You know,I hear all this talk about who is better and who is not.The difference is eras.There are great fighters in every time,but few resonate as much as these guys.Now,it can be argued,the past fellows weren't as adept or well fashioned towards nutrition and sports science,but what they had was heart.To me,the heart of American fighters of yesterday would shit on any so called "boxer" we have now.This is a shout out to every "real" fighter from "yesterday."
was gene fullmer better than robinson? he won more of their fights together but when compared to robinson is relatively unknown. am i missing information?
@ZigZagRunner robinson was nowhere close to his prime at that point. He already had over 130 fights under his belt! This is unheard of today. Nobody fights that much. Robinson was still a very good fighter even way past his prime. So he competed because he needed the money. It is generally considered that jake lamotta is the only man to ever beat him when he was in his prime
@ TA152H01 please stop being biased hearns and leonard wouldnt last 5 seconds against robinson. lamotta would rape hearns (i like tommy btw) but i think leonard would scrap a hard decision. ray robinson was sugar ray leonard but fucking upgraded he had more speed more power more stamina more skills a better chin. like i said he would DESTROY LEONARD AND HEARNS THEY WOULD GET BRUTALLY DESTROYED BY RAY ROBINSON. dont take this the wrong way just saying my opinion :)
Comparing Sugar Ray Leonard to Sugar Ray Robinson?! No Comparison! There's a reason why the term "Pound for Pound Greatest of All time" was coined to describe Sugar Ray Robinson. He was the best even compared to Leonard. The only reason why Robinson lost this fight and couldn't land good clean combination is because he fought Carmen Basilio, who was also a LEGENDARY FIGHTER! I don't think Leonard could've stood a change against Carmen Basilio if ever they fought..
@TheSkyclark ! Pardom me, because I usually don't like to reply in other comments.I really 100 % agree with you!! I see you know about boxing. By that time there was a lot of real great legendary worriors!!
I wish Carmen could get his just do. In this fight, he is 7lbs lighter than Robinson. In today's boxing world, they would be in different weight classes. The man fought every great Welterweight and some great Middleweights ... AND WAS NEVER KNOCKED DOWN!!! Toughest little bastard ever! Kudos to you Carmen!!
Roy Jones and Floyd Mayweather arent known as jabbers.. Its a very important punch but when u have great speed its not mandatory for you to have a "great" jab. Floyd only really uses his against certain opponents. Corrales and Marquez come to mind.
its not dead yetas long as there are poor countries boxing wont die but who watches boxing only freaks and fans and some filipinos and mexicans. people that have the athletic ability to become great heavyweight fighters choose football or basketball nowadays but thats what we need a strong and entertaining heavyweight division. even puertoricans choose baseball instead of boxing. and asian dont box anymore. I m from korea and koreans golf. we used to have great fighters but its all past.
Boxing is dead. this was a different time. more people were boxing the fighters that were the stars in the 30s-70s went through a highly selective process to get to the top. more boxers= more talented boxers. I think the champions nowadays are well educated fighters but you cant compare them with the talent that those fighters had. look at this fight its like a dance. i think one big difference is also that the fighters in past had way better chins. again one asset you needed to get to the top
@onionfarmercarmen There was a greater sense of urgency back then because people seen boxing as a golden opportunity to get ahead in life, but in no way is boxing dead now. Not by a long shot.
That depends on how old you are.I'm 35 and came up with the mid 80's and early to mid 90's fighters.Leonard,Hagler,Duran,Starling,McCullum,Donald Curry,Chavez,Taylor,Tyson,Holyfield,Jones,Hopkins,Shane,Manny,MayweatherTrinidad ect...The biggest fighters currently are 90's era fighters.Mayweather,Manny & Hopkins.This generation has yet to develop any fighters to carry the torch.Boxing is most energetic due to those 90's era fighters that are now 34+ yrs old.
For the fact that one of the most dominant Heavyweight Champions today has a Doctorate Degrees tells the whole story.Education is important and definitely has it's place.But I think that you understand my point.
Great video quality for certain. Thanks. Though myself I'd prefer the ring call over the music. Unless you're someone who turns off the sound and plays music cd's while watching a pay per view fight. :)
Yes, of course. We always hear how could Robinson is, but in reality, he's way overrated. This is not to say he wasn't a great fighter, just not as good as people say.
The Robinson in this fight wouldn't have much chance against the greats of the 70s/80s. But, he's obviously past his prime.
Overall though, his defense is just so poor he'd have big problems with those guys. His hand speed is also two cuts below Leonard. His power though is extraordinary.
@TA152H01 Why do you think Robinson is over rated? This fight was after his first retirement, so, like you said, he was past his prime here.
Although you claim that Robinson's defense was 'just so poor', he was never knocked out in over 200 fights, including 6 fights with LaMotta, 2 with Basilio, 4 with Fullmer and 2 with Olsen. All 4 of those guys were renowned for being tough guys that could hit.
I suggest you read up and watch some film of SRR before you make any more rash comments.
@Pacquiaoifyable I have seen many of his fights, and it was not a rash comment. Most people are afraid to see the truth, if enough people have said falsehoods. We have to think for ourselves.
If you look at Robinson's record, he had draws against guys that would not compete against Leonard or Hearns. He also nearly got knocked out by Artie Levine. Lost to LaMotta (would have have landed a shot against Leonard?) and most thought he lost to Georgie Abrams.
All of these were in his prime, and below 25. He also had a draw against Henry Brimm (23-9-2) while still under 30. Leonard before his retirement would not have had these problems.
But, more to the point. Leonard was faster, moved better, threw better combinations, had better form, and MUCH better defense. Robinson hit like a mule kicked, and was good (if not as good) at everything but defense. Power makes up for a lot, but not that much.
@TA152H01 The only fights from the ones I mentioned above fought in his prime were the ones with LaMotta and he won 5 out of 6, not bad going at all.
I don't know why you are zoning in on Robinson's 'power' so much. He wasn't a power puncher and is known for his all-round game, rather than just one trait. This is unlike Leonard, who was known for his speed more than anything else.
Now that's not to say that Robinson would beat Leonard or vice versa. I personally believe Robinson win, though.
@Pacquiaoifyable I just mentioned to you fight after fight in Robinson's prime where he had problems that Leonard would never have had.
LaMotta was a punching bag. He would not have belonged in the ring with Leonard. He did with Robinson, but Robinson was better.
Robinson hit like a mule kicked. Leonard had good power, but Robinson was a real bomber. Basilio said he was the hardest hitter he fought. He was good at everything but defense, I agree with that. But, he had a punch.
@TA152H01 How you can say that LaMotta was nothing but a punching bag is beyond me. He's an all-time great and nothing less.
Also, why do you continue to say that Robinson was heavy handed? He has a very impressive knockout record, but that's not just because of the punch he packed. He was known for his movement, speed, ring generalship and just general fighting instinct as well as his strength.
I think someone's been playing a bit too much Fight Night...
@Pacquiaoifyable LaMotta was an all time great? At what? He was slow, had no punch, was short, and had limited footwork. He lost to "greats" like Lloyd Marshall, Jimmy Reeves (2x), Nate Bolden, Jose Basora, etc... (19 total). He would have been embarrassed by Leonard.
Think for yourself, not what he's known for. When I first saw Robinson, I was shocked. He didn't match his reputation.
Bottom line, Basilio said Robinson was only an OK boxer, and a great puncher. He'd know, right?
@TA152H01 It seems I have encountered someone that thinks if you have a blemish on your record you are a 'bum'. When you fight over 100 times, you're going to lose a few of them, regardless of the opposition.
If you really knew your boxing you would've known that the Mafia got involved in Jake's career and he was told to take a dive in numerous fights.
He didn't become Middleweight Champion of the World by magic. Jake LaMotta is an all-time great.
@Pacquiaoifyable 19 losses is a blemish? What? Did they make Jake slow? Did they make him have no punch? I didn't mention Billy Fox, which is who LaMotta said he took a dive for.
There are great champs, and those that fall far below. Losing 20% of your fights is not a great, especially when they are not at the end.
He beat Laurent Dauthuille to win the championship. Yup, that's an all-time great.
Think for yourself, don't go by rep alone. He's overrated. Watch his fights.
@Pacquiaoifyable He was slow, and had no punch. He also was very tough. I never implied otherwise, but that's not enough to make him a great.
He never admitted to all those fixes you mention, so I'm not sure where you're getting these from. Either way, he lost too many times, and outside of being tough and having good defense, had little.
You think he'd have a chance against Hagler? You think he'd be anything but embarrassed by Leonard? Benitez would easily outclass him.
@TA152H01 YouTube only allows 500 characters per comment, and since we're already off topic, I'm just going to say what I think without going into great detail.
I think he would have beaten Benitez and had a decent shout against Hagler and Leonard. I think he would've struggled most against Leonard, plainly because of his speed disadvantage. Hagler wasn't an amazing mover which would've allowed Jake to stay in close, where he liked to be, for the majority, if not the entirety of the fight.
@Pacquiaoifyable I disagree with Benitez, but with Hagler, if you compared the two, where do you give LaMotta the edge? Hagler hit harder, was a bit quicker, was tougher (not that LaMotta was not), could and did box some fights, and had a much longer reach (something people forget). LaMotta's advantage was? Well, his bigger head. I give him an edge in defense too.
Hagler wasn't Ray Leonard, but he moved fine. Don't judge Hagler by his last fights, by Mugabi he was shot.
@iammybrain Your grammar sucks, and to the cattle, anyone thinking for themselves is probably a threat.
It's been said, therefore it must be true, that Sugar Ray Robinson was a God! Even though he nearly got knocked out by a scrub, drew against a scrub, and had close decisions against guys that wouldn't be in the top 10 in the late 70s early 80s.
Everyone has off days though. He was certainly a great fighter. Just not as good as reputation has him.
@TA152H01 'Too many sheep and not enough shepherds' thats one of my favorite sayings. I've read your posts, your alternatve views aren't a threat to anyone, let alone the 'cattle' that you speak of.
@iammybrain It's not intended as a threat, just as an invitation to look at things a different way. Most people are afraid of saying the obvious, that being that Ray Robinson was overrated. Not that he wasn't an excellent fighter.
Also, he's portrayed as a stylistic boxer, which he isn't. He has ability in everything, but he's a heavy handed bomber as much, or more, than a boxer. Look at the leverage on his punches, he's often off-balance because of it.
@gibememoni Your post doesn't say much good about you there, genius.
Whenever you say something like Ray Robinson had flaws, or Ali had flaws, or they weren't as great as people say, you realize there are going to be people who disagree. Most people will, because they have been told so, and hadn't even questioned it.
But, if you watch the fights, you can see Robinson would have had a terrible time against guys like Leonard, and LaMotta would have been destroyed by Hagler.
@TA152H01 You said in an earlier post that Ray Robinson's balance was bad. He was an outstanding mover. The way he threw his weight about, his shifts in momentum, balance while punching and moving, he was one of the best that I've seen for that.
