Robinson Was Dropped 10 Times In His Career!!

And I explained this? Did you read that?

I actually explained how Robinson fought more bums naturally because he had far more fights. In those days, certain tune up bouts were similar to sparring sessions today. Back then, you were fighting multiple times per month, traveling all over the place, etc. That was your training. You didn't train for a single fighter for months at a time and fight a couple times a year. That was each month. So naturally, you'll be fighting more bums, more tune ups, etc. What you still seem to misunderstand is the simple fact that Robinson beat FAR better(more quality, not just quanity, as I understand your argument when it comes to inflating records, it's the same one I use to rate Whitaker above Pep, difference being quality of opposition) opposition, regardless of number of fights, the fighters he beat were better.

And in that demanding schedule, a prime record of 128-1-2 is unbelievable. Do you realize that 15 of Robinson's 19 losses came AFTER the age of 35? A few of his KD's came when past his prime, a few came in his early days, but he always got back up to win. The circumstances of the fights have already been explained. Being that amazingly consistent in that era is just otherwordly, especially given the competition he faced.

TBooze is the king of the list on this forum, and according to one list he made, Robinson's career record against top 10 contenders and above was something in the neighborhood of 47 wins, X amount of losses, draws, etc. That is pretty amazing.

The difference between Mayweather ans Robinson, when equaling everything out with inflation, number of fights, etc is level of opposition and longevity. And obviously the manner in which they fought. If Robinson was in Mayweather's shoes, allowed to train consistently for each opponent, fighting minimal times per year, I can't even imagine how great he'd look every time out.

 

Was Gatti one of the ones you listed? I'll assume you're a Gatti fan to give you the benefit of the doubt, otherwise your whole "student of the game" bit loses even more credibility, as Gatti was at no point in his career above B level, and not even that against Floyd.

 

Same here; but think about this one: Al Bernstein's analysis or Teddy Atlas's analysis (he had a few amateur fights I believe).

 

We're talking boxing knowledge here, not analysis. Even so, I'll take my dog's analysis over George Foreman's any day of the week, and thrice on Sundays.

 

Would you take all the modern fighters over the classic fighters in these two cases? Mayweather/Robinson, Cotto/Gavilan.

 

No, I don't think that old=better, I think the argument for old fighters being inferior past a certain point is logical, but what you people don't realize is that every sport has peaks and valleys, in terms of success and in terms of talent, and boxing is most certainly at a valley in both categories right now.

Pre-30's and 40's, I agree the fighters were developing and the sport as a whole was honing its techniques. Past that point though, I don't see the differences on film between a guy like Gavilan and today's fighters. In fact, I'm more impressed with guys like Gavilan and Robinson than today's WW's by a long shot. The little I've seen of Willie Pep's prime brings more credibility to my position, as he looked fantastic. From that era to around the 80's I feel boxing was in a peak, and then gradually started to decline in terms of talent pool when the top athletes started going to other sports and the sport was thrust out of the limelight. The talent pool simply isn't as big as it used to be, nor is the interest in the sport to the mainstream.

 

this moron still got yall riled up?

 

As with sports, all the current fighters would destroy fighters of the past purely because of improved diet/fitness/training regimes.....

If you want to compare skill set, it's a different story, though I'd still favour todays fighters.

 

i always take into account that they wore like, 6 oz gloves back then? it makes a difference

 

Do you think fighters have improved vastly since the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s?

 

At 160? Robinson TKO 4 - For a guy that's been in the ring, I would thought you'd know a 160 lbs Robinson would destroy any version of Floyd including the one with the knuckle dusters.

Your points are pathetic - 15% of Floyd's record is an "ATG" - Robinson - % be damned - Fought more than double that. That's acheivement - Not %.

Floyd fights twice a year tops in his 10th year as a pro - Ray fought 11 times. In his 20th year as a pro he fought 6 fights. 14 fights in his last and 25th year in the ring.

How do you think Floyd would handle fighting at that frequency - Even is EVERY guy he did was a guy who walked off the street to become a pro boxer as you infer the majority of Robinsons ledger did?

With Floyd's hands do you think he'd even be able to fight 60 fights?

How do you think Floyd would go with Kelly Pavlik in 100 + degree heat - Do you think he'd be ahead like Robinson V Maxim? I don't.

15 round fights come into your equation?

Your analysis has more holes in it than Che Guevara after the CIA dobbed him into the police.