Sugar Ray Robinson Weakness?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by bman100, Jul 15, 2010.


  1. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
    Well, Angott was not a big man at 147, and Ray was simply able to hop forward repeatedly and impose himself. Whether that bold strategy would work against a bigger Welterweight like Leonard is entirely another question, IMO.
     
  2. Longhhorn71

    Longhhorn71 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,714
    3,475
    Jan 6, 2007
    Post 1940 Robinson was the best WW.

    Don't know that much about the old timers who were very good themselves.
     
  3. bman100

    bman100 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,795
    28
    Jan 6, 2010

    Robinson openly told the press that he was no longer at his peak in 1950 and he clearly understood what he was or was not capapable of through age.
     
  4. MRBILL

    MRBILL Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,116
    119
    Oct 9, 2008
    Odd at how you and I are the ONLY folks who see that...........:patsch Is it all that hard to figure??
    :roll:

    I love SRR!!!:good:yep

    MR.BILL:bbb
     
  5. PetethePrince

    PetethePrince Slick & Redheaded Full Member

    28,760
    86
    May 30, 2009
    The most well-rounded fighter ever, perhaps. Maybe Ezzard Charles can rival that, but once he killed a man he was passive and often criticized for being overtly cautious. He was smart enough to know that when he was gone he would be much more appreciated. Robinson could punch better, though. Charles was more technical.
     
  6. MRBILL

    MRBILL Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,116
    119
    Oct 9, 2008
    That's a "Gray" area with no real proof............ SRR is generally # 1 on MOST experts lists'.......
    :deal

    MR.BILL:bbb
     
  7. itrymariti

    itrymariti Cañas! Full Member

    13,728
    47
    Sep 6, 2008
    Ezzard Charles clearly outshines Robinson in terms of all-roundedness. Charles has the broadest skillset of any fighter I've ever seen. Robinson has more depth in certain areas, but the, ah, highest median standard belongs to Charles.

    Ray Leonard was also more complete IMO than Robinson.
     
  8. bman100

    bman100 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,795
    28
    Jan 6, 2010

    What? you said you thought he was still at his peak in 1951 against Lamotta.
     
  9. bman100

    bman100 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,795
    28
    Jan 6, 2010

    Leonard had some qualities that exceeded Robisons's skills but I odnt htink he was more a complete fighter, my opinion though.
     
  10. bman100

    bman100 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,795
    28
    Jan 6, 2010
    its quite possible as a welterweight he was not a great infighter and developed later on as a middleweight. Those of you on here that seen him as a welter as ringside, would you say infighting was his weakness?
     
  11. TheGreatA

    TheGreatA Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,241
    158
    Mar 4, 2009
    He could handle himself on the inside. Perhaps by mid 1900's standards his inside fighting ability wasn't up there with the very best of them, but we are talking about an era during which almost everyone could fight well in close. Even if he was outmatched in physical strength, for example against LaMotta and Fullmer, he would make them pay for trying to walk him down. He would also use the clinch effectively and with his footwork was rarely a stationary target except in later years.

    Good example of Robinson working the body punches, the uppercut and the clinch against the pressuring Bobo Olson:

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHyWmkph4lw[/ame]


    This was back when Olson could still take a punch, so it's a competitive fight. A rusty Robinson had to take it to Olson in the late rounds to pull off a win.