Also, I decided that Robinson was and is the greatest of all-time by watching his fights and reading about him, not by listening to people. That's my opinion. I've seen fights from every era and I've seen enough of them to be able to make up my own mind.
@Pacquiaoifyable Actually, you're misquoting me. I said Robinson threw punches with so much intensity it often left him off-balance. They are too different things.
Even Leonard, who had excellent balance and legs sometimes was off-balance with some shots he threw (albeit rarely).
So, no, I never said he had bad balance, the point was he threw bombs.
That post wasn't even directed towards you, but for someone else. But, it applies to most people anyway.
You may be interested in this bit of info.Ray Robinson had has personal Barber in his corner at points through his fight career.His name was Mr.Roger.Who's role was to make sure that the champs hair was combed and in place before the beginning of each rd.
@ohho1 The funny part is, you get people screaming about how great SRR was. But, based on what? They say no one has footage in his prime, but only after his prime when he wasn't so great. So, then they point to his record, but ignore that he drew or had close fights with really poor guys, and then insist you can't judge a guy by these fights, or a record.
So, where's the basis? Because someone else said it, and said it often?
No doubt, he was a great fighter, just not THAT great.
@TA152H01 Gee,don't you think this may be a little over the top?Sugar Ray was a great fighter,and there is great footage I have seen of him in his prime,although it is a bit hard to find.From what I saw when he was a welterweight,he was spectacular.
@PrAeToRiAOnE3 Well, as I said, I do consider him a great fighter. Spectacular would be something I'd even agree with in some respects too.
I have a problem where people make guys out to be Gods. Ray Leonard in his prime (pre-retirement) is to me the most perfect fighter to step into the ring. Robinson, by comparison, looks slower, with poor defense, a pawing jab, and wild, amateurish shots. But, man did he hit. His power is soooo underestimated.
His style was way ahead of his time.To watch him even in this clip is like watching the B/W footage of a top level fighter now.When we talk about how great Ray Robinson was we talk about Technique,Boxing Intelligence,Activity,The ability to deliver a KO punch with either hand going back wards.This man was Ali's,Leonard's & Shane Mosely's Idol.Ray was knocked down by Graziano.Within 2min Ray boxed him 2 the exact spot that he was knocked down and ko'd him in it.Simply Mastery.
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Yes, but his technique was horrible. He looks nothing like Ray Leonard, who had much better form with his punches. Leonard threw textbook punches with incredible speed, accuracy and form.
Robinson looks like an amateur by comparison, with wide off-balance shots thrown from the hips, and effectively no defense.
He had tons of talent, and hit like a mule kicked, so I do recognize he was a great fighter. All time best? I have a harder time with that.
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING I have watched him over time, and luckily, I don't base my observations on "legend" or reputation.
I actually do consider him a great fighter. But, he's overrated. I was expecting to see Ray Leonard ++, instead I saw a guy that in most ways was noticeable worse. In speed, balance, and mainly defense and form, he wasn't in the same class. In power, I was shocked at how this guy could hit, and what a bomber he was. He's not what I was expecting, at all.
I respect your perspective.It's well thought out.You are making the Ray Leonard comparison.But you must keep this in mind.You are basing this on the footage that exist of Robinson at Middle Weight.Where he was still above average and very impressive.2.You have to consider the activity rate of both fighters.Ray Leonard only had 40 pro fights.Ray Robinson went undefeated in 93 fights or so before losing.With a career record of 175-6-105 ko's. cont..
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Yes, but if you look very closely at that record, a lot of the guys he fought had horrible records, and he had draws even early in his career, against guys that wouldn't have won two rounds against Leonard.
Put another way, there's nothing in footage to indicate he's even in the same class as someone like Leonard (pre-retirement). His record is impressive, but he had two draws in his prime against weak opponents, and many wins were against poor opponents.
I'll only point out one other thing about Ray Robinson.His combination punching.Mixing it up to the body and head.Boxer,slugger.Well balanced fighter.
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Again, I do think he was a great fighter, just overrated. His power was excellent. Great chin. Great heart. All good things.
His hand speed was very good as well (not excellent, like Leonard, or Meldrick Taylor, for example). His form very amateurish, his jab often pawing, and his defense in particular disappointing.
Still a great fighter. But, as the all-time best? As this magical boxer that could do everything great? Not so. If i
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Well, you'd think with so many fights it would be even more important to maintain form, so you don't get hit. His defense was too porous for that many fights.
That's where rating fighters is so difficult. Prime Ray Leonard was a clearly better fighter than any Ray Robinson that we see, and his record in that period more impressive. But, Robinson, over his career, did much more. Which do you rate higher? I rate the former, but I can see why someone would disagree.
Ray Robinson is the greatest fighter that I have seen.It's difficult to maintain excellent defense when although you are a slick Boxer you are also a cold blooded puncher!Something has to be sacrificed.He wasn't so slick that you couldn't touch him and that made the fights exciting and competitive.In order for you to beat The slick Boxer/Puncher Ray Robinson you had to out fight him.Well balanced fighter.
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Watch Ray Leonard to see someone who had great defense, and still was an aggressive fighter, who threw bombs. He threw them correctly, not from his hips, and they landed more often. He didn't have Robinson's power though, but he was able to be very good defensively, while still being a good offensive fighter. Robinson just threw very amateurish punches. Against guys he fought, it was mostly OK, but against Leonard or Hearns, he'd get killed doing that.
Out of 40 fights a fighters career is condensed and if he is an elite fighter the performances are going to be fairly solid when looking at the big picture.You talk about todays boxing form vs yesterdays.Ray Robinson was a 40 era's fighter.If he's not executing something properly blame it on the fact that Boxing was still being developed.There is a lot of Boxing education between 1940 - 1980.Today's fighters are only able to take it to the next level by learning from past fighters.
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING It's not like computer technology. Boxing is boxing. You had guys with great form even in 1940, look at Joe Louis and Gene Tunney. Look at guys today, compared to 30 years ago. They suck.
Robinson fought well into the 60s. You had guys that showed great boxing well before that like Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott, as well as Louis.
Marcianos style was developed from fighters that had preceded him.Joe Fraziers style was influenced by Marciano.Tyson style was influenced by Frazier.
Ali's style was influenced by Robinson.Leonard was influenced by Ali ect..
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Than you know more than Muhammad Ali, who said you can't teach Marciano's style, and that's just his way of doing things.
Leonard fought nothing like Ali. That's a really poor remark.
Ali said he was influenced a lot by Walcott. Point is, Walcott was around while Robinson was still young. It had nothing to do with the times. Are you implying that no one threw straight punches then, or a straight, hard jab? Joe Louis? All the HWs I mentioned? Never saw them?
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Man you could go on and on with this guy for weeks. He is the biggest Leonard backer I've ever come across. Lets take a look at the great fighters Ray fought.Hearns was schooling Leonard the first time around till getting knocked out. 8 YEARS later Ray got a gift draw in a fight he lost v hearns. He got a gift decision vs Hagler. Got beat by a lightweight Duran past his prime the first time. Had a hollow victory with Duran quitting the 2nd...What's so impressive about that?
From 82 - 91 Leonard fought approximately 1 fight per year.To end his career with about 40 fights.With some of those decisions being questioned.With only a few career defining bouts he wasn't busy enough to even think about being compared to Ray Robinson.Ray fought Lamatta a naturally bigger man as many times as Ray had defining fights.
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Not saying Leonard isn't an all-time great. But to call Robinson Amateurish in comparison to Leonard is blasphemous! I'm 35 and I grew up watching the 80's era fighters, but i come from a big boxing family. My family members had film of the old timers and i can personally say that Robinson is one of the greatest if not The greatest fighter to ever set foot in that squared circle.
Man! Boxing is the sport of Kings! I respect all athletic competitions but the mono o mono aspect of boxing just you and him putting it all on the line with no help from a team,no one too take your place when you tire or hurt sets the sport apart.And it's respected enough by others that the Heavyweight Championship is Universally recognized as the most coveted title in all of sports.
Have you watched Robinsons Welter Weight Fight against Toney Riccio? The man was brilliant! I can't stress this enough..He was so far ahead of his time that to his opponents it had to be like fighting someone in the 90's!
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING I've seen some clips of that fight. Excellent! I agree that Robinson's style transcended time. He would have done well for himself in this modern era of boxing. Nobody can tell me that that those old school fighters were not tougher with more stamina then new school. Not only fighting way over a 100 times but also competing in fights that had unlimited rounds till someone quit or was knocked out. It's crazy to think especially with today's advancement in heath and science
I know..The fighters today have all of this State of the Art Glow in the Dark Equipment.The added benefit of a GNC and most get winded after 7rds of fighting!.And if you apply pressure they won't make it to twelve! It doesn't make any sense Man!
The fighters of today arent as well rounded as a Ray Robinson.A 1940's era fighter.He threw punches in bunches.4,5,6 punch combinations to the head & body with bad intentions.And this was all of the time! He specialized in getting rid of an opponent.Ray Robinson is where Shane Mosley (When at 135 weight class) got "Power Boxing" from.
You mentioned something about his caliber of comp..Out of 40 fights how many of those fighters do you think were D & C+ caliber competitors? cont...
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Well, when I watch guys like Jake LaMotta, and he represents the top of the class, I see a guy that wouldn't belong in the ring with guys like Hagler, Leonard, Hearns or even Duran and Benitez.
Basilio was decent though, I have to say that, but really, his level of competition was quite low compared to the 80s.
The thing that made guys like Leonard great is, he beat greats, and he destroyed everyone else. They didn't look competitive, and they weren't.
"his level of competition was quite low compared to the 80s." You can't say that. Because you know more about the fighters stats of the 80's.How much do you actually know about the fighters that Robinson, Louis or Charles faced out side of the few names and stats that have been high lighted to us by historians and commentators?
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING You can see some of the fights. You haven't seen Jake LaMotta fight? There are films. There are films of Robinson. You just saw Basilio. Would this guy even be competitive with Leonard? He'd get whitewashed. He'd have a hard time winning a round. We do have films. And then, you see records, realizing that the "great" fighters of that era were not as competitive as 80s fighters.
Nothing against Louis, Charles, Walcott or Marciano. HWs were damn good.
My point is..Every fighter that you just mentioned is a fighter that historians and commentators have made popular to us.For you to say that Basilio's or Robinson's competition was quit low you would have to have some knowledge of the fighters that they faced and stats out side of those few names to back it up.
That's how the sport is.Back then the guys fought a lot 4 to 5 x's per month that's why they accumulated so many pro fights.Ray fought Lamatta 2 x's within 3 weeks in 1945.I will say that the fighters were better conditioned and a lot tougher during that era & prior.Gloves were smaller and the ware and tare on their body's from fighting so often.Ray was to advanced for the fighters of his era.The thing's that he was doing was like parring them with a fighter from 2006.
@TA152H01 he also fought 10-20 times a year as a champion. You cant say that for the guys of today or hte guys in SRL's time. YOu simply dont understand boxing. Robinson went 40 fights without a loss and he was just barely getting started.
