Robinson Was Dropped 10 Times In His Career!!

Heres a giant wrench in this idiots theory. . . Robinson wasnt a fukcin COWARD. hahahaha

 

I'm not sure I can be that optimistic.

Obviously the fighter would need to be a special talent. But the way that caliber of modern boxer is paid in today's age, the incentive to prove greatness, not just talk about who you would beat but to actually prove it in the ring, would have to come from within the fighter himself. And then even if he had the kind of "fighting heart" you mention, his promoter, his advisors, his entourage, and even a large number of his fans, would not understand why he would want to fight six, seven, eight times a year, or even see the value in his accomplishments. "Of course Mayweather beats Margarito" and "Of course he beats Clottey". Guess what? Ray Robinson actually DID beat those kinds of "B level" fighters, and multiple times in many cases.

I was reading today that Yogi Berra played in the World Series in 14 of his 18 seasons in the major leagues. Is this a record that will never be broken? It probably is. Does it make him the best catcher ever? Maybe and maybe not. But baseball is a team sport, and the record is also dependent on things like the growth of league parity, salary caps, increased talent, and so on. When you get down to it, the boxing business has changed dramatically, and the number of belts has proliferated, but the game itself, what you can do with your hands to another man inside of three minute stanzas, really hasn't. This is why insane records like Ray Robinson's are still completely relevant.

The next truly great fighter, as in without question, top five or ten all-time, may have to be selfless on top of being driven and unearthly talented. And there might be no one left to appreciate the quality.

 

Southpaw1974, it's hard for people to diminish legends of yesteryears. They will take their accomplishments into centuries beyond the evolution of sports, and still think that they are the best ever.

Robinson is rightly envisioned as a great fighter of his time, fought often with only days or weeks between fights. It was a different time, and different measures. It's also safe to say he fought over a hundred C-lvl fighters - this is what they did back then. They could take on a debutant right after they had faced a HOF'er, or a bar brawler for that matter.

One should acknowledge that despite that such a fair share of his fights were as such, it is still a testament that his body could endure so many fights with so little recouperating time.

Mayweather is also a phenom, but unlike Robinson, Sugar Ray Leonard, Duran and other legends - he has avoided a fair share of fights to cement himself in the same breath as the other legends - even if he has/had the ability to do so.

 

Southpaw, I already responded to too many of your posts and you decided to respond to other posters rather than trying out the points I made. You then just made a long ass post reinforcing all the points I've already disproven. In case you didn't know, that didn't do anything for your case.

You

This content is protected

 

atsch

 

Robinson's chin was far better and more proven. Getting knocked down by MW's when past his prime is just slightly different than fighting B level fighters at lower weights.

 

You're putting too much effort into this to not be sincere, but at the same time, you're making very little effort to be rational.

Floyd has not fought six "A level" opponents, certainly not in any all-time sense, and just barely in the context of his own era. You simply cannot argue this point as a "student of the game." His only remotely "A level" wins are Hatton and De La Hoya, and one was in the wrong weight class while the other was painfully past prime.

Floyd himself called Gatti a "C level" fighter. JLC isn't in most people's top 15 all time at 135. Hernandez was on his last legs. Corrales was a weight-drained warrior with glaring flaws. He was not "A level" in any historical sense.

People are not taking you seriously, and are not responding seriously, because your logic is hopelessly flawed. It has absolutely nothing to do with "hating" on Floyd or being in love with Sugar. You're not convincing us that your points are valid, and the longer you ignore the sense our points make, the worse you look.

 

This does absolutely nothing to enhance your argument. Doesn't improve your credibility either.

Whether you've boxed or not doesn't determine a person's ability to analyze fighter's careers, analyze film, and draw educated conclusions. Personally, I had upwards of 45 amateur fights. Am I the smartest poster on ESB? No, not by a long shot. There are posters who haven't set foot in the ring that know a great deal more than myself.