No, actually I think his chin/punch resistance was a less good than his defensive abilities. It would be impossible for him to have average-ish chin and average-ish defense at heavyweight and do what he did. It's not as if he was KOing everyone in one or two rounds. He had to stand there avoiding or absorbing HW blows. I have no need to jack up all his attributes. It is completely possibly for a fighter to be great while being average in a certain area. But I contend that at heavyweight, without a freakishly good IRON chin, you cannot compile the record of Joe Louis without brilliant defensive techniques. And I certainly don't rate Louis's chin as freak level. Anyway, I see Louis's defensive boxing skill on film. In some fights it's the only thing that keeps me watching, because his aggression is often lacking.
The best at what? The best at passing your checklist or the best at winning? Robinson was the best at winning fights vs. top level fighters. He was what 128-1-2 or something prior to the Turpin fight. The only loss was a close one to Lamotta (Robinson below the WW limit, Lamotta a MW at the time) who he beat about 100 times.
He can't be removed from the top five, but Robinson benefits on two accounts which make the process of evaluating a little bias: 1) Plenty of clean film survives of him. 2) He fought during a time which is generally considered to represent boxing's apex; 15 rounds and the offensive and defensive styles have remained largely unchanged. Expounding on the last point, even if healthy archives existed of men like Langford and Greb, Ted Spoon would venture that due to their estranged styles they would consequently lose out, as they don't fit in the chronological jigsaw as snugly as Ray does.
Fair enough:good. His durability is an issue with me as well, i don't rate it as bad at all, but i reckon it was a lot closer to "typical world class" than a substantial number of other greats.