Robinson vs. Jones: Who's better?

It was then or never. Gavilan was the clear-cut #1 contender in the division, Robinson was 29 and ready to make the move to Middleweight. And he probably could've, regarding the latter. If Gavilan hadn't gone to become his immediate successor to the welter crown and actually have a superior reign to Robinson's, it would be partly discredited now as well.

 

Ray is the greatest fighter, so what if posters believe that a bigger, modern fighter ****ing 50 years later can give him a go? No one could ever know.

It's just an opinion, and Ray will always have a case for the W regardless :good

 

Anywhere from 1-3

 

I agree, but the same also applies to Jones-Hopkins. With the difference that that victory (which probably was clearer than any of Robinson's over Gavilan) is constantly down-played. Jesus, I've seen idiots claiming here that Hopkins was no more than a contender quality-wise at that stage.

There are two differing standards here. Nothing new when involving one classic and one modern fighter, but still.

 

:rofl

You would've seen it here, though it was admittedly a counter to turbo's troll lite 2.0 Small particles of truth mixed in.

 

Nah, it wasn't you.

And I think it's hardly any truth to it. Hopkins had had as many pro fights and was at a more mature age. The difference in Jones' favour was mainly his greater amateur pedigree.

Robinson on the other hand was both at a more mature age and had had many more fights at the top level.

 

In the real world, for any fighter, results and competitiveness against the best fighters in the world is what counts, not what you (or anyone) thinks of their "skills on film".

 

:verysad

 

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=433746&page=18

#269. :good

The particle of truth was in reference to Hopkins not having been in the ring against another world rated opponent, but it wasn't as if Jones had already been thoroughly tested up to that point either. About on even terms really.

 

I never got why people acted like Hopkins had zero amateur pedigree? He had like 100 fights, you figure it would be semi-common knowledge around boxing boards but it really isn't.

 

I don't think anyone in history would be a favourite in my eyes to beat Robinson had they to weigh 160 or less come fight night.

 

In the real world, for any fighters, you compare defensive skills (of Fullmer and Malinga) based on film, and not based on a list of names they fought.

 

It's probably because of this "old-school" bull**** everyone wants to tag Hopkins with.

Have never understood it myself. His style resembles someone who has been well schooled in modern gyms, emphasising a disciplined high guard. He was experienced at the championship level after only some 30+ fights. Hardly the Archie Moore career path.

Later on in his career his style more and more emphasised dirty tricks instead of solid fundamentals. Perhaps this is the "old-school" bit everyone refers to?

 

Call me an idiot, but Hopkins was just a contender in 1993, wasn't he ?
A contender, good enough to contest the vacant IBF.
He wasn't a champion. Well, he held the USBA belt. No one was calling him the next big star, it was years before he was really considered an elite fighter. His record was mostly unremarkable up to then, and for some time after. Next time he got his chance at the IBF he didn't look too hot against Segundo Mercado and managed a draw only.

Robinson-Gavilan may be a similar case, so I'm not arguing against that point.