@TA152H01 you dont understand how styles work man. Boxing has evolved over the years. Different strategies are used and people learn and grow. Kind of like how you have grown after being soundly defeated in a debate. YOU PUGILIST PUTS!
@ah93704 Are you a homo? Why are you stalking me from fight to fight, trying to get attention. Quite simply, you're an idiot that I have no interest in talking to. I guess I really had to say that.
You should learn more about boxing before you post. I know you'd like to be smart, and I know you try to bluff your way, but really, you're a low grade moron that thinks he knows more than Ali, Bugner, Holmes, Lyle, etc...
@TA152H01 buttmunc? what are you, 12? Have you even started puberty yet? Sugar Ray Robinson fought everybody: Jake Lamotta, Carmen Basilio, Henry Armstrong, and a list of fighters that we will never see the likes of every again. You just dont understand this sport. Nice try at mkaing yourself look cool. Ernie Shavers has a 77% ko ratio but George Foreman has an 87% ko ratio..HAHA..I win and you lose you dumb fuck!
@ah93704 Why are you stalking me? You're buttmunch, right?
Only a complete idiot thinks Foreman had the one-punch power of Earnie Shavers, and you're one of them. Foreman rarely even knocked guys down with a single shot. He rates well below Shavers and Marciano in one-punch power.
When 10 boxers say the same thing, why are you so stupid you can't figure it out?
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING You're wrong, of course. You don't know boxing if you really believe that.
It's very easy to counter Robison's jab. The purpose of a jab is often to score points, to cause swelling and cuts, and/or to prevent the opponent from throwing punches. It's also used to break a guy's rhythm.
Robinson would get killed throwing that shit jab against a guy like Hearns. He'd be knocked out. Leonard would butcher him, but I don't think knock him out. He'd have to change.
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Then why did you delete your post? Were you afraid of your own words? You couldn't leave them for everyone to see? What kind of stupid games do you play?
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING I didn't change the subject, it says Comment Removed. You have to change your own words after it's been typed in because you were wrong? If you were right, why did you change it.
You have never boxed, so can't really understand some of the stuff in it. That's fine, but to say a jab is only to set up combinations is absolutely absurd. You can win fights with just a jab. A hard jab can bust a guy up, and make him afraid of throwing rights.
It's the same exact comment.Check your e mail and compare the two.I left some words out of the original post (small stuff).Trainers have never boxed before but they know their stuff! I said it used to set up combo punching & serves to knock a man off balance.You have to read everything.
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING It still says Comment Removed. When you reword, you've lost, it means you know you had to change something.
You miss the main point that jabs score points. If you had to pick one punch you wanted to be great, it would be the jab. It's the most important punch in boxing. It's often the punch that determines the winner between great fighters. Great fighters are hard to hit, the guy landing the jab has a big edge.
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING At this point the argument is stupid. You're so clearly wrong, and just don't want to admit it.
A bad pawing jab is good in your book? LOL!
Let's go back to Leonard/Hearns. Hearns jab was what made Leonard come in, because he was winning round after round. Leonard was extraordinary, so won, but every other guy had to walk into that right hand or lose by decision because of Hearns' jab.
@TA152H01 You're beginning to annoy me. Shut up about Leonard, this video is not about him or associated with him in any way. It's funny how, in your book, the vast majority are wrong but you are right...
@Pacquiaoifyable You've annoyed me from the beginning. I said Robinson had flaws. The vast majority? You and someone else? You think the vast majority think a pawing jab is a good thing? You think it's ONLY to set up combinations?
What annoys you is you're wrong, and it's obvious even to you. Saying a jab is only to set up combinations is plain wrong, and uninformed. That's what's annoying you. But, I didn't make you say it. You did by yourself.
@TA152H01 When I said the vast majority, I meant the vast majority think that Robinson was and is the greatest fighter of all-time. I think it would be hard to class someone as that if they had a 'poor jab'. A jab can be different things to different people. To someone with a long reach like Liston, it is used as a battering ram to force entry through the defence, but to someone with an average reach like Robinson, the jab was used to set up different shots more than anything else.
@Pacquiaoifyable Most people think that without even watching him. No one I know considers him the greatest, but I don't even have a problem with that. His jab is very poor. That's not even debatable. He did have great power (underrated), he had good hand speed, great heart, and could throw combinations with power.
That was fine against the guys he fought. He'd get killed in 70s/80s. He'd have to improve. Maybe he would. But, what we see isn't the all-time best.
@TA152H01 It certainly is debatable. Even though the footage you see of Robinson is of him past his prime, you can see that his jab is still an effective tool. And what evidence have you that suggests people say he's the greatest of all-time without watching any footage of him? I'd like to see a few sources that proves this theory, because I would bet this is a false statement.
There is a fight with Robinson vs Riccio on here.Robinson was 25 yrs old.I haven't seen a fighter put it together like Robinson and this was 60 yrs ago.
@Pacquiaoifyable just because you dont have footage doesnt mean you dont have evidence. They had a thing back in the day called "news clippings" so go read what they wrote about Robinson. He was considered one of the best ever based off of his record, who he fought, his ability to move up in weight and defeat bigger guys consitstant...Ray Leonoard moved upa nd fought Hagler but Ray Robinson moved up and fought similiar guys but did it mroe than once!
No one that you know considers him the greatest! Who are you discussing this with! Your brothers & sisters!? You all sit around and watch fight footage together? Or you must have some very loyal buddies! Ray was an all around fighter.And he fought blood & guts when he had too.There wasn't any unnecessary bicycling.And I can not over state this.He implemented a well balanced attack on his opponents.What he did to the right side of his body,he did to the left.
@Pacquiaoifyable what specifically about Robinsons jab do you think was poor? Was it the accuracy he displayed with it? The fact that he often hurt his opponents with it (instead of using his right cross for that purpose) or perhpas was it because he used it so often? Tell me what exactly Ray Robinson lacked in the jab department. Thank you!
@ah93704 I think you replied to the wrong person. I never criticised Robinson's jab. Infact, I can't speak highly enough of the man. I think everything about his game was world class.
@TA152H01 a jab can be used for many purpose: a range fighter, to cut up and bust u an opponent, to set up combinations, and to keep the opponent away. Ray Robinson had a great jab. He used it for many different purposes, depending on his opponent. He fought and defeated teh best of his time. What have you done with your life TA1?
You use your jab how you like.It is not written any where that say's you must throw it with the authority of a right hand.Robinson used his jab for it's purpose.He used it to set up and unleash a series of head & body shots.A fighter that does not have that arsenal of punches will probably need a heavier weapon out front.
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Actually, there is something called a "textbook jab". Robinson didn't have a good jab. Simple as that. He'd have problems against great fighters with good jabs. Big problems. He'd probably improve it.
You and this Pac are not interesting to me at this point. Both of you know you're wrong, and I know you're wrong, so I'm done even talking to you two and done reading your worthless responses. It's just about your ego being bruised now, and that doesn't interest me.
Robinson didn't need a thunderous solid jab.He used his jab as a Pawn.He used his jab strictly for it's purpose.With Rooks,Bishops,Knights,A King & Queen ready to make moves.Their has not been a fighter with an offense attack to match Ray Robinson's.
Most of the time he'd just throw the single jab, and a lot of times he never even started combinations with a jab.
I'll agree that Robinson's jab would start more combinations than most I've seen, but that would be from the other fight as they nail him.
Let's pretend he's fighting Leonard (or Hearns). Round 1, he'd get completely outjabbed. He'd know he can't fight outside, and he'd know he'd have to take big chances and try to open up. The better jab can just keep jabbing.
@TA152H01 To say robinson had a poor jab is a bit of a bold statement. I'd agree that it's not the most amazing jab ever, certainly it's not as effective as the ali jab but it's no worse than average. Robinson does throw it often and most importantly land it often, it leads to an accumulative effect so in that regards robinson's jab is effective. To say he wouldn't have stood a chance against the guys of 70/80's is a little ignorant. Hearns didn't have a chin and would be ko'd by SRR.
Hearns could take a Welter punch, and Robinson would probably get knocked out early. He's slower, has less power, much shorter, and has a much shorter reach. He'd get killed by his jab if he survived the first few rounds. If he hit Hearns, he could hurt him, so I'd give him a chance.
He'd be completely outclassed by Leonard. It would be a one-sided fight. He's too poor defensively, too wide with punches, and not fast enough.
@TA152H01 Are in insane? In what respects in Robinson slower than Hearns? I'm starting to think you haven't seen too much prime robinson only clips like this where he is past his best, but still incredible. Where have you got this crazy idea robinson was slow? Hearns has no chance he would be ko'd inside 5, Robinson has faster hands, better punch acc, far greater chin, far greater heart, and much better stamina. Hearn's beat robinson don't make me laugh. As for leonard SRR would ko him late.
@XavierMarciano Hearns at welter had quicker hands. Robinson had good, but not great hand speed. He'd look slow next to Leonard, and a bit slower than Hearns.
Hearns would take him out early. Hearns had a much bigger punch, better hand speed, better form, more heart (sometimes a problem for him). Both had good punches, hand speed, stamina, and heart, but Hearns simply was more talented.
Leonard would dominate SRR. He'd be completely outclassed. Too slow, too wide with punches.
@TA152H01 Hearns faster? More talented? Leonard would completely outclass Robinson? Mate you sound like a proper idiot right now, Robinson has more knockouts than all of Hearn's and Leonard's fights combined!! Seriously get real. No way Hearn's had faster hands, Robinson put blinding combinations together, he is also a totally underated puncher, Robinson punched very hard. He was also incredibly tough, and he won constantly against quality opposition, SRR would ko Hearn's early, Leonard late.
@XavierMarciano Hearns was faster, watch him at welter. You sound like someone that can't think for himself, and doesn't believe his own eyes, but just what everyone else is saying.
Robinson put nice combinations together, albeit wide, but they aren't blinding. They are just normal fast.
He'd have no chance against Leonard. He was slower, had much worse skills (wide punches, head wide open), worse balance, much worse defense. He hit harder. He'd get outclassed.
@TA152H01 Believe me I can think for myself, that's why I'm not accepting the mundane mumblings of some attention whore, it's clear by your comments that your some sad little man begging for attention. That's the only way I can conceive someone with the arrogance to say Robinson would be "OUTCLASSED" by Leonard. Who knows maybe your not a sad loser veying for attention, maybe your just a simplistic idiot or a biggot with an angry agenda against Robinson. Either way I've grown tired of you.
@Pacquiaoifyable Yeah your right either he is trying to get a rise from me or he is a massive leonard fan, I can't decide. Either way I won't be indulging him anymore. Since I have you pac, what were thoughts on the whole mayweather/ortiz debacle?
@XavierMarciano Actually, you're proof you can't think. You're just an ignorant toad that doesn't know boxing, so repeats what everyone else said.
I've told you why Leonard would outclass him. You're too stupid to see it, or you're too small to admit you're wrong.
He was definitely faster. Definitely had better form. Definitely had better defense. What could SRR do? He couldn't throw his wide punches, he'd get killed. He couldn't out jab him. He'd just lose badly.
