Ray Robinson was the greatest. I've never been crazy about the man. I've never denied his talents but I've always set out to put others above him, and though I always thought I was reasonable and objective in doing that, maybe I've sold Robinson short in the past. Don't get me wrong - I don't think he's the most accomplished fighter in history - the top two spaces on my pound-for-pound list belong to Harry Greb and Henry Armstrong. But for overall fighting ability, you can't go wrong with Robinson. I've always taken an automatic dislike... No, not dislike, more of a mild disdain, towards anyone rating him #1 who I deemed was not educated enough on the sport. Now I've realised that perhaps they were right all along, and that I should save my disdain only for the people who rate Muhammad Ali #2 (or are they right about that also? No, never). So now I think I'm ready to say... Okay, Robinson was the best ever. Objectively, I can't see it any other way. There are fighters on the same level but I think if there was only one choice... Willie Pep was a better boxer. But he lacked Robinson's durability and punching power. Roberto Duran was a greater inside fighter, but lacked the range and possibly heart. Ezzard Charles again was a better inside fighter but Robinson was slightly better in every other way. Jose Napoles was at times hittable and wasn't as speedy as Robinson. Carlos Monzon was a king, but you could pick many technical holes in his methods. I think that holding a natural aversion to Robinson means I've probably looked over much of his footage in the wrong way. Though acknowledging of his greatness before, I never really studied him properly. Looking back, I see shoulder rolls, slipping, ducking, feinting - all very quickly - accurate jabbing, effortless footwork and a natural aptitude for punching that's just extraordinary. Throwing shots going backwards, forwards, to the sides... Turning an opponent, doubling or tripling up on the same punch, hitting and blocking simultaneously and using every punch from all angles... It's all there. Pretty much every technique in boxing. I did know this, it just needed refreshment. I think a lot of people might be thinking like this. So an honest question, expecting an honest answer; is there anyone else who you consider to be the best ever apart from Robinson?
He was the best who has a genuine shot at also being the greatest. He's as good a fighter to name the best as anyone I can think of. The combination of the two makes him the best by default. Of the filmed guys i've seen, I think you could make a case for Duran Ali Louis Armstrong And someone is going to come in here and say Gomez in a minute As having a case.
Armstrong is always difficult to rate. It's actually very easy to pick a handful of fighters to beat him; Duran, Williams, Saddler, Pep, Napoles, Gavilan, Robinson and so on. Take him at 130lbs and that list narrows right down, however, I still see him as one of the more vulnerable of the elite crop, just owing to how hittable he looked on film. On the other hand, how the hell can you deny a man who has accomplishments like that? He was obviously enough of a monster to steamroll three divisions in the late '30s, and he'd probably steamroll many a great fighter who appears tidier on film. Louis, to me, was on a Hagler level - very, very good, but a notch below. But then I'm not big on heavyweights, they are generally uncoordinated and ugly.
Louis had too many flaws on defense to rank that highly in this most elite of lists. I really don't think another compares to Robinson. Like the TS stated, there were others who had there stuff that they did better. Duran with his inside fighting, Pep with his pure stick and move, etc. But NOBODY put it all together, pure balanced boxer puncher at the level Robinson operated. Pep could be manhandled. Duran was actually outboxed quite a few times. Armstrong wasn't the toughest target on earth. Robinson is in the favorite against any style, any man at his best. He could do it all, and do it fast with one-hitter quitter type power. He was as close to a perfect fighter as we've yet seen. All the gifts AND all the tools.
I would say yes. In a sport that involves punching your opponent, no one was better at this than Louis. In terms of aesthetics alone, the best puncher I've ever seen. Would love to hear your no doubt highly informative reasoning as to why you don't agree.
There was a quote by a historian that went something like this. "If God could mold the greatest fighter, he would've molded Ray Robinson. He had speed, power, could take a punch, could box, could punch, had good defense, had finesse. He had it all." I'm sure I butchered the quote, but it went something like that. I tend to agree, not that Robinson was perfect. But that Robinson was the closest thing to being a perfect fighter that you could be. Robinson is the ideal fighter. From top to bottom, more so than any other fighter. It can't not be recognized.
see it's the punching aesthetics thing that is often made too much of Flea imo. Sure he threw great looking textbook punches, but so have many, many other fighters throughout the decades.Granted not nearly as much, when you factor the top-notch power in, but still it's not what i feel should be paramount in assessing a boxer-puncher. I watch Louis and see someone with little versatility in their offensive approach, someone as potentially confined by their emphasis on textbook punching as they are efficient at it.Think of it as the other side of the Marciano coin, where we are talking punching approach and how it ties into ring-generalship. Add to that i find him lacking in raw physical ability compared to a lot of the other top Heavyweights, plus question his durability more than most as well. He's just not someone who comes to mind as soon as a number of others when i think about the best fighter in the history of the sport. Don't get me wrong though, he's an overall all-time great fighter and deservedly rated among the top-tier of his weightclass. In that way i think similarly of him as i do of Canto at Flyweight...the combo of great championship run against a number of solid fighters, plus undoubted ability means he has to rate very high, even if i have substantial doubts about how he would fare against most of the other top-level types(and some borderline guys as well). When i watch other great boxer-punchers like Robinson, Duran, Sibson, Napoles, Monzon to mention a few...i can see them thinking in there a lot more than i do with Joe. Don't let that **** McGrain fool you on Louis, he's just got a hard on for guys that never throw while out of their proper boxing-stance or deviate from the textbook form.
M,I don't understand your logic. On one hand you post that you now regard Ray Robinson[ best fighter I saw in prime],as the greatest fighter all-time,and on the other hand you state Harry Greb and Henry Armstrong were better "P4P fighters". A contradiction,this is... If you choose Harry Greb and Hammering Hank as better P4P fighters, how do you then say Robinson was the "greatest" ? I myself, think that Benny Leonard[was as highly regarded],and Ray Robinson,BOTH were the best ALL AROUND fighters ever,in their all around abilities. Perfect fighters. But a Harry Greb,a Bob Fitzimmons, a Sam Langford,transcended their weight classes throughout their careers,taking on everyone, ducking no one and beating just about every weight fighters, in their careers. I loved Sugar Ray Robinson,who I saw as a WW. A marvel to see. But as a middleweight,he NEVER took on top lightheavyweights as Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Harold Johnson, Lloyd Marshall,etc. He once took on a light punching Joey Maxim,who truly did not hit any harder than some middleweights of his time,and Robinson knew this.He avoided the much stronger LHs of his time,for good reason, Ray knew his limitations. Harry Greb, Fitz, Langford fought anyone, because they were fearless, and though not as beautiful to watch as Ray Robinson, had UNIQUE qualities that Robinson didn't have. So yes Robbie was the best all-around fighter ever along with Benny Leonard, but Fitz, Langford, Greb,Armstrong were tops for me...Cheers.
Greb and Armstrong accomplished more. More wins over rated fighters, 45-0 in one year (Greb) going 59-1-1 over three (Armstrong), defending the welterweight title eighteen times (Armstrong), beating lots of greats multiple times (Greb) and so on... Robinson's not far behind. Now Robinson I'll rate as the best of all time when talking about ability or head-to-head matchups. From the film we have, he consistently rates high in every aspect of the game, from tactical awareness, recovery ability, speed, combination punching, everything. He was seamless in defence and offence and glided across the ring.