What Fighters would be a favourite over Ray Robinson at 160??

A bit of irony Manassa..to elaborate, yes, he was somewhat less "talented" than some, with a somewhat "ugly" style, but he compensated for it by haveing a first class ring intelligence and other intangibles, like Marciano, Ali, etc., something on the ball too be able to beat evry one of his challengers and retire with a 100-3-9 record, and never stopped..

 

Give it a rest, already. Barkley wasn't in the same league as Robinson. Not even close.

I think I'll leave you alone with your fantasies now.

 

What does Leonard have to do with Hagler/Duran? I was pulling for Duran against Hagler, but he didn't win that fight. I'm a fan of all the Four Kings. Make it 5 and add Benitez too.

 

He looked as motivated and methodical as he had ever had IMO, and wasn't discernably worse than vs. Cerdan for instance, doing some cute defensive work among other things.

Well, Lamotta had supposedly been weight draining for quite some time. He even fought as a Light Heavy in the amateurs. Perhaps he was in a worse state for Robinson VI; perhaps he wasn't. (Perhaps not out-weighing his man by the best part of a stone took its toll. ) And it's hardly surprising he moved up given that he lost his title.

I agree that Lamotta won several of the early/mid rounds, so it wasn't a schooling in the sense that Hopkins/Pavlik was; but in terms of the topology of the fight and the result it was a dismantling, a schooling. Robinson knew exactly what he had to do and took him apart, and after nine or ten rounds it was clear that Lamotta was just going to get put away messily.

Looks pretty brutal to me. He nearly smashes his head off.

It was contested for a world title, they had plenty of preparation time, bigger purses etc.

 

not quite sure what but you've clearly got an agenda discrediting Duran's victories. If the decision had been given rightfully(in my eyes and many others) to Duran instead of Hagler there would be no question that he is the GOAT. Funny how a recorded W overrides the visual evidence.

 

Clearly not a troll.

 

Lamotta did give him hell and took a victory and pushed Robinson to the wire in two other contests, one, at least, being very controversial.

Also both men were further away from their primes in the last fight than in any other bouts they had IMO. Surely this makes it less significant.

When you say he was sloppy technically, you really mean fundamentally. Technically he is very good.

You have solid judgement. Tiger always upped his game against greats or better fighters, he had that intensity in his game.

 

Monzon could give him all the hell he could ask for.

 

By Walker's own account, he weighed 158 pounds when in peak condition, as he was when a self inflicted injury postponed the original date of his showdown with Schmeling. (He didn't worry about weight, just went all out in training, and 158 just happened to be the weight he wound up at.) The Walker of Milligan and Berlenbach would have been a handful for Robby, and maybe, just maybe, a close favorite, in a match which might be a facsimile of Loughran-Walker. (Tommy was heavier than Ray, but had the same height and reach.)

 

I think a lot of middleweights could beat SRR, from Freddie Steele to possible Zale to Britain's McAvoy and Gilroy to Thil & Cerdan, the Black Murderers Row, to Burley and more I'm sure.

All of these great middles could beat him, but SRR could also beat them. Their all top draw from the greatest overall period in boxing and especially for middleweights!

and like I said more yet, but again so could/would Ray beat them too!

 

He had trouble with such middleweights as I described even when IN his prime. Mims and Abrams are two perfect examples.

 

personally, i think Abrams would be tough for anyone especially nowadays, he was a great fighter, but yeah there was a lot of jeering from the crowd when Sugar got the decision, or so ive read.

Our very own john garfield was at that bout i beleive, i wonder how he scored it..

 

I think that was precisely what my post said.

Gpater, Monzon was not good technically nor fundamentally, with the emphasis on 'for a champion of such acclaim.' I think what's overlooked is how much of a physical force you'd have to deal with; Monzon was a ruffian disguised by a long frame. Technical skills as in Duran's head turning from punches or Moore's feinting that would tie you up in knots, or Napoles' angles, they were not present in Monzon and neither was the poise and tightness of an Arguello or Louis. His intelligence was, aside from being totally unflappable, a natural sense of distance, timing and pacing. His physical prowess was strength, stamina, durability, height, and homing missiles for fists. I see Monzon as a fighter comprising not of an inventory of methods, but as a selection of indomitable traits.

 

Hard for me to be impartial, b, SRR was my idol, givin' me boxing tips 'n encouragement. I thought he earned the nods against Abrams 'n Bell, but many in the crowd didn't.

The fans just scrapin' by in life wanted to see Sugar -- with the world at his feet -- brought down a peg.

 

They would have been against superior competition.

Ali actually had the reflexes to pull that kind of style off, though. That said, he might never have lost to Frazier if he'd developed a more technically rounded, Ray Leonard-esque style.

So yes: Technical issues do hold you back.