Excluding Ali and SR Robinson, who is the GOAT?

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

and he still had a shit load of tear in those 35

Which is why he can't be the GOAT. He physicaly couldn't protect himself well enough to hold up over any kind of long haul.

completely agree

dmar5143 wrote:

powerpuncher there is no hatred towards ray L..just facts.both are what i considerd great fighters..one is overated.thats ray leanord sorry.by overated i mean considreing him a top tener.based on what..prey tell give me all the hofamers robinson beat that were past there prime..come on now you made a statement..was it basilio fullmer gavilin turpin lamotta etc that were past there prime..angott.lets see was marty servo past his prime villeman abrrahms artie levine garth panther rocky castelanni..most of thoses i mentioned were fighters that were not hofamers the second batch that is..a lot of them were good enough to be one...do you know who the hell they are..have you ever seen them fight..dont call me ignorant please....one poster claimed gee greb was a middleweight..yep he was..and beat several top heavyweight contenders before they fought dempsey for the title..was not ray a middle also..back then it was very very common for top welters to fight top middles and often..there was no 154 lb division..today fans cry hes to big..do you not.....the names i mentioned are just a few since this topic has named other fighters that robinson fought that were not hofamers..artie levine has a 25 percent of koing ray for the 10 count..castelanni a 35 percent chance of wiping RL..of course billy graham has a 50 percent chance.robby didnt fight him..you have nooo concept who they were how they fought and who they fought yet you call me ignorant..lol..realy..if you realy examine RL career he got wobbled or decked by almost every solid punch he got hit with..resume wise he falls short extra big time against robinson..punch wise boxing wise guts wise in every facet of the game he falls short..hes out of his league here..a great fighter yes..thats it..if he fought the fighters that robinson fought and the same amount and at the same age robby did ray L would of been koed 20 times.forget the rest of the losses..do you want to agrue that also....lets see hofamer zivic was he also washed up when robinson beat him....were other good fighters like dykes belloise garth panther also washed up...and tons of others..without going to boxinbg rec do you know who there are..nope..

for one, its very hard to read your posts because it doesnt have paragraphs and there arent punctuations so sorry if i dont understand certain things you say.

again, i know that SRR beat great fighters. i know that he is definitely one of the best that has ever stepped in the ring. every fighter has flaws though, no matter who you are. robinson had trouble with fighters that would attack him and put a lot of pressure on him. for example, lamotta had the style to come forward and make SRR fight his fight. SRR also said that turpin was just so strong that he had a hard time fighting him and turpin also has the style coming forward and attacking his opponent. gavilan didnt beat SRR but gave him a heck of a fight in their first fight for the same reason. gavilan throws and ton and will attack you relentlessly. although SRR was past his prime, fullmer and basilio were the same. one thing i will say is that SRR won rematches because he was a great adapter.

so im writing this to show that he has flaws, not to show that he isnt great. i know that you know more fighters than i do, but that doesnt necessarily mean that my opinion isnt valid. the reason i was saying that you were ignorant was because i said that it seemed like you didnt think anybody could beat robinson. and i will stand by it if you tell me that there is no WW that could beat him. styles make fights and at least marb has admitted that there are fighters that could beat him. so if you can tell me that you believe that there are some WW that can beat SRR, then i wont think that you are ignorant, but if you wont admit that, then i wont change my mind.

powerpuncher wrote:

dmar5143 wrote:

powerpuncher there is no hatred towards ray L..just facts.both are what i considerd great fighters..one is overated.thats ray leanord sorry.by overated i mean considreing him a top tener.based on what..prey tell give me all the hofamers robinson beat that were past there prime..come on now you made a statement..was it basilio fullmer gavilin turpin lamotta etc that were past there prime..angott.lets see was marty servo past his prime villeman abrrahms artie levine garth panther rocky castelanni..most of thoses i mentioned were fighters that were not hofamers the second batch that is..a lot of them were good enough to be one...do you know who the hell they are..have you ever seen them fight..dont call me ignorant please....one poster claimed gee greb was a middleweight..yep he was..and beat several top heavyweight contenders before they fought dempsey for the title..was not ray a middle also..back then it was very very common for top welters to fight top middles and often..there was no 154 lb division..today fans cry hes to big..do you not.....the names i mentioned are just a few since this topic has named other fighters that robinson fought that were not hofamers..artie levine has a 25 percent of koing ray for the 10 count..castelanni a 35 percent chance of wiping RL..of course billy graham has a 50 percent chance.robby didnt fight him..you have nooo concept who they were how they fought and who they fought yet you call me ignorant..lol..realy..if you realy examine RL career he got wobbled or decked by almost every solid punch he got hit with..resume wise he falls short extra big time against robinson..punch wise boxing wise guts wise in every facet of the game he falls short..hes out of his league here..a great fighter yes..thats it..if he fought the fighters that robinson fought and the same amount and at the same age robby did ray L would of been koed 20 times.forget the rest of the losses..do you want to agrue that also....lets see hofamer zivic was he also washed up when robinson beat him....were other good fighters like dykes belloise garth panther also washed up...and tons of others..without going to boxinbg rec do you know who there are..nope..

