Micheal Nunn vs. Ray Robinson

It was quite obvious that's what you were doing, just as it was obvious to any intelligent person that I was doing it get a rise out of you, and it worked, as you once again responded to someone you claimed you wouldn't, just because he took you to school in a different debate.

He was 37 years old when he beat him the first time, and you're going to deny he was shot when they fought 4 years later? At least try to be objective instead of making ridiculous points like this that ruin the credibility of your argument.

Robbi's ego is what kept him out of a lot of fights, you'd know that if you knew anything about the man. That was just one of the flaws of a very flawed, yet brilliant man.

By the time he KO'd Fullmer at age 37, he was very obviously past his prime, only a simpleton such as yourself would think otherwise. The fact that he was still able to pick up wins against these fighters shows the type of fighter he was. The loss to Turpin was just that, a loss, just as Nunn's KO losses to Toney in his prime was a loss. He avenged the loss though, by brutal KO. Were you aware of that part? That goes hand in hand with my argument regarding Robbi's ability to figure an opponent out

 

As did Robinson(5 times) when outweighed by LaMotta. Not to mention, over 12, Robbi would've easily beaten Maxim just like the others.

 

Ah pea,such an arrogant,assuming,ignorant and unlearned little eighteen year old he is. Thinks hes smart and a boxing authority when he doesnt even know hes born yet.....
Anyone who has intelligence,boxing or otherwise feel free to answer in a logical unbiased way.....
Pea needs to get over himself,wonder if he can pass a mirror without lingering for an hour......,
Bottom line,robbie lost by stoppage to maxim.....

 

And you were just telling me about irony?

I summarized your last few statements.:good

 

Hes been proven wrong several times now and doesnt want to counter your points. Hes enjoying a good troll but I wouldn't continue debating with him any further.

If you want to bring SRR down, bring him down on who he didnt face - ie Burley, not when he lost 36++

Realistically Nunn is a tough match up for any MW, he was amazingly talented. You'd think SRRs versatility and many talents would find a way to time his shots and break Nunn down.

 

Selective quoting to prolong the myth.
Robbie was how old when losing to turpin? Fullmer first time? Maxim? Ralph jones?
Jones and fitzimmons both gave up stacks more weight than robbie v la motta.
Debating these young know it alls and general forum boys is like talking to christian fundies about the benefits of abortions.....
They think when they say 'i schooled you', or 'hes been disproven' that its an objective scientific fact....Guys of this ilk condemned galileo.
Oh well,glad these guys might actually grow up and realise their VIEWPOINT is not the bible....

 

It has allways been my opinion that no defensive-minded fighter beats Robinson, you would have to go to him, amd then your chances are slim. But seen as though this is not a prime Robinson and it is a prime Nunn,i give Nunn a chance at his very best, a superb boxer. but im taking Robinson on points.

 

I'm of the opinion Robinson was in his prime at MW (49-51), BUT didnt have as much size advantage at MW

 

Maybe he was very close to it, or maybe you're right? But the 147 Robinson was the best imo. As we know , if 154 was around he would be that division's finest

 

He was 30 against Turpin, which was the only bout of those mentioned where he was in his prime. Against the others, starting with Ralph Jones, he was over 34, which is the age Jones was KO'd even having been in far less bouts and wars, and facing far lesser opposition. Was Jones in his prime as well?

Fitz was a 167 pounder fighting guys around 190-200 pounds for the most part, aside from a few larger bums. Robinson was about 157 when facing the LHW Maxim. Not that big a difference.

So is everyone who has posted in this thread one of those, seeing as they all agree with me? It's the General Forum idiots that would think an overrated fighter like Nunn would beat Robinson because he's tall and slick. Don't delude yourself and become another slicksouthpaw16.

Again, you're saying the same of everyone else in this thread? Nunn looked great once, in a flash KO against Kalambay, otherwise he had a good deal of trouble with every other top fighter he faced, if he didn't lose. He had a big height advantage on Toney as well, and Toney was not used to pressuring, whereas Robinson has a bigger punch and is more adaptable, and you're condemning those picking him and calling them idiots? Get your **** straight man. Your only argument right now seems to be my age, and you're making an ass of yourself.

 

If Michael Nunn can't knock out Marlon Starling or takes 10 rounds to take out Curry, how's he gonna KO Robinson. I would take Sugar Ray by TKO 10th round. All that clowing Nunn did would be suicide with 31 year old Ray Robinson, he was faster than Nunn at that age.