@TA152H01 "Definitely faster" how is Leonard "definitely faster with his pitty-pat flash punches, Ray Robinson threw punches to kill not to show off to judges. Also Ray Robinson certainly had more punching power, certainly and what do you mean by better form? Ray Robinson would dominate Leonard in a brawl and certainly has equal the boxing skill if not more and greater stamina, how is Leonard going to "outclass" Robinson? WTF?
@kenomy66 You obviously don't know boxing at all. I'm talking Leonard pre-retirement, and he threw hard punches, very fast. His hand speed is considerably better than Robinsons. Robinson did hit harder.
By form, I'm referring to Leonard's textbook punches, instead of the wide, off-balance, amateurish shots Robinson takes. Robinson could never hit Leonard with those shots, and would get killed with counter punches.
Leonard would easily beat Robinson. Outside of power, he's better.
@TA152H01 Lol at your first comment. Leonards seeming definite speed might have something to do with the fact that we don't see Robinson at his prime at Welterweight. Ray Robinson threw textbook punches, stop watching from that footage when he was an amateur, he threw straight pucnhes with lethal power in his punches, Robinson would pressure Leonard and if Leomard gets drwan into a fight hes getting knocked out. Its RIDICULOUS to state that Leonard is so much faster that he easily outclasses.
@kenomy66 Leonard never even got knocked down before he retired, despite fighting guys like Duran and Hearns. Robinson would have no chance.
I've seen clips of Robinson's fights when he was in his 20s, and he's two cuts below Leonard. He has no defense, a poor jab, throws terrible punches that are too wide, and leaves himself off-balance.
Leonard would have no trouble beating him any style. Because of superior hand speed and form, he'd butcher him with counter shots.
@TA152H01 lol you mean those clips in the fucking terrible footage, and how does Robinson have a poor jab? he had a 7/10 jab not a tommy Hearns jab but good none the less, and lol what was Leonards defense? thats right it was his speed, I have no doubt that in his Welterweight prime Robinson was as fast if not faster than Leonard, Robinson sacrificed his defense for great offense. Leonards hand speed only looks greater on videos when hes throwing piity pat punces when he sits on them...
@kenomy66 You're wrong. Watch Leonard knock out guys like Andy Price, or even the devastating punches he landed on Hearns. He landed terrific punches with great hand speed. You're confused by watching him AFTER he came back, not before.
Duran wasn't even able to knock Leonard down with a perfect punch. Robinson got knocked down a lot, and got draws against guys that wouldn't have a chance against Leonard.
@TA152H01 Maybe he got draws against guys because he was fighting every month and didnt have 40 or so fights like Leonard? you think a guy can fight week after week and keep on putting stellar performance everytime? well thats an unrealistic expectation. Im not saying Leonard couldnt punch he could, but you wont see Leonard on any objective greatest punchers of all time lists, Robinsons chin is too good to be knocked out by someone like Leonard, he suffered flash knockdowns but was never koed.
@kenomy66 Leonard destroyed better fighters than Robinson got draws against. He completely outclassed even champions that were unbeaten. Robinson got draws against scrubs.
I never said Leonard had Robinson's punch, and strangely, I think Robinson is completely misunderstood. He's not nearly as good a boxer as people say, and he's a much better puncher. He's really a puncher with boxing skill, not the reverse. His power is outstanding.
@TA152H01 Again Leonard did not fight nearly as often as Robinson did, if Leonard had to fight with Ray Robinsons fight schedule he would have draws against "scrubs" as well. Robinson beat a ridiculous amount of ranked competition, its too bad they couldn't be "champions" since they only had one title per division, more knowledgeable ppl than you would disagree about Rays boxing skill, i dont see how Leonard outclasses anywhere, he has better defense and thats it.
@kenomy66 Boxing all the time should keep a guy sharp and in shape, and the guys Robinson had problem with wouldn't even belong in the ring with Leonard. Even better fighters got knocked out easily and outclassed by Leonard.
If you can't see that Leonard has better hand speed, straighter punches, a better jab, a purer hook, and better legs, there's not much else to talk about. It's pretty obvious, but people don't want to see some things, and I can't change it.
@TA152H01 Boxing all the time also puts more wear and tear on your body, they keep your skills sharp, but do you seriuosly believe that a fighter is going to give his absolute best performance every fight with that type of schedule? be realistic, it wasnt like he was fighting bums too, he was fighting ranked contenders, I cant see that Leonard has straighter punchers or a better jab or better legs and neither can many knowledgeable posters that i discuss boxing or who give their opinions do.
Leonard never had to sacrifice his defense for offense.
Anyone that thinks Robinson had the same speed as Leonard is plain blind. It's not worth even discussing. You're the first that even claims that. It's beyond silly.
Leonard's defense was based on talent, of course, but also very solid fundamentals. He blocked with his shoulders, he moved well too, and had radar. It's a talent.
Robinson blocked with his head. Two different category of fighters.
@TA152H01 Lol at Im the first the claim that, type in the question on google and that'll disprove that nonesense completely, Leonard didnt have the offence of Robinson and Robinson didnt block with his head alright now you're just being ridiculous or just trolling, anyone who watches onjectively this video can se Robinson blocking punches with his elbows and showing good head movement, youre claims about Robinsons defence are just getting sillier and you talk about me not knowing boxing.
@kenomy66 I've had this argument many times, and you're the first to claim Robinson had the same hand speed. He clearly didn't. He was probably even slightly slower than Hearns.
Robinson got hit by shots that would never have gotten within six inches of Leonard. His defense was poor. Guys like Basilio or LaMotta would have had a terrible time hitting Leonard, but they hit Robinson easily.
Leonard by easy decision. Duran/SRR would be a great fight. Hearns by KO.
@TA152H01 Leonard would have an even worse time dealing with Basilio and Lamotta than SRR cause he doesn't have the power to keep them off him. To say they would have struggled to get "six inches" of Leonard shows either your EXTREME bias towards Leonard or lack of knowledge on both fighters, Basilio and Lamotta were hellishly strong pressure fighters with good head movement and inside fighting skills. And lol at Hearns koing Robinson that shit isnt happening,ctd
@kenomy66 I meant they'd never hit Leonard with their shots.
LaMotta was a lousy fighter, with a huge head. He wouldn't have been in position to fight Leonard, but if he did get a shot, he'd have trouble winning a round. Too slow, too short, too stubby. Leonard would kill him. Basilio is a decent fighter, for sure, but he'd be completely outclassed by Leonard. Watch pre-retirement Leonard, not the guy that fought Hagler and later. That guy these guys would compete with. Pre? No way.
@TA152H01 I have watched pre retirement Leonard perhaps with a little more objectiveness than you. Lamotta wasnt a "lousy" fighter you keep coming up with these ludicrous statements, and Basilio is more than decent, again either you dont know very much about these fighters or you'e bias clouds your judgement, I fiond it hard to imagine beating someone with a 16 and
the lame ass music killed this video i feel. with that being said, great footage thanks for posting.
frnki07 1 week ago
You know,I hear all this talk about who is better and who is not.The difference is eras.There are great fighters in every time,but few resonate as much as these guys.Now,it can be argued,the past fellows weren't as adept or well fashioned towards nutrition and sports science,but what they had was heart.To me,the heart of American fighters of yesterday would shit on any so called "boxer" we have now.This is a shout out to every "real" fighter from "yesterday."
PrAeToRiAOnE3 3 weeks ago
carmen is a badass
gqunit69 1 month ago
was gene fullmer better than robinson? he won more of their fights together but when compared to robinson is relatively unknown. am i missing information?
ZigZagRunner 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
@ZigZagRunner robinson was nowhere close to his prime at that point. He already had over 130 fights under his belt! This is unheard of today. Nobody fights that much. Robinson was still a very good fighter even way past his prime. So he competed because he needed the money. It is generally considered that jake lamotta is the only man to ever beat him when he was in his prime
goatpunchtheater 1 month ago
FUCKIN WARRIOR, sugar ray out weighed and out reached him, holy shit, what a warrior.
ZigZagRunner 2 months ago
@ZigZagRunner One tough mofo!
aryul 2 months ago
@ TA152H01 please stop being biased hearns and leonard wouldnt last 5 seconds against robinson. lamotta would rape hearns (i like tommy btw) but i think leonard would scrap a hard decision. ray robinson was sugar ray leonard but fucking upgraded he had more speed more power more stamina more skills a better chin. like i said he would DESTROY LEONARD AND HEARNS THEY WOULD GET BRUTALLY DESTROYED BY RAY ROBINSON. dont take this the wrong way just saying my opinion :)
banofee999 2 months ago
@banofee999 Robinson would have a hard time with Benitez, forget Leonard.
LaMotta would have a hard time with Kalule, forget Benitez.
TA152H01 2 months ago
hey would you know what the second song is??
dsyde10 3 months ago
@dsyde10 If you find out msg me mate.
GodOnStrike 3 months ago
@dsyde10 @GodOnStrike Salif Keita - Tomorrow
Pacquiaoifyable 3 months ago
What's the 2nd song's name?
All I'm seeing are debates in the comments section -.-
Each to his own. idk why debating via YT comments makes people think they can change the other party's opinions.
GodOnStrike 3 months ago
Comparing Sugar Ray Leonard to Sugar Ray Robinson?! No Comparison! There's a reason why the term "Pound for Pound Greatest of All time" was coined to describe Sugar Ray Robinson. He was the best even compared to Leonard. The only reason why Robinson lost this fight and couldn't land good clean combination is because he fought Carmen Basilio, who was also a LEGENDARY FIGHTER! I don't think Leonard could've stood a change against Carmen Basilio if ever they fought..
TheSkyclark 4 months ago
@TheSkyclark ! Pardom me, because I usually don't like to reply in other comments.I really 100 % agree with you!! I see you know about boxing. By that time there was a lot of real great legendary worriors!!
stusakutusa 2 months ago
from 6:54 to7:08 now who can stand that shitstorm other sugar ray that was no rope a dope.
MyDenis0 4 months ago
Hand speed like Ali, and power like Frazier
thotkrime 4 months ago
Leonard, period, point blank!.. great respect for Robinson, but Leonard was a more brilliant technician
recompense3score10 4 months ago
I wish Carmen could get his just do. In this fight, he is 7lbs lighter than Robinson. In today's boxing world, they would be in different weight classes. The man fought every great Welterweight and some great Middleweights ... AND WAS NEVER KNOCKED DOWN!!! Toughest little bastard ever! Kudos to you Carmen!!
stewbio1968 4 months ago
its like henry cooper and ali
revelation6415 5 months ago
One place in the whole world where an african american could be the shit out of a caucasian and not get in trouble for it.
blacktee31 5 months ago
Roy Jones and Floyd Mayweather arent known as jabbers.. Its a very important punch but when u have great speed its not mandatory for you to have a "great" jab. Floyd only really uses his against certain opponents. Corrales and Marquez come to mind.
ngonzoak 5 months ago
a range finder..not fighter..excuse me
ah93704 5 months ago
@Versatile496
Robinson was 36 or 37 in this fight.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
its not dead yetas long as there are poor countries boxing wont die but who watches boxing only freaks and fans and some filipinos and mexicans. people that have the athletic ability to become great heavyweight fighters choose football or basketball nowadays but thats what we need a strong and entertaining heavyweight division. even puertoricans choose baseball instead of boxing. and asian dont box anymore. I m from korea and koreans golf. we used to have great fighters but its all past.
onionfarmercarmen 6 months ago
Boxing is dead. this was a different time. more people were boxing the fighters that were the stars in the 30s-70s went through a highly selective process to get to the top. more boxers= more talented boxers. I think the champions nowadays are well educated fighters but you cant compare them with the talent that those fighters had. look at this fight its like a dance. i think one big difference is also that the fighters in past had way better chins. again one asset you needed to get to the top
onionfarmercarmen 6 months ago
@onionfarmercarmen There was a greater sense of urgency back then because people seen boxing as a golden opportunity to get ahead in life, but in no way is boxing dead now. Not by a long shot.
