Many people consider Sugar Ray Robinson the GOAT...

[China_hand_Joe]

Despite the fact he fought in the 40s, an undoubtably weaker era (it would be practically impossible to match his numbers today against the better athletes).



Well here is something to think about and agree with:

We can name Sugar Ray Robinson the best, the greatest ever. We can overlook the fact he fought in the 40s. It wasn't his fault everyone else was so bad, it just was, but we overlook it...

Why can't we overlook the fact that Joe Calzaghe has few worthy elite challengers? It is almost exactly the same, both have built up terrific number against less than stella opponents. It is double standards if we overlook it in the case of Robinson, but are ultra critical about Calzaghe for it.

It wasn't Robinson's fault the opponents back then were unworthy. Just as it isn't Joe Calzaghe's fault he has no truly worthy challengers. We should overlook these unfortunalities in Joe's career, just as we do for Sugar Ray.

We should be able to place Calzaghe amongst the top ten ever, immune to critism of his resume, just as Robinson fans are can do. There is no difference when you compare their respective opponents head to head, arguably Joe with his 'zero' against solid modern opposition comes out on top.

[China_hand_Joe]

This was actually meant for the General forum, so as to avoid mobbing tactics and deterioration into the old vs new 'debate'.

This is about the double standards applied against Joe Calzaghe and putting them into perspective. So this infact is not a classic boxing related thread at all.

[Decebal]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[brooklyn1550]

Joe Calzaghe is a great talent, but please don't compare him to Ray Robinson.

[Robbi]

Joe Calzaghe is a great talent, but please don't compare him to Ray Robinson.

Agreed. Calzaghe has a fair bit to go before being named anywhere near Hagler and Leonard, never mind Robinson.

[Thread Stealer]

Robinson never did something like say, what 15 years into his pro career before fighting ONE guy who held a world title at the time.

And this was in an era with less world titles out there.

[Street Lethal]

Robinson never did something like say, what 15 years into his pro career before fighting ONE guy who held a world title at the time.

And this was in an era with less world titles out there.
Can you explain this? What are you trying to say?

[Street Lethal]

To the thread starter, why were the 1940s a weak era?

[China_hand_Joe]

To the thread starter, why were the 1940s a weak era?

Globalisation and advances in knowledge and also technology and communications.

Mayweather would similarly have been able to reach a ridiculous 150-1 recond back then - you cannot get away with fighting so frequently these days, not near the top level.

Why is Robinson let off for fighting in a weak era, but Calzaghe penalised for happening weight 168, an unheralded weight, with no elite names willing to square off with Joe?

[McGrain]

Robinson fought in what was arguably the strongest era in boxing history. Burley, Williams, LaMotta, Gavlin, Chase, Moore, Bivins, Kid Chocolate, Soose, Zivic, Charles, these men were monsters, absolute world class fighters without exception. Any one of these guys would bea multi-weight world champ were they fighting now, or anytime, if things were done fairly.

That Robinson didn't fight most of the guys i've named is another issue of course :D

[brooklyn1550]

How were the 1940s a weak era? Have you seen all of the names on Sugar Ray Robinson's resume?

Henry Armstrong
Kid Gavilan
Jake LaMotta
Sammy Angott
Fritzie Zivic
Carmen Basilio
Gene Fullmer
Randolph Turpin
Joey Maxim
Rocky Graziano
Rocky Castellani
Charley Fusari
Carl Bobo Olson
Joey Giardello
Maxie Shapiro
Jimmy Doyle
Tommy Bell
Jean Walzack

Come on China_hand....Robinson's competition was far superior to the Lacy, Eubank, Bika, Veit, and Ashira of Calzaghe's resume.

[McGrain]

Nice list Brooklyn.

Add the guys Robinson missed out on and you're talking about the deepest WW/MW divisions of all time, in my opinion.

[brooklyn1550]

Nice list Brooklyn.

Add the guys Robinson missed out on and you're talking about the deepest WW/MW divisions of all time, in my opinion.

No question....clearly one of the great eras in boxing history. Without question, better than the current super middleweight division.

[China_hand_Joe]

I have no doubt I could land jabs on Sugar Ray Robinson with relative ease, whether I'd be punished after landing is another matter.

Anyhow, LaMotta was a one dimensionsal fighter, Lacy would likely beat him. There may be people under the impression LaMotta was more versatile, but that is only because Robinson's leaking defence allowed Jake to land his Baldomir like jab.

A prime focused Robin Reid is fully capable of beating any <170 name on Robinson's record.


It isn't Sugar Rays fault everyone else was so abysmal though, so lets not get on his back.

[brooklyn1550]

I have no doubt I could land jabs on Sugar Ray Robinson with relative ease

Anyhow, LaMotta was a one dimensionsal fighter, Lacy would likely beat him.

A prime focused Robin Reid is fully capable of beating any <170 name on Robinson's record.


:yikes

[McGrain]

Anyhow, LaMotta was a one dimensionsal fighter, Lacy would likely beat him.

Depends what you mean. He only fought on pressure, that's true. But he was hard to hit for a come forward guy and had all the shots. It's also less ridiculous to utilise a single attribute if you are the amongst the best who have ever lived in that department (chin).

It isn't Sugar Rays fault everyone else was so abysmal though, so lets not get on his back.

Why was Kid Gavlin "abyssmal"?

[Thread Stealer]

Can you explain this? What are you trying to say?

China Hand always spams and talks about how great Joe Calzaghe is, so I like to bash Slappy whenever he does it.

[brooklyn1550]

Well, did you really think China Hand would bring some serious points?

Good point...no, I did not:lol:

[China_hand_Joe]

Well, did you really think China Hand would bring some serious points?

I'm truly sorry you see things this way mate.

My points have been solid, you all however have been brainwashed. You are sheep.

People may bring up a name, like say Armstrong, congratulations. There is a problem however, which a limited amount of video (and of questionable quality) available we have to go by a fighters record.

Let me tell you this though my friend. In 2057, on these very classic forums, I'll be pulling the same trick. With Mario Veit. Super Mario was undefeated for yonks, with the exception of two fights against Calzaghe.

In 2057 there will not be a great deal of video evidence around on Mario, so I'll be pulling the exact same trick. "Oh no, Calzaghe's resume is brilliant, just look at all those great names! Veit for instance."

This is an exact parrellel with each any every name on Robinson's record. You are all hyping up wins over Mario Veit.

[brooklyn1550]

Let me tell you this though my friend. In 2057, on these very classic forums, I'll be pulling the same trick. With Mario Veit. Super Mario was undefeated for yonks, with the exception of two fights against Calzaghe.

In 2057 there will not be a great deal of video evidence around on Mario, so I'll be pulling the exact same trick. "Oh no, Calzaghe's resume is brilliant, just look at all those great names! Veit for instance."

This is an exact parrellel with each any every name on Robinson's record. You are all hyping up wins over Mario Veit.

Please stop! There is footage of Henry Armstrong and there is obviously footage of Mario Veit. The two will NEVER be mentioned in the same breath and in 2057, people wont be saying that Veit was great. Armstrong was clearly the better fighter and clearly had the better resume.

[McGrain]

Please stop! There is footage of Henry Armstrong and there is obviously footage of Mario Veit. The two will NEVER be mentioned in the same breath and in 2057, people wont be saying that Veit was great. Armstrong was clearly the better fighter and clearly had the better resume.


Atually Veit probably was better than the verion of Armstrong that Sugar beat :lol:

Of course this argument is still insane - there was no footage so they were no use.

[China_hand_Joe]

Please stop! There is footage of Henry Armstrong and there is obviously footage of Mario Veit. The two will NEVER be mentioned in the same breath and in 2057, people wont be saying that Veit was great. Armstrong was clearly the better fighter and clearly had the better resume.

I am aware Veit wasn't great mate.

But I will brainwash people in 2057 like you are being brainwashed now about many of the 1940s fighters.

