Harry Greb vs. Ray Robinson

Garfield watched Robinson in his prime when he was about 10 years old, so take that for what it's worth, being as the memories have had about 60 some odd years of re-evaluating themselves in his mind. That can often happen with memories, especially ones as a child, they are not exactly the same in your head as they truly were, especially given time to distort them.

Not putting down Robinson, just saying, Garfield is only 71 years old, he'd have been a young child when he was watching Robinson live.

 

What exactly could he have seen in 5 minutes of fighting, vs Freddie Wilson type of opponent? And again, I'm expecting contemporary quotes, not distorted by historical or psychological revisionism.

 

“I don’t see how you can fail to name Ray Robinson the best fighter of the past 50 years, for the simple reason that he can do anything any other boxer could ever do and maybe just a little bit better."

~ Jimmy Bronson (manager/promoter since early 20th century)

“This boy is a natural. He does everything just as well as any fighter I have ever seen”

~ Frank Erne (former world's champion)

“With all due respect to all the good fighters who were before my time, I can’t conceive of a better fighter than Ray Robinson, and here’s why: If you take all the requisites necessary for a great boxer, you find that Ray Robinson not only possesses them all, but does everything to perfection. Everybody agrees on that. So, to be better than Ray Robinson you have to improve on perfection. I ask you—is that possible?”

~ Harry Markson, promoter

.....................
These quotes were from around 1950. They don't get anymore contemporary than those fellows, and the first two were in the game since the days of Jack Johnson.

Satisfied...?

 

You've chosen an article that does nothing but praise Robinson, and gives zero analysis to his strong and weak points. You see, there's such thing as tact, where people are always lieing about other people's qualities.

Here's the thing they fail to mention whatsoever:


1941-07-21 Sammy Angott
Although he won convincingly, Robinson did not have too easy a task with the veteran. Angott, forcing the going, sought to bring his vast experience into play in the infighting, and several times had the young Negro puzzled. At long range, though, Robinson was by far the better.

1941-09-19 Maxie Shapiro
Shapiro seemed on the way to registering a tremendous upset when he had things pretty much his own way in the first round. Robinson was the 1-to-4 choice to win, before the bout started, but the East Side boxer paid little heed to that fact as he carried the action to Robinson.
Loser Starts Fast
Shapiro opened the fray by driving a fast left to the head and followed with a snappy left to the body. Robinson returned a left hook and a right to the head, then went in close, where he was beaten to the punch by the East Side warrior.

1941-09-25 Marty Servo
Servo, who took Robinson's best punches and came back for more, gave the Negro a tought body beating.

1941-10-31 Fritzie Zivic
... the Harlem youngster kept the fighting at long range as much as he could, ...
It was clearly Zivic's intention when the battle began, to draw Robinson into close quarters and keep him there, hoping to wear the youngster down with a body attack. But the latter was wary and elected to remain far away, depending on his long left and speedy right to earn him points.
In the third Zivic managed to close in. But Robinson met that situation by holding tenaciously, so much so, in fact, that Zivic almost wrestled him to the canvas.

1942-03-20 Norman Rubio
The up-Stater, urged on by the cheers and encouragement of most of the 11,274 spectators, did the best he could to force matters into close quarters. In that department he was Robinson's superior and none knew it better than Ray. Every time Rubio managed to get inside, Robinson gave up all pretense of fighting, applying himself to the task of holding his foe in a grip so tenacious that the referee had to pry him away.
Excels at Long Range
At long range, though, things were made to order for the Harlem Flash.

1942-05-28 Marty Servo
Robinson, with many knockouts to his credit, is a speedy workman at long range, rarely leading, but enticing his opponent to come within range of his speedy and destructive right. He has a distinct disinclination for close-range work, however, and prefers to hold on with both hands when in-fighting is in order.
... The latter was willing to asume the offensive, and he sought to train a steady fire on Robinson's mid-section. The Harlem battler had no liking for this and held with all his strength when Servo managed to get in close.
In the second the Coast Guardsman worked into close quarters and outpunched Ray, only to lose the round because of a low blow. ... but Servo in the next two frames outpunched Ray in close exchanges. ... They threw aside all caution in the ninth and traded lefts to the head, Servo having a slight edge.

1942-10-02 Jake LaMotta
The latter, a splendid performer at long range, dislikes going at close quarters, a style of battling at which La Motta excels.
Averse to infighting, the Harlem boy, after a slow first round, managed to keep the going at long range for greater part, ...
On the few occasions when he succeeded in forcing matters into close quarters, La Motta brought his weight advantage to bear and ripped both hands to the body effectively while Robinson held.



I could go on and list many more, if the proof on film of Robinson being a very weak infighter is not enough for you or those "experts" the Ring quoted in that article.

 

Garfield as a kid was instructed in the gym by Robinson!!!!!!

 

Really? To what extent?

 

He reminisces about how Robinson would give him advice while he was training in the gym and was always verry charming.

Ask him about it next time he is around.

 

Excuse me, you asked for contemporary experts who saw him and stated that he was the a complete fighter. You got it, and now you call them liars. I should end this debate right here because you seem to lack the ability to fairly acknowledge even that.

Robinson hadn't been a pro for even a year at that point and it was like his 21st fight. Additionally, Angott was known as the "clutch" -he was infamous for his grabbing and holding inside, so the kid kept it where he would be most effective.

Your critique here is unfair.

....and Shapiro went down twice in the 2nd round and twice in the 3rd round and the fight was stopped in 3. You leave this out. (Robinson still had less than one year professional experience.)