Pacquiaoifyable 6 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable
That depends on how old you are.I'm 35 and came up with the mid 80's and early to mid 90's fighters.Leonard,Hagler,Duran,Starling,McCullum,Donald Curry,Chavez,Taylor,Tyson,Holyfield,Jones,Hopkins,Shane,Manny,MayweatherTrinidad ect...The biggest fighters currently are 90's era fighters.Mayweather,Manny & Hopkins.This generation has yet to develop any fighters to carry the torch.Boxing is most energetic due to those 90's era fighters that are now 34+ yrs old.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@onionfarmercarmen
For the fact that one of the most dominant Heavyweight Champions today has a Doctorate Degrees tells the whole story.Education is important and definitely has it's place.But I think that you understand my point.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
Great video quality for certain. Thanks. Though myself I'd prefer the ring call over the music. Unless you're someone who turns off the sound and plays music cd's while watching a pay per view fight. :)
Ghstwn 7 months ago
Robinson would kill the pac man easily
1SugarRayRobinson1 7 months ago
Thumbs Up If Yuh Think Ray Could Beat The Pac-Man
versusyourass1 8 months ago 2
Great vid by the way @Pacquiaoifyable, thanks for uploading it.
iammybrain 8 months ago
If you watch this fight, and watch Leonard/Duran or Leonard/Hearns, these guys look two cuts below.
As much as people love to romanticize, neither one of these guys would have been nearly as successful in the late 70s or 80s.
TA152H01 8 months ago
@TA152H01 Are you serious?
Pacquiaoifyable 8 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable
Yes, of course. We always hear how could Robinson is, but in reality, he's way overrated. This is not to say he wasn't a great fighter, just not as good as people say.
The Robinson in this fight wouldn't have much chance against the greats of the 70s/80s. But, he's obviously past his prime.
Overall though, his defense is just so poor he'd have big problems with those guys. His hand speed is also two cuts below Leonard. His power though is extraordinary.
TA152H01 8 months ago
@TA152H01 Why do you think Robinson is over rated? This fight was after his first retirement, so, like you said, he was past his prime here.
Although you claim that Robinson's defense was 'just so poor', he was never knocked out in over 200 fights, including 6 fights with LaMotta, 2 with Basilio, 4 with Fullmer and 2 with Olsen. All 4 of those guys were renowned for being tough guys that could hit.
I suggest you read up and watch some film of SRR before you make any more rash comments.
Pacquiaoifyable 8 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable I have seen many of his fights, and it was not a rash comment. Most people are afraid to see the truth, if enough people have said falsehoods. We have to think for ourselves.
If you look at Robinson's record, he had draws against guys that would not compete against Leonard or Hearns. He also nearly got knocked out by Artie Levine. Lost to LaMotta (would have have landed a shot against Leonard?) and most thought he lost to Georgie Abrams.
TA152H01 8 months ago
All of these were in his prime, and below 25. He also had a draw against Henry Brimm (23-9-2) while still under 30. Leonard before his retirement would not have had these problems.
But, more to the point. Leonard was faster, moved better, threw better combinations, had better form, and MUCH better defense. Robinson hit like a mule kicked, and was good (if not as good) at everything but defense. Power makes up for a lot, but not that much.
TA152H01 8 months ago
@TA152H01 The only fights from the ones I mentioned above fought in his prime were the ones with LaMotta and he won 5 out of 6, not bad going at all.
I don't know why you are zoning in on Robinson's 'power' so much. He wasn't a power puncher and is known for his all-round game, rather than just one trait. This is unlike Leonard, who was known for his speed more than anything else.
Now that's not to say that Robinson would beat Leonard or vice versa. I personally believe Robinson win, though.
Pacquiaoifyable 8 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable I just mentioned to you fight after fight in Robinson's prime where he had problems that Leonard would never have had.
LaMotta was a punching bag. He would not have belonged in the ring with Leonard. He did with Robinson, but Robinson was better.
Robinson hit like a mule kicked. Leonard had good power, but Robinson was a real bomber. Basilio said he was the hardest hitter he fought. He was good at everything but defense, I agree with that. But, he had a punch.
TA152H01 8 months ago
@TA152H01 How you can say that LaMotta was nothing but a punching bag is beyond me. He's an all-time great and nothing less.
Also, why do you continue to say that Robinson was heavy handed? He has a very impressive knockout record, but that's not just because of the punch he packed. He was known for his movement, speed, ring generalship and just general fighting instinct as well as his strength.
I think someone's been playing a bit too much Fight Night...
Pacquiaoifyable 8 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable LaMotta was an all time great? At what? He was slow, had no punch, was short, and had limited footwork. He lost to "greats" like Lloyd Marshall, Jimmy Reeves (2x), Nate Bolden, Jose Basora, etc... (19 total). He would have been embarrassed by Leonard.
Think for yourself, not what he's known for. When I first saw Robinson, I was shocked. He didn't match his reputation.
Bottom line, Basilio said Robinson was only an OK boxer, and a great puncher. He'd know, right?
TA152H01 8 months ago
@TA152H01 It seems I have encountered someone that thinks if you have a blemish on your record you are a 'bum'. When you fight over 100 times, you're going to lose a few of them, regardless of the opposition.
If you really knew your boxing you would've known that the Mafia got involved in Jake's career and he was told to take a dive in numerous fights.
He didn't become Middleweight Champion of the World by magic. Jake LaMotta is an all-time great.
Go and study the 40s and 50s and then try again.
Pacquiaoifyable 8 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable 19 losses is a blemish? What? Did they make Jake slow? Did they make him have no punch? I didn't mention Billy Fox, which is who LaMotta said he took a dive for.
There are great champs, and those that fall far below. Losing 20% of your fights is not a great, especially when they are not at the end.
He beat Laurent Dauthuille to win the championship. Yup, that's an all-time great.
Think for yourself, don't go by rep alone. He's overrated. Watch his fights.
TA152H01 8 months ago
@TA152H01 I can't believe you're telling me to watch LaMotta fights when you're saying he had no punch and was slow.
Also, you're getting your facts wrong. He actually beat Marcel Cerdan to win the Championship, not Dauthuille. That was a title defense.
I'm not saying that he took a dive in every one of his fights, but I'd say that about half of his losses were to do with an outside party.
I don't go by rep either, I go by what I see. And I see one of the toughest men ever in Jake LaMotta.
Pacquiaoifyable 8 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable He was slow, and had no punch. He also was very tough. I never implied otherwise, but that's not enough to make him a great.
He never admitted to all those fixes you mention, so I'm not sure where you're getting these from. Either way, he lost too many times, and outside of being tough and having good defense, had little.
You think he'd have a chance against Hagler? You think he'd be anything but embarrassed by Leonard? Benitez would easily outclass him.
TA152H01 8 months ago
@TA152H01 YouTube only allows 500 characters per comment, and since we're already off topic, I'm just going to say what I think without going into great detail.
I think he would have beaten Benitez and had a decent shout against Hagler and Leonard. I think he would've struggled most against Leonard, plainly because of his speed disadvantage. Hagler wasn't an amazing mover which would've allowed Jake to stay in close, where he liked to be, for the majority, if not the entirety of the fight.
Pacquiaoifyable 8 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable I disagree with Benitez, but with Hagler, if you compared the two, where do you give LaMotta the edge? Hagler hit harder, was a bit quicker, was tougher (not that LaMotta was not), could and did box some fights, and had a much longer reach (something people forget). LaMotta's advantage was? Well, his bigger head. I give him an edge in defense too.
Hagler wasn't Ray Leonard, but he moved fine. Don't judge Hagler by his last fights, by Mugabi he was shot.
TA152H01 8 months ago
Comment removed
iammybrain 8 months ago
@TA152H01 I think you should give up thinking for yourself, it's just not working out as your thoughts are that of a one off man mental.
iammybrain 8 months ago
@iammybrain Your grammar sucks, and to the cattle, anyone thinking for themselves is probably a threat.
It's been said, therefore it must be true, that Sugar Ray Robinson was a God! Even though he nearly got knocked out by a scrub, drew against a scrub, and had close decisions against guys that wouldn't be in the top 10 in the late 70s early 80s.
Everyone has off days though. He was certainly a great fighter. Just not as good as reputation has him.
TA152H01 8 months ago
@TA152H01 'Too many sheep and not enough shepherds' thats one of my favorite sayings. I've read your posts, your alternatve views aren't a threat to anyone, let alone the 'cattle' that you speak of.
iammybrain 8 months ago
@iammybrain It's not intended as a threat, just as an invitation to look at things a different way. Most people are afraid of saying the obvious, that being that Ray Robinson was overrated. Not that he wasn't an excellent fighter.
Also, he's portrayed as a stylistic boxer, which he isn't. He has ability in everything, but he's a heavy handed bomber as much, or more, than a boxer. Look at the leverage on his punches, he's often off-balance because of it.
TA152H01 8 months ago
Comment removed
iammybrain 8 months ago
@TA152H01
You should really stop talking about boxing, you're making yourself look bad.
gibememoni 8 months ago
@gibememoni Your post doesn't say much good about you there, genius.
Whenever you say something like Ray Robinson had flaws, or Ali had flaws, or they weren't as great as people say, you realize there are going to be people who disagree. Most people will, because they have been told so, and hadn't even questioned it.
But, if you watch the fights, you can see Robinson would have had a terrible time against guys like Leonard, and LaMotta would have been destroyed by Hagler.
TA152H01 8 months ago
@TA152H01 You said in an earlier post that Ray Robinson's balance was bad. He was an outstanding mover. The way he threw his weight about, his shifts in momentum, balance while punching and moving, he was one of the best that I've seen for that.
Also, I decided that Robinson was and is the greatest of all-time by watching his fights and reading about him, not by listening to people. That's my opinion. I've seen fights from every era and I've seen enough of them to be able to make up my own mind.
Pacquiaoifyable 8 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable Actually, you're misquoting me. I said Robinson threw punches with so much intensity it often left him off-balance. They are too different things.
Even Leonard, who had excellent balance and legs sometimes was off-balance with some shots he threw (albeit rarely).