Veit will be great in 2057, if I choose for him to be.

[brooklyn1550]

I am aware Veit wasn't great mate.

But I will brainwash people in 2057 like you are being brainwashed now about many of the 1940s fighters.

Veit will be great in 2057, if I choose for him to be.

If you can brainwash people in 2057 into believing Mario Veit was great, more power to you:D

[China_hand_Joe]

If you can brainwash people in 2057 into believing Mario Veit was great, more power to you:D

It is no different to what cross-trainer knowingly does now with an entire era.

[Street Lethal]

Globalisation and advances in knowledge and also technology and communications.

Mayweather would similarly have been able to reach a ridiculous 150-1 recond back then - you cannot get away with fighting so frequently these days, not near the top level.

Why is Robinson let off for fighting in a weak era, but Calzaghe penalised for happening weight 168, an unheralded weight, with no elite names willing to square off with Joe?
I don't understand your answer. Simplify. Why was the 1940s a weak era? Was it weaker than the 1930s? Was it weaker than the 1950s? Why? Why not?

[Street Lethal]

Robinson fought in what was arguably the strongest era in boxing history. Burley, Williams, LaMotta, Gavlin, Chase, Moore, Bivins, Kid Chocolate, Soose, Zivic, Charles, these men were monsters, absolute world class fighters without exception. Any one of these guys would bea multi-weight world champ were they fighting now, or anytime, if things were done fairly.
That what I was thinking.

[Street Lethal]

How were the 1940s a weak era? Have you seen all of the names on Sugar Ray Robinson's resume?

Henry Armstrong
Kid Gavilan
Jake LaMotta
Sammy Angott
Fritzie Zivic
Carmen Basilio
Gene Fullmer
Randolph Turpin
Joey Maxim
Rocky Graziano
Rocky Castellani
Charley Fusari
Carl Bobo Olson
Joey Giardello
Maxie Shapiro
Jimmy Doyle
Tommy Bell
Jean Walzack

Come on China_hand....Robinson's competition was far superior to the Lacy, Eubank, Bika, Veit, and Ashira of Calzaghe's resume.
Rocking post!

[China_hand_Joe]

If you want to go on believing boxing is the only sport which has not advanced in the last 60 years because it is 'special', then be my guest.

It is so obvious I'm not even going to elaborate further, we don't even need to look at the causes.

You are classic boxing fans, so you think boxing is somehow different, whatever the reasons, pretty much all sports have progressed over that period of time.

I am aware you will come out with counter-arguments, I don't care though. You can argue pretty much any ridiculous thing (flying spaghetti monster for example). The fact is advancements across the board in sports in substancial evidence. All the subject rubbish Pep-perts come out with is not. Debate over.

[Street Lethal]

So China Hand Joe is a notorious troll?

[Manassa]

Robinson was GOOD but, barney ross was the greast OF all time.

[Street Lethal]

Robinson was GOOD but, barney ross was the greast OF all time.
Why do you say that?

[fists of fury]

If you want to go on believing boxing is the only sport which has not advanced in the last 60 years because it is 'special', then be my guest.

It is so obvious I'm not even going to elaborate further, we don't even need to look at the causes.

You are classic boxing fans, so you think boxing is somehow different, whatever the reasons, pretty much all sports have progressed over that period of time.

I am aware you will come out with counter-arguments, I don't care though. You can argue pretty much any ridiculous thing (flying spaghetti monster for example). The fact is advancements across the board in sports in substancial evidence. All the subject rubbish Pep-perts come out with is not. Debate over.

Sure the sport has evolved in certain respects. The fighters today are almost certainly physically stronger and in better condition. The trainer and boxers today have over 100 years of boxing history to learn from.

On the other hand, today's fighter's fight maybe 3 times a year. There is a lot less wear and tear on their bodies. Joe is a 40+ fight 'veteran.' Ray had 201 fights. Joe has had ample time between fights to mentally and physically recover between bouts. Most fighter of the 40's just never had such a luxury.
So when we see a Ray Robinson on film, we must take into account this is a Robinson who has had well over 100 fights. A Robinson that probably also fought only 2 or 3 months before.
Squash another 100 fights into Joe's record and he'd look more than a little jaded.

That's not to say Robinson looks bad on film. I think he looks great, especially taking into account the circumstances. (Age, wear and tear, quality of opponent etc.)
See, it's easy to look like a destroyer when the quality of opposition just isn't that great, and even Calzhage's most ardent fans cannot deny that for the most part, his opposition has been remarkably soft for such a long-standing champion.
That's the thing today - because of the proliferation of titles, a champion can easily go his whole career without fighting the best (ie. other champions) in his weight class.
Calzhage is fighting Kessler only now, but in the 40's these two would have probably squared off before even fighting for the title. Back then, top fighters actually fought each other, and not only in title fights.

I realise it must be quite frustrating as a Calzhage fan to realise he'll never get (in their eyes) his just due. Well, you reap what you sow. If you hide away from the boxing limelight and fight softies for the majority of your career, that's bound to happen.

[China_hand_Joe]

The difference between Armstrong and Veit is, when you look at Armstrong´s resume you see a guy who beat the best of his time, won and hold titles in three different weightclasses at the same time and made a record defence of the WW title. When you look at Veit´s resume you see a guy who beat some B-level fighters and lost everytime when he stepped up, JC and Inkin, and never won a title. Huge difference.

I know mate. I think you might be agreeing with the initial post.

Armstrong beat some of the best of in his time. But they were all from a weak era, which we overlook for Armstrong, it wasn't his faut.

Likewise Calzaghe took on all challengers (everyone but the American elites like Hopkins with too much to lose), it isn't his fault they weren't better. We can therefore overlook this too.

[China_hand_Joe]

Sure the sport has evolved in certain respects. The fighters today are almost certainly physically stronger and in better condition. The trainer and boxers today have over 100 years of boxing history to learn from.

On the other hand, today's fighter's fight maybe 3 times a year. There is a lot less wear and tear on their bodies. Joe is a 40+ fight 'veteran.' Ray had 201 fights. Joe has had ample time between fights to mentally and physically recover between bouts. Most fighter of the 40's just never had such a luxury.
So when we see a Ray Robinson on film, we must take into account this is a Robinson who has had well over 100 fights. A Robinson that probably also fought only 2 or 3 months before.
Squash another 100 fights into Joe's record and he'd look more than a little jaded.

That's not to say Robinson looks bad on film. I think he looks great, especially taking into account the circumstances. (Age, wear and tear, quality of opponent etc.)
See, it's easy to look like a destroyer when the quality of opposition just isn't that great, and even Calzhage's most ardent fans cannot deny that for the most part, his opposition has been remarkably soft for such a long-standing champion.
That's the thing today - because of the proliferation of titles, a champion can easily go his whole career without fighting the best (ie. other champions) in his weight class.
Calzhage is fighting Kessler only now, but in the 40's these two would have probably squared off before even fighting for the title. Back then, top fighters actually fought each other, and not only in title fights.

I realise it must be quite frustrating as a Calzhage fan to realise he'll never get (in their eyes) his just due. Well, you reap what you sow. If you hide away from the boxing limelight and fight softies for the majority of your career, that's bound to happen.

Boxing has undoubtably evolved mate, 60 years is such a large timescale.

Robinson looks good in a few pieces of film, but also very unspecial in others. Then people start throwing out meaningless names like LaMotta to explain why he looked poor, to try and justify their beliefs in 1940s fighters.

No fighter as open to the jab as Robinson would achieve such acclaim today, especially one open to 1940s slow motion jabs.

The fighters habit of fighting too much is another reason they never got good. They were always too burnt out to do proper training for extended periods of time. Robinson was talented no doubt, but he would be far, far better were he around today. Talents like Robinson were wasted in the 40s.


