I like to think of Robinson flowing the way water does without effort and totally efficient. The ring was his natural environment. His greatness is built around the fact that he was able to relate to the ring the way a beast of prey on the hunt would. He was able to do all that was necessary and often in a way that took your breath away like when a cheetah drags down a gazelle. His last couple rounds in the St Valentines day Massacre demonstrate what I mean. He never looked awkward or unable to lash out. He embodied a complete sense of presence and awareness in the ring. Perhaps his only weakness in the ring was his unwillingness to retire before his skills left him. I recall reading a Ring Magazine article (circa 63,64) about Robinson at 44 fighting in a minor league ball park for practically a hand full of dollars. A sad picture indeed. One can only imagine what was going through his mind.
Ray Robinson was and always will be the greatest boxer of all time. Easily. The number of consecutive victories he notched up against exceptional opposition was nothing short of staggering. He had power, speed and great footwork and balance. Even as a middleweight he had a lot going for him on his day. I never tire of watching footage of Robinson. How he managed to stop LaMotta, Fulmer, Turpin and Olson the way he did I don't know.
Come on. Harry Greb knocked up a record of 45-0 in one year, and don't go thinking he didn't fight anyone decent. Robinson was better over the long haul, but Henry Armstrong in three years went 59-1-1 (both blotches being controversial), winning the featherweight, lightweight and welterweight titles, making one defence at lightweight and eighteen at welterweight. You can say Robinson was a better fighter if you like, but there are two, three, maybe four fighters who can rival him for accomplishments.
I think it's more anti-Robinson Not that I dislike the man or even disregard his achievements, but he isn't necessarily the greatest. He might be, but there are several other legitimate challengers. I'd just like people to acknowledge them.
I would be interested in an analysis of Langford / Robinson. Robinson's talents are not in question. Langford I have read of using the same words to describe Robinson. Who is better? I don't know. Language is limiting. How do we go about judging those fighters we have only read about?
Well, that's an ongoing debate. How do you rate Harry Greb also, a fighter whose record cannot be ignored, but who we haven't seen in an actual fight? Langford is the main omission from my top ten list, I will need to revise it.