So, no, I never said he had bad balance, the point was he threw bombs.
That post wasn't even directed towards you, but for someone else. But, it applies to most people anyway.
TA152H01 8 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable
You may be interested in this bit of info.Ray Robinson had has personal Barber in his corner at points through his fight career.His name was Mr.Roger.Who's role was to make sure that the champs hair was combed and in place before the beginning of each rd.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@TA152H01 I was just thinking the same.
ohho1 7 months ago
@ohho1 The funny part is, you get people screaming about how great SRR was. But, based on what? They say no one has footage in his prime, but only after his prime when he wasn't so great. So, then they point to his record, but ignore that he drew or had close fights with really poor guys, and then insist you can't judge a guy by these fights, or a record.
So, where's the basis? Because someone else said it, and said it often?
No doubt, he was a great fighter, just not THAT great.
TA152H01 7 months ago
@TA152H01 Gee,don't you think this may be a little over the top?Sugar Ray was a great fighter,and there is great footage I have seen of him in his prime,although it is a bit hard to find.From what I saw when he was a welterweight,he was spectacular.
PrAeToRiAOnE3 7 months ago
@PrAeToRiAOnE3 Well, as I said, I do consider him a great fighter. Spectacular would be something I'd even agree with in some respects too.
I have a problem where people make guys out to be Gods. Ray Leonard in his prime (pre-retirement) is to me the most perfect fighter to step into the ring. Robinson, by comparison, looks slower, with poor defense, a pawing jab, and wild, amateurish shots. But, man did he hit. His power is soooo underestimated.
TA152H01 7 months ago
@TA152H01 Look a little harder...
Pacquiaoifyable 7 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable That's the problem, I already did, rather than believe the conventional "wisdom". What I saw surprised me.
TA152H01 7 months ago
@TA152H01
His style was way ahead of his time.To watch him even in this clip is like watching the B/W footage of a top level fighter now.When we talk about how great Ray Robinson was we talk about Technique,Boxing Intelligence,Activity,The ability to deliver a KO punch with either hand going back wards.This man was Ali's,Leonard's & Shane Mosely's Idol.Ray was knocked down by Graziano.Within 2min Ray boxed him 2 the exact spot that he was knocked down and ko'd him in it.Simply Mastery.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Yes, but his technique was horrible. He looks nothing like Ray Leonard, who had much better form with his punches. Leonard threw textbook punches with incredible speed, accuracy and form.
Robinson looks like an amateur by comparison, with wide off-balance shots thrown from the hips, and effectively no defense.
He had tons of talent, and hit like a mule kicked, so I do recognize he was a great fighter. All time best? I have a harder time with that.
TA152H01 6 months ago
@TA152H01
Ahhh! Man..All I can say is observe Ray Robinson over time and take your time.How old are you?
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING I have watched him over time, and luckily, I don't base my observations on "legend" or reputation.
I actually do consider him a great fighter. But, he's overrated. I was expecting to see Ray Leonard ++, instead I saw a guy that in most ways was noticeable worse. In speed, balance, and mainly defense and form, he wasn't in the same class. In power, I was shocked at how this guy could hit, and what a bomber he was. He's not what I was expecting, at all.
TA152H01 6 months ago
@TA152H01
I respect your perspective.It's well thought out.You are making the Ray Leonard comparison.But you must keep this in mind.You are basing this on the footage that exist of Robinson at Middle Weight.Where he was still above average and very impressive.2.You have to consider the activity rate of both fighters.Ray Leonard only had 40 pro fights.Ray Robinson went undefeated in 93 fights or so before losing.With a career record of 175-6-105 ko's. cont..
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Yes, but if you look very closely at that record, a lot of the guys he fought had horrible records, and he had draws even early in his career, against guys that wouldn't have won two rounds against Leonard.
Put another way, there's nothing in footage to indicate he's even in the same class as someone like Leonard (pre-retirement). His record is impressive, but he had two draws in his prime against weak opponents, and many wins were against poor opponents.
TA152H01 6 months ago
@TA152H01
You can't make a solid judgment on the absloute caliber of competition because those guys fought so often.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@TA152H01
I'll only point out one other thing about Ray Robinson.His combination punching.Mixing it up to the body and head.Boxer,slugger.Well balanced fighter.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Again, I do think he was a great fighter, just overrated. His power was excellent. Great chin. Great heart. All good things.
His hand speed was very good as well (not excellent, like Leonard, or Meldrick Taylor, for example). His form very amateurish, his jab often pawing, and his defense in particular disappointing.
Still a great fighter. But, as the all-time best? As this magical boxer that could do everything great? Not so. If i
TA152H01 6 months ago
@TA152H01
It's easier to maintain perfect form,hand speed and skill with such limited activity.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Well, you'd think with so many fights it would be even more important to maintain form, so you don't get hit. His defense was too porous for that many fights.
That's where rating fighters is so difficult. Prime Ray Leonard was a clearly better fighter than any Ray Robinson that we see, and his record in that period more impressive. But, Robinson, over his career, did much more. Which do you rate higher? I rate the former, but I can see why someone would disagree.
TA152H01 6 months ago
@TA152H01
Ray Robinson is the greatest fighter that I have seen.It's difficult to maintain excellent defense when although you are a slick Boxer you are also a cold blooded puncher!Something has to be sacrificed.He wasn't so slick that you couldn't touch him and that made the fights exciting and competitive.In order for you to beat The slick Boxer/Puncher Ray Robinson you had to out fight him.Well balanced fighter.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Watch Ray Leonard to see someone who had great defense, and still was an aggressive fighter, who threw bombs. He threw them correctly, not from his hips, and they landed more often. He didn't have Robinson's power though, but he was able to be very good defensively, while still being a good offensive fighter. Robinson just threw very amateurish punches. Against guys he fought, it was mostly OK, but against Leonard or Hearns, he'd get killed doing that.
TA152H01 6 months ago
@TA152H01
Out of 40 fights a fighters career is condensed and if he is an elite fighter the performances are going to be fairly solid when looking at the big picture.You talk about todays boxing form vs yesterdays.Ray Robinson was a 40 era's fighter.If he's not executing something properly blame it on the fact that Boxing was still being developed.There is a lot of Boxing education between 1940 - 1980.Today's fighters are only able to take it to the next level by learning from past fighters.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING It's not like computer technology. Boxing is boxing. You had guys with great form even in 1940, look at Joe Louis and Gene Tunney. Look at guys today, compared to 30 years ago. They suck.
Robinson fought well into the 60s. You had guys that showed great boxing well before that like Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott, as well as Louis.
TA152H01 6 months ago
@TA152H01
With any branch of entertainment each generation adds on too it and finds innovative ways to enhance the art.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Well, I'm pretty sure guys today aren't adding to the form of Joe Louis or Ray Leonard.
Maybe you need to send them a memo on this. Pacman and Mayweather? What did they add? Mayweather reminds me of a bad version of Sweet Pea.
TA152H01 6 months ago
@TA152H01
Boxing is always evolving.You can't be any better than that from which you came.Because there lies the foundation for your work.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Not so, there's something called natural talent. Or natural style. Who did Marciano copy? That's just what was natural for him.
TA152H01 6 months ago
@TA152H01
Marcianos style was developed from fighters that had preceded him.Joe Fraziers style was influenced by Marciano.Tyson style was influenced by Frazier.
Ali's style was influenced by Robinson.Leonard was influenced by Ali ect..
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Than you know more than Muhammad Ali, who said you can't teach Marciano's style, and that's just his way of doing things.
Leonard fought nothing like Ali. That's a really poor remark.
Ali said he was influenced a lot by Walcott. Point is, Walcott was around while Robinson was still young. It had nothing to do with the times. Are you implying that no one threw straight punches then, or a straight, hard jab? Joe Louis? All the HWs I mentioned? Never saw them?
TA152H01 6 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Man you could go on and on with this guy for weeks. He is the biggest Leonard backer I've ever come across. Lets take a look at the great fighters Ray fought.Hearns was schooling Leonard the first time around till getting knocked out. 8 YEARS later Ray got a gift draw in a fight he lost v hearns. He got a gift decision vs Hagler. Got beat by a lightweight Duran past his prime the first time. Had a hollow victory with Duran quitting the 2nd...What's so impressive about that?
panamazus 6 months ago
@panamazus
From 82 - 91 Leonard fought approximately 1 fight per year.To end his career with about 40 fights.With some of those decisions being questioned.With only a few career defining bouts he wasn't busy enough to even think about being compared to Ray Robinson.Ray fought Lamatta a naturally bigger man as many times as Ray had defining fights.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Not saying Leonard isn't an all-time great. But to call Robinson Amateurish in comparison to Leonard is blasphemous! I'm 35 and I grew up watching the 80's era fighters, but i come from a big boxing family. My family members had film of the old timers and i can personally say that Robinson is one of the greatest if not The greatest fighter to ever set foot in that squared circle.
panamazus 6 months ago
@panamazus
Man! Boxing is the sport of Kings! I respect all athletic competitions but the mono o mono aspect of boxing just you and him putting it all on the line with no help from a team,no one too take your place when you tire or hurt sets the sport apart.And it's respected enough by others that the Heavyweight Championship is Universally recognized as the most coveted title in all of sports.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@panamazus
Have you watched Robinsons Welter Weight Fight against Toney Riccio? The man was brilliant! I can't stress this enough..He was so far ahead of his time that to his opponents it had to be like fighting someone in the 90's!
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING I've seen some clips of that fight. Excellent! I agree that Robinson's style transcended time. He would have done well for himself in this modern era of boxing. Nobody can tell me that that those old school fighters were not tougher with more stamina then new school. Not only fighting way over a 100 times but also competing in fights that had unlimited rounds till someone quit or was knocked out. It's crazy to think especially with today's advancement in heath and science
panamazus 6 months ago
@panamazus
I know..The fighters today have all of this State of the Art Glow in the Dark Equipment.The added benefit of a GNC and most get winded after 7rds of fighting!.And if you apply pressure they won't make it to twelve! It doesn't make any sense Man!
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@TA152H01
The fighters of today arent as well rounded as a Ray Robinson.A 1940's era fighter.He threw punches in bunches.4,5,6 punch combinations to the head & body with bad intentions.And this was all of the time! He specialized in getting rid of an opponent.Ray Robinson is where Shane Mosley (When at 135 weight class) got "Power Boxing" from.
You mentioned something about his caliber of comp..Out of 40 fights how many of those fighters do you think were D & C+ caliber competitors? cont...
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Well, when I watch guys like Jake LaMotta, and he represents the top of the class, I see a guy that wouldn't belong in the ring with guys like Hagler, Leonard, Hearns or even Duran and Benitez.
Basilio was decent though, I have to say that, but really, his level of competition was quite low compared to the 80s.
The thing that made guys like Leonard great is, he beat greats, and he destroyed everyone else. They didn't look competitive, and they weren't.
TA152H01 6 months ago
@TA152H01
"his level of competition was quite low compared to the 80s." You can't say that. Because you know more about the fighters stats of the 80's.How much do you actually know about the fighters that Robinson, Louis or Charles faced out side of the few names and stats that have been high lighted to us by historians and commentators?
