greater Middleweight, Greb or SRR?

Greb, no question. Robinson is always overrated as a middleweight. Might very well be the best fighter ever, but that's meant more in a "total breadth of career" sense. That shouldn't be confused with "best middleweight," and yet so many do.

 

do you mean Hd 2 Hd or achievement

 

Both.

There will undoubtedly be a legion of people coming in to argue this, but I really believe it to be true. They might argue, "Yes, but it's not his fault! He was 200 years old when he fought Basilio or Fullmer."

It doesn't matter. I'm not blaming Robinson for this, which seems to be the slant they always take. I'm merely saying that he was in fact a middleweight at that stage of his career, and that it's not history's fault either.

Again, not for one second suggesting the man wasn't amazing. He might be the best ever at any weight. Just not at middleweight.

 

But in all fairness thats not his prime at middleweight, them losse's were at the ages of 36, 37, 40 after coming out of retirement.

There not excuse's, thats the fact.

your being unfair judging him on his performance's at stage of his career, thats like judging Ali from 1976 - 80 or Louis from 1949 - 51

His prime at middleweight was from 1950 - 52 (at his first retirement his record was (131 W - 3L - 2D)

his performance against LaMotta in 1951 for me is the best performance of any fighter of any weightclass captured on film,

I would'nt pick any middleweight in history to beat him on that form.

 

See, you're dong the same thing they all do.

Again.....I'm not faulting the man for being in his mid to late 30's. It happens. The facts remain........he was what he was at that weight. He was a tad slower, his resources weren't quite up to what he had been, agreed.........but that's what he was when he was a middleweight. The facts are what they are. He WAS older; he WAS less able. THAT was that middleweight Robinson. You can't give the guy extra points because of what he was in another time. It doesn't work like that.

I'd call him a great fighter at middleweight, absolutely. Just not THE best.

 

I'm not doing anything I was stating the facts, why should the man be judged on his performance's after coming out of retirement at the age of 36 - onwards,

how can that be justified as his prime at the weight ?

he should be judged on his best years at middleweight from 50 - 52 ( the year he first retired )

 

During that time he was also beaten by Turpin.

Not to let on that there was anything wrong with Turpin, he was a strong, awkward, excellent fighter all around, but I disagree with your stance.

He wasn't just a middleweight from 1950 to 1952. He was a middleweight into the mid 60's. If we're going to pick one single moment in time, then yeah, the Robinson that beat Lamotta in '51 is about as good as it gets anywhere, anytime, but no one's career can be judged off one effort. I judge the fighter's career as a whole, and while I think it's fair to throw out a few fights at the very end in the mid-60's, it's very fair to judge him on his losses to Fullmer and Basilio and Pender. Yes, he was a shell of the man he had been by the time Pender got to him. It doesn't matter. That was part of the whole of the work we saw from him at that weight. He lost quite a few fights there at 160. I'm sorry he got old, but he chose to campaign there at that age. You can't live off the glories of the welterweight days or the great performance of that night against Lamotta and try to claim yourself the best middleweight. There are too many other consistent performers there who should garner more credit.

 

But if your admitting that he was a shell of his earlier middleweight years why should that affect his rating,

I mean if your use that criteria, then Ali does'nt make top ten because he was beaten by a 8 fight novice (Spinks) did'nt win a second against Holmes and Ezzard Charles does'nt make top 15 Pd 4 Pd because he lossed 13 and won only 10 of his last 23 fights, even though all this accurd when both were past the age of 37.

I mean how is that fair.

 

The question is greater middleweight, not greater middleweight in his prime. You have to include his complete middleweight career. The same goes for Greb.

 

yes but my comments are towards Sal about Hd 2 Hd, which only prime should be consider .

P.S

But also even if you consider complete career I still don't see why fighters losing after the age of 36, should affect their ratings.

 

I don't see how I'm not getting the message across, but perhaps that's my fault.

Can someone who sees my point explain it better? Anyone?

My point is this.......Ali had a body of work at his given weight class spanning almost 20 years with victories over some of the best ever. He rarely lost, until the very end of his career. ALL of these these great things in his youth happened at that weight, okay?

Charles' standing is good everywhere, but he is recognized as one of the best almost universally at light-heavyweight, when these losses in the last few years of his career don't really factor in since he was by then a heavy, right? Not many, if any, would consider him the best heavy, at least in part becaue of the very argument I'm putting forth here.

Now Robinson, by contrast, had by all accounts his best moments at welterweight. That's pretty much a given. Let's say though, that Ray Robinson decided to lace on gloves the day before he fought his first fight at middleweight. Maybe that's how we should look at this. If that were the case, could you in all seriousness rate him #1? I mean, really?

Forget the "yeah but he was old" stuff. I know that. Believe me, I do. Read all about him. Just focus on that one question; if he had begun his career when he had his first middleweight fight, would you rank him #1?

 

Well I'll put it this way, just watching the LaMotta fight alone shows me a fighter that is better than anyone else captured on film,

so yes in a way I would, but I'd have a hard time convincing others based on one fight, and I myself would still feel slightly unsure,

Thats why his body of work before hand is the proof of constancy in achievements, and the LaMotta fight is just the visual proof.

 

He was amazing in that fight, I totally agree, but this body of work you refer to happened at welterweight. That is the essence of my argument. Different weight class, so it has to be thrown out of the middleweight discussion.

 

No his work up to 52 was great also, I was just mentioning that 1 fight as a example