Would Sugar Ray Robinson Still be #1 P4P if he had Fought in a Different Era ?

Sugar Ray Robinson fought between 1940-65 and is most peoples number 1 P4P all time great, if Sugar Ray Robinson had fought between 1900-1925 instead of 1940-65, would Sugar Ray Robinson still be seen as the number 1 ATG ?, I dont think most people that now see him as the number 1 ATG would see him as their number 1 ATG if he had fought between 1900-1925

Nearly all ATG ranking lists, cover the modern era {1892 onwards}, there were no official World Champions till the 1920s, therefore if Sugar Ray had fought between 1900-1925 he would not have had many if any ex World Champions on his resume, and since lots of posters are obsessed with resume they proberbly would not have had Sugar Ray Robinson as their greatest ever boxer ?, infact he would proberbly not make their ATG top 20, sadly I believe this to be the case.:roll:

Sugar Ray Robinson could have exactly the same win/loss record between 1900-25 as he achieved for real between 1940-65, Sugar Ray would still be compared against exactly the same boxers ,1892 - present day, as he currently is, Sugar Ray could have faced the same strength opposition if he fought between 1900-25 as he did for real when he fought between 1940-65, Sugar Ray would have the same skills and ability fighting between 1900-25 as he had for real fighting between 1940-65, yet because he would not have fought many champions, due to there been none, his resume would have been perceived as weak {although that would not have been the case}

Lots of posters are obsessed with resume, they dont care if one boxer is better than another boxer ?:roll:, they only care about who a boxer has fought, they dont even care if the boxer loses :roll:.
As well as resume, lots of people like accomplishments, weight jumping in particular :?, I personally perfer a boxer to clean a division out and prove himself to be the best at that weight, as opossed too winning one version of a title and going up a weight and winning one version of that weight division, then claiming that they are a two weight World Champion, when they may have beaten the 'weakest' belt holders in both divisions, yet some people think that is marvellous.

What is wrong with placing a boxer who has beaten or would beat another boxer higher in a ranking list ???

Resume means nothing if the boxer has lost most of his big fights.

Accomplishments means nothing if the boxer with all the accomplishments has lost and would lose to another good boxer with slightly less accomplishments, the boxer with the slightly less accomplishments should be ranked higher, in this case.

I am not saying that Marciano, Mayweather and Calzaghe should be ATG 1,2 and 3 but head to head is not given enough credit.
{PS I recently said that if either Mayweather at 32 or Calzaghe at 37 came out of retirement they would still beat everybody as they are both excellent head to head, will that come back to haunt me ?}

Although ATG lists cover all the weight divisions, if the heavyweights and middleweights etc were picked out from the list, shouldnt the #1 beat the #2 and the #2 beat the #3 etc in the list makers mind ?
Otherwise you end up with a list that is not the greatest ever boxers in order, but the greatest boxing resumes in order or the great boxing accomplishments in order.

I say head to head rules, winning is everything, sport is about winning, boxing is about winning

 

P4P is nothing but speculation, P4P is biased against heavyweights, P4P is biased against boxers that only operated at 1 or 2 weight divisions.

If two boxers are of the same standard and had fought H2H, I would rank the winner of that fight higher, lots of list makers rank the boxers in tiers, if two boxers come from the same tier and one boxer had beaten the other I would in most cases rank the victor higher, as this would be a known, it would be a fact.

I would not rank Frazier higher than Ali as Frazier would not be in the same tier/box/league as Ali.

{PS Ali was just back from nearly 4 years out of the ring when he lost to Frazier, not sure you could describe Ali as close to his prime in that fight}

 

Resume is the single most important tool for ranking boxers but not the be all and end all of rankings, you could be the best boxer ever but because you operated in a weak division or a weak era you would be heavily penalised by a lot of people, that cant be right, thats all a boxer can do is beat what is infront of him, I know the public want the best v the best, so would you end up with Oscar De La Hoya as your GOAT ?, he fought all the top boxers of his era, the problem being, he lost to most of them, there is no way that a boxer like De La Hoya could be seen as a top 50 ATG as he would lose to ever other boxer on the list, yet he would be top 50 for resume and top 50 for achievements.
The problem is these list advertise themselves as the ''greatest ever boxers'', not the greatest ever ''boxing resumes'' or the ''greatest ever boxing achievements''.

 

Good post, I agree with the examples given.

So, Sugar Ray Robinson did not have the greatest ever resume, but he is seen as the 'greatest ever boxer', by boxing writers and historians, at least there is some sanity, if some of these resume/boxrec jockeys had their way, De La Hoya would be #1 and Pacman #2.

 

Nice post, and a good scenario of what could have happened to Robinson in the 20's, like you said maybe he wouldnt be ranked as the GOAT, although he is still the greatest ever boxer being compared with the same other boxers, he would not be the GOAT due to resume, not his fault being black and avoided in your scenario, so the 'greatest ever boxer' would not be seen as the 'greatest ever boxer' because of his resume, this can not be right, resume is not everythink, being able to beat people H2H, man against man is more important.