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING You can see some of the fights. You haven't seen Jake LaMotta fight? There are films. There are films of Robinson. You just saw Basilio. Would this guy even be competitive with Leonard? He'd get whitewashed. He'd have a hard time winning a round. We do have films. And then, you see records, realizing that the "great" fighters of that era were not as competitive as 80s fighters.
Nothing against Louis, Charles, Walcott or Marciano. HWs were damn good.
TA152H01 6 months ago
@TA152H01
My point is..Every fighter that you just mentioned is a fighter that historians and commentators have made popular to us.For you to say that Basilio's or Robinson's competition was quit low you would have to have some knowledge of the fighters that they faced and stats out side of those few names to back it up.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@TA152H01
That's how the sport is.Back then the guys fought a lot 4 to 5 x's per month that's why they accumulated so many pro fights.Ray fought Lamatta 2 x's within 3 weeks in 1945.I will say that the fighters were better conditioned and a lot tougher during that era & prior.Gloves were smaller and the ware and tare on their body's from fighting so often.Ray was to advanced for the fighters of his era.The thing's that he was doing was like parring them with a fighter from 2006.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 6 months ago
@TA152H01 he also fought 10-20 times a year as a champion. You cant say that for the guys of today or hte guys in SRL's time. YOu simply dont understand boxing. Robinson went 40 fights without a loss and he was just barely getting started.
ah93704 5 months ago
@TA152H01 you dont understand how styles work man. Boxing has evolved over the years. Different strategies are used and people learn and grow. Kind of like how you have grown after being soundly defeated in a debate. YOU PUGILIST PUTS!
ah93704 5 months ago
@ah93704 Are you a homo? Why are you stalking me from fight to fight, trying to get attention. Quite simply, you're an idiot that I have no interest in talking to. I guess I really had to say that.
You should learn more about boxing before you post. I know you'd like to be smart, and I know you try to bluff your way, but really, you're a low grade moron that thinks he knows more than Ali, Bugner, Holmes, Lyle, etc...
Go find someone else to stalk, buttmunch.
TA152H01 5 months ago
@TA152H01 buttmunc? what are you, 12? Have you even started puberty yet? Sugar Ray Robinson fought everybody: Jake Lamotta, Carmen Basilio, Henry Armstrong, and a list of fighters that we will never see the likes of every again. You just dont understand this sport. Nice try at mkaing yourself look cool. Ernie Shavers has a 77% ko ratio but George Foreman has an 87% ko ratio..HAHA..I win and you lose you dumb fuck!
ah93704 5 months ago
@ah93704 Why are you stalking me? You're buttmunch, right?
Only a complete idiot thinks Foreman had the one-punch power of Earnie Shavers, and you're one of them. Foreman rarely even knocked guys down with a single shot. He rates well below Shavers and Marciano in one-punch power.
When 10 boxers say the same thing, why are you so stupid you can't figure it out?
TA152H01 5 months ago
Comment removed
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 5 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING You're wrong, of course. You don't know boxing if you really believe that.
It's very easy to counter Robison's jab. The purpose of a jab is often to score points, to cause swelling and cuts, and/or to prevent the opponent from throwing punches. It's also used to break a guy's rhythm.
Robinson would get killed throwing that shit jab against a guy like Hearns. He'd be knocked out. Leonard would butcher him, but I don't think knock him out. He'd have to change.
TA152H01 5 months ago
@TA152H01 He isn't wrong at all. The jab's purpose is to set up what will follow, not to hurt a fighter.
Pacquiaoifyable 5 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable
This guy said that I am wrong & then made two examples backing up my points concerning the jab.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 5 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Then why did you delete your post? Were you afraid of your own words? You couldn't leave them for everyone to see? What kind of stupid games do you play?
TA152H01 5 months ago
@TA152H01
lol All I did was re type my original post. But I like how you changed the subject.I really like that!
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 5 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING I didn't change the subject, it says Comment Removed. You have to change your own words after it's been typed in because you were wrong? If you were right, why did you change it.
You have never boxed, so can't really understand some of the stuff in it. That's fine, but to say a jab is only to set up combinations is absolutely absurd. You can win fights with just a jab. A hard jab can bust a guy up, and make him afraid of throwing rights.
TA152H01 5 months ago
@TA152H01
It's the same exact comment.Check your e mail and compare the two.I left some words out of the original post (small stuff).Trainers have never boxed before but they know their stuff! I said it used to set up combo punching & serves to knock a man off balance.You have to read everything.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 5 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING It still says Comment Removed. When you reword, you've lost, it means you know you had to change something.
You miss the main point that jabs score points. If you had to pick one punch you wanted to be great, it would be the jab. It's the most important punch in boxing. It's often the punch that determines the winner between great fighters. Great fighters are hard to hit, the guy landing the jab has a big edge.
Having a poor jab is not a good thing.
TA152H01 5 months ago
@TA152H01
The jab is the most important punch in Boxing because it sets a man up to be hit with other shots! Power Shots/Combos!
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 5 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING At this point the argument is stupid. You're so clearly wrong, and just don't want to admit it.
A bad pawing jab is good in your book? LOL!
Let's go back to Leonard/Hearns. Hearns jab was what made Leonard come in, because he was winning round after round. Leonard was extraordinary, so won, but every other guy had to walk into that right hand or lose by decision because of Hearns' jab.
Ali won many fights on points due to the jab ...
TA152H01 5 months ago
@TA152H01 You're beginning to annoy me. Shut up about Leonard, this video is not about him or associated with him in any way. It's funny how, in your book, the vast majority are wrong but you are right...
Pacquiaoifyable 5 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable You've annoyed me from the beginning. I said Robinson had flaws. The vast majority? You and someone else? You think the vast majority think a pawing jab is a good thing? You think it's ONLY to set up combinations?
What annoys you is you're wrong, and it's obvious even to you. Saying a jab is only to set up combinations is plain wrong, and uninformed. That's what's annoying you. But, I didn't make you say it. You did by yourself.
TA152H01 5 months ago
@TA152H01 When I said the vast majority, I meant the vast majority think that Robinson was and is the greatest fighter of all-time. I think it would be hard to class someone as that if they had a 'poor jab'. A jab can be different things to different people. To someone with a long reach like Liston, it is used as a battering ram to force entry through the defence, but to someone with an average reach like Robinson, the jab was used to set up different shots more than anything else.
Pacquiaoifyable 5 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable Most people think that without even watching him. No one I know considers him the greatest, but I don't even have a problem with that. His jab is very poor. That's not even debatable. He did have great power (underrated), he had good hand speed, great heart, and could throw combinations with power.
That was fine against the guys he fought. He'd get killed in 70s/80s. He'd have to improve. Maybe he would. But, what we see isn't the all-time best.
TA152H01 5 months ago
@TA152H01 It certainly is debatable. Even though the footage you see of Robinson is of him past his prime, you can see that his jab is still an effective tool. And what evidence have you that suggests people say he's the greatest of all-time without watching any footage of him? I'd like to see a few sources that proves this theory, because I would bet this is a false statement.
Pacquiaoifyable 5 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable
There is a fight with Robinson vs Riccio on here.Robinson was 25 yrs old.I haven't seen a fighter put it together like Robinson and this was 60 yrs ago.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 5 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable just because you dont have footage doesnt mean you dont have evidence. They had a thing back in the day called "news clippings" so go read what they wrote about Robinson. He was considered one of the best ever based off of his record, who he fought, his ability to move up in weight and defeat bigger guys consitstant...Ray Leonoard moved upa nd fought Hagler but Ray Robinson moved up and fought similiar guys but did it mroe than once!
ah93704 5 months ago
@TA152H01
No one that you know considers him the greatest! Who are you discussing this with! Your brothers & sisters!? You all sit around and watch fight footage together? Or you must have some very loyal buddies! Ray was an all around fighter.And he fought blood & guts when he had too.There wasn't any unnecessary bicycling.And I can not over state this.He implemented a well balanced attack on his opponents.What he did to the right side of his body,he did to the left.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 5 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable what specifically about Robinsons jab do you think was poor? Was it the accuracy he displayed with it? The fact that he often hurt his opponents with it (instead of using his right cross for that purpose) or perhpas was it because he used it so often? Tell me what exactly Ray Robinson lacked in the jab department. Thank you!
ah93704 5 months ago
@ah93704 I think you replied to the wrong person. I never criticised Robinson's jab. Infact, I can't speak highly enough of the man. I think everything about his game was world class.
Pacquiaoifyable 5 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable you are right. my apologiez..i meant to reply to that wannabe boxing expert TA1..SRR was the greatest ever!
ah93704 5 months ago
@TA152H01 a jab can be used for many purpose: a range fighter, to cut up and bust u an opponent, to set up combinations, and to keep the opponent away. Ray Robinson had a great jab. He used it for many different purposes, depending on his opponent. He fought and defeated teh best of his time. What have you done with your life TA1?
ah93704 5 months ago
@TA152H01
You use your jab how you like.It is not written any where that say's you must throw it with the authority of a right hand.Robinson used his jab for it's purpose.He used it to set up and unleash a series of head & body shots.A fighter that does not have that arsenal of punches will probably need a heavier weapon out front.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 5 months ago
@ESSENCEOFEACHTHING Actually, there is something called a "textbook jab". Robinson didn't have a good jab. Simple as that. He'd have problems against great fighters with good jabs. Big problems. He'd probably improve it.
You and this Pac are not interesting to me at this point. Both of you know you're wrong, and I know you're wrong, so I'm done even talking to you two and done reading your worthless responses. It's just about your ego being bruised now, and that doesn't interest me.
TA152H01 5 months ago
@TA152H01
Robinson didn't need a thunderous solid jab.He used his jab as a Pawn.He used his jab strictly for it's purpose.With Rooks,Bishops,Knights,A King & Queen ready to make moves.Their has not been a fighter with an offense attack to match Ray Robinson's.
ESSENCEOFEACHTHING 5 months ago
Most of the time he'd just throw the single jab, and a lot of times he never even started combinations with a jab.
I'll agree that Robinson's jab would start more combinations than most I've seen, but that would be from the other fight as they nail him.
Let's pretend he's fighting Leonard (or Hearns). Round 1, he'd get completely outjabbed. He'd know he can't fight outside, and he'd know he'd have to take big chances and try to open up. The better jab can just keep jabbing.
TA152H01 5 months ago
@TA152H01 To say robinson had a poor jab is a bit of a bold statement. I'd agree that it's not the most amazing jab ever, certainly it's not as effective as the ali jab but it's no worse than average. Robinson does throw it often and most importantly land it often, it leads to an accumulative effect so in that regards robinson's jab is effective. To say he wouldn't have stood a chance against the guys of 70/80's is a little ignorant. Hearns didn't have a chin and would be ko'd by SRR.
XavierMarciano 5 months ago
@XavierMarciano It's obvious. It's a slow, pawing jab.
