Many people consider Sugar Ray Robinson the GOAT...

Why do you say that?

 

Sure the sport has evolved in certain respects. The fighters today are almost certainly physically stronger and in better condition. The trainer and boxers today have over 100 years of boxing history to learn from.

On the other hand, today's fighter's fight maybe 3 times a year. There is a lot less wear and tear on their bodies. Joe is a 40+ fight 'veteran.' Ray had 201 fights. Joe has had ample time between fights to mentally and physically recover between bouts. Most fighter of the 40's just never had such a luxury.
So when we see a Ray Robinson on film, we must take into account this is a Robinson who has had well over 100 fights. A Robinson that probably also fought only 2 or 3 months before.
Squash another 100 fights into Joe's record and he'd look more than a little jaded.

That's not to say Robinson looks bad on film. I think he looks great, especially taking into account the circumstances. (Age, wear and tear, quality of opponent etc.)
See, it's easy to look like a destroyer when the quality of opposition just isn't that great, and even Calzhage's most ardent fans cannot deny that for the most part, his opposition has been remarkably soft for such a long-standing champion.
That's the thing today - because of the proliferation of titles, a champion can easily go his whole career without fighting the best (ie. other champions) in his weight class.
Calzhage is fighting Kessler only now, but in the 40's these two would have probably squared off before even fighting for the title. Back then, top fighters actually fought each other, and not only in title fights.

I realise it must be quite frustrating as a Calzhage fan to realise he'll never get (in their eyes) his just due. Well, you reap what you sow. If you hide away from the boxing limelight and fight softies for the majority of your career, that's bound to happen.

 

I won't dispute that Robinson looked average sometimes. After all, having so many fights it's bound too happen. Thing is, when he needed to be great, he was.
Also, 99% of footage of Rayrob was at middleweight were he was a 100+ fight veteran.
More's the pity we don't see much footage of the welterweight version.

One thing we all do on occasion is expect these ring immortals to look great ALL the time. I don't think there has been a fighter in history that has looked fantastic all the time.

In part, I agree.
I don't dispute a Robinson now would be a better fighter overall for the points made earlier.
We must also bare in mind the pretty much worst-kept secret in sports: the use of ahem, chemical agents.

On the other hand, the guys back then never got out of shape much. They never really had a chance to. Experience as they say, is also a great teacher and most of the contenders back then were vastly experienced campaigners by the time they got a title shot.

So, while I do see your point and in some ways agree, I think you're also being a bit harsh on some of the old-timers and the circumstances back then.

 

Joe Calzaghe is a highly overrated, brittle boned, slapper. He wouldn't even have beaten a number of previous UK fighters such as prime Benn, Eubank and Watson. Let alone world class opposition such as prime Jones, Toney and Hopkins. Even Nunn would have soundly outpointed Calzaghe.

 

Nope not all Americans are world class, but Toney, RJJ and Hopkins are superior to Eubank, Benn and Watson.

Robin Reid couldn't even imagine beating Toney unless he happended to be having a wet dream.

 

The only great fighters to Hail from the UK were:

Ken Buchanan
Lennox Lewis (unless you class him as Canadian)
Jimmy Wilde
Lloyd Honeyghan
Randy Turpin


Those who had the talent & could have been great but didn't quite make it were:

Howard Winston
Nigel Benn
Naseem hamed
John Conteh
Chris Eubank

The rest who were any good can be tentatively summarised under the category of 'game loser'. That may be harsh but I'm afraid thats the truth.

 

Nobody will be talking about Veit like that in 50 years though. Records can be very decieving, sure, but generally people know which records are strong and which aren't. On paper, just the numbers alone, Veit has a better record than someone like Bert Cooper. Cooper was the better fighter and beat better opposition, and therefore a win over Cooper is worth more than a win over Veit.

In reality, not many people just look at the numbers. Armstrong has legitimately great fighters on his record. Veit doesn't. Despite them both having good records, there is a vast difference in the quality of opposition faced.

Veit is just another guy with a padded record. In 50 years he won't be looked upon like Armstrong. He'll probably be rated be like Sven Ottke. Good record but one which does his talent more justice than it's worth.

 

I suppose there could be an argument for hatton but I didn't put Hatton in there because his career is not yet over and he could yet still be a great (in the unlikley event he beats Mayweather).

Calzaghe, on the other hand will never be great or anywhere near it.

 

ted 'kid' lewis? bob fitzsimmons? alan minter? freddie mills? jim driscoll?

 

I Left Bob fitzsimmons out for one reason. I have a problem with any white "World Heavyweight Champion" before Tommy Burns. As they all refused to match their skills against worthy black opponents, who were in many cases superior fighters. That is not a racist comment it's the truth as I see it.

 

Jones would've been too much for him I agree.Watson and Benn would've been competitve but I see Joe winning. Eubank(prime),Toney and Hopkins...well they're very interesting and its a shame we didn't see them happen.Those four are very even in talent(but not achievement obviously).

Whereas there are some posters who highly overate JC, I think your doing the opposite.