How did Ray Robinson navigate such a gifted path as a pro ?

As an informative exercise, take a look at the venues that Sugar Ray Robinson, Jake LaMotta, Fritzie Zivic, Charley Burley, Holman Williams, Eddie Booker, Archie Moore, Lloyd Marshall, Aaron Wade, Bert Lytell and Cocoa Kid fought at during the period from 1930 to 1947. You will find that Robinson, LaMotta and Zivic had quite a number of bouts at venues which often had large gates, which include Madison Square Garden, the Olympia in Detroit, Chicago Stadium, Comiskey Park, Wrigley Field in Chicago, the Arena in Cleveland, the Polo Grounds, Yankee Stadium, Forbes Field, Shibe Park and Briggs Stadium. The other mentioned boxers didn't fight at any of the listed venues nearly as often, if at all, during that time. Of the listed venues, Burley didn't fight at any of them except Forbes Field and Boston Garden.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Sugar Ray Robinson was busy with Lamotta, a former light heavyweight who moved down to middle. So while he fought Jake 5 times, why not a match with Charley Burley, Holman Williams, Eddie Booker, Jack Chase, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Lloyd Marshall?

That's not three names Ed, its seven men. Sorry, I'm not buying he was too light, because LaMotta was the same weight as the guys I listed at middle.

 

Throwing out random names without any context doesn't mean anything. When was Robinson supposed to fight all of these men? Who was calling for these fights? Which promoters wanted to stage them?

 

In regards to Jake LaMotta to being an opponent for Sugar Ray Robinson, promoters and matchmakers were going out of way to have such a fight because it drew well at the gate and was a terrific matchup. In addition, both LaMotta and Robinson were well aware that they were going to get substantial purses while fighting each other. It is that simple. Boxing is a business.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Yep.

It's downright insane that Robinson gets more flak for supposedly ducking Burley than Zale does. We're talking contenders a division up. What obligation did he have to fight them? I just don't get this. He obviously liked the money he got for LaMotta and kudos for taking on a top fighter that's 15 lbs heavier, but no one has explained to me why this means he should take on every MW contender.

 

Your criticism seems backwards to me. Yes, a middle and a welter fight five fights. You list 7 middles that the welter did not fight. During the years from 1943 to 1945 while he was having five fights with Robinson and was rated at the top of the middle division, LaMotta fought only Marshall, who was actually rated at light-heavy, and lost badly to him. Jake did not fight Williams until 1946 when Williams had begun to slip, having already lost to Cerdan. He never fought Charles, Moore, Booker, Chase, or Burley at all, while Burley and LaMotta were actually top contenders in the same division for years.

So LaMotta is fighting a welter five times and losing to him four times, while not fighting the best in his own division. So who is criticized? Why, the welter for not fighting all the big guys LaMotta was not fighting. All I can say is ???

And LaMotta was NOT the same size as guys like Charles and Moore. LaMotta made 154 for Tony Janiro in 1947. Charles and Moore never had a listed weight that low. Moore was at 155 in 1937. He generally fought above 170 after 1944. Charles' lowest weight ever was 160. Charles was 6' tall. Moore was 5' 11'' tall. LaMotta was 5' 8" and given to going to fat, which he himself admitted on film.

It is sort of like criticizing Greb for not fighting Wills if Greb was willing to fight Brennan and Weinert. But Greb didn't have to fight those guys out of his weight class. Taking on bigger men should be a credit to Greb, not a justification to rip him for not taking on every big guy around.

Same with Robinson.

 

While I generally agree with your point here,

in fairness to Zale, he was in the military from 1942 to 1945 and actually, off the internet, in combat. The guy who is really questionable for never fighting Burley is LaMotta, but he seems to get a pass. I am not certain Burley was the #1 contender in 1946 when Zale returned to fight for the title. Tony took the big money fight with Graziano, but after losing four years to the war, it is understandable. He would have had to have been somewhat beyond being a saint to pass on this big money fight to meet Burley for a much smaller purse after losing so much of his prime earning years.

 

