...........Just thought I's start a little crap here. For those of you who (erroneously) rate Robinson first all-time at middleweight, why is that? I can't see how anyone could rank someone who repeatedly lost the title could be ranked over long term champs who defended successfully so many times. Please explain this lapse in your judgement.
Yeah, I can't see how anyone would rate him as their number one middle either. Maybe on paper if you didn't know the sport. Gee whiz, he won the title almost half a dozen times...! Wait a minute...
..........Agreed. I don't think you could design a fighter better than what we saw in Ray Robinson. I don't mean to trash the man here, he was the very definition of a great fighter, but we need to look beyond the superlatives when ranking him at 160. He was frankly a bit past it when much of his legend was forged. For every gutty or spectacular victory at middleweight, there is also a loss connected with it (uaually as a precurso, as the man was murder in rematches). The overall recod must be put aside when ranking him at this weight.
One of the reasons I rank Louis above Ali. I'll take a long dominant reign over multiple wins of the title, wins that are sometimes over fighters of questionable quality.
I guess the argument would be off of the level of comp he overcame. Some might see beating the likes of Basilio, Fullmer, Lamotta, Olson, Turpin, Graziano, Castellani, Fusari etc as constituting a superior achievmeent to other middleweights' reigns, even if he was dropping decisions to quite a few of the guys there.
............Which begs the question; aside from their battles with Robinson, how many of these fighters made their own mark at 160 merely because they fought Robinson? Basilio, for example......Fullmer had success there, he doesn't qualify, but Turpin?? Who'd he ever beat except Robinson? Silly questions perhaps on the surface, but maybe there's food for thought there.
Basilio: Ortega, Jordan, Aragon, Turner Olson: Gavilan, Yarosz, Turpin, Castellani, Langlois, Cartier, Hairston Graziano: Zale, Cochrane, Janiro, Burton, Green, Fusari Turpin: Cockell, Cartier, Van Dam, Yarosz, Finch, Buxton, Humez Castellani: Giardello, Green, Varona, Mims, Langlouis, Turner, Bratton, Janiro, drew with Graham Not a great array of resumes at middleweight there, but not altogether vaccuous either.
A case can be made for Monzon,Greb,Hagler ,and Robinson ,imo.Robinson probably sits more securely on the top of the Welters.Monzon liked to point out that Robinson was champ 5 times ,only because he kept losing it ,while he never did,Ray was at his best at 147 ,but many beleive even an older Ray ,h to h ,would come out top of the pile at 160.
I think people see that he's commonly considered the P4P greatest fighter of all time, but most of what he's known for is what he accomplished at middleweight. They don't realize that he was past his best and above his best weight at middle .
Well in a vaccum that argument doesn't make sense even if Robinson isn't the greatest. The guy who lost the belt could have been fighting better competition than the ones who didn't lose the belt, unless they were fighting each other or the same group of people that doesn't really prove things one way or the other.
Firstly the thing you have to remember is he didnt have many losses (only 3) until his second career after he cameback from being retired. Reasons: 1. Prime ability 2. Comp (I'll include WWs as many MWs beat wins are against WWs): LaMotta (5times), Turpin, Olsen, Grazziano, Fullmer, Basillio, 3. (WW Comp) - many MWs beat wins are over WWs and SRR undoudtably has a great WW ledger 4. Winning the MW title after 3 years out the ring at the age of 36 5. Drawing for the MW title at the age of 38 (before the days of elite nutrition, supplements etc that BHOPs may benefit from today) 6. 200 fights, 173wins, 7. Only 3 losses in his first career (1 way above his natural weight) up until the age of 36, when Monzon and Hagler had long retired (greb died at 31-32 or younger if Im not wrong) 8. Imagine if Hagler/Monzon mounted comebacks 3 years after their retirement against the cream of the crop
I have him at #1 in this division. There are fine and logical reasons in this thread. Mine is less logical. In his final encounter with LaMotta, which we have on film, which is my favourite fight, Robinson does boxing better than it has ever been done, before or since. He does that at middleweight and in a title winning fight against a bigger champion who holds a victory over him. I consider him unbeateable on the night and I mean Hagler, Monzon, Walker, Flowers, Burley, Greb would not have beaten him. He did magic. He's the best.
The only viable argument i believe, is that the man was well past his best (and he was), and despite losin' the title that many times, emerged as the best MW of what i believe was 160's golden era. When you think of iy like that, he has a shout at top 3 or 5 i think, but i do think that MW is the tightest top 5 of the lot
I agree with this. You can make a very serious case for Robinson, Greb, Monzon and Hagler. Who is the fifth though?
Turpin looks the best on film and beat the best version of Robinson. Turpin was fighting on the British/European circuit for the main part so a bit hard to compare competition. SRR was 36+ coming off a retirement in his other losses (outside of lamotta/maxim)