Why does everyone say SRR was the best of all time

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Nawfal, Aug 26, 2007.


  1. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,636
    47,329
    Mar 21, 2007
    Not trying to be funny at all.

    What?
     
  2. China_hand_Joe

    China_hand_Joe Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,217
    12
    Sep 21, 2006
    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.
     
  3. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,636
    47,329
    Mar 21, 2007
    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.
     
  4. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,636
    47,329
    Mar 21, 2007
    :think
     
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,636
    47,329
    Mar 21, 2007
    If by "we" you mean "a large percentage" then you will typically get "no" as the response.
     
  6. China_hand_Joe

    China_hand_Joe Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,217
    12
    Sep 21, 2006
    Roy's combinations of left hooks are proof enough.
     
  7. Illmatic

    Illmatic Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,062
    4
    Jul 19, 2004
    you know why? B/C SRR WAS THE MOTHA****IN MAN!
     
  8. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,636
    47,329
    Mar 21, 2007
    I don't know what this means or what it is in response to.
     
  9. cuchulain

    cuchulain Loyal Member Full Member

    35,884
    10,955
    Jan 6, 2007
    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.
     
  10. db2431

    db2431 Member Full Member

    388
    0
    Nov 28, 2005
    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.
     
  11. China_hand_Joe

    China_hand_Joe Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,217
    12
    Sep 21, 2006
    Evidence of his faster muscle fibres.
     
  12. nervousxtian

    nervousxtian Trolljegeren Full Member

    14,042
    1,082
    Aug 6, 2005
    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.
     
  13. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,636
    47,329
    Mar 21, 2007
    Meaningless.
     
  14. Marnoff

    Marnoff Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,227
    22
    Feb 14, 2006
    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.
     
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,636
    47,329
    Mar 21, 2007
    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.