Can we agree that a large percentage of people with the opinion Ray Robinson was the best ever are having their pick governed by a kind of status quo.
Maybe. As you bring absolutley ZERO proof, recomend, back up, or reference to any statment you ever make on this site, it's pretty easy to throw every single thing you say the **** out.
I believe that career-wise, SRR was the alltime greatest p4p (admittedly a dubious concept in itself). Watching his old fights and watching how he took other 'greats' apart, I think provides compelling evidence. Head to head, I believe in his prime, he would have beaten anyone from 140- 154. Floyd's best form came against Oscar and (despite what his more enthusiastic fans think), he squeaked a close split decision in that fight. A prime SRR would have stopped either the Oscar or the Floyd of that fight. Almost as skilled and almost as fast as Floyd, but with way more power and determination. At 160, he wasn't quite the same, but with the possible exception of Roy (whom I would probably bet against in such a match-up) I think he beats anyone from there as well. In pure talent and speed, both Floyd and Roy edge him, but those edges would be more than offset by Robinson's gritty determination, chin and heart (in Roy's case) and those same attributes plus punching power in Floyd's case. And finally, if Ali (not known for his modesty) thinks SRR was the best ever, I would give that some weight.
Another Myth, his jumper was great the moment he stepped in to the league, its just he didnt use it as much as his later years when he slowed down and was double and triple teamed, his 3 point % was low his first few years but he barely ever shot it either.
Answer to 1st question: I think Jones is a superior athlete to Robinson, in the same way most athletes in other sports are better than the legends of the past. There is no doubt people are getting bigger, stronger, faster, and more athletic as time goes on. Which brings me to question 2: The understanding of science and training is so different these days than when Robinson fought. It accounts for a lot of why the answer to question one is true. The understanding of nutrition and muscle training as means to improve ones abilities is far and away better than the days of SRR. Sure a lot of guys train the old way, but still the supplements they take, and the diet they eat is far superior, and especially when you look at the elite level.
All I have to say is that if boxers fought as much today as they did back then, it would be ****ing RIDICULOUS. If we had our top fighter, Floyd, fighting once every one or two weeks. We'd get him against Hatton, Cotton, Mosley, Margarito (though he doesn't merit it), Williams, and Cintron, by Christmas.
Fighting as it exsists NOW has been going on since man. Literally. Ritualised fighting has been going on since man. Literally. Why do you think this version would see significant march in the last X years? I deny, completely, that 160lb fighters are getting bigger. I submit that it is unlikely that 160lb fighters are getting stronger within that weight group. I would say that any claim that mankind is getting faster shows a real ignorance of evolution. No. Absloutley not. Just it's exectution amongst the ruling classes. Therefore it's publicisation. See Jack Johnsons dietrey requirments. Do you think that there is a differnce between the understanding of these things as far as Greb and Tapia go? Cos there's no difference in the execution. There is a similair parallel between clean living atheletes of the respective eras. Not so far. This is entirely inaccurate. You should investigate further.