Pound for pound greater fighter: Robinson or Charles

Charles fought better opposition, defeated better opposition and did so over a greater range of weights .. Charles and Sam Langford are my two all time top pound for pound fighters ..

There was no reason for Ray to take the risk to give up fifteen or sixteen pounds and fight Charles but he had no problem doing so against LaMotta .. as I've written all along, Ray was very smart.

There is no doubt that Ray was an exceptional fighter but to a tiny degree he prospers from the same symptom as Ali and that is repetition .. Ali called himself the greatest and the fastest forever and people began to take it as undisputed fact .. of course Ali was great bt study his career and see many fights he could have lost, performances where he looked shitty ect .. and Floyd Patterson clearly had faster hands .. Tunney may have as well ..

 

As you know, there's already the really interesting thread you started about Robinson's exalted status with some very solid refutations of your argument that Robinson took an easier road than his contemporaries and that he should have fought Charles.

I'm not sure why you're arguing so hard against Robinson's status as the greatest of all time but that's not for one second suggesting that Charles wasn't one of the greatest. He's in my p4p top 10. But Robinson's dues as the greatest of all time are well earned.

 

Someone else started this thread , not I .. this is a direct comparison between the two fighters and and I responded. If the board rules were structured to prohibit jumping repetitive threads the traffic here would drop by about 90% . The thread I started was never a direct question if Ray was the all time greatest but if he would have started his career 120 - 1 under a level playing field. It has pretty much been established by common sense that favored nation status and exceptional talent combined in his success. Here I was hoping to see other posters add value rather than invest time going round and round with one or two of usual suspects that I disagree with philosophically as nothing gets accomplished and I find the option of trading snarky tones both boring and a waste of my time. BTW, would like to hear a more detailed opinion on either thread from you if you feel motivated. Thanks.

 

No offense meant and I take your point, although I think I've detailed my view regarding Robinson's record in the other thread pretty clearly.

In terms of this one, I don't consider Charles greater than Robinson but I do consider Charles one of the greatest p4p fighters ever and certainly top 10. He deserves to be considered the no. 1 light heavyweight in history and is certainly a top 20 heavyweight and in the lower half of that 20 as well. I think he had all the tools: speed, finesse and power and had he been given the title opportunities he deserved by the mid-40s, he probably would have reigned as middleweight and light heavyweight champ too.

Robinson, to my mind, is the greatest welterweight of all time and at that weight, as close to unbeatable as any fighter has ever been. He also has a decent argument for the no. 1 spot at middleweight too but at absolute worst can be considered no lower than no. 5. He didn't win the light heavy title but that's about the only mark against him.

Along with Willie Pep, I think Robinson and Charles were the greatest fighters of the 1940s and I consider the 40s to be one of boxing's greatest eras. But Robinson just edges it over both of those fighters in an all-time p4p list in my view.

 

Charles has an unbelievable resume. His record speaks for itself. He was effective. Perhaps he wasn't a spectacular performer that captured the imagination the way some others did. Don't know if the Baroudi fight changed his mentality or robbed him of his tenacity a little. Sugar Ray was the definition of spectacular. The lightening speed, the two handed power and the footwork. He was Jazz.
If they had met in a hypothetical P4P match Robinson would have most of the physical advantages, speed, power and even agility, but not by that much. Charles could match him in skills and ring IQ. My suspicion is that it may be somewhat of a chess match rather than a barnburner. Think Hopkins/Jones.

I would lean towards Robinson to win a decision but if they had a series I'm pretty suure Charles wins 1. At the end of the day they were both winners who belong at the very pinnacle of the sport.

 

Great thoughts .. I tuned out the previous thread but will circle back. Thanks.

 

Don't disagree with a lot of what you said here, but imo Charles certainly would've had more power had they met when the time frame was right for them to fight. I also believe Charles would've beaten SRR had they actually met. I believe that would've been a bridge too far for him

 

When people start matching SRR with Charles, 20 pounds on him and fighting 2 divisions North .. That clearly tells me how great SRR really was ..Hands down the greatest p4p ever

 

agreed. I was doing a P4P matchup based on them being the same size. In reality Ezzard Charles was the bigger man.