for one, its very hard to read your posts because it doesnt have paragraphs and there arent punctuations so sorry if i dont understand certain things you say.

again, i know that SRR beat great fighters. i know that he is definitely one of the best that has ever stepped in the ring. every fighter has flaws though, no matter who you are. robinson had trouble with fighters that would attack him and put a lot of pressure on him. for example, lamotta had the style to come forward and make SRR fight his fight. SRR also said that turpin was just so strong that he had a hard time fighting him and turpin also has the style coming forward and attacking his opponent. gavilan didnt beat SRR but gave him a heck of a fight in their first fight for the same reason. gavilan throws and ton and will attack you relentlessly. although SRR was past his prime, fullmer and basilio were the same. one thing i will say is that SRR won rematches because he was a great adapter.

so im writing this to show that he has flaws, not to show that he isnt great. i know that you know more fighters than i do, but that doesnt necessarily mean that my opinion isnt valid. the reason i was saying that you were ignorant was because i said that it seemed like you didnt think anybody could beat robinson. and i will stand by it if you tell me that there is no WW that could beat him. styles make fights and at least marb has admitted that there are fighters that could beat him. so if you can tell me that you believe that there are some WW that can beat SRR, then i wont think that you are ignorant, but if you wont admit that, then i wont change my mind.

But you have to put those things in context. The Bull gave Ray problems when he had a 15 pound weight advantage. When Ray grew into being a middle? He ANNIHILATED Lamotta. Turpin was a MIDDLEWEIGHT handful when Robinson had been partying his way through Europe for the past six weeks. When Ray had time to train? Again Turpin was tough, but even at 31 with 125 fights under his belt Ray knocked him out.

No welter ever really came close to beating Robinson.

LaMotta aint the best example a guy that went 1-5 vs Robinson wouldnt be my example of wh Ray can be worked over

also like Marble said, Robinson was busy partying with his midget and enterouge before going up agaist Turpin,

look up hopw fast the laMotta and Turpin rematches were, you will be shocked.

sorry the argument that everyone has flaws doesnt somehow equal Leonard beating Robinson

you want to play the flaw game , the problem is Leonard has hella more than a 35 year oldRay RObinson, yet alone a prime Robinson

fullmer and basilio were not past there prime..nor did gavilin fight like you said he did..turpin indeed was a hell of a fighter...lamotta won one fight officaly against robby ..outweighed him by 15 lbs also..one other fight indeed was very close.could of went either way..the other 4 robinson won going away..robinson was beatn once in his best prime..by jake..the 120-1-1 represents robinson at his very best..his second prime was also a good one..not in the prime like his first one though but nun the less sooo dam good that it has to be considered his second prime...jake beat ray in his first prime..ray l would of not..its that simple..your avoiding facts that you hinted robby beat washed up HOFAMERS..that was proven false..
everyone can be beaton and all have except for a few fighters only..to say that a fighter that pressures robinson will beat him is not correct..he koed tons that did that same thing...do you realy feel leanord is going to pressure robinson cause if he does were in for a early evening....if you feel leanord was one of the ten best ever or merits consideration as the best ever all were saying is based on what..and were giving you yardsticks to measure why he isnt no matter how great a persons immagination is..

the problem is that you are just reading what you want to read because you obviously arent reading what im writing. your comments are all just trying to prove something that we all already know.

