What would a fighter in modern times have to do to topple SRR?

There's nothing new with the ABC political nature of boxing. In the 1910s-1920s 2 of the best HWs in the world. From 1919-1926 Dempsey didn't make matches with 3 of the best contenders of his era for whatever reason. In the 1940s the great fighters from the Murderers Row didn't get their title shots, while Zale fought weak opposition. Fight fixing was massive from the 1930s-1960s. In the 1960s Napoles couldnt get a title shot in his optimum weight classes. In the 1980s, Duran is celebrated to this day for beating the weakest ABC titlist. In the 1990s Lennox Lewis couldn't get a title shot at the American champions

 

For a start, Sugar Ray Robinson will never be the pound for pound best, while Bob Fitzsimmons is considered eligible. But that is another story.

For a modern boxer to beat him, i think that they would need to have a virtual unbeaten career, simply because of the way things fall into place. I think they will need to clear out at least two divisions, and by this i mean unify those divistions as well as beat at least one alphabet champion (the major one) in the divisions in between. A loss or two may be tolerated in the later stages of their career, but only if it is avenged. At the moment, I see Pacquia as the only guy with a chance to replicate (and maybe Mayweather I suppose) but both would have to score some massive wins still in coming years. I cant see it happening.
With regards to Leonard, I think he would have needed to do the following:
Defeat Duran, Rematch and beat Hagler, (preferably with one of these fights being a little earlier), Find a way to come back and beat Norris. Fight and beat a true light heavyweight champion. Maybe someone like Virgil hill or Jeff Harding would have been enough. I actually think that if he did all those things, (which he nearly did) he would have been very, very close.

Duran is another one. If had won Leonard II, Benitez, Hagler and Hearns things he would have gone very close to beating Robinson.

 

The difference is that the problem was clear, and CONSIDERED an issue for what it was.
Dempsey was the champion and failed to meet his leading contender - there the issue s clear, the concept of championship and contendership is MEANINGFUL.
Same with the black murderous row - top contenders acknowledged as such and avoided by the champions, clear and meaningful.

It's completely different today, 3 or 4 or more champions in 16 weight divisions, and stripping and vacancies, have become THE NORM, to the point where most title fights are utterly meaningless.

I don't know if fight fixing was more common in the 30s to 60s than it is now. I'd need to see evidence.

Again, contenders being ducked by champions means something, it's not good at all but at least we can cast judgement on it and see what it is.
Nowadays the structure is such a mess the meaning and value has disappeared.

As for Lennox Lewis, I think he got some pretty good treatment throughout his career from the WBC during his career.

 

1. Well isn't that the case now, given, Mayweather has almost been hounded out of the country for not facing Pacquaio. Haye is considered a joke for not facing the Klits. HBO typically demands the best fight each other, as do the paper, the boxing magazines

2. Did the majority of the people of the time even know who Wills, Greb and Tunney were? Why did fights against Carpentier, Firpo, Gibbons sell so well when there were better fights out there? The fact is most paying customers are casual fans who just want to see 'the champ' and have little knowledge of the sport. Promoters have always exploited this. I'm sure the hardcore fans wanted Dempsey fighting the best, but like today they are the minority

3. That is a good point, it does allow people to mascarade as champions. But then again those championships have generally lost prestige and value to an extent. Everyone from 135-154 wants to fight Pacquaio and Mayweather, they are seen as the real champs over those weight classes. When Hamed was at 126 everyone from 118-130 was chasing a fight with him. Everyone from 135-160 chased Delahoya. Boxing has become about the P4P kings of a few weight classes more than its about traditional champions and titles

4. Come on we know countless fighters of the period that either took dives or carried opponents. Many of the greats from Sugar Ray Robinson, Lamotta, Cocoa Kid, Ike Williams...we could go on How many do we know of today? Only the pikey Micheal Gomez comes to mind. SOme people say Seldon but I think he always had a china chin, Bowe blasted him out too

5. Did anyone really care about Burley/Williams getting title shots? Did they get any press?

6. Lennox should have been no1 with the WBC but on coming out of prison Tyson replaced him without even fighting in 4years

The bottom line is boxing has always been a business first and sport second

 

Good post and much needed perspective.

 

Pac is the man today most likely of doing it. It would take a lot, but he could pile up enough wins that a case can be made for him.

It is a bit hard to compare his record with Robinson's, though. Robinson's rests mainly on his fantastic work at WW while Pac's main merit is his weight jumping. He'll never be as dominant in any weight class as Robinson was at WW, so no matter how impressive his future career is it will always be a case of apples and oranges to a degree when comparing him to SRR.

 

Dynamite post.

 

1. clean out a division

2. become a multiweight world champ (4+ divisions)

3.Beat 5-8 HOFers

4. Possible rivalry (always helps)

5. become a star outside the ring (achieving the above should clinch this)

 

For me his lack of ATG head 2 head ability at any weight class hes campaigned at is what lets him down

Some fans say 'he doesn't need Mayweather hes achieved enough', well the thing is he hasn't fought anyone thats really good from 140-154 or any legit champ above 140, so yes he does need Mayweather. If he can beat Mayweather you'd have to rate his H2H ability allot higher as he'd be facing someone who has the defense, skill, speed and pedigree that some say he can't beat

 

It's a great question as you can never say never.

