How Is It Even A Question Whether Ray Robinson Was The Greatest Of All Time Or Not???

Harry Greb has just as good a claim imo.

 

People who have boxing knowledge are capable of understanding other arguments, probably. The knowledge part is ****ing crucial to this though. I wouldn't trouble your poor self with it though.

 

Because of the existence of Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong, Sam Langford, and Bob Fitzsimmons. Not saying all of these men necessarily out-rank him, but their achievements were arguably more impressive. The thing that could separate Robinson from the others, if one were so inclined to favour such a thing, would've been his abilities as an all-around boxer-puncher. He was more or less the picture perfect fighter.

 

You belong in the general forum with a statement like this.

"Those guys all suck compared to Robinson":-(

 

How dare you, you sick *******. He hates you. He hates you from the grave.


:bart

 

Oh really?

Armstrong held the Featherweight, Lightweight, and Welterweight titles simultaneously in an era where there was only 1 title per weight class. He was the undisputed world champion in each weight class despite never being more than a natural Lightweight in his prime. He actually had to gorge himself to weigh in heavy enough to compete for Barney Ross's Welterweight title, in which he beat the living hell out of an arguable top 10 all time great despite being much the smaller man. Think about that. Guys like Pacquiao and co. cut weight, Armstrong actually gorged himself with food just so that he could compete at higher weights against the best in the world. The man actually holds the record for Welterweight title defenses to this day despite being probably the smallest man to ever win the title.

Over a 3 year period from '37 to '40 he went 59-1-1 with 51 KO's. From Featherweight to Welterweight, against the best of the best on a consistent basis. The lone loss being an incredibly controversial (against a fellow great he'd beaten previously in Lou Ambers) one and the draw being avenged thrice via KO.

Provide me with your argument as to why Robinson's achievements surpass those.

 

Well, as long as we all agree that Armstrong was better than Ezzard Charles, I'm happy.

 

Because James Toney exists......

 

What did either do that surpasses Armstrong's achievements?

And before anyone else jumps in, I know the arguments myself (had this debate many times), I just want to see if this guy know how to back up his claims.

 

Okay, here's why: he lost to guys like Lamotta, Turpin, and Basillio.

Basillio had 16 losses and 7 draws. I know Robinson avenged those losses, but it's not like he was flawless and perfect: Basilio was a comeforward action fighter and Robinson was always troubled by swarming hard chinned guys who won't sit around waiting to be outboxed. AND BASILIO WAS SMALLER THAN ROBINSON.

All the footage of him is as an old shot guy except for the golden glove footage, which is awesome, so if most of the fights you CAN see are losses are challenging fights where he is BEING OUTBOXED and OUTWORKED by guys like Turpin, then it's hard to make claims about how he looked in his prime.

Power, speed, chin, style: for sure. But if there isn't a bunch of footage of his prime, it's difficult to judge it as really the best ever, when arguably guys like Ali still have very very meaningful wins YEARS after their best.

The difference is that Robinson fought all the time, and that's a lot of wear and tear, but he started to losing to guys with near 20 losses.

And Floyd is much smaller than Robinson, he just is. He fought a majority of his career at 130. Ray fought the majority of his career at 147, and was taller.

 

Prepare yourself for infinite sadness then, foo.