Robinson actually being remotely good, seems to be the exception back then. The rest of the so called legends with few exceptions would so much as be elite fighters if they fought in the state they were in back then.

[fists of fury]

Boxing has undoubtably evolved mate, 60 years is such a large timescale.

Robinson looks good in a few pieces of film, but also very unspecial in others. Then people start throwing out meaningless names like LaMotta to explain why he looked poor, to try and justify their beliefs in 1940s fighters.

I won't dispute that Robinson looked average sometimes. After all, having so many fights it's bound too happen. Thing is, when he needed to be great, he was.
Also, 99% of footage of Rayrob was at middleweight were he was a 100+ fight veteran.
More's the pity we don't see much footage of the welterweight version.

One thing we all do on occasion is expect these ring immortals to look great ALL the time. I don't think there has been a fighter in history that has looked fantastic all the time.



The fighters habit of fighting too much is another reason they never got good. They were always too burnt out to do proper training for extended periods of time. Robinson was talented no doubt, but he would be far, far better were he around today. Talents like Robinson were wasted in the 40s.

In part, I agree.
I don't dispute a Robinson now would be a better fighter overall for the points made earlier.
We must also bare in mind the pretty much worst-kept secret in sports: the use of ahem, chemical agents.

On the other hand, the guys back then never got out of shape much. They never really had a chance to. Experience as they say, is also a great teacher and most of the contenders back then were vastly experienced campaigners by the time they got a title shot.

So, while I do see your point and in some ways agree, I think you're also being a bit harsh on some of the old-timers and the circumstances back then.

[Sweet Science]

Despite the fact he fought in the 40s, an undoubtably weaker era (it would be practically impossible to match his numbers today against the better athletes).



Well here is something to think about and agree with:

We can name Sugar Ray Robinson the best, the greatest ever. We can overlook the fact he fought in the 40s. It wasn't his fault everyone else was so bad, it just was, but we overlook it...

Why can't we overlook the fact that Joe Calzaghe has few worthy elite challengers? It is almost exactly the same, both have built up terrific number against less than stella opponents. It is double standards if we overlook it in the case of Robinson, but are ultra critical about Calzaghe for it.

It wasn't Robinson's fault the opponents back then were unworthy. Just as it isn't Joe Calzaghe's fault he has no truly worthy challengers. We should overlook these unfortunalities in Joe's career, just as we do for Sugar Ray.

We should be able to place Calzaghe amongst the top ten ever, immune to critism of his resume, just as Robinson fans are can do. There is no difference when you compare their respective opponents head to head, arguably Joe with his 'zero' against solid modern opposition comes out on top.

Joe Calzaghe is a highly overrated, brittle boned, slapper. He wouldn't even have beaten a number of previous UK fighters such as prime Benn, Eubank and Watson. Let alone world class opposition such as prime Jones, Toney and Hopkins. Even Nunn would have soundly outpointed Calzaghe.

[China_hand_Joe]

Joe Calzaghe is a highly overrated, brittle boned, slapper. He wouldn't even have beaten a number of previous UK fighters such as prime Benn, Eubank and Watson. Let alone world class opposition such as prime Jones, Toney and Hopkins. Even Nunn would have soundly outpointed Calzaghe.

UK fighters are only UK fighters, Americans are all world class?

Robin Reid could beat Toney and Starie and Woodhall might be a match for Nunn.

[Sweet Science]

UK fighters are only UK fighters, Americans are all world class?

Robin Reid could beat Toney and Starie and Woodhall might be a match for Nunn.


Nope not all Americans are world class, but Toney, RJJ and Hopkins are superior to Eubank, Benn and Watson.

Robin Reid couldn't even imagine beating Toney unless he happended to be having a wet dream.

[Sweet Science]

UK fighters are only UK fighters, Americans are all world class?


The only great fighters to Hail from the UK were:

Ken Buchanan
Lennox Lewis (unless you class him as Canadian)
Jimmy Wilde
Lloyd Honeyghan
Randy Turpin


Those who had the talent & could have been great but didn't quite make it were:

Howard Winston
Nigel Benn
Naseem hamed
John Conteh
Chris Eubank

The rest who were any good can be tentatively summarised under the category of 'game loser'. That may be harsh but I'm afraid thats the truth.

[Jack]

I'm truly sorry you see things this way mate.

My points have been solid, you all however have been brainwashed. You are sheep.

People may bring up a name, like say Armstrong, congratulations. There is a problem however, which a limited amount of video (and of questionable quality) available we have to go by a fighters record.

Let me tell you this though my friend. In 2057, on these very classic forums, I'll be pulling the same trick. With Mario Veit. Super Mario was undefeated for yonks, with the exception of two fights against Calzaghe.

In 2057 there will not be a great deal of video evidence around on Mario, so I'll be pulling the exact same trick. "Oh no, Calzaghe's resume is brilliant, just look at all those great names! Veit for instance."

This is an exact parrellel with each any every name on Robinson's record. You are all hyping up wins over Mario Veit.
Nobody will be talking about Veit like that in 50 years though. Records can be very decieving, sure, but generally people know which records are strong and which aren't. On paper, just the numbers alone, Veit has a better record than someone like Bert Cooper. Cooper was the better fighter and beat better opposition, and therefore a win over Cooper is worth more than a win over Veit.

In reality, not many people just look at the numbers. Armstrong has legitimately great fighters on his record. Veit doesn't. Despite them both having good records, there is a vast difference in the quality of opposition faced.

Veit is just another guy with a padded record. In 50 years he won't be looked upon like Armstrong. He'll probably be rated be like Sven Ottke. Good record but one which does his talent more justice than it's worth.

[Sweet Science]

You forgot Calzaghe and Hatton in the second list. They imo deserve a mention.

I suppose there could be an argument for hatton but I didn't put Hatton in there because his career is not yet over and he could yet still be a great (in the unlikley event he beats Mayweather).

Calzaghe, on the other hand will never be great or anywhere near it.

[China_hand_Joe]

In reality, not many people just look at the numbers. Armstrong has legitimately great fighters on his record. Veit doesn't. Despite them both having good records, there is a vast difference in the quality of opposition faced.


Great fighters?

Why are they great?

I'll tell you why, because the American boxing media hyped them up to be so, also they had never seen Joe Calzaghe.

There is nothing special at all about great fighters.

[ThePlugInBabies]

The only great fighters to Hail from the UK were:

Ken Buchanan
Lennox Lewis (unless you class him as Canadian)
Jimmy Wilde
Lloyd Honeyghan
Randy Turpin


Those who had the talent & could have been great but didn't quite make it were:

Howard Winston
Nigel Benn
Naseem hamed
John Conteh
Chris Eubank

The rest who were any good can be tentatively summarised under the category of 'game loser'. That may be harsh but I'm afraid thats the truth.

ted 'kid' lewis? bob fitzsimmons? alan minter? freddie mills? jim driscoll?

[Sweet Science]

ted 'kid' lewis? bob fitzsimmons? alan minter? freddie mills?

I Left Bob fitzsimmons out for one reason. I have a problem with any white "World Heavyweight Champion" before Tommy Burns. As they all refused to match their skills against worthy black opponents, who were in many cases superior fighters. That is not a racist comment it's the truth as I see it.

[Boro chris]

Joe Calzaghe is a highly overrated, brittle boned, slapper. He wouldn't even have beaten a number of previous UK fighters such as prime Benn, Eubank and Watson. Let alone world class opposition such as prime Jones, Toney and Hopkins. Even Nunn would have soundly outpointed Calzaghe.

Jones would've been too much for him I agree.Watson and Benn would've been competitve but I see Joe winning. Eubank(prime),Toney and Hopkins...well they're very interesting and its a shame we didn't see them happen.Those four are very even in talent(but not achievement obviously).

Whereas there are some posters who highly overate JC, I think your doing the opposite.

[mr. magoo]

It is no different to what cross-trainer knowingly does now with an entire era.