The brain trust of Tony Zale would have been committing managerial malpractice if they had their charge defending his world middleweight title in a bout with Charley Burley. Zale was quite likely to lose the bout and his title to Burley while fighting for a relatively small purse.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Even the criticism of LaMotta not fighting Burley is ridiculous. Let me spell this out very clearly for you: Promoters make fights. Not fighters. The ONLY person who ever asked for this fight was Burley. You wont find anyone else putting up the money to see Burley fight because he was boring inside the ring and outside of it. He was a good fighter but boring as **** and that lack of his interest in his career, while unfortunate for him, is the number one reason why he didn't get bigger fights, bigger audiences, and bigger purses. Jack Chase, Eddie Booker, and Archie Moore were west coast fighters while Jake was a contender. Jake never fought on the west coast and wasn't established there just as none of them were established in the East. There was zero call for those fights either so pretending he avoided them is simply ignorant of the era. Charles was out of action due to the war almost as long as Zale and was also out of the division by the time that fight would have made sense. This crap about these guys ducking these black fighters is a lot of nonsense perpetuated by people who apparently have zero understanding of how the game works. A guy like Jack Chase can call out a popular guy like LaMotta all he wants and beg for a fight like that. But if LaMotta is the cash cow what is his incentive for traveling to Chase's backyard for that fight? If Chase isn't established out east why would a promoter book some unknown quantity from the west coast? Fighters, black or white, always had to do two things before being granted a big money fight in the east: 1. Give a piece of yourself to a connected eastern manager. 2. Have a few fights out east to build a fan base. Eddie Booker had six fights out east between 1938 and 1939 and didn't win half of them? Those three fights he didn't win were the three fights he fought against reconizeable names... Jack Chase never came further east than Denver which was a backwater of boxing in that era. By the time Archie Moore came east he was DEEP into the light heavyweight division. So no, LaMotta wasn't ducking those guys. He fought the guys that made sense. Holman Williams was from Detroit and where did LaMotta fight him? In Detroit where LaMotta was extremely popular. Lloyd Marshal had established himself in Cleveland where Jake was popular, where was the fight held? Cleveland. Bert Lytell was an established New England fighter who had fought most of his fights in Massachusetts. Where did Jake fight him? Boston. Same with Norman Hayes. You can go down the list but the best example is Cecil Hudson who was primarily a west coast fighter who went to the east coast, established himself and suddenly started getting fights with everyone? Why? Because he not only went to them but he put in the effort to build himself a reputation out there.

 

But remember, Roberto DURAN fought at 154 as early as 1978. Before LEONARD, Benitez or Hearns. He was a naturally bigger man.

 

Don't know if we have to pass this ground again. My point was that if anyone should be critisized for not fighting a MW contender it should be the MW champion/champions at the time, not the WW champion.

 

Those that claim that SRR had an easy path seem to be really saying that he had an easier path than other black fighters of the day than that he had an easier path than most of fighters of the day, since such a claim is so utterly absurd it's not worth even contemplating (compare his path to the title to that of Servo, Graziano, Cerdan, LaMotta, Mills and Maxim for example).

So I thought I'd list some advantages SRR might have had compared to the murderer's row:

Coming out of Harlem, NY. New York was the boxing capital of the day and a strong local backing in that city was of course a plus. This for example probably made fights against the darling of neighboring Bronx, LaMotta, a very marketable prospect.

Having a very exciting and crowd pleasing style. He was a puncher but still very aesthetic. Explosiveness, grace and fundamentals in the same package will always peek the crowd's interest.

A stelar amateur career. He made his reputation already in the amateurs, which will of course be a plus going pro.

Turning pro a bit later than C Kid, Burley and Williams. These guys had the misfortune of seeing much of their prime pass by when the titles were still frozen because of WWII. Robinson on the other hand was 24 when the war ended and entering his best years.

And most important: He passed the tests put in front of him. As me and several others have already pointed out facing Angott, Zivic, Servo and LaMotta within two years within turning pro is not easy by any stretch and many a young pro might have been broken on the rocks of such tests. But Robinson didn't. He won all of them. It would be totally crazy if such a start didn't put you in a good position. He still ha to wait another four years for his shot at the WW shot and saw Servo somehow jump ahead in the queu during that time.

And on his way to getting his shot at the MW title he beat Belloise in a fight billed as an eliminator and then Villemain (who had beat LaMotta) for good measure. On top of that he was the supreme WW champion and had beat the reigning champion four times in earlier years. So who can be surprised that he got the title shot?

C Kid, Burley and Williams on the other hand swapped wins and losses against each other and neither could therefore pick up the same kind of run Robinson did. You might argue that SRR would have been picking up several losses as well if he had faced them as much as they faced each other, but the fact is that they didn't do as well against Abrams, Basora, Zivic and LaMotta as Ray did.

 

"if anyone should be criticized for not fighting a MW contender it should be the MW champion/champions at the time, not the WW champion."

Totally agree, although I would point out that for most of this period Robinson was not the welter champion but only a contender (if obviously the uncrowned champion) and his being totally frozen out was still on the table as a possibility.

 

Why does anyone still argue against this? As you say, even the fearless Greb could be critisized on these grounds. I'm really struggling to figure ot who couldn't. Langford?

 

True.
LaMotta fought several fights against welters.
The first 5 fights with Robinson, Ray was still really a welter
Tommy Bell x3
Fritzie Zivic x4
California Jackie Wilson

LaMotta was a big middleweight too.