Is Sugar Ray Robinson Pound for Pound number 1?

Armstrong for me. I generally rate him one spot over Ray.

 

In a word, yes. Robinson's peak was in the 40's as welterweight king..all the rest is window dressing, IMO. He could do it all, box, move, combinations, guts, chin, and he had raw power as well. Like I said, at welterweight he was at his best, and somewhat inconsistant at middle, but yes...he was the Greatest Pound for Pound!

 

Great avatar.

As for the thread, Robinson is my pick.

 

Robinson is the best, it would be absolutely foolish to have him any lower than 4, if I seen a list where Robinson was number 5, I wouldnt be able to tell you who was number 6 because Id stop reading the **** & assume it was the work of a ****** or a wind up.
Id probably send the guy a PM loaded with verbal abuse, he`d deserve it.

 

Nowhere near enough footage of Langford is available to credit him with the number one spot, NO footage of Greb remains to date so he`s out & Pacquiao isnt near as good a fighter as Robinson no matter how you cut it, he`d make my top 10 if he beat those guys but better than Robinson ? **** no.

:thumbsup

 

No Ray Leonard today rooster ?

 

5 time champ when past his best + h2h (Lamotta version) beats any other MWT ever caught on film IMO.

 

Robinson was open to the jab.

There is no way any fighter open to the jab is anywhere near the best.

Robinson was an outstanding athelete, almost on the level of Roy Jones, but far less skilled than a Roy.

 

Stop posting **** please.

 

Yeah I think he was. As has been mentioned earlier the footage of him on film is extremely impressive, even though most of it is past prime. I think that the only other fighter who looks as good on film may be Pep. SRR had pretty much everything offensively. Not sure about his defence-it certainly wasn't bad but it wasn't atg defence. However I think as a package he was the greatest.

There are a list of maybe 6 fighters who are vying for the top spot and I wouldn't begrudge any person who puts them as number one. It is after all very subjective.

 

for me Robinson is number one.

 

"Langford again has too many losses at every stage of his career and hes been stopped. Yeah he fought all the way up to heavyweight, but he just wasn't as consistent as robinson. 91-0 and as amatuer and then 127-1-1 as a pro is downright scary."

One of the things that I find pretty impressive about Langforrd is that over a seven year stretch from October of 1906 thru October of 1913 he fought a total of 72 times, losing only two of those contests. One of those losses being a highly dissputed match against Sam McVey in Australia where the referee and sole judge (Snowy Baker) misinterpreted their rules against infighting and awarded to McVey, while the e Australian fans in attendance howled in disagreement, and the other a decision loss to Jim Flynn that he avenged a few months later. And we're not talking about a guy that was just fighting other men within his own weight class here, like a Sugar Ray Robinson, or a Willie Pep, we're talking about a guy who fought many much bigger men during that stretch, men like heavyweights Joe Jeanette (7 times), Sam McVey (7 times), Jim Barry (12 times), Sandy Ferguson, Al Kubiak, British heavyweight champion "Iron" Hague, Australian heavyweight champion Bill Lang, "Battling" Jim Johnson, Dan "Porky" Flynn, and John Lester Johnson to name a few. And sprinkled in for good measure were other men such as Young Peter Jackson, Larry Temple, Tony Ross, Morris Harris, the Dixie Kid, Stanley Ketchel, Jeff Clarke, and Jack O'Brien.

I'd be more impressed with some of these other fighters if they had routinely won over much taller and heavier fighters than themselves like Langford, and Harry Greb did.

 

I have Greb at n.1 based on his incredible record. His wins over so many top 100 p4p ATG's makes him stand out. He cleaned up the middleweight and light heavyweight divisions, with wins over guys who outweighed him by 30 lbs.

In 299 fights, he only lost 19 times, mostly by dubious decisions.