who is the greatest of all time? vote.

he's absolutely one of the ten best. at worst 3rd, WORST.

i love hagler and i would call it a 60/40 robinson's way. I don't consider it a guarantee that robinson wins but looking at style's and attributes i think he has more tools to beat hagler than hagler has tools to beat him.

at his best robinson had the movement and jab to outbox hagler, the toughness to stay with him 15 hard rounds, an equal chin and a shade more power.

 

His middleweight reign was patchy. I cant see how he gets to 3rd of all time, but i know some rank him that high. He has to rate behind Monzon and Hagler, surely based pure consistency and longevity. He is definitely behind Fitzsimmons, based on spectacular reign, longevity, dominance and any other criteria you want to invent. It would seem pretty hard to rate him over Harry Greb at middleweight, although I suppose Greb may have been a little overweight for most of his big wins, which might weigh against him.

Sam Langford has a decent argument to be ranked above him, though he does have the same trouble as Greb, perhaps to a larger extent. Tommy Ryan's record at middleweight, is close to identical with Ray's.

I do think Ray is top 10 and probably top 5, but he is not the out and out standout that people try to make out. This is based solely on his record, if you want to look at subjective features like how he looked, strength of era etc, then that is a different situation, but so far as dominance of the middleweight division goes, he was not the most dominant champion of all time, and to be honest i would probably say it is more likely at best 3rd and not at worst.

And by the way, in case i am misinterpreted, i do think that if focused and in form he does have a decent chance against any middleweight that ever fought, but it is just that he is not guaranteed to win. That should be undisputed actually, since he wasnt guaranteed to (and didnt always) win against the best middleweights of his own time!

 

Robinson's only losses in peak form took place when he was outweighed by 16lbs against a fellow ATG whom he beat all 5 other times they fought and the first match against a HOF'er who was his 5th consecutive opponent in 4 weeks. 5 fights in 4 weeks! it's pretty hard to be at top form under those circumstances, and Robinson set things straight 2 months later in the rematch with a brutal stoppage. Outside of collapsing from a record setting heat wave against Maxim after 13 one-sided rounds in his favor, those were the only losses in Robinson's first 12 years and 130+ fights.

A bit hard to call that inconsistent. Even the post-retirement Robinson on the comeback trail probably beats Hagler. Hell, the 40 year old version who was besting Fullmer has a decent shot at beating Hagler or any middleweight we have footage of (not that he should necessarily be favored). He was that damn good.

 

Way too many votes for Ali. He's beating Langford in the poll. Fitzsimmons should not be getting votes either, no surprise on who voted for him there (I get Boilermaker but Mendoza had to vote for the white guy, and not even Greb?). Bummy Davis, now you've given yourself away for sleeping with Italian fighters! Not that your Al Pacino avatar hadn't given you away. I'll guess I'll be a conformist and see SRR.

 

B, I must remind you that Harry Greb weighed about 158-9 for his fight with Mickey Walker in 1925,past his peak, and almost blind. Of course when he was not fighting for his middleweight title,Greb would come in a few pounds over 160 pounds. Why not ? He still spotted the big boys 10-50 pounds,and still
whipped them. But when Greb had to,he could, and did make the weight.
P.S. I saw that great ko of Randy Turpin at the Polo Grounds in 1951.One of the great thrills of my life too see Robinson,with a bad cut over his eye, go for broke in the 10th round to ko the tough Randy Turpin.
Aside- Randy Turpin at his best I give an even chance to lick Marvin Hagler.
Turpin was a powerful,awkward puncher who was as strong as Hagler,and
had a difficult style to fight. He had mental problems,and went downhill very quickly, soon after...:good

 

Harry Greb has the most outstanding resume from that bunch, but the fact that there isn't any film with him fighting affects his legacy, and GOAT status.

 

This is the only knock you can really make on Greb (same with Fitzsimmons and Langford) but honestly, what does whether or not a fight is filmed have to do with how great a fighter is?

Film is of very limited value in assessing all time great legacy. Prime Riddick Bowe looked very impressive on film but he doesnt have the longevity to rate with many of the other all time greats.

Muhammed Ali looks to have many fundamental flaws on film, but it should hardly effect his legacy. It isnt that long ago that virtually nobody had video film of most fighters. Film can actually be very overated in assessing an ATG legacy, imo. If we finally get film of Greb and he looks crappy, does it really make one bit of difference to how good or bad he was?