On the contrary,

Cross_Trainer is an exceptional poster with a vast knowledge on the history of the game. Additionally, he uses non-biased approaches by providing actual footage and literature to validate his arguments and points. With all due respect China, the only thing that I've seen from you since your arrival is just plain flat out statements like " the forties were weak " without any real substance to explain your position. You also steadfastly claim that the public has been brain washed into believing that the legendary fighters of the past were greater than they actually were. Could the same argument not be made regarding your beliefs that all modern fighters are inherantly superior? Perhaps if you provided footage, documents, articals and focussed on specific points to make your comparisons, then maybe you'd be a bit more convincing.

This is how real debating is done.

[McGrain]

If you want to go on believing boxing is the only sport which has not advanced in the last 60 years because it is 'special', then be my guest.

That's exactly what I believe. I beleive it is special. I believe it has much, much more to do with what is within a man than what he learns. If you can't see that I respectfully suggest that you have entirely misunderstood our sport.

It is so obvious I'm not even going to elaborate further, we don't even need to look at the causes.

Rock solid argument.

[Amsterdam]

I ought to come in here more often, the general forum is getting on my nerves.

[McGrain]

I ought to come in here more often, the general forum is getting on my nerves.


How so?

[Amsterdam]

How so?

Those bastardly Jermain Taylor apologists.:barf

[McGrain]

Those bastardly Jermain Taylor apologists.:barf

Be calm about that. You'll find out one way or the other within the next two years. The proof is in the proof after all.

[McGrain]

They have another oppinion than him and dare to stand up for it.

He'll get more trouble in here on that score. It'll just be (slightly) less personal.

[Amsterdam]

Be calm about that. You'll find out one way or the other within the next two years. The proof is in the proof after all.

I'm trying, but this subject really sets me off. They're so bad to rank Taylor over Charley Burley even.

Then you have TobKhan, who legitimises Sven Ottke's fraudulent career, what can you do?

I don't even insult others.:twisted:

[McGrain]

I don't even insult others.:twisted:

I can actually see why you would wind people up. You're sure of yourself and i'm sure you're quite aware that this can come across as arrogance. I've found in general if you know your stuff and end up "owning" somebody, they will start to say things about your mother/sexual preferences/potency :lol: , even if you've never strayed from explaining why a left hook is a left hook.

Never mind. You either post here or you don't I guess. I'm learning loads every day on here.

[mr. magoo]

I stopped posting on the GM quite some time ago. The constant threads devoted to Wladimir Klitschko became overwhelmingly tedious.

[Amsterdam]

I can actually see why you would wind people up. You're sure of yourself and i'm sure you're quite aware that this can come across as arrogance. I've found in general if you know your stuff and end up "owning" somebody, they will start to say things about your mother/sexual preferences/potency :lol: , even if you've never strayed from explaining why a left hook is a left hook.

Never mind. You either post here or you don't I guess. I'm learning loads every day on here.

I've never been owned in a boxing debate. Cross Trainer is considered the best analyst around, best historian, I debate him to stand stills and I'm a novice with classic boxing.

The general forum needs to cool down. Taylor apologists are just unforgiveable.

[McGrain]

I've never been owned in a boxing debate. Cross Trainer is considered the best analyst around, best historian, I debate him to stand stills and I'm a novice with classic boxing.

The general forum needs to cool down. Taylor apologists are just unforgiveable.

I'm still quite new of course; but the forum will never calm down.

I think you misunderstood - I was saying that when you show up other people they can get very aggressive verbally.

[Amsterdam]

I'm still quite new of course; but the forum will never calm down.

I think you misunderstood - I was saying that when you show up other people they can get very aggressive verbally.

Yes and seek to personally attack. When do I ever do that?

I'm just a Calzaghe nuthugger, a sociopathic hater and an arrogant bastard according to the current Taylor apologist logic.

[Amsterdam]

Oh, so it is a problem that i have a different oppinion of Ottke than you? And what has that guy to do with Taylor?

They are both pathetic 'champions', along with Ruiz. You seem to respect them, I have no problem with this personally, but it's odd and more of an insanity trip that what JC fans offer.

JC fans are insane, we admit this.

[Nemesis]

I agree with CHJ :good

[cross_trainer]

It is no different to what cross-trainer knowingly does now with an entire era.

I must be very influential if I can brainwash everybody on the Classic forum except you.

[cross_trainer]

I've never been owned in a boxing debate. Cross Trainer is considered the best analyst around, best historian, I debate him to stand stills and I'm a novice with classic boxing.

The general forum needs to cool down. Taylor apologists are just unforgiveable.

I'm a novice myself. Don't be too sure of yourself because of your performances against me. :D

[Manassa]

Why do you say that?

Ross BEAT canzi and mclarin,, robinson could not

[Nemesis]

Ross BEAT canzi and mclarin,, robinson could not

Dempsey1238.... is that you :huh

[janitor]

I've never been owned in a boxing debate. Cross Trainer is considered the best analyst around, best historian, I debate him to stand stills and I'm a novice with classic boxing.


Don't let it go to your head that you are the first invader from the general forum not to be carried out feet first 30 seaconds into round 1.

We are gratefull for your input but you might get more out of the classic forum if you came here to learn and not just confront people. I would not come here if I was not learning new things.

[The Whaler]

CHJ can be pretty hilarious but he needs some new material.

[McGrain]

CHJ can be pretty hilarious but he needs some new material.

He needs a fucking lobotomy.

[Manassa]

Dempsey1238.... is that you :huh

??

[Manassa]

That guy also thinks Ross was the greatest of all-time if i remember right.

Well HE is. lol.

[Nemesis]

??
busted :good

[Manassa]

busted :good

i Dont get it?

[Nemesis]

Manassa,

As achilles used to say, you were anal about spelling / grammar and i am sure the way Dempsey 1238, types pisses you off. Add in to the fAct that you have suddenly started using "lol" and praising Barney Ross has led me too the conclusion that you are impersonating the great Dempsey1238

[Street Lethal]

Ross BEAT canzi and mclarin,, robinson could not
Reading the whole thread I think you are just playing. ;)

[TIGEREDGE]

Despite the fact he fought in the 40s, an undoubtably weaker era (it would be practically impossible to match his numbers today against the better athletes).



Well here is something to think about and agree with:

We can name Sugar Ray Robinson the best, the greatest ever. We can overlook the fact he fought in the 40s. It wasn't his fault everyone else was so bad, it just was, but we overlook it...

Why can't we overlook the fact that Joe Calzaghe has few worthy elite challengers? It is almost exactly the same, both have built up terrific number against less than stella opponents. It is double standards if we overlook it in the case of Robinson, but are ultra critical about Calzaghe for it.

It wasn't Robinson's fault the opponents back then were unworthy. Just as it isn't Joe Calzaghe's fault he has no truly worthy challengers. We should overlook these unfortunalities in Joe's career, just as we do for Sugar Ray.

We should be able to place Calzaghe amongst the top ten ever, immune to critism of his resume, just as Robinson fans are can do. There is no difference when you compare their respective opponents head to head, arguably Joe with his 'zero' against solid modern opposition comes out on top.

tHE 40'S WAS ONE OF THE STRONGEST ERA'S IN BOXING HISTORY, IF NOT THE STRONGEST. Boxing was booming at every weight. Robinson beat some fantastic fighters at that weight and above.

Are you going to tell me the follwing were weak opps:

Jake Lamotta
Marty Servo ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Fritzie Zivic ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Kid gavilan
Henry armstrong

there were other strong contendors is well. boxing was well more talent packed in those days than now. there

[Manassa]

Manassa,

As achilles used to say, you were anal about spelling / grammar and i am sure the way Dempsey 1238, types pisses you off. Add in to the fAct that you have suddenly started using "lol" and praising Barney Ross has led me too the conclusion that you are impersonating the great Dempsey1238

Erm I am not

[China_hand_Joe]

Jake Lamotta
Marty Servo ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Fritzie Zivic ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Kid gavilan


Oh look some famous names.