so im going to say this one more time, robinson is GREAT! do you understand what that means? i would favor robinson over leonard. do you understand that? i never said every pressure fighter would beat robinson, i said that most of the fighters that beat him were pressure fighters and they were good fighters. and if robinson lost to lamotta, turpin, or other people because lack of training, thats his fault and nobody else's. if we were going off of who should have won with proper training, there would be a ton of different outcomes in fights over the years.

anyways, if you are still assuming that i am hating on robinson and thinking that leonard would beat him then im not discussing it anymore because its pointless to discuss something if you are only reading the parts you want to read in what im writing. i have already given robinson credit for things like adapting and beating fighters that he lost to previously in their rematch but for some reason you are still arguing that he won the rematch. so again, read what i write and respond accordingly.

powerpuncher wrote:

the problem is that you are just reading what you want to read because you obviously arent reading what im writing. your comments are all just trying to prove something that we all already know.

so im going to say this one more time, robinson is GREAT! do you understand what that means? i would favor robinson over leonard. do you understand that? i never said every pressure fighter would beat robinson, i said that most of the fighters that beat him were pressure fighters and they were good fighters. and if robinson lost to lamotta, turpin, or other people because lack of training, thats his fault and nobody else's. if we were going off of who should have won with proper training, there would be a ton of different outcomes in fights over the years.

anyways, if you are still assuming that i am hating on robinson and thinking that leonard would beat him then im not discussing it anymore because its pointless to discuss something if you are only reading the parts you want to read in what im writing. i have already given robinson credit for things like adapting and beating fighters that he lost to previously in their rematch but for some reason you are still arguing that he won the rematch. so again, read what i write and respond accordingly.

Pretty tough to be persuaded regarding an argument about welters when all your examples are middles. If you want to argue MIDDLES could beat Ray, well that is obviously true. But the topic at hand was welters wasn't it?

i dont even get why someone is taking on the task of arguien Robinson losing at welter

its just a giant treck to nowhere

marbleheadmaui wrote:

powerpuncher wrote:

the problem is that you are just reading what you want to read because you obviously arent reading what im writing. your comments are all just trying to prove something that we all already know.

so im going to say this one more time, robinson is GREAT! do you understand what that means? i would favor robinson over leonard. do you understand that? i never said every pressure fighter would beat robinson, i said that most of the fighters that beat him were pressure fighters and they were good fighters. and if robinson lost to lamotta, turpin, or other people because lack of training, thats his fault and nobody else's. if we were going off of who should have won with proper training, there would be a ton of different outcomes in fights over the years.

anyways, if you are still assuming that i am hating on robinson and thinking that leonard would beat him then im not discussing it anymore because its pointless to discuss something if you are only reading the parts you want to read in what im writing. i have already given robinson credit for things like adapting and beating fighters that he lost to previously in their rematch but for some reason you are still arguing that he won the rematch. so again, read what i write and respond accordingly.

Pretty tough to be persuaded regarding an argument about welters when all your examples are middles. If you want to argue MIDDLES could beat Ray, well that is obviously true. But the topic at hand was welters wasn't it?

the problem is that really is that pretty much all of the great people he fought were middleweights. how many great fighters did he fight at welter? zivic? a faded armstrong? gavilan was the only great WW that he ever fought and he had some trouble with him in their first fight. fulmer, basilio, turpin, graziano, lamotta, olsen, and others were all middles. now if those fighters were all WW's and beat them, then the story would be different.

but again, im saying that robinson was not unstoppable at WW because that is impossible. i dont care how good you are, there is always somebody that can beat you. just like you said marb, you think that hearns would beat him. im sure that you could see other ATG welters that could beat him(not that you would bet against SRR). im just saying that its pure ignorance to think that he could never lost at WW.

Birdofthad wrote:

i dont even get why someone is taking on the task of arguien Robinson losing at welter

its just a giant treck to nowhere

why would anybody think that ricardo lopez would lose? he never did. how about marciano? he never lost so how could you bet against him because he beat every HW there was. that is your argument. just because he never lost at welter doesnt mean that he couldnt ever lose.

powerpuncher wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

powerpuncher wrote:

the problem is that you are just reading what you want to read because you obviously arent reading what im writing. your comments are all just trying to prove something that we all already know.

so im going to say this one more time, robinson is GREAT! do you understand what that means? i would favor robinson over leonard. do you understand that? i never said every pressure fighter would beat robinson, i said that most of the fighters that beat him were pressure fighters and they were good fighters. and if robinson lost to lamotta, turpin, or other people because lack of training, thats his fault and nobody else's. if we were going off of who should have won with proper training, there would be a ton of different outcomes in fights over the years.

anyways, if you are still assuming that i am hating on robinson and thinking that leonard would beat him then im not discussing it anymore because its pointless to discuss something if you are only reading the parts you want to read in what im writing. i have already given robinson credit for things like adapting and beating fighters that he lost to previously in their rematch but for some reason you are still arguing that he won the rematch. so again, read what i write and respond accordingly.

