the best ever some people do so without realising the true weigt of the claim in a kind of fashion that is really just because others have done before them. But he really was, you look at the record he compiled, in his absolute prime he lost only once, to a larger, great middleweight in Lamotta, whom he beat four times before moving up in weight and doing so again for the middleweight title. You look at the schedule he kept and then the quality of guys he was beating so often, and yes he has his detractors for not taking on some very special fighters of the era, but these cases can only be made in an attempt to state he could have fought others, but simply dont hold water in terms of an overrated standpoint, as the guys he did beat were quality through and through. When he moved up to middleweight he was past his prime and emerged the best of a golden era in that weight class, a title that was hard fought for and every bit earned. I think the question you made was about his head-to-head ability rather than his pure gretaness achievements. So i'll touch down there also, for me, even middleweight he is one of the strongest candidates for the position of best head to head ever, though there are strong rivals. At welter i pick him over everyone, including Leonard, but you'll get people maybe taking Leonard, and i understand that. His offense is likely the best that has been seen, the mixture of handspeed and combination powerpunhing may top Tyson's. The backfoot display for the first ten rounds against Jake Lamotta on film is something else. He along with Trinidad are peerless at 17 pounds for finishing skills. Punched to the body like a killer. Gets called for his defensive weaknesses and i suppose in both pure and technical terms this is the area that detractors can have their say. Imo though his in and out movement was a pretty good form of defense in itself. With his offense, i doubt any defensive minded fighter would ever top him in a bout. On the Hatton point, i really really want to stress that the comparison is out of this world and should not be made.
Actually when i say he was number 1 i made it look like i meant he definitely is. I dont mean that, i was just saying why he is one of the very few candidates. You get what i mean.
Thanks alot teeto i guess it was a risky question but thats why i asked the experts Real good answer i aprechiate it you answered the question perfectly
No problem there, don't wanna come across like some classic forum guy who's trying to force an opinion on someone. Just what i think i've been able to piece together on the subject. You're welcome.
Robinson is one of the few guys that can stake a claim for the #1 spot because he not only has fantastic ability and would beat most fighters between 140/147-160, but he certainly has the resume to back it up. The only guys that claim stake a claim for a place ahead of him on a P4P ATG basis are Langford, Greb and Armstrong.
p4p numero uno is not a title. oscar wouldnt be p4p1 becuase he could of scraped a victory past floyd, same if hatton beats manny...of course it would put the winner into a great position and maybe a few more wins woudl cement a p4p case...but 1 win does mean ****ery in this situration. on the question about ray. he is p4p numero uno because 1. great resume 2. long title reigns 3. natural talent and ability 4. was winning way into his later years. 5. lost to only the best and reversed many decisions and verdicts. 6. fantastic skills, amazing jab amazing ritgh hand amazing left hook, could box and brawl better than all of his opponants. he usually became unstuck becuase he didnt know if to box or slug with them. a reason why lamotta was able to outjab him was due to this. if he was fighting today we would all know he is p4p best ever and i truely mean that. we look at floyd and say unbeaten and the best of his generation maybe but on the real top notch he was untested (not his own fault honestly), then we look at de la hoya and shane mosley who we know are good fighters but do lose and look bad agaisnt guys that robinson wouldnt even blink against.
Both. He was recognized as the best fighter in the world in his own time, after he cleaned out the welterweight division, and later came to be recognized as arguably the best of all time after he retired.
Ray Robinson was THE BEST!:bbb Ray Robinson was naturally trained..:yep Ray Robinson also admitted to eating junk foods and slurping some beer while training and, pumping ***** as well...:yikes Ray Robinson was so good, he could break rules and get away with it......:deal MR.BILL
You're dead right, MB, just like Willie Pep. It's sick how good they could've been if they were as dedicated as some lesser lights.