And I bet they are all embarrassing on video (relative to modern greats).

[Amsterdam]

Oh look some famous names.

And I bet they are all embarrassing on video (relative to modern greats).

That's a given my good man.

[Amsterdam]

He needs a fucking lobotomy.

He's a visionary. It just needs to be accepted.:good

[China_hand_Joe]

I must be very influential if I can brainwash everybody on the Classic forum except you.

You just maintaim their delusion, far less difficult to do.

We really to find the inital reason why their want to believe stone age fighters were so amazing. Probably something to related to wanting to feel knowledgable.

[Amsterdam]

And still Average Joe will never be nearly as great as them.

Not on resume, but in terms of skill, style and ability, Calzaghe's an evolution.

If you want to get technical, no modern fighter will match the old greats with resume for the era/era comparison due to politics.

Jones could have added Eubank, Benn, McCllelan and Michalczewski in addition to his current resume and people would still deny him a top 10 spot, even though such would be absurd, because that resume would be unbelievable to go along with an amazing fighter.

[TIGEREDGE]

Oh look some famous names.

And I bet they are all embarrassing on video (relative to modern greats).

look at the modern greats. would you say joe cal looks great to watch. no. bernard hopkins does not look great most of the time. winky wright is well. Cos a guy doesn't look great it doesn't meAN HE IS NOT GREAT

CARLOS MONZON NEVER HAD THE LOOK OF A GREAT FIGHTER
SAME WITH ROCKY MARCIANO

[China_hand_Joe]

I appreciate the difference between looking flash and whether someone is quality or not.

But you have people here refering to Maxim as a meaningful opponent for a 'legend'. That is too far and a prime example of rubbish being hyped simply to accomodate other views.

[China_hand_Joe]

Jones should be top 10 P4P ever.

He isn't.

This is a crime.

Why shoud we have to wait 15 years for this to change, so Jones fought long enough ago to be included.

[cross_trainer]

Oh look some famous names.



Yes. Believe it or not, most fighters must beat accomplished opponents to be considered great. Not everybody can be arbitrarily declared great like Calzaghe.

Honestly, though, what do you want? You don't back your generalizations up. If you did so, we could actually have a genuine discussion, but you're just "Revolvering" at the moment. Bring up your points--which have to be backed up by evidence--and the Classic section would be happy to address them.

[cross_trainer]

I'll make it easy for you. Amsterdam, feel free to jump in.


Here's Pep fighting Saddler:

IpKHFZ6ixKs




Here's Robinson fighting LaMotta:

KUYhjX64pDo




Here's Mayweather fighting Baldomir:

hECeVAIXYBs



Here's Calzaghe fighting Manfredo:

Kv1Et0W3xeI






What SPECIFICALLY does the second group do that the first group cannot? And don't say something like "Oh, they are crisper and show better boxing knowledge" because that's a generalization that answers nothing.

[cross_trainer]

If you want to get technical, no modern fighter will match the old greats with resume for the era/era comparison due to politics.
.

This sounds familiar somehow...


Jones could have added Eubank, Benn, McCllelan and Michalczewski in addition to his current resume and people would still deny him a top 10 spot, even though such would be absurd, because that resume would be unbelievable to go along with an amazing fighter
.

Disagree.

* Hopkins is generally agreed in the Classic section to be on the same plane as Hagler and Monzon.

* Jones is rated in the top 10 lightheavyweights of all time, and relatively easily.

* Lewis and Tyson are rated in the top 10 heavyweights of all time by most here. The 90's are generally considered on par with 70's, which most call the greatest era of all time.

* Floyd Mayweather is ranked relatively well here, and "Floyd vs. ATG X" often are fairly close.

* Many here think that Nikolai Valuev beats Marciano.




I think you're perceiving a bias because you're weighted so far toward modern fighters. Not that that's a bad thing--your perspectives are interesting as a result.

[Street Lethal]

Calzaghe is a good fighter, but, seriously, who has he fought? Personally I think he fights in a worthless weight division and that's a main reason why he is so dominent. The light light heavyweight division? That's what it really is. Stupid marketing tactics like adding "super" to the title shouldn't fake people out. If boxers like Calzaghe are so good, then fight for the 175 pound title. 168 versus 175? If that gap is so serious to span that you need two weight divisions then we ought to start examining the gap between 160 and 164 pounds. Let's create a light light light heavyweight division.

The existence of such a division shows you how much more integirty the sport had way back when. Top middleweights fought at 165+ pounds all the time. Dominant light heavyweights weighed under 170 pounds all the time. There's no need for an in between division. Like "super bantamweight" you can have a fighter look totally dominant - let's take Wilfredo Gomez - while beating up on, say, overweight bantams, but then look inferior against fighters in his true weight division, say, featherweight. How would Calzaghe do fighting the top people in his true weight division? Jones proved what he could do. Calzaghe's 20 title defenses (or however many he claims) means nothing. If we are honest, what is he the champion of?

Let's revise history. Harry Greb is the greatest super middleweight (I mean light light heavyweight) of all times!

[mr. magoo]

I'm still waiting for China to respond to Cross Trainer, and give us his analysis of the footage shown above. Of course, the typical trend with this poster, is that anything that requires the disecting of solid material usually results in his disappearance.

[SugarRay]

Globalisation and advances in knowledge and also technology and communications.

Mayweather would similarly have been able to reach a ridiculous 150-1 recond back then - you cannot get away with fighting so frequently these days, not near the top level.

Why is Robinson let off for fighting in a weak era, but Calzaghe penalised for happening weight 168, an unheralded weight, with no elite names willing to square off with Joe?

Don't know why you would say the 40s was a weaker era. More people were into boxing during that time than there are now. I see your point about globalisation, which could be the case. However, I doubt Mayweather would have reached 150-1 back then. In Robinson's era there were less divisions and only the one belt in each division, which was equalivent to getting the undisputed title in 2 divisions in today terms. Mayweather has never been undisputed in one. Robinson was the champ at 147 and 160 and almost captured the lt heavy wt belt. This equates to undisputed in 6 divisions in today terms.

Many people say that technology is more advanced nowadays. Yeah, that's true but, do you not think that Robinson would not have enjoyed the same advancements had he fought today? So, I don't buy that. I guess to be fair you'll have to compare era for era and Robinson was was a lot more dominate in his era than anyone else has been. Furthermore, I can't see floyd beating Robinson head-to-head. Just compare the advantages/disavdantages of both fighters. The answer is obvious for me. As for Joe, yeah his is dominate but, only in the one division. Has he fought everybody? No. Robinson fought in 6 divisions (in today terms) and fought virtually everybody. Guess you are entitled to you own opinion.

[Street Lethal]

The whole thing about fighters being better today than in the 1940s is bullshit. Watch the films and you can see right away that Ray had more in his bag of tricks than any boxer fighting today.

[Jersey Joe]

How were the 1940s a weak era? Have you seen all of the names on Sugar Ray Robinson's resume?

Henry Armstrong
Kid Gavilan
Jake LaMotta
Sammy Angott
Fritzie Zivic
Carmen Basilio
Gene Fullmer
Randolph Turpin
Joey Maxim
Rocky Graziano
Rocky Castellani
Charley Fusari
Carl Bobo Olson
Joey Giardello
Maxie Shapiro
Jimmy Doyle
Tommy Bell
Jean Walzack

Come on China_hand....Robinson's competition was far superior to the Lacy, Eubank, Bika, Veit, and Ashira of Calzaghe's resume.

And let's not forget that for many of these guys, Robinson was in his 30s and fighting a division higher than his natural weight. It's like Calzaghe going up to light-heavy/cruiser and winning the world title 3 times against bone fide champions (not alphabet holders).