Servo gave Robinson hell twice... his style was not easy for Ray, but once again, Robinson was still in his first year of fighting.

Zivic was murder in close. He was a master with extracurricular activities in there and had 143 fights to Robinson's ~26. Your criticism of a winning strategy is absolutely unfair.

These are poor examples and do more to hurt your case than help it. Let's take a moment, if you can, and give credit where credit is due and acknowledge the serious challenges Sugar Ray took WHEN HE WAS TWENTY/TWENTY-ONE YEARS OLD.

Senya hurls criticisms at him for winning efforts. He won because he was smart enough to stay at the best range for him against shorter and shorter-armed guys who were by and large better than he was inside -at least within his first two years as a professional.

Stating that Robinson is "a very weak infighter" is beyond words.

You offer reports of your own that criticize him. Fine, but why should we value these reports more than those statements that I offered? You would be better for acknowledging the truth, which is that there are in fact plenty of contemporaries, experts at that, who believed that he was a complete fighter all around. You may disagree, and that is fine, but don't cast aspersion on other's opinions who were, unlike you, actually there bearing witness.

You can list however many you want. It doesn't matter. You dismissed a source of mine and insisted on "contemporary quotes". You got them. I offered you three sources of contempories, two of which were old as dirt in 1950 who could be expected to wax nostalgic and who acknowledged Robinson's ring mastery in toto --and you dismiss them.

 

I asked for several quotes for a start. Now that I saw where you were coming from with your "majority of experts", I could start providing counter-points.

Those are just several examples from the start of Robinson's career. The problem with your "excuses" for him is it continued throughout his career, that he was weak at in-fighting and mostly just clinched and did nothing else there. Like I said I could list many more quotes from fight reports that point out this lack of in-fighting skills with him, as wel as some opinions of people who say the same thing, nor regarding some particular fight, but a general observations from seeing his fights.
If that is not enough, as I already pointed out, this lack of in-fighting skills on his part can be easily noticed in the film of his later fights (and no, skills don't disappear with age or on moving up in weight, they may become less effective, but when a boxer shows lack of such whatsoever, that means he didn't have it from the very beginning).

As for "other's opinions", the people you quoted provide nothing but general statements, they fail to mention exact skills or exact fights (something a real expert would do), and it is obvious they are saying that because of tact, and because of the question asked of them by that Ring writer. He wanted to praise Robinson - he asked for such things from those people and he got them. Sports editors and journalists are pointing out his flaws in many fights they have just watched. And I certainly have much more trust in things said about exact points of the game and regarding exact fights they have just seen, so their memory about it are still fresh.
You may deny it however long you want, the reality will remain that Robinson was very poor at in-fighting and avoiding it at all costs in most of his fights.

 

The one where nobody was able to come up with any examples to counter those observations? Advise that to Stonehands.

 

I think that you are wrong.

I also think that you would never acknowledge deficiencies in your own position, so debating you is really an exercise in frustration. You have a natural bias...

Anyway, you got three sources that I found in 12 and a half seconds where it is acknowledged that Robinson was a complete fighter. They said this without making the exception for infighting that you seek. You call them "liars"... then you bring up news clipping criticizing a 20 year old in his first year or two as a professional.

I am not sure what your background is in boxing but it is pretty clear to me that there are things that you evidently don't grasp. Why would you expect Robinson to fight like Chavez against guys who he would be better served sticking and moving against? Do you think that he should have fought in close to convince and unconvincable like you that he could? Some of the best guys Robinson fought on film were LaMotta, Basilio, Fullmer, and Olson. These guys were more comfortable inside -they were shorter, wider, and stronger than he. Robinson was wise to stick and move and shoot them as they came in. He played matador to their bull -which is what you do.

Duran is also a complete fighter, do you dismiss that because he wasn't shooting the jab behind mobile legs like Robinson? Duran emphasized his game, much like Robinson. He could box and demonstrated that against DeJesus. Robinson could be explosive in close and he demonstrated this against Maxim and Fusari, not to mention in the clip I attached. When he fought Turpin II, he would catch him coming in with a short shot and then turn him.

Robinson through rapid fire, hard shots because he was looking for KO. Against LaMotta on that St. Valentine's Day, I am convinced that he was determined to finish LaMotta off for an exclamation point on the series... so he stayed at the range where his shots had the most anesthetic on them and where Jake couldn't reach him. In close, Robinson would often grab, but it wasn't because "he sucked in close" it was because that was where he got his rest.

It makes sense if you think about it.

 

A one-sided trouncing is an unfair prediction, but it is Greb's physicality’s in the ring mixed with his speedy, hustling ways which would very probably give Robinson too much to slow down, counter and ultimately, conquer.

Lamotta and Basilio were both strong men, and it was their edge in strength that helped them get close and interrogate Robinson. Granted, the sugar man fought these two during different intervals in his career, but the point still stands. When Greb gets close he will open up a can of worms, introducing Robinson to a stronger strain of the 'dirty fighting' virus.

Robinson would put up a helluva fight, pumping his arms overtime, but being forced to think faster than ever against Greb is surely going to make him derail. It's just a case of asking too much of Robinson.

If Greb stood back, gave you time to think, or had a faulty aspect about him there would lie the reverse argument where Robinson could start to form some sort of victorious fight plan, but Greb is one of those fighters that ticks all the necessary boxes. He is just the stronger man; probably more relentless than Lamotta and more awkward than Turpin.