Pretty tough to be persuaded regarding an argument about welters when all your examples are middles. If you want to argue MIDDLES could beat Ray, well that is obviously true. But the topic at hand was welters wasn't it?

the problem is that really is that pretty much all of the great people he fought were middleweights. how many great fighters did he fight at welter? zivic? a faded armstrong? gavilan was the only great WW that he ever fought and he had some trouble with him in their first fight. fulmer, basilio, turpin, graziano, lamotta, olsen, and others were all middles. now if those fighters were all WW's and beat them, then the story would be different.

but again, im saying that robinson was not unstoppable at WW because that is impossible. i dont care how good you are, there is always somebody that can beat you. just like you said marb, you think that hearns would beat him. im sure that you could see other ATG welters that could beat him(not that you would bet against SRR). im just saying that its pure ignorance to think that he could never lost at WW.

Just for the record, Hearns is the ONLY guy I think who even has a CHANCE to be favored over Ray Robinson at 147. Britton, Walcott, Napoles, Leonard, Tito, Sweet Pea, Armstrong, Ross, Griffith, Walker have very little chance.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

powerpuncher wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

powerpuncher wrote:

the problem is that you are just reading what you want to read because you obviously arent reading what im writing. your comments are all just trying to prove something that we all already know.

so im going to say this one more time, robinson is GREAT! do you understand what that means? i would favor robinson over leonard. do you understand that? i never said every pressure fighter would beat robinson, i said that most of the fighters that beat him were pressure fighters and they were good fighters. and if robinson lost to lamotta, turpin, or other people because lack of training, thats his fault and nobody else's. if we were going off of who should have won with proper training, there would be a ton of different outcomes in fights over the years.

anyways, if you are still assuming that i am hating on robinson and thinking that leonard would beat him then im not discussing it anymore because its pointless to discuss something if you are only reading the parts you want to read in what im writing. i have already given robinson credit for things like adapting and beating fighters that he lost to previously in their rematch but for some reason you are still arguing that he won the rematch. so again, read what i write and respond accordingly.

Pretty tough to be persuaded regarding an argument about welters when all your examples are middles. If you want to argue MIDDLES could beat Ray, well that is obviously true. But the topic at hand was welters wasn't it?

the problem is that really is that pretty much all of the great people he fought were middleweights. how many great fighters did he fight at welter? zivic? a faded armstrong? gavilan was the only great WW that he ever fought and he had some trouble with him in their first fight. fulmer, basilio, turpin, graziano, lamotta, olsen, and others were all middles. now if those fighters were all WW's and beat them, then the story would be different.

but again, im saying that robinson was not unstoppable at WW because that is impossible. i dont care how good you are, there is always somebody that can beat you. just like you said marb, you think that hearns would beat him. im sure that you could see other ATG welters that could beat him(not that you would bet against SRR). im just saying that its pure ignorance to think that he could never lost at WW.

Just for the record, Hearns is the ONLY guy I think who even has a CHANCE to be favored over Ray Robinson at 147. Britton, Walcott, Napoles, Leonard, Tito, Sweet Pea, Armstrong, Ross, Griffith, Walker have very little chance.

thats my point though. hearns is the only one FAVORED. thats the key word. this does not mean that if you could actually make these fights happen that you would be awe strucken if SRR ever lost. i agree that robinson would probably be favored over every welter in histroy, but that doesnt mean that there wouldnt be a surprise or two pop up. and that doesnt mean that robinson would get a fluke loss, it means that there WOULD be someone who just has his number and would beat him.

thats my whole point to all i have been writing. i dont care who thinks that SRR beats leonard. im just saying that robinson has weaknesses just like every other human being who has ever lived. no fighter can beat everybody in the history of the sport.

powerpuncher wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

i dont even get why someone is taking on the task of arguien Robinson losing at welter

its just a giant treck to nowhere

why would anybody think that ricardo lopez would lose? he never did. how about marciano? he never lost so how could you bet against him because he beat every HW there was. that is your argument. just because he never lost at welter doesnt mean that he couldnt ever lose.