[Jersey Joe]

If you want to go on believing boxing is the only sport which has not advanced in the last 60 years because it is 'special', then be my guest.

It is so obvious I'm not even going to elaborate further, we don't even need to look at the causes.

You are classic boxing fans, so you think boxing is somehow different, whatever the reasons, pretty much all sports have progressed over that period of time.

I am aware you will come out with counter-arguments, I don't care though. You can argue pretty much any ridiculous thing (flying spaghetti monster for example). The fact is advancements across the board in sports in substancial evidence. All the subject rubbish Pep-perts come out with is not. Debate over.

This argument falls down for the obvious fact that, had a 1940s fighter been in today's era, he would also have benefited from today's superior nutrition, training, and facilities. A modern fighter, if fighting in the 1940s, would face the disadvatages they had back then.

It's a bogus point.

[cross_trainer]

If you want to go on believing boxing is the only sport which has not advanced in the last 60 years because it is 'special', then be my guest.

It is so obvious I'm not even going to elaborate further, we don't even need to look at the causes.

You are classic boxing fans, so you think boxing is somehow different, whatever the reasons, pretty much all sports have progressed over that period of time.

I am aware you will come out with counter-arguments, I don't care though. You can argue pretty much any ridiculous thing (flying spaghetti monster for example). The fact is advancements across the board in sports in substancial evidence. All the subject rubbish Pep-perts come out with is not. Debate over.

You should change your avatar to something more appropriate:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[SugarRay]

This argument falls down for the obvious fact that, had a 1940s fighter been in today's era, he would also have benefited from today's superior nutrition, training, and facilities. A modern fighter, if fighting in the 1940s, would face the disadvatages they had back then.

It's a bogus point.

Which also means that fighters in Robinson's era relied more on their skills and abilities as they could not have relied on nutritional, training and whatever advancements.

Each boxing fan is entitled to his/her opinion. There are millions of fans out there and the majority think Robinson is the GOAT. This is what counts.

[JohnThomas1]

You should change your avatar to something more appropriate:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

[mr. magoo]

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

Don't feel bad John,

Last night I recieved a PM from one of the moderators from the lounge forum who told me that he had just removed my avator on the basis that it was too revealing, and that some posters had whined about others being able to view it while they were on line. I reminded the moderator that these posters had the option of hiding images, and he replied by saying that the dumb shites didn't no how, nor should they have to.

That's the last time I make the mistake of venturing to the ESB lounge, where apparently folks are too immature to handle adult material. :fire

[JohnThomas1]

Don't feel bad John,

Last night I recieved a PM from one of the moderators from the lounge forum who told me that he had just removed my avator on the basis that it was too revealing, and that some posters had whined about others being able to view it while they were on line. I reminded the moderator that these posters had the option of hiding images, and he replied by saying that the dumb shites didn't no how, nor should they have to.

That's the last time I make the mistake of venturing to the ESB lounge, where apparently folks are too immature to handle adult material. :fire

Jeez i can't believe that. What a soft mob over there hahaha. Yet look at some of the filth and bile (all the good stuff, really hahaha) they sift thru in everyday threads. I guess they actually know how to not open them? Personally i'm betting such threads are like flies to shit for them

:yep

[cross_trainer]

Jeez i can't believe that. What a soft mob over there hahaha. Yet look at some of the filth and bile (all the good stuff, really hahaha) they sift thru in everyday threads. I guess they actually know how to not open them? Personally i'm betting such threads are like flies to shit for them

:yep

The Classic Section is the best of both worlds--civilized threads with tawdry pictures. :D

[JohnThomas1]

The Classic Section is the best of both worlds--civilized threads with tawdry pictures. :D

Hahahaha, exactly!

[China_hand_Joe]

This argument falls down for the obvious fact that, had a 1940s fighter been in today's era, he would also have benefited from today's superior nutrition, training, and facilities. A modern fighter, if fighting in the 1940s, would face the disadvatages they had back then.

It's a bogus point.You agree, I think.

[China_hand_Joe]

Looking at the video of Mayweather and the one of Robinson, it is quite clear to me Mayweather outpoints Sugar Ray " open to the jab" Robinson. LaMotta looked mighty predictable there, just walking forwards throwing the jab, no real feinting. Perhaps Robinson was intoxicated seeing the way he let it happen over and over, if so I suggest you post a better video you give your side of the argument a better chance.

Calzaghe was sublie, gave Manfredo no chance. Plenting of feinting, following it up and unleashing his fury on the cowering Manfredo.

Perhaps you can post some video of higher quality modern legends, of course Mayweather looks supremely good against Baldomir.

[mr. magoo]

Jeez i can't believe that. What a soft mob over there hahaha. Yet look at some of the filth and bile (all the good stuff, really hahaha) they sift thru in everyday threads. I guess they actually know how to not open them? Personally i'm betting such threads are like flies to shit for them

:yep

Agreed,

They allow some of the nonsense and offensive BS, to continue on a momentary basis on that forum, yet they erase a simple picture of a women's naked backside ( probably the only decent thing the forum had going for it ). It was the avator that you've seen me with for the past month, containing no shots of cleavage or pie. The moderator said that I can use similar pics, but with nothing fully exposed, explaining my current choice. I suppose I'll give it a few days and return to my old tricks. I'll just stick to the classic forum, as we seem to be a bit more tolerant for good taste here.

[JohnThomas1]

Agreed,

They allow some of the nonsense and offensive BS, to continue on a momentary basis on that forum, yet they erase a simple picture of a women's naked backside ( probably the only decent thing the forum had going for it ). It was the avator that you've seen me with for the past month, containing no shots of cleavage or pie. The moderator said that I can use similar pics, but with nothing fully exposed, explaining my current choice. I suppose I'll give it a few days and return to my old tricks. I'll just stick to the classic forum, as we seem to be a bit more tolerant for good taste here.

Hahaha, fair call mate. Stay away from the evangelists of the Lounge and you'll be fine

:yep

[mr. magoo]

Hahaha, fair call mate. Stay away from the evangelists of the Lounge and you'll be fine

:yep

Are you refering to :

Dear John,
Kind regards
I'm afraid I find yours and Mr. Magoo's taste in avators rather disturbing
As you know, I take a dim view on posters who project this perverse display of a declining society.
The women in Mr. Magoo's and your avators are the class of people whom I wouldn't spend my last dime of bus fare on.
I find your obsession with arses repulsive, as is Mr. Magoo's.
I'm sure that you'll come to the rightful conclusion that my views are the only which truly reflect that of a moral society.

Am I on the right track here?

[JohnThomas1]

Are you refering to :

Dear John,
Kind regards
I'm afraid I find yours and Mr. Magoo's taste in avators rather disturbing
As you know, I take a dim view on posters who project this perverse display of a declining society.
The women in Mr. Magoo's and your avators are the class of people whom I wouldn't spend my last dime of bus fare on.
I find your obsession with arses repulsive, as is Mr. Magoo's.
I'm sure that you'll come to the rightful conclusion that my views are the only which truly reflect that of a moral society.

Am I on the right track here?

:lol:

[SgrRyLeonard]

Manfredo was in over his head against Calzaghe, and Mayweather wouldn't have the power to hold Robinson off or be able to withstand Robinson's offensive onslaught. If DeLahoya could give Mayweather a competitive fight, think about what Robinson could do to him. Robinson has better stamina than DeLahoya, better power, speed, boxing skill, bodypunching, infighting, footwork, etc. Mayweather would be lucky to see the final bell, let alone actually win.

[cross_trainer]

Looking at the video of Mayweather and the one of Robinson, it is quite clear to me Mayweather outpoints Sugar Ray " open to the jab" Robinson. LaMotta looked mighty predictable there, just walking forwards throwing the jab, no real feinting. .

That's incorrect.

He feinted several times (starting at "5:29" counting downwards) and many of his jabs were coming off of Robinson's jabs, which he slipped (slip/jab). Jabbing your way in is a positive thing, and LaMotta does it. In addition, he mixes his jabs with occasional left hooks and goes to the body well.

