Who Here Doesn't Have SRR P4P#1, & Why?

I currently have Langford at #1, though I think Robinson might push him off again. Basically Langford has wins against some of the greatest fighters to have lived from lightweight (Gans) all the way up to HW (Wills). These men are two of the best ever in their respective divisions and Langford beat them both. In between he beat guys like Flowers, McVea, Norfolk ATG fighters at multiple weight classes. He had no fear in his body, had an aggressive, destructive style that sent punching heavyweights quivering onto the backfoot, could stop a man with one punch (he is one of the best composite punchers of all time), has an iron chin, limitless stamina (KO29 Wills is the big clue) and was able towin fights towards the end of his career mostly blind. What footage there is reveals world class footwork and brilliant, educated pressure. His philosophy was that of the master general, "whatever he wants to do, don't let him do it". I pick him over almost anyone at 175 and other weights too.

I also think that cases can be made for Greb and Armstrong, though I have them at three and four, so I will leave that to others. Cases also exsist for Charles, Walker and Pep, though these are less strong. It will be interesting to see if cases will be made for guys like Duran, Moore, Fitzsimmons and Ali. I don't think anyone else can be rated above him.

#1

He ducked a lot of guys. Cocoa Kid and Charley Burley most blatantly, but there are other world, world class contermporaries missing from his resume. Lloyd Marshall, Archie Moore, Jack Chase, Jimmy Bivins, Eddie Booker, Holman Williams, Bert Lytell...say he had taken on Marshall, Burley, Willliams, Moore, Cocoa Kid, Jimmy Bivins and Eddie Booker. Probably only Kid Gavilan belongs in this company...they are better than nearly all the guys Sugar DID fight.

Now, some will say I am being harsh, and in some cases I am (though NOT with Burley, Williams and Kid) but the point is - Langford would have fought them. He fought better men than Sugar. He beat better men than Sugar. He ducked nobody. It bothers me that Sugar didn't take on these guys. Bottom line speaks loudest.

 

Although, to be fair, he was almost always in the danger zone, was very aggressive and was very very hard to actually stop even if he could be dropped. It's not like his chin went untested or anything.

I can. Greb and Langford both have better resumes and fought better fighters. Both fought the BEST of their era, which I think Robinson did not neccesarily do.

I disagree with most of this, espeically Leonard as the better puncher. I think that that is ludicrous. I think Robinson put them together better, often punched with better technicque and at MW put almost everything he had into almost everything he threw. I rate Leonard very high at WW (obviously), but I think of the top 7 or so, Leoanrd would be Robinson's easiest night's work.

His resume suggest nothing like p4p #1. Gene Tunney has a better resume, probably. It is head to head and p4p skills where Robinson really excells, but you don't seem to rate him in that department, particularly.

 

He has a great resume, unquestionably, and given that he was a true ww, his mw resme is very impressive. But you really don't think the fact that he ducked some of the best of his era is not relevent? To be clear - I have Burley at #2 h2h at WW. Imagine Louis and Ali fought in the same era and Ali refused to fight Louis. That would hurt Ali's standing, surely? Imagine Ali had come back and announced that he would fight anyone except Joe? Now add guys like Jersey Joe Walcott and Sam Mcvey and say Ali ducks them too? You really think he could make a reputation as the #1 of all time based upn one or two top men (Norton, Shavers etc.) without taking on the best?

Burley was actually sent packing from the WW division by Zivic who bought out his contract to avoid fighting him as champ (having lost to him twice, and accorind to some, 3 times). Might be heresay though.

In terms of pure resume, I think he is the superior man.

 

Q, aside from Burley, who do you think is the one man Robinson should have taken on? His duck of Cocoa Kid seems the most blatant, but maybe Williams?

I believe a case exsists for Pep, but it is thin.

 

Cocoa Kid, Williams and Burley are all around the same size, there is nothing really in it. Burley is certainy the toughest test but Williams - he finally got to fight LaMotta right at the very end and dropped only a split decison to a prime LaMotta which was booed by the crowd, who thought Williams had won. Keep in mind - Williams was an ageing slickster in with the ultimate pressure fighter, a styistic nightmare for the older man. This result has always impressed me. I think he may have had the stamina and speed to have hung with Robinson, and assuming his hands held up, he was a stinging puncher. Robinson should be favoured though. I favour him slightly v Burley too though. He's superior to the Kid, but Robinson should have tidied that paticular mess up, no question. That one hurts him.

Oh he has a case. In the final confrontation with LaMotta Robinson was breathtakingly brilliant. I mean, brilliant. Best i've ever seen, probably. I have no problem with Greb, Robinson, Armstrong or Langford at #1, though I personally feel it should be Robinson or Langford. Or Greb