Fleischer, on ranking SRR behind Ketchel, Ryan, Greb and Walker

"Armstrong refused to fight Burley who had beaten Zivic twice, instead he fought Zivic!"

You just made my point. Armstrong deserves criticism regarding Burley, not Robinson. And perhaps Zale might also. Robinson was a contender in a lower division. Burley was never a top contender in the division Robinson was the champion of. Robinson's management should legitimately have had the concern that if Robinson took fights with middles, a loss to one of those middles might well have been used as an excuse to sidetrack him from a welter title bout.

"If you think he ducked anyone"

In my post at 6 PM yesterday I commented about Burley--"I don't think he ducked them."

I think that is direct enough to be understood.

"Ray knocked him down"

I think what is meant is that Wade knocked Ray down. I found a thread which you took part in which contained a link to the original article. It seems the scheduled fight between Robinson and Steve Belloise was not doing well at the ticket window, and was cancelled when Robinson claimed a rib injury. Robinson claimed Wade injured him sparring, which for me speaks better for Wade. Wade supposedly told a reporter it was actually a fight on the street. The description given implies Wade sucker punched Robinson. Robinson might have been a jerk, but this would still be a crime, although for his rep I suppose Robinson might well have preferred letting it pass.

As for the 1950 fight, I don't find Wade's "confession" of a fix convincing myself. Wade hadn't fought in over two years. In his last 15 fights he had gone 6-8-1. He had been stopped four times in his career. Holman Williams, not a super puncher, with 36 KO's in 188 fights, had stopped him in 1946. So there is nothing to explain. Robinson stopping Wade is not much of a surprise. The article author doesn't reprint the full ringside report, only a couple of taken out of context quotes, but still quotes The Savannah Morning News "Ray battered his stocky, keg-like foe savagely." Wade is quoted as saying Robinson wasn't involved, but he would have to be if the betting would be on the round. What if Robby stopped Wade in the first or second? But off this story, if accurate, about a street fight, it seems unlikely to me that Wade would agree to dive against Robinson, and even less likely that Robinson would agree to carry him at all. With five knockdowns in the second round, the ref would also have be in on the fix to prevent him from stopping it.

About the only "evidence" for this fix bit comes from Wade, who admittedly hated Robinson (perhaps for good reason) and so might have emotional reasons to explain away his defeat to his son.

Bottom line--Robinson's KO of Wade is not close to one of his more impressive wins.

 

"Burley fought--Williams, Wade, Moore, Chase, Charles, Marshall, Bivins, Lytell, Cocoa Kid"

"If you think he . . . was overated, you need to do some serious research."

Depends who is rating him and overrated compared to whom. I think Burley had a good shot at beating Armstrong for the welter title, and also a good shot at winning the middle title if given a shot (but Zale was in the army)

On the other hand, Burley's record against these men you mentioned

Williams (3 wins and 3 losses and 1 NC--lost last two fights with Williams to drop behind Williams as the #1 contender)
Wade (3 wins--but how good really was Wade. I think his best rating was #7 at middle)
Chase (3 wins)
Moore (1 win--by far Burley's most impressive win)
Charles (2 losses)
Bivins (1 loss)
Marshall (1 loss)
Lytell (1 win, 1 loss)
Cocoa Kid (1 win, 1 draw)

So his record against these men is 12-8-1 with 1 NC. Good but not great. Against the top four men, Charles, Moore, Bivins, and Marshall, he was 1-4, beating only Moore. If you add Williams for his top five opponents, he ends up 4-7 with 1 NC. If you add Zivic, he ends up 6-8 with 1 NC.

All this is good, but not overpowering. So my take. He is not a great fighter in the class of such as Robinson and Louis. He was not as good as Charles and Marshall. He was not as good as Moore eventually became.

He was a very good fighter, but a close look puts him in perspective.

 

Bottom line you believe what you want to, its no skin off my nose.

 

From what I've seen of those men on film :
I'd absolutely expect Robinson to defeat Ketchel.

Walker at his best would have a good chance of beating Robinson, at 160. That's a very good fight. I'd lean towards Robinson because he just so rarely lost at all.

Greb and Ryan I have not seen.
But I'd give Greb a very good chance based on him being better than Walker, and all his wins over other great boxers I've seen on film. He's at least 50-50 against Robinson based on my limited knowledge resources (ie. I've never seen him fight).

 

On the original question--I don't agree with the high ranking for Ketchel and think the Robinson of 1951 would have handled him, but rating Greb, Walker, and Ryan above Ray is by no means outrageous. Robinson didn't move to middle until he was close to 30. He was really at his best at welter. At middle he was lose then win, and I really think fighters like Greb and Walker might have been better at 160, and so were Monzon and Hagler, and certainly more consistent.

I rate Robinson the best p4p fighter and the best welter, but those who reflexively put him at the top of the middles might be overrating him a bit at that weight in my judgment.

Some of Fleischer's other historical judgments, such as not putting Moore or Conn in his list of top ten light-heavyweights, are far more problematic for me.

 

I definitely think that he would have been in over his head, against the much larger Gere.

 

I think it less that these ratings are so bad as Fleischer's comments. For example--

"There is scarcely an old-timer who would give Ray a chance against Stanley Ketchel."

on Ryan--"He had to face opposition we no longer have." "He fought them all from the lowly to the greatest, something Ray never had to face."

The Ketchel comment is just off the wall. The Ryan comments are weird considering how many champions Robinson was in the ring against.

As for "opposition we no longer have" Nat was probably right but not at all in the sense he meant it. Comparing Ryan to Robinson in record in my judgment is like comparing a minor league batting average to a major league average. Fleischer's "boxing went back from the 1900 era" view really undercuts his perspective.

But on the basis of greatness against those of his own era, Ryan legitimately rates high.

 

Well IMO as a middleweight was great but it wasn't his best weight at Welterweight he is the best...sure he won the middleweight title 5 times but he lost it as well against not ATG middles...as great as he was