Several footwork and body feints as well--two around 5:07 and 4:50-something (the timing may be a bit off there, but it's between those two points).

In fact, if you looked closely at the beginning film you'd find that Robinson was getting away from the jabs pretty easily (using footwork, primarily). It's only when LaMotta tags him to the body with hooks that he becomes more vulnerable to jabs--and as I mentioned, LaMotta sometimes feints the hook to get a jab in. You'll also note that he throws his jab a little like a left hook, making it difficult to discern between the two punches.


Perhaps Robinson was intoxicated seeing the way he let it happen over and over, if so I suggest you post a better video you give your side of the argument a better chance..

Perhaps if I posted footage of Robinson in a Calzaghe costume, you'd judge him better. As it is, though, I'm content to convince people who are actually open to argument.

The footage stays.


Calzaghe was sublie, gave Manfredo no chance. Plenting of feinting, following it up and unleashing his fury on the cowering Manfredo..

Unleashing his fury squared up with his punches wide and his head leaned forward, which has a tendency to get fighters hit. Fortunately, he was facing Manfredo--not LaMotta.


Perhaps you can post some video of higher quality modern legends, of course Mayweather looks supremely good against Baldomir.

Mayweather is considered P4P #1 right now, and you believe Calzaghe is the greatest fighter who ever breathed. How much higher quality do you want?

[zivic1941]

Boxing probably peaked in the 1940s and 1950s relative to technique and quality of opposition.

[Street Lethal]

Boxing probably peaked in the 1940s and 1950s relative to technique and quality of opposition.
I have always felt that boxing was prime from the late 1930s through the mid 1980s.

[China_hand_Joe]

Mayweather is considered P4P #1 right now, and you believe Calzaghe is the greatest fighter who ever breathed. How much higher quality do you want?

Surely footage of Mayweather actually being challenged would help your case. He wasn't a million miles from being flawless against the plodding Baldomir.

[China_hand_Joe]

Manfredo was in over his head against Calzaghe, and Mayweather wouldn't have the power to hold Robinson off or be able to withstand Robinson's offensive onslaught. If DeLahoya could give Mayweather a competitive fight, think about what Robinson could do to him. Robinson has better stamina than DeLahoya, better power, speed, boxing skill, bodypunching, infighting, footwork, etc. Mayweather would be lucky to see the final bell, let alone actually win.

Have you ever even seen Robinson fight mate -questionmark-

He had trouble against Basilio even, imagine what Mayweather might do. Despite their differing styles he demonstrated plenty of offensive limitations in Robinson's game.

[Street Lethal]

Have you ever even seen Robinson fight mate -questionmark-

He had trouble against Basilio even, imagine what Mayweather might do. Despite their differing styles he demonstrated plenty of offensive limitations in Robinson's game.
Did you ever stop to recall - or learn - that Robinson was pushing 40 years of age and a veteran over 100 fights when he met Basilio?

[McGrain]

Did you ever stop to recall - or learn - that Robinson was pushing 40 years of age and a veteran over 100 fights when he met Basilio?

And those are just the pro fights.

It should also be noted that he still looks pretty good!

[Street Lethal]

And those are just the pro fights.

It should also be noted that he still looks pretty good!
Yes he did. It also should be said that Basilio was two time welterweight champion and a tough little SOB. Robinson was a welterweight fighting at middle, just as was Basilio.

[McGrain]

Yes he did. It also should be said that Basilio was two time welterweight champion and a tough little SOB. Robinson was a welterweight fighting at middle, just as was Basilio.

Sure. Bassilo would not be near the top of a list of fighters you would want to fight in your veteran years whatever else he was.

You could argue the case for him as being one of the "toughest" ever.

[Dempsey1238]

from the late 30's???

What about Benny Leonard? Barney Ross?? Tommy Loughran?? Joe Gans?? Were they just all out sluggers?? No knowing the basics of boxing tactics'? Leonard would be hell for any other boxing. So would Ross.

[SgrRyLeonard]

Yes, I've seen some of Robinson's fights. Basilio was a relentless pressure fighter/swarmer who was himself an all time great, winning the Welterweight and Middleweight championships. He fought the fights of his life against Robinson. Those fights with Basilio were the twilight of Robinson's career; it's expected that you'd have trouble at the end of your career against a prime, focused, determined ATG. Mayweather didn't exactly dominate DeLahoya, who everyone knows was past his prime yet was able to give him a competitive fight. He'd have to box Robinson, and if that didn't work he'd be screwed. Robinson could try boxing and if that doesn't work turn it into a fight.

[Street Lethal]

from the late 30's???

What about Benny Leonard? Barney Ross?? Tommy Loughran?? Joe Gans?? Were they just all out sluggers?? No knowing the basics of boxing tactics'? Leonard would be hell for any other boxing. So would Ross.
There are exceptions. Benny Leonard is definitely one of them. I am including Ross, Canzoneri and the like in the late 1930s. It seems the lower weight classes came along faster.

I don't include Joe Gans. Sorry, but I am not impressed by what I have seen from him. I don't include very many people from that time. I think the sport was, overall, rather primitive then.

[Street Lethal]

Yes, I've seen some of Robinson's fights. Basilio was a relentless pressure fighter/swarmer who was himself an all time great, winning the Welterweight and Middleweight championships. He fought the fights of his life against Robinson. Those fights with Basilio were the twilight of Robinson's career; it's expected that you'd have trouble at the end of your career against a prime, focused, determined ATG. Mayweather didn't exactly dominate DeLahoya, who everyone knows was past his prime yet was able to give him a competitive fight. He'd have to box Robinson, and if that didn't work he'd be screwed. Robinson could try boxing and if that doesn't work turn it into a fight.
This pretty much says it all.

[China_hand_Joe]

Did you ever stop to recall - or learn - that Robinson was pushing 40 years of age and a veteran over 100 fights when he met Basilio?

He was years off 37. Don't exaggerate stuff mate, I hate it when people do that.

Basilio was a midget welter weight with no defence. He is one of the worst boxers I have ever seen.

Te same weaknesses in Robinson were apparent against LaMotta. Mayweather would find landing jabs on Robinson relatively easy work, and his supreme defences skills would keep him safe, as he out boxes Robinson over an uneventful 12 rounds.

[McGrain]

He was years off 37. Don't exaggerate stuff mate, I hate it when people do that.

:lol: :nono

[China_hand_Joe]

What was an old man doing with the World Title anyway -questionmark-

There were less titles, less weights. Yet still old men like Robinson and Moore had no problems winning World Titles. What a joke.

The closest thing today, and a very, very rare exception is Hopkins. In the horrific LHW division. And that is a fraudulent reign anyway and Dawson and the like beat him.

Old men winning titles, somewhat frequently is a sign of a weak era. When the few exceptions are so exceptionally sucessful, it is usually a sign of weak competition.

Like Phil Taylor was in darts, in the dark old days.

Sugar Ray Robinson is Phil Taylor. Basilio is Wayne Mardle or something.

[McGrain]

What was an old man doing with the World Title anyway -questionmark-

An absoulte world class talent. p4p #1 all time perhaps.

There were less titles, less weights. Yet still old men like Robinson and Moore had no problems winning World Titles. What a joke.

Now who's exaggerating? Robinson was nowhere near as old as Moore or Hopkins when having great wins. Also, Lewis was older than Robinson when champ at the highest level.

[China_hand_Joe]

If we overlook it for Robinson and Phil Taylor, we should overlook it for ATG Calzaghe too.

[McGrain]

If we overlook it for Robinson and Phil Taylor, we should overlook it for ATG Calzaghe too.

Robinson had a really high level of competition. Calzaghe didn't.

Is Phil Taylor that darts player?