Finito came VERY close to losing twice. That's why we'd think he could. Marciano came within one round of a loss to Charles, was badly behind against Walcott and almost got taken out by Roland LaStarza.

COULD Robby get beat by a welter? Sure. But in my mind he's the LEAST likely of any fighter in any division in history to be an underdog at his best weight. The only guys who might even be close would be the pre-plane crash Pep at 126 and Jimmy Wilde at flyweight.

powerpuncher wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

powerpuncher wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

powerpuncher wrote:

the problem is that you are just reading what you want to read because you obviously arent reading what im writing. your comments are all just trying to prove something that we all already know.

so im going to say this one more time, robinson is GREAT! do you understand what that means? i would favor robinson over leonard. do you understand that? i never said every pressure fighter would beat robinson, i said that most of the fighters that beat him were pressure fighters and they were good fighters. and if robinson lost to lamotta, turpin, or other people because lack of training, thats his fault and nobody else's. if we were going off of who should have won with proper training, there would be a ton of different outcomes in fights over the years.

anyways, if you are still assuming that i am hating on robinson and thinking that leonard would beat him then im not discussing it anymore because its pointless to discuss something if you are only reading the parts you want to read in what im writing. i have already given robinson credit for things like adapting and beating fighters that he lost to previously in their rematch but for some reason you are still arguing that he won the rematch. so again, read what i write and respond accordingly.

Pretty tough to be persuaded regarding an argument about welters when all your examples are middles. If you want to argue MIDDLES could beat Ray, well that is obviously true. But the topic at hand was welters wasn't it?

the problem is that really is that pretty much all of the great people he fought were middleweights. how many great fighters did he fight at welter? zivic? a faded armstrong? gavilan was the only great WW that he ever fought and he had some trouble with him in their first fight. fulmer, basilio, turpin, graziano, lamotta, olsen, and others were all middles. now if those fighters were all WW's and beat them, then the story would be different.

but again, im saying that robinson was not unstoppable at WW because that is impossible. i dont care how good you are, there is always somebody that can beat you. just like you said marb, you think that hearns would beat him. im sure that you could see other ATG welters that could beat him(not that you would bet against SRR). im just saying that its pure ignorance to think that he could never lost at WW.

Just for the record, Hearns is the ONLY guy I think who even has a CHANCE to be favored over Ray Robinson at 147. Britton, Walcott, Napoles, Leonard, Tito, Sweet Pea, Armstrong, Ross, Griffith, Walker have very little chance.

thats my point though. hearns is the only one FAVORED. thats the key word. this does not mean that if you could actually make these fights happen that you would be awe strucken if SRR ever lost. i agree that robinson would probably be favored over every welter in histroy, but that doesnt mean that there wouldnt be a surprise or two pop up. and that doesnt mean that robinson would get a fluke loss, it means that there WOULD be someone who just has his number and would beat him.

thats my whole point to all i have been writing. i dont care who thinks that SRR beats leonard. im just saying that robinson has weaknesses just like every other human being who has ever lived. no fighter can beat everybody in the history of the sport.

Robinson at 147 has fewer weaknesses in my view than anyone who ever fought and more strengths he can exploit than all but a handful of men.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but saying "everyone can get beat" just isn't very interesting unless you can argue a particular guy and why you think he'd win.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

4445Frank wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

4445Frank wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

4445Frank wrote:

Ok, I won't argue that Leonard's the GOAT because I'll lose.But here's another point I don't think you guys can deny. Leonard would've been a great opponent for Robinson at welterweight (Not MW). It would've been a great fight and I think Leonard is a good, not certain, pick to win. Not that's not so hard to imagine. Dmar, Bird, what do ya say?

Ray Leonard at 147 is a handful for anybody who ever walked. But can you name a single advantage he'd take into a fight with Robinson?

No. However, Leonard seemed to be as fast as humanly possible. He had great power and Cus stated that he was the best finisher he saw since Joe Louis. Marble, we're talking about a great fight here. Nobody leaves their money in their pockets if Leonard and Robinson are fighting on PPV.