The problem modern fighter’s face is that they are at the mercy of being compared with the men of yesteryear, back when boxing seemed to have the perfect balance of single champions and very long careers. It's a perspective which is yet to shift.

Legacies need time to mature. Robinson unquestionably fought a variety of quality fighters, but time helps for their legacy to sizzle when we refer back to those B&W portraits; to try an suggest how one may equal such a legacy is particularly difficult when in the midst of its construction.

We do, as has been said though, need to try and be relative. Boxing is not 100 years old starting with pictures of Fitzsimmons and ending with DVD's of Mayweather - it's ancient and it's going to be around for longer, probably than you can imagine, and as such we do need to learn to be relative as it continues to transform.

Manny Pacquaio is probably the best case to put forward; considering the career lengths of today, if he managed to conquer Berto, Martinez and Mayweather you'd have to seriously consider him in the top 3. The weight of the Mayweather fight is huge - the biggest fight since Leonard/Hagler, expect the principles are closer to their best.

 

Tyson DUCKED Lenny Lewis, by only offering him chump-change of $13.5million, just 5.5million more then Old 'Vander got!! Also teh contract had EVIL Don King options in it for if [when] Lennox won, teh same options every Tyson opponent had to accept!! If Tyson wanted to fight Lennox, he would of offered him $20 And no Donny-K Options!! :deal



Foreman Hooooooooooook!:hat:hat

 

He'd have to beat Mayweather to have any discussion with SRR. That and a couple of other impressive wins.

If he beats Mayweather reasonably soon he'd arguably beat a better opponent than Robinson ever did, though.

 

Yes, BUT - Money would WHITEWASH him And win 12 outta 12 rounds. :deal
Stylez makez fightz.

 

Some may argue for Galivan being superior to a 34yo Mayweather, I'm not sure if Galivan was in good form at the time though, then again I hear the judges shafted him allot

 

In the Pac-Mayweather situation I'm not sure who's the champion and who's the challenger.

Haye is a joke because he talks **** and doesn't back it up. He's not ducking because he's not anyone important to do any ducking : Wladimir is champion, and has beat several contenders as good as this Haye character.

HBO is interested in the names that draw rather than the best fighting each other.
"Calzaghe v Pacquiao" for the vacant XYZ middleweight championship of the world would suit HBO rather the two solid top 10 middleweight contenders eliminating each other in the climb up the ladder.

Of course, boxing's always been about pulling in money and promoting mismatches if necessary to do so, but I re-iterate my point that the concept of legitimate champions and legitimate ranks of contenders was meaningful in the old days.

Dempsey was a huge draw and could "sell out Madison Square Garden masturbating", to borrow a phrase. Firpo and Carpentier was marketed well.

Wills was a huge story in the sports page for much of Dempsey's career, and Dempsey was booed and heckled on the matter on more than one occasion.
It is what it is. Dempsey was heavyweight champion of the world, Wills was the contender being ducked.

All of which confirms what I'm saying

Pacquiao and Mayweather haven't even settled the matter of who is the welterweight champion, but because they are marketed as "the p4p top two" (an impossible title) they can hop around the divisions choosing which "title fights" are prestigious.

I think a fair amount of modern boxing features fighters carrying each other too. And records are still being built on dive artists, set-ups and tomato cans.
I don't believe boxing has ever been free from fixing, much of it is rigged in some way or another, but the "fixed fights" angle of the so-called golden era when cigar-smoke mobsters were highly visible gets overblown. The mob ran boxing, had it more or less monopolized, they didn't need to mess around fixing every other fight as people believe. Things were pretty much the same then as now, only the business was investigated more because of the unsavoury background of people in charge. Fixed fights happen as part of the business, then and now. But there was no era where it made the sport less credible than the alphabet mess we have now.

Anyone who thinks there isn't a legion of professional losers out there, glorified sparring partners or dive artists, being employed to lose to young prospects hasn't been watching boxing.
That's just something that won't ever be fixed.

I don't know, I haven't researched it. But I assume the people who paid good money week in week out to watch such fighters knew all about it. They were ranked.

I said Lennox got good treatment, not as good and as favourable as Tyson, who was an even bigger pampered star. They both benefitted from favouritism, just Lewis lost out when their interests conflicted at that time.
Years later, the WBC's same policy towards Tyson (bestowing him with undeserved no.1 contender status), gave Lewis the opportunity to pick up an easy 30million or whatever by beating up Tyson instead of one of the better young fighters for less money.

I absolutely agree.
But my point is that even the good rational "sport-like" aspects of its structure have now become eroded.
It was always a sham, pro boxing has always been the big showbusiness rather than a rationally organised sport, but it had a few saving graces and certain values that kept it in check a bit. Now all that's gone.
Although I don't rule out a new movement of promoters and TV execs who will bring it back to what is was. (Even like it was in the early 80s, with only 2 recognised champions per weight division would be be a vast improvement)