[China_hand_Joe]

Yes. Taylor like Calzaghe and Robinson, was supreme compared to the competition. We don't take anything away because he was good regardless. The rest though. We rip apart for being sub-par.

[McGrain]

Kid Gavlin is an ATG. Fritzie Zivic was a wonderful fighter, another ATG. Robinson beat them both.

You don't rate LaMotta at all. I see him as a top 20 MW, all time, and although he was short he was also a "big" MW, in that he struggled to get his body down.

So that's 3 ATG's as I see things, and as is generally accepted - and without really trying.

Calzaghe has 0 ATG's.

Does Phil Taylor?

[China_hand_Joe]

All kinds of average darts players like Bobby George are see as ATGs and legends because their peers wer aful. It is almost identical to the situation in 1940s boxing.

[McGrain]

Is Bobby George the one with all the gold?

Well look, it's all interesting and that, but you've basicallly done 0 to convince me to even have a look at the status of guys like Zivic and Gavlin. I'm not actually convinced you know very much about them at all.

The weird thing is i am usually quite hard on Robinson and his level of competion, but the reason is that there were better fighters out there that he could have taken on.

For example, if he'd fought Burley, Williams and Booker, these probably would have been the three best fighters he'd ever fought.

So there's a long way for me to go before I can be made to understand your point of view. Because you haven't even dealt with the "weaker" fighters of the era, the ones Robinson took on.

[China_hand_Joe]

Is Bobby George the one with all the gold?

Well look, it's all interesting and that, but you've basicallly done 0 to convince me to even have a look at the status of guys like Zivic and Gavlin. I'm not actually convinced you know very much about them at all.

The weird thing is i am usually quite hard on Robinson and his level of competion, but the reason is that there were better fighters out there that he could have taken on.

For example, if he'd fought Burley, Williams and Booker, these probably would have been the three best fighters he'd ever fought.

So there's a long way for me to go before I can be made to understand your point of view. Because you haven't even dealt with the "weaker" fighters of the era, the ones Robinson took on.

Yeah that guy. Top 10 Modrn players would hammer him. Just remember the comparison in the future.

I soon have almost conclusive evidence of how bad the era was mate. I promise you that.

[McGrain]

Yeah that guy. Top 10 Modrn players would hammer him. Just remember the comparison in the future.

I soon have almost conclusive evidence of how bad the era was mate. I promise you that.

Darts probably has less to do with internal than almost any other sport. Boxing has the most out of any sport, somewhere in the tune of 99% according to some.

Anyway, when you wipe out the 40's for quality, please don't forget the black murderers row. It would be a shame if they missed out on the devestation of their era, because they sure as shit missed out on the credit for making it the very best.

[China_hand_Joe]

When do you think boxig rpughly started becoming high quality mate -questionmark-

I know it was gradual, but can you list an example time when you think it would have been vastly weaker -qm-

[McGrain]

I don't think it was gradual.

[China_hand_Joe]

When abouts do you reckon -qm-

[McGrain]

:lol:

When abouts do I reckon what you crazy monkey?

Look, the simplest way to put it would be this; I don't think Langford would have any problems beating Calzaghe under his ruleset. I think he would knock Joe out probably early and probably with a body attack.

The crazy monkey thing isn't meant to be disparaging, just the question made me laugh is all.

[China_hand_Joe]

Ah sorry if I did not communicate myself.

When was the big boxing revolution, that mate the sport of boxing one with high quality competitors -qm-

[McGrain]

1600, 1700, something like that?

[China_hand_Joe]

Post-carnival days( like that documentary with Matt Skelton in) qm

[McGrain]

I never saw that.

Yeah, basically, once the English got the title sorted out you would see the "hardest" men in that country contesting the title with "scientific" (not really) men of near equal "hardness", perfect specimin for boxing as it exsisted under those rules.

[China_hand_Joe]

Skelton won btw.

[cross_trainer]

Surely footage of Mayweather actually being challenged would help your case. He wasn't a million miles from being flawless against the plodding Baldomir.

Yet you also have claimed that Robinson looked great only because his opponents were horrible. Tell you what--pick your own footage and point out the actual stylistic deficiencies.

(You still haven't pointed anything substantial out, and haven't elaborated on or backed up your single point about jab vulnerability).

[China_hand_Joe]

Yet you also have claimed that Robinson looked great only because his opponents were horrible. Tell you what--pick your own footage and point out the actual stylistic deficiencies.

(You still haven't pointed anything substantial out, and haven't elaborated on or backed up your single point about jab vulnerability).

I am claiming Robinson looked great, even though he looked subpar because people give his opponents too much respectl.

[cross_trainer]

Basilio was a midget welter weight with no defence. He is one of the worst boxers I have ever seen.
Here he is. Describe his weaknesses.

eRAOxcYtQFE


Te same weaknesses in Robinson were apparent against LaMotta.
...Which you've never explained or described, except that he wasn't Calzaghe.

[McGrain]

:think

[cross_trainer]

I am claiming Robinson looked great, even though he looked subpar because people give his opponents too much respectl.

Very well.

Here's LaMotta against Robinson:

JZbqBqkdbT4

What makes him significantly worse than fighters today?

[China_hand_Joe]

I don.t even need to use this approach any more. I will oblitertate all your myths tomorrow, now is a bad time.

My next thread will comfirm my correctness.

[cross_trainer]

I don.t even need to use this approach any more. I will oblitertate all your myths tomorrow, now is a bad time.

My next thread will comfirm my correctness.

:lol:

I look forward to your domino playing in the morning.

[Amsterdam]

Very well.

Here's LaMotta against Robinson:

JZbqBqkdbT4

worse than fWhat makes him significantly ighters today?

La Motta?

No footwork what so ever, no guard, poor timing, absurdly wide open, incorrect amatuerish sloppy arm punching and no speed to speak of to make up for some of these blatant technical flaws. No sense of distance either hardly.

At least from what I have observed there. Yet he's still able to land at times on Ray.

[China_hand_Joe]

La Motta?

No footwork what so ever, no guard, poor timing, absurdly wide open, incorrect amatuerish sloppy arm punching and no speed to speak of to make up for some of these blatant technical flaws. No sense of distance either hardly.

At least from what I have observed there. Yet he's still able to land at times on Ray.

But that was a past prime, middleweight (not welter) Robinson, who was tired and pacing himself in a 15 rounder.

And LaMotta, well he is better than he looks, he has one of those styles, like Monzon. That jab is also faster than it looks, jerky 1940s film footage makes it seem slower. And he is a very tall 5"8.

[cross_trainer]

La Motta?

No footwork what so ever, no guard, poor timing, absurdly wide open, incorrect amatuerish sloppy arm punching and no speed to speak of to make up for some of these blatant technical flaws. No sense of distance either hardly.

At least from what I have observed there. Yet he's still able to land at times on Ray.

It's almost as if we're watching different films...:lol:

Footwork -- 5:07-5:03 (counting backwards due to the way Youtube videos upload) is a good demonstration as any. LaMotta punches, pivots around Ray, and continues punching, with good leverage on all of his blows. 5:27-5:25, or thereabouts, he does a forward skip that is fairly standard in boxing today. He makes pretty good use of these skip-steps to maintain distance and avoid counterpunches (5:19-5:17 is a good example. There's also one before that.). He's in pretty good position to crouch and recover, the best example ending at 4:51.

No Guard -- His guard isn't up when they're out of range, if that's what you mean (it would be pretty useless there anyway). When in range, his right hand is usually at his chin and his left is drawn forward and back rather than dropped after the jab. It's low, but the shoulder is drawn up to compensate, much as Toney's. He uses it too. I can cite specific examples if you like.

Absurdly Wide Open -- Give examples. This is rather general.

Incorrect Sloppy Arm Punching -- He throws his left hooks similarly to Frazier (see "Boxing like the pros" and Dempsey's "Championship Fighting") rather than the modern method ("USA Boxing" manual). The back