Most Beautiful Boxer to watch ever?

Although Robinson's middleweight tenure was spotty, the Lamotta footage is pretty unbelievable IMHO. You can certainly witness many of the elements that come from the literature-he was near his peak, although many were saying he was past his "best" as far back vs. Gavilan. It's as GOOD as anything I've seen through the years from any fighter.

 

Well put and so very true.

 

Stick to the Lounge. I know nobody gives a rat's ass about your moaning BS about your girl problems(a.k.a. Bubba problems) and your "hood", but that's no reason to infect this forum with your bull****.

 

Regina Halmich :-D

 

Benitez.

 

If anyone deserved to be called "Sugar," it was Robinson. He was like runnin' your hand over silk in the '40s.

 

At the Boston Garden, when Larry Bird retired, they retired his number with him (#33). I for one have done the same with "Sugar"... there was only one Sugar Ray.

Ray Leonard is Ray Leonard.
Shane Mosley is Shane Mosley.
Walker Smith Jr. is Sugar Ray Robinson.

 

Hahaha, and that's a damn fair call too IMO.

 

Whitaker beating those fighters you listed, nope. Duran at lightweight, yes. But not SRR or SRL at welterweight.

 

I'm glad you can still hold onto some things as non-relative. My studies in philosophy have shaken my beliefs in most things, at least so far as certainty goes and the ability for reasoning to found truths.

But sticking to the point: do you find Pep being a more beautiful boxer to watch than Pea a matter of taste or intellect? I would like to hear the intellectual arguments for it. I don't think saying Pea has a big butt and spindly arms is all that relevant a reason, mind you, unless of course you're using what a fighter looks like, as opposed to how they fight, as a criterion for who is beautiful to watch. If you are, then we have a disagreement about criteria. Which is really an argument about ultimate foundations i.e. what counts as beauty?

 

There seems to be a certain anarchy of thought that is the bedfellow of relativism. I don't know where you are writing from but here in the U.S the results of the culture's lurching toward this mode of thought over the past 4 or 5 decades is a root cause of many societal ills.

We were better off when the bastions of moral authority were upheld instead of attacked and there were objective standards of right and wrong instead of this "I'm OK, you're OK" nonsense. Then we have the problem of letting the 1st amendment run amok. Our baser instincts are not only given free reign but those who indulge it command the rest of us to 'respect' their indulgences. But we go further. We make celebrities out of them.

The devolution shows. Freedom without responsibility (and that demands a certainty, not an anarchy, of thought) is licentiousness... and the only "absolute" Americans uphold is their absolute right to do whatever they want according to their own underdeveloped conscience.

On to the next item: Pea's big butt and funny build are objective facts. I'm kidding -the whole point of that statement is to illustrate the absurd of a given subjective opinion. Pep simply seemed to me to be more graceful and fluid in his movements. Perhaps I am simply responding to my regard for Pep's casual flare in his performances -he did it with such nonchalance that I find it charming. Pea came off as a smirking show-off. His jumping up on every ring post even when people were booing annoyed me.

Or, alternatively, my preference may simply be due to Pea's southpaw position which I found distracting. I've always believed that we should get Spartan with southpaws: gather them up and hurl them over cliffs en masse. They do everything backwards and therefore have forfeited their right to live. We should hurl them over cliffs and then torture their corpses and gibbet them as examples to all aspiring boxers. That's just my opinion. But that opinion is no less valuable than anyone else's, right?

 

Well said.:good

 

:?