Robinson Was Dropped 10 Times In His Career!!

Diet? What affect will that have? Better stamina? Really? When fighters in the "primitive" era were fighting 15 rounds(and up to 40 in earlier days) and a guy like De La Hoya can't go 9 without gassing, the training regimens and diets sure do seem helpful, don't they?

As far as techniques, it depends on how far back you go. Around the 30's and 40's, I see no differences on film, and with guys like the already mentioned Robinson and Gavilan, only a total dunce would argue they are inferior athletically or physically in any way.

But as far as diets, training, etc, that is just laughable.

 

First and foremost.....Mayweather wouldn't hold up to the gruelling scedual of fights Robinson had. His brittle hands are proof of this. Case closed.

 

You don't think diet is important???

I'm debating with a cretin, bye.

 

So you'd agree with the following statement, I presume...

The welterweight division of the 1980s (Leonard, Hearns, Benitez, and Duran) is inferior to the current welterweight division (Mayweather, Mosley, Margarito, Cotto).

 

He made a valid point.

Today, we have nutritionists, diet specialists, and supplements to go along with it. But we see guys like De La Hoya, Hopkins, and Diaconu currently can't go 9 or 10 rounds without huffing and puffing, looking exhausted. And I'm not even talking about fat heavyweights like Samuel Peter and Shannon Briggs who can last about 6 minutes before getting sloppy.

Do these new diets really make that much of a difference?

I'd venture to say no, or at least not as much as you think. Look back to Henry Armstrong, Rocky Marciano, Joe Frazier, etc. Were their diets better than current elite fighters? No, probably not. They didn't balance out proteins, fats, and carbohydrates the perfect amount the way some current guys do with the aid of professionals. But that didn't prevent them from going 15 hard, throwing punches all the way to the end.

 

There are less fighters period because the sport has been in steady decline since the 50's.

Tyson was a purist - Trained using D'Aamato's techniques and styles built from history.

Holyfield was the first of the "modern" era in that he used technical modern equipment and adding weights etc to the otherwise isometric style training of traditional boxing.

Emanuel S doesn't like his fighters to do weights - He's old school too.

Having a better gym doesn't make you thirsty for battle like a young Duran or instill a cold calculating heart like a Monzon or give you any more condition than the whirlwind of a Henry Armstrong or Harry Greb.

 

Because I've seen Floyd on film, and I've seen Gavilan on film. Robinson beat Gavilan twice, I would bet the house on Gavilan beating Floyd. Not to mention, Robinson was the naturally bigger, more powerful fighter. And as for Floyd, if he was having trouble with Hatton's roughing tactics and was saved by the ref, how the hell's he gonna respond to Fritzie Zivic?

I don't see why you keep going on about his chin, but he's a very skilled fighter yes, but no question an overrated one. Cotto would beat him as it stands in the modern game, and I can name at least 25 fighters from 130-147 I'd have AT LEAST even money with him, if not favor over him.

Against Robinson's WW and MW competition? I hope you're not serious. I'll assume you mean the LW division of the day or something, as Mayweather would be creamed by a Gavilan or Robinson at WW.

Mayweather had better defense, that is it. He's more technical, Robinson was far more powerful, threw far better combinations, was a better body puncher, etc.

What would Floyd do? Would he outmaneuver Sugar Ray Robinson like he did someone like Hatton? Is that what you're suggesting? It's hard to pot-shot someone's who's defense is his incredible offense and has every physical advantage over you.

 

To the maker of this thread...



















Shut the **** Up!!!

 

So answer what I said, why were fighters of that era avle to go 15 rounds and 20 rounds and more, when some of today's best fighters are notorious for gassing pre 8th round, etc? Why?

Seriously, exercise and stamina training have to do with it, diet might give you more protein, etc, but in the end, what the **** does it really do? Running is running in any era, which is why Marciano was able to go 15 hard rounds non-stop. Watch someone like Armstrong as well, they got stronger as the fight progressed and never stopped coming. You're going to tell me their stamina and physical ability was inferior due to having a slightly lesser percentage of protein in their diet?

If you're so confident in your case, refute my points.

 

all in all some one could say fighters from the by gone era are tougher then today. as they had to do more phyical work Ie chopp wood, dig ditches, they were naturally stronger they were steak and potatoes types of guys all they ate was protein. not to mention there training routing was rigorus. they guy fought often soemtimes every 2 weeks. (just so you know the best traing is an actuall fight or sparing) they had better stamina and seem to fight through excrushiating pain name a fighter thats has recenly fought with there nose spilt in half . they also had more desire due to there enviorment there for were hungrier and more dedicated. also not a fragile as most of today fighters . these old fighters were extreamly strong . and belived in a loss being a learning expirence. they mostly fought who ever and for the most part had to earn there shot at the title. i could go on and on. but all in all PBF is a great fight and the reason why SRR is P$P great is due to his accomplushments. not to mention he didn't lose most of his fights untill the taill end of his career thats where ost of those 19 l came from all in all SRR achieved more then PBF ad at 147 was unbeaten and was unbeaten for about 120 fight s or so. of course a fighter can come along and be greater then him but H2H PBF loses. on accomplishment SRR also gots him beat as he was also effective at higher weigth jsut like pbf although they started at different weights. put that together with his combo of speed and power along with skills and experience . the stykle you see today or even from ALI stems from SRR.

one last question im a big PBF fan but did SRR ever go down because of hand pains ?

SRR was just a tougher fighter

 

Not one single WW today would beat any of the top WW's of the 80's. We're not arguing nutrition here, we're arguing what's right in front of our eyes. For someone to choose any of them over Hearns, Leonard, Benitez, and Duran shows a simple lack of boxing knowledge and analytical ability.

 

You remind me of a dribbling idiot I saw at the bus stop picking his nose.

A level, ATG - whatever - That's still double Floyds.

Floyd would compete fine - He's not a **** fighter by any stretch of the imagination - No one said that or would.

Floyd can spar all day - Again - For a fighter - You know the difference between sparring rounds and fighting rounds - a WORLD of difference - Floyd's NEVER fought 15 rounds - Robinson DID - Without any of the training/suplements etc - Your logic has to work both ways.

If Floyd can go back and perform at the same level, what does modern science bring to the table for Robinson?

I think Robinson was a superior athlete to Floyd because he had a finishers mentality and hungrier for battle than Floyd. Floyd's style of letting the opponent dictate the first 4-5 rounds before taking over would put him in deep **** with Robinson who would happily fight Floyd with not only slick skills, but the kind of accurate pressure Floyd just doesn't have the answer for.

Floyd is a good fighter, he's just not capable of beating Robinson in my view, everything Floyd does, Robinson does better.