Can Sugar Ray Robinson be overtaken?

LaMotta went ten rounds with Robinson in 1942, 20 more in 1943, 22 more in 1945, and 13 more in 1951. After 65 rounds of experience with a prime Sugar Man, Jake says SRR was the greatest boxer of all time. That's a hell of an authority to contradict.

 

I think greatness is somthing that is secured. So its very hard to overtake some one.

In H2H matchups , notably at HW , many people give the old time fighters the benafit of " in their time" or "under modern training".
Maybe we need to look at modern fighters too in comparison to their peers in tearms of greatness. How much beyond the rest did they go? How many more fighst did they have? How many more HOFers and ATGs did they beat?

Well thats how i think it has to be done.

 

Lamotta fought in the 1940s. He had never seen Greb, Fitz, Langford fight. Or Steele, Mickey Walker and others...
I love Ray Robinson,saw him several times as a Welter, but in my heart of hearts can not see Robby licking the bigger men often, as Greb, Fitz, and Langford did...
So how can I call him P4P better than they ?, Beautifal to watch ,YES...
But these 3 did things that Robinson didn't and couldn't do...IMO...
That is a cold fact...

 

Oh, I certainly agree Burt. LaMotta's designation of Robinson does make an alternative case for Burley, Charles, Armstrong and other contemporaries and successors more of a challenge. (Homicide Hank was very forceful in saying his best would never have sufficed against Ray after they fought before your eyes. That some still persist in rating Armstrong over Robinson still surprises me, considering his vocal disclaimer.)

We're very fortunate to have peak Langford on film. Fireman Flynn III was the only scheduled 45 rounder of Sam's career, and it came shortly after he turned 27. While others lament the dearth of Greb and Wills footage, I marvel at the fact we have Langford-Flynn III.

As far as Walker goes, we have his own account of events to go with plenty of footage. Hudkins II shows him boxing in a way we wouldn't expect if we hadn't been able to see it for ourselves, and we can hear the impact of his punches in the Schmeling footage when he tees off. Thanks to the ready availability of footage like this to everybody on line, it's not a bad time to be a fan of classic boxing.

 

burt..i can only call confidently what i have seen. Ray Leonard is the best i have seen live
My dad and grandfather were professional fighters and both viewed Sugar Ray Robinson as the greatest.They were around at the time but it shows how good Ray Robinson was.That was from the UK
Randy Turpin had/has legendary status in the UK based on his win over Sugar Ray and rightly so
Greb..best resume no doubt
Always enjoy your posts

 

Thanks S, I saw your Randy Turpin fight Ray Robinson at the Polo Grounds in 1951...Still have the ticket stub of that fight...Turpin took a terrible amount of punishment in the last round, but wanted to continue
the bout...Brave guy... Randy went downhill after that fight...b.b.

 

I certainly can not abide by Ray Leonard being the greatest. I'm not sure he makes my top 20.

 

One of the things I like best about boxing is the history of the sport. I don't think any sport compares to boxing when it comes to history, and the way the fans of boxing not only care about the current game but about the past as well. It is also one of the few things I hate about the sport. Sometimes this love of the sport's history becomes fanaticism. Ray Robinson is an example of this. It is not that most people rank him #1 all time that bothers me. There is a strong argument for him. I just don't agree with it. I have him at #3. Which is pretty dam high. What bothers me is the unwillingness to accept the idea that someone can come along that can be better than Robinson.
Has there been anyone since him? I have Whitaker a spot a head. You say Whitaker only had 46 bouts compared to Robinson's 200. Firstly these are different times. 50-60 fights is a long career for an elite boxer now days.
Whitaker also has 215 amateur bouts to his credit for a total of 261 bouts Robinson had 86 amateur bouts for a total of 286 bouts. While Robinson fought more when you add the amateur bouts of each the numbers get closer to each other.
I have Benny Leonard at #1 and Ray Leonard at #4. From there it changes all the time. While these rankings are very solid for me. If I'm made aware of something I take it in to consideration and if I think there should be a change to my rankings. I make the change.
I don't understand why some people find it so hard to be open to the idea. Not the debate or conversation, but the idea.

 

Only the most woolenheaded would say that no fighter with more quality than Robinson could possibly come along, but today it seems nigh impossible for someone to amass a record that beats Robinson's, or Greb's or Armstrong's for that matter. Today's fighters fight far too infrequently and the biggest fights too seldom get made. How is someone going to equal Robinson's streak of 90+ straight wins today? Or just the fact that he beat some 45 ranked fighters and won the undisputed MW crown five times?

 

How many times did he lose the Middleweight championship?
I'm more impressed by boxers who can keep a championship for a long time or who win at more than one weight class than winning the same championship more than once. If you fell that winning and losinf and winning a championship is more impressive than keeping a championship for a long time without losing it or being able to win at more than one weight. I won't argue with you. ATG rankings are supposed to be objective. I will respect any criteria you use to rank boxers. I don't have to agree with you.

 

Do you not feel Robinson did this anyway?

He was undisputed welter champ for nearly 5 years...he held the middleweight title for a total of about 4 years I think.

Thats a pretty long time and more than one weight class.

 

4 years is a long time. However it was not an uninterrupted 4 years.

 

sugar ray robinson had a mystic that can never be outdone. Ray fought a lot of great fighters. If you dont see robinson as the absoulute #1 boxer ever thats ok, but just about everyone views him as one of the best boxers ever. for how long the sport of boxing has been around, thats saying a hell of a lot.

If a boxer had the skills of a ray robinson, harry greb, henry armstrong, sam langford ect how could they prove it? thier are plenty of talented fighters today for sure but the trials you would have to go through would nearly be impossible (and Im not ust talking about the fights Im referring to the hardships of chasing down the top fighters in a given division)

the thing is today, ducking and dodging fighters is good business, to maintain an elite luster to your career (if you look bad you get written off as untouchable). a boxer who consistently fights the best probably wont get "floyd mayweather money." They have to have to possess incredible charisma along with those nearly unattainable talents in order to achieve both. If they compete 5 or 6 times a year it's not that appealing (as opposed to building suspense leading up to each fight) when they fight = less money.

you place "money" and "legacy" on diverging paths and which would you choose?

 

Nearly all the losses you're referring to came after he was forced, by financial reasons, back from retirement in his mid 30's. I think we can cut him some slack for those. Rather, it's impressive that he still was competitive with the very best.

 

R, I respect your opinion, but to put Pernell Whitaker ahead of Ray Robinson, borders on the absurd...It is like putting a math teacher against
Albert Einstein...Silly!
Forty six fights that whitaker had is like batting 300 in spring training against the record of a Ray Robinson hitting 350 for a twenty year average...
Robinson with his almost 6ft. frame would sail into Whitaker with the speed of a rattler snake and annihilate Pernell in short order...
Whitaker had nothing to hurt Robbie...Nothing !!!