 

You are right, Ray Robinson was not inconsistent. But, you seem to forget that we are judging on all time great basis, not on average or even great basis. We are not talking about the best fighter in his weight division, but the best fighter, full stop.

Think about prime Muhammed Ali, he was beaten once (maybe) and that it is it. Prime Joe Louis was arguably beaten once. Prime Jim Jeffries was never beaten, Prime Jimmy Barry never lost a fight, etc And these are fighters who most people say dont make the top 10! Let alone the so called Greatest of All time. Prime Carlos Monzon didnt lose as much as Ray, Neither did Prime Sonny Liston etc. Now i know that there are arguments about quality and quantity of oposition for these guys but the fact is once the all time greats hit their prime, they very rarely, if ever lose, no matter who they face and under what circumstances. The same cant really be said about middleweight Sugar Ray leonard. Welterweight RAy, definitely but not middleweight Ray. Does this mean he wasnt great, of course not, in fact, he was great enough to come back and win. That is a great quality in itself. It is just the all time great fighters didnt need to show this quality, anywhere near as regularly.

Now it may be that the reason Ray lost so regularly was because he was older, which is largely true, but you can hardly be the all time greatest in a division that you simply didnt really dominate that well (compared to other all time greats).



Even the post-retirement Robinson on the comeback trail probably beats Hagler. Hell, the 40 year old version who was besting Fullmer has a decent shot at beating Hagler or any middleweight we have footage of (not that he should necessarily be favored). He was that damn good.[/QUOTE]

 

C,We have NO films of Abraham Lincoln today, but still regard him as an immortal, by the body of work he left us. What difference would a film of Greb fighting, was found today, except our curiousity ? Whatever style he had certainly got the job DONE...
Another thing to ponder. If 100 years from now ,fans saw one remaining film of Ray Robinson getting soundly whipped by Tiger Jones. What impression would it leave them, but Robinson was "overated". Same with a remaining film of Ali with Berbick or Holmes. It is a fighters total career and record,
determines his historic worth, not a film or two, methinks....

 

True. I was kind of surprised you did. As great as Archie was, his 0-3 record against Charles, with their final match the most conclusive, is deadly to his all time standing. (That eighth round knockout was also Ezz's last win before Baroudi, very possibly his peak performance.) Among old timers, Gans and Benny Leonard would have been much stronger selections than the Mongoose.

G, I suspect those 'other' choices are with respect to more recent competitors. Ali is the most recent name on your list. Many would prefer Duran or SRL in his place, but the surprising number of votes for Muhammad validate your inclusion of him in your poll. So, you missed with Moore but nailed an unexpected (to many) strike with Ali.

Robinson, as might be expected, is running away with this. Yet, he could have substantially enhanced his MW resume if he'd carried on after Maxim. That second reign was the only one which produced multiple successful defenses (against Olson and Graziano). He might have been able to generate four or five defenses a year from 1952 to 1956 if he hadn't challenged at 175. We know Olson couldn't beat him. He may well have held it in an uninterrupted reign until Gene Fullmer came along in 1957.

In a couple more years, Greb's standing might continue to improve, as the reframe of his accomplishments continue to be promoted further.

 

For me it's between Greb and Langford, and I ended up voting for Greb. But it's a tough call.

 

That's perfectly fine, G. After all, it's your poll. That you were astute enough to contemplate Ross speaks well for your selection process. Again, that Ali has done so well would be a revelation to many.

You are curious as to who is getting the most votes for 'Other,' and among my primary suspects would have been Gans (who Langford would have voted for), Benny Leonard, Louis, Duran, and SRL (who I don't like and would never vote for, but many might). While I'm partial to the Manassa Mauler like Burt, I suspect that Louis would have garnered by far the most votes among the heavyweights you left out.

Personally, I have the Duran of DeJesus III, Palomino and Montreal as my top pick since 1950, but he didn't have the incredible record that Moore generated after turning 35 in December 1951, and I would never select him as my GOAT. (Beyond that age milestone, only Marciano, Patterson, Rinaldi and young Clay beat Arch. He avenged Rinaldi over the championship distance for his final title win.)