From the limited footage available of Robinson at welter, looks to me like he is noticeably faster. It'd be a GREAT fight. I just can't see Leonard finding a way to win.

The most impressive thing about Leonard is his top of the food chain wins, those four are as good as anyon'e top four who ever walked that I can think of.

Fine. It should've stopped there. My original thesis was that Leonard and Robinson was a good fight based on what I saw of both. There is limited footage of Robinson at WW. I would love to see what ever they had. I once saw him knock a man out with a triple left hook. Threw it to the body, neck and head in lightning fashion. I've also seen Leonard throw punches that I couldn't see. I never stated that he had a more accomplished career than Robinson, however I think it would've been a great fight. I can't see a prime Leonard getting outclassed by anyone at WW. As far as comparing eras is concerned, if we don't stretch our imaginations, it's a lost cause. Jack Johnson vs. Muhammad Ali? Before you talk about that, you have to create the changes that would have occured in Johnson had he been fighting during Ali's time. Either that or try and figure how Ali fights in the bare knuckle days (Johnson wore gloves that might as well been bare knuckles.). By the way, Johnson cleared out a great deal of the Black HWs who were fighting during that time. Men like Sam Lanford and Joe Jeanette, not to mention those that couldn't get the credit they deserved because of the times. Does that make him better than Joe Louis? Muhammad Ali? Marciano? When comparing eras, you take into account the eras and what they demanded of fighters. That's my take.

Except that Leonard was an exception even in his own era. I mean then you had guys like Arguello fighting 80 times, Hagler fighting 65 times, Saad Muhammad fighting 60 times, Duran fighting 100+ times, Benitez fighting 60 times, Ruben Castillo fighting 80 times, Hearns fighting 65 times and on and on.

Leonard really was the first guy to say I'm only going to fight megafights. I mean he had what? 35 fights??? Now did he move mountains in those 35? Yup. But he also avoided the wear and tear that guys who fought twice as often dealt with.

You're exactly right, Marble. It's called intelligence. If he noticed that the his idol, Ali, had brain damage from all his fights and decided to put quality over quanity, good for him. Mike Trainer was a great manager and Leonard was a smart guy. Leonard fought some of the greatest fighters I ever saw for 10s of millions of dollars. It's called intelligence. Also, we both argued that Jersey Joe Walcott should be in the HOF because of the great fighters he fought regardless of the number of losses on his record. Everytime he fought for the title, the other guys name was Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano or Ezzard Charles. He did very well and is one of the best HWs I've ever seen. Back to Leonard. Why get permanent injuries if you can fight the best for millions? Doesn't make any sense. Fighters are people. They have a right to make a living and use their heads at the same time. That doesn't mean you duck anyone. It just means, if you have the opportunity to take on the best and only the best, you do it.

Deezy0814 wrote:

sorry for the can of worms

Hey Deezy! I was wondering where the hell you went? LOL Give me a little help here.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

powerpuncher wrote:

dmar5143 wrote:

powerpuncher there is no hatred towards ray L..just facts.both are what i considerd great fighters..one is overated.thats ray leanord sorry.by overated i mean considreing him a top tener.based on what..prey tell give me all the hofamers robinson beat that were past there prime..come on now you made a statement..was it basilio fullmer gavilin turpin lamotta etc that were past there prime..angott.lets see was marty servo past his prime villeman abrrahms artie levine garth panther rocky castelanni..most of thoses i mentioned were fighters that were not hofamers the second batch that is..a lot of them were good enough to be one...do you know who the hell they are..have you ever seen them fight..dont call me ignorant please....one poster claimed gee greb was a middleweight..yep he was..and beat several top heavyweight contenders before they fought dempsey for the title..was not ray a middle also..back then it was very very common for top welters to fight top middles and often..there was no 154 lb division..today fans cry hes to big..do you not.....the names i mentioned are just a few since this topic has named other fighters that robinson fought that were not hofamers..artie levine has a 25 percent of koing ray for the 10 count..castelanni a 35 percent chance of wiping RL..of course billy graham has a 50 percent chance.robby didnt fight him..you have nooo concept who they were how they fought and who they fought yet you call me ignorant..lol..realy..if you realy examine RL career he got wobbled or decked by almost every solid punch he got hit with..resume wise he falls short extra big time against robinson..punch wise boxing wise guts wise in every facet of the game he falls short..hes out of his league here..a great fighter yes..thats it..if he fought the fighters that robinson fought and the same amount and at the same age robby did ray L would of been koed 20 times.forget the rest of the losses..do you want to agrue that also....lets see hofamer zivic was he also washed up when robinson beat him....were other good fighters like dykes belloise garth panther also washed up...and tons of others..without going to boxinbg rec do you know who there are..nope..