Hearns could take a Welter punch, and Robinson would probably get knocked out early. He's slower, has less power, much shorter, and has a much shorter reach. He'd get killed by his jab if he survived the first few rounds. If he hit Hearns, he could hurt him, so I'd give him a chance.
He'd be completely outclassed by Leonard. It would be a one-sided fight. He's too poor defensively, too wide with punches, and not fast enough.
TA152H01 5 months ago
@TA152H01 Are in insane? In what respects in Robinson slower than Hearns? I'm starting to think you haven't seen too much prime robinson only clips like this where he is past his best, but still incredible. Where have you got this crazy idea robinson was slow? Hearns has no chance he would be ko'd inside 5, Robinson has faster hands, better punch acc, far greater chin, far greater heart, and much better stamina. Hearn's beat robinson don't make me laugh. As for leonard SRR would ko him late.
XavierMarciano 5 months ago
@XavierMarciano Hearns at welter had quicker hands. Robinson had good, but not great hand speed. He'd look slow next to Leonard, and a bit slower than Hearns.
Hearns would take him out early. Hearns had a much bigger punch, better hand speed, better form, more heart (sometimes a problem for him). Both had good punches, hand speed, stamina, and heart, but Hearns simply was more talented.
Leonard would dominate SRR. He'd be completely outclassed. Too slow, too wide with punches.
TA152H01 5 months ago
@TA152H01 Hearns faster? More talented? Leonard would completely outclass Robinson? Mate you sound like a proper idiot right now, Robinson has more knockouts than all of Hearn's and Leonard's fights combined!! Seriously get real. No way Hearn's had faster hands, Robinson put blinding combinations together, he is also a totally underated puncher, Robinson punched very hard. He was also incredibly tough, and he won constantly against quality opposition, SRR would ko Hearn's early, Leonard late.
XavierMarciano 5 months ago
@XavierMarciano Hearns was faster, watch him at welter. You sound like someone that can't think for himself, and doesn't believe his own eyes, but just what everyone else is saying.
Robinson put nice combinations together, albeit wide, but they aren't blinding. They are just normal fast.
He'd have no chance against Leonard. He was slower, had much worse skills (wide punches, head wide open), worse balance, much worse defense. He hit harder. He'd get outclassed.
TA152H01 5 months ago
@TA152H01 Believe me I can think for myself, that's why I'm not accepting the mundane mumblings of some attention whore, it's clear by your comments that your some sad little man begging for attention. That's the only way I can conceive someone with the arrogance to say Robinson would be "OUTCLASSED" by Leonard. Who knows maybe your not a sad loser veying for attention, maybe your just a simplistic idiot or a biggot with an angry agenda against Robinson. Either way I've grown tired of you.
XavierMarciano 5 months ago
@XavierMarciano There's no point in trying to give your opinion to this guy, he doesn't wanna hear it.
Pacquiaoifyable 5 months ago
@Pacquiaoifyable Yeah your right either he is trying to get a rise from me or he is a massive leonard fan, I can't decide. Either way I won't be indulging him anymore. Since I have you pac, what were thoughts on the whole mayweather/ortiz debacle?
XavierMarciano 5 months ago
@XavierMarciano Actually, you're proof you can't think. You're just an ignorant toad that doesn't know boxing, so repeats what everyone else said.
I've told you why Leonard would outclass him. You're too stupid to see it, or you're too small to admit you're wrong.
He was definitely faster. Definitely had better form. Definitely had better defense. What could SRR do? He couldn't throw his wide punches, he'd get killed. He couldn't out jab him. He'd just lose badly.
TA152H01 5 months ago
@TA152H01 "Definitely faster" how is Leonard "definitely faster with his pitty-pat flash punches, Ray Robinson threw punches to kill not to show off to judges. Also Ray Robinson certainly had more punching power, certainly and what do you mean by better form? Ray Robinson would dominate Leonard in a brawl and certainly has equal the boxing skill if not more and greater stamina, how is Leonard going to "outclass" Robinson? WTF?
kenomy66 4 months ago
@kenomy66 You obviously don't know boxing at all. I'm talking Leonard pre-retirement, and he threw hard punches, very fast. His hand speed is considerably better than Robinsons. Robinson did hit harder.
By form, I'm referring to Leonard's textbook punches, instead of the wide, off-balance, amateurish shots Robinson takes. Robinson could never hit Leonard with those shots, and would get killed with counter punches.
Leonard would easily beat Robinson. Outside of power, he's better.
TA152H01 4 months ago
@TA152H01 Lol at your first comment. Leonards seeming definite speed might have something to do with the fact that we don't see Robinson at his prime at Welterweight. Ray Robinson threw textbook punches, stop watching from that footage when he was an amateur, he threw straight pucnhes with lethal power in his punches, Robinson would pressure Leonard and if Leomard gets drwan into a fight hes getting knocked out. Its RIDICULOUS to state that Leonard is so much faster that he easily outclasses.
kenomy66 4 months ago
@kenomy66 Leonard never even got knocked down before he retired, despite fighting guys like Duran and Hearns. Robinson would have no chance.
I've seen clips of Robinson's fights when he was in his 20s, and he's two cuts below Leonard. He has no defense, a poor jab, throws terrible punches that are too wide, and leaves himself off-balance.
Leonard would have no trouble beating him any style. Because of superior hand speed and form, he'd butcher him with counter shots.
TA152H01 4 months ago
@TA152H01 lol you mean those clips in the fucking terrible footage, and how does Robinson have a poor jab? he had a 7/10 jab not a tommy Hearns jab but good none the less, and lol what was Leonards defense? thats right it was his speed, I have no doubt that in his Welterweight prime Robinson was as fast if not faster than Leonard, Robinson sacrificed his defense for great offense. Leonards hand speed only looks greater on videos when hes throwing piity pat punces when he sits on them...
kenomy66 4 months ago
@kenomy66 You're wrong. Watch Leonard knock out guys like Andy Price, or even the devastating punches he landed on Hearns. He landed terrific punches with great hand speed. You're confused by watching him AFTER he came back, not before.
Duran wasn't even able to knock Leonard down with a perfect punch. Robinson got knocked down a lot, and got draws against guys that wouldn't have a chance against Leonard.
TA152H01 4 months ago
@TA152H01 Maybe he got draws against guys because he was fighting every month and didnt have 40 or so fights like Leonard? you think a guy can fight week after week and keep on putting stellar performance everytime? well thats an unrealistic expectation. Im not saying Leonard couldnt punch he could, but you wont see Leonard on any objective greatest punchers of all time lists, Robinsons chin is too good to be knocked out by someone like Leonard, he suffered flash knockdowns but was never koed.
kenomy66 4 months ago
@kenomy66 Leonard destroyed better fighters than Robinson got draws against. He completely outclassed even champions that were unbeaten. Robinson got draws against scrubs.
I never said Leonard had Robinson's punch, and strangely, I think Robinson is completely misunderstood. He's not nearly as good a boxer as people say, and he's a much better puncher. He's really a puncher with boxing skill, not the reverse. His power is outstanding.
I picked Leonard by decision, not KO.
TA152H01 4 months ago
@TA152H01 Again Leonard did not fight nearly as often as Robinson did, if Leonard had to fight with Ray Robinsons fight schedule he would have draws against "scrubs" as well. Robinson beat a ridiculous amount of ranked competition, its too bad they couldn't be "champions" since they only had one title per division, more knowledgeable ppl than you would disagree about Rays boxing skill, i dont see how Leonard outclasses anywhere, he has better defense and thats it.
kenomy66 4 months ago
@kenomy66 Boxing all the time should keep a guy sharp and in shape, and the guys Robinson had problem with wouldn't even belong in the ring with Leonard. Even better fighters got knocked out easily and outclassed by Leonard.
If you can't see that Leonard has better hand speed, straighter punches, a better jab, a purer hook, and better legs, there's not much else to talk about. It's pretty obvious, but people don't want to see some things, and I can't change it.
TA152H01 4 months ago
@TA152H01 Boxing all the time also puts more wear and tear on your body, they keep your skills sharp, but do you seriuosly believe that a fighter is going to give his absolute best performance every fight with that type of schedule? be realistic, it wasnt like he was fighting bums too, he was fighting ranked contenders, I cant see that Leonard has straighter punchers or a better jab or better legs and neither can many knowledgeable posters that i discuss boxing or who give their opinions do.
kenomy66 4 months ago
Leonard never had to sacrifice his defense for offense.
Anyone that thinks Robinson had the same speed as Leonard is plain blind. It's not worth even discussing. You're the first that even claims that. It's beyond silly.
Leonard's defense was based on talent, of course, but also very solid fundamentals. He blocked with his shoulders, he moved well too, and had radar. It's a talent.
Robinson blocked with his head. Two different category of fighters.
TA152H01 4 months ago
@TA152H01 Lol at Im the first the claim that, type in the question on google and that'll disprove that nonesense completely, Leonard didnt have the offence of Robinson and Robinson didnt block with his head alright now you're just being ridiculous or just trolling, anyone who watches onjectively this video can se Robinson blocking punches with his elbows and showing good head movement, youre claims about Robinsons defence are just getting sillier and you talk about me not knowing boxing.
kenomy66 4 months ago
@kenomy66 I've had this argument many times, and you're the first to claim Robinson had the same hand speed. He clearly didn't. He was probably even slightly slower than Hearns.
Robinson got hit by shots that would never have gotten within six inches of Leonard. His defense was poor. Guys like Basilio or LaMotta would have had a terrible time hitting Leonard, but they hit Robinson easily.
Leonard by easy decision. Duran/SRR would be a great fight. Hearns by KO.
TA152H01 4 months ago
@TA152H01 Leonard would have an even worse time dealing with Basilio and Lamotta than SRR cause he doesn't have the power to keep them off him. To say they would have struggled to get "six inches" of Leonard shows either your EXTREME bias towards Leonard or lack of knowledge on both fighters, Basilio and Lamotta were hellishly strong pressure fighters with good head movement and inside fighting skills. And lol at Hearns koing Robinson that shit isnt happening,ctd
kenomy66 4 months ago
@kenomy66 Hanrs had poor stamina at Welterweight, he made that weight barely, thers no way Hearns is koing SRR early and Hearns had a shaky chin
kenomy66 4 months ago
@kenomy66 I meant they'd never hit Leonard with their shots.
LaMotta was a lousy fighter, with a huge head. He wouldn't have been in position to fight Leonard, but if he did get a shot, he'd have trouble winning a round. Too slow, too short, too stubby. Leonard would kill him. Basilio is a decent fighter, for sure, but he'd be completely outclassed by Leonard. Watch pre-retirement Leonard, not the guy that fought Hagler and later. That guy these guys would compete with. Pre? No way.
TA152H01 4 months ago
@TA152H01 I have watched pre retirement Leonard perhaps with a little more objectiveness than you. Lamotta wasnt a "lousy" fighter you keep coming up with these ludicrous statements, and Basilio is more than decent, again either you dont know very much about these fighters or you'e bias clouds your judgement, I fiond it hard to imagine beating someone with a 16 and