for one, its very hard to read your posts because it doesnt have paragraphs and there arent punctuations so sorry if i dont understand certain things you say.

again, i know that SRR beat great fighters. i know that he is definitely one of the best that has ever stepped in the ring. every fighter has flaws though, no matter who you are. robinson had trouble with fighters that would attack him and put a lot of pressure on him. for example, lamotta had the style to come forward and make SRR fight his fight. SRR also said that turpin was just so strong that he had a hard time fighting him and turpin also has the style coming forward and attacking his opponent. gavilan didnt beat SRR but gave him a heck of a fight in their first fight for the same reason. gavilan throws and ton and will attack you relentlessly. although SRR was past his prime, fullmer and basilio were the same. one thing i will say is that SRR won rematches because he was a great adapter.

so im writing this to show that he has flaws, not to show that he isnt great. i know that you know more fighters than i do, but that doesnt necessarily mean that my opinion isnt valid. the reason i was saying that you were ignorant was because i said that it seemed like you didnt think anybody could beat robinson. and i will stand by it if you tell me that there is no WW that could beat him. styles make fights and at least marb has admitted that there are fighters that could beat him. so if you can tell me that you believe that there are some WW that can beat SRR, then i wont think that you are ignorant, but if you wont admit that, then i wont change my mind.

But you have to put those things in context. The Bull gave Ray problems when he had a 15 pound weight advantage. When Ray grew into being a middle? He ANNIHILATED Lamotta. Turpin was a MIDDLEWEIGHT handful when Robinson had been partying his way through Europe for the past six weeks. When Ray had time to train? Again Turpin was tough, but even at 31 with 125 fights under his belt Ray knocked him out.

No welter ever really came close to beating Robinson.

Ray Robinson: "I'm too pretty to fight Charlie Burley." Yes, he was scared of the great fighter from Pittsburgh. Also, let's not forget about "Ralph Tiger Jones" who beat Robinson. I never heard of Jones before or since. It didn't happen at WW, however it happened. Robinson at MW was great, however he fought mostly sluggers aka Basilio, La Matta and Fuller, all of whom were some of the toughest fighters ever but somewhat predictible. Could they have beaten "The Marvelous One?" No. Robinson was great but not unbeatable. Ray Leonard said himself that he wasn't a great fighter, but he fought great. Meaning that he knew he'd never compile the numbers Robinson did, however if they fought, he was confident of a win. I also read some complaints about Leonard's defense. Try fighting Duran (69-1 with 55 kos) Benitez and Tommy Hearns (32-0 with 30 kos and thought to be invincible at the time, all without getting hit. Even Ali never had to fight a HW who was taller and almost as fast as he was. (Note: I hope nobody is taking any of this personally. I'm enjoying the debate. It's a vacation from the horrible Mayweather - Pac Negotiations. I respect the opinions of Dmar and Marble. I like the "Bird" too, but he's hiding behind them.

there is no doubt any fighter is beatable at any weight...this thread started as what other fighters could be at least considered the greatest of all time outside robinson or ali...with you naming only one..well greb or pep would be my choice..that surely is a legit anser to the topic..another said joe louis.another legit anser..armstrong another top choice..there is not a lot of ansers for this thread..

when leonards name came up the correct anser is noooo way.i feel the same way about him being a top tener..nooo way...then the talk of he could beat robinson especialy at welter..we wondered how..and to say at that weight or imply at that weight he was greater than robby..again based on what..could leanord of won a fight against robinson..sure its possible but not at welter..lets say they fight 5 times..RL gets one descion robinson wins 3 by ko and one by a lopsided UD..thats how i truly see it.
getting back to the topoic.RL does not rank in my mind in the top 10 of all time in the middleweight division.nor in the minds of most boxing historians..is he a greater fighter than tunney benny leanord sam langford..the anser is no.hes one of the top ten welters ever of course..in that weight class robinson walker armstrong and yes barney ross were greater fighters...hes in the mix with a few other welters for numbers 5 threw 7..
there can be made a much stronger arguement that hearns was better than leanord as a fighter than RL being a top tener or a canidate for the greatest ever as this topic asked for.

dmar5143 wrote:

there is no doubt any fighter is beatable at any weight...this thread started as what other fighters could be at least considered the greatest of all time outside robinson or ali...with you naming only one..well greb or pep would be my choice..that surely is a legit anser to the topic..another said joe louis.another legit anser..armstrong another top choice..there is not a lot of ansers for this thread..

when leonards name came up the correct anser is noooo way.i feel the same way about him being a top tener..nooo way...then the talk of he could beat robinson especialy at welter..we wondered how..and to say at that weight or imply at that weight he was greater than robby..again based on what..could leanord of won a fight against robinson..sure its possible but not at welter..lets say they fight 5 times..RL gets one descion robinson wins 3 by ko and one by a lopsided UD..thats how i truly see it.
getting back to the topoic.RL does not rank in my mind in the top 10 of all time in the middleweight division.nor in the minds of most boxing historians..is he a greater fighter than tunney benny leanord sam langford..the anser is no.hes one of the top ten welters ever of course..in that weight class robinson walker armstrong and yes barney ross were greater fighters...hes in the mix with a few other welters for numbers 5 threw 7..
there can be made a much stronger arguement that hearns was better than leanord as a fighter than RL being a top tener or a canidate for the greatest ever as this topic asked for.

dmar, I respect your insight and a lot of people would agree with this post.

thank you frank.

dmar5143 wrote:

there is no doubt any fighter is beatable at any weight...this thread started as what other fighters could be at least considered the greatest of all time outside robinson or ali...with you naming only one..well greb or pep would be my choice..that surely is a legit anser to the topic..another said joe louis.another legit anser..armstrong another top choice..there is not a lot of ansers for this thread..

when leonards name came up the correct anser is noooo way.i feel the same way about him being a top tener..nooo way...then the talk of he could beat robinson especialy at welter..we wondered how..and to say at that weight or imply at that weight he was greater than robby..again based on what..could leanord of won a fight against robinson..sure its possible but not at welter..lets say they fight 5 times..RL gets one descion robinson wins 3 by ko and one by a lopsided UD..thats how i truly see it.
getting back to the topoic.RL does not rank in my mind in the top 10 of all time in the middleweight division.nor in the minds of most boxing historians..is he a greater fighter than tunney benny leanord sam langford..the anser is no.hes one of the top ten welters ever of course..in that weight class robinson walker armstrong and yes barney ross were greater fighters...hes in the mix with a few other welters for numbers 5 threw 7..
there can be made a much stronger arguement that hearns was better than leanord as a fighter than RL being a top tener or a canidate for the greatest ever as this topic asked for.

i dont disagree with you but im not necessarily agreeing. i can see all of your points being valid but sometimes you have to agree to disagree. the first part, im not the one who said that leonard was the next best, i just told whoever it was that it wasnt that crazy to think that way(although you disagree). i believe that pep, greb, and armstrong would have to be one of the next in line.

i respect your opinion and your intelligence. im still learning more about boxing everyday and people like you and marb and others are helping. so no hard feelings

powerpuncher on this board there is never any hard feelings..thanks for the reply.

4445Frank wrote:

Deezy0814 wrote:

sorry for the can of worms

Hey Deezy! I was wondering where the hell you went? LOL Give me a little help here.

sry frank any arguement i could have thrown out about why i think ray could be considered in goat company has already been laid out by you in this thread and i work evenings so i don't get to get back on here until 10 or 11 at night

dmar5143 wrote:

powerpuncher on this board there is never any hard feelings..thanks for the reply.

Deezy0814 wrote:

4445Frank wrote:

Deezy0814 wrote:

sorry for the can of worms

Hey Deezy! I was wondering where the hell you went? LOL Give me a little help here.

sry frank any arguement i could have thrown out about why i think ray could be considered in goat company has already been laid out by you in this thread and i work evenings so i don't get to get back on here until 10 or 11 at night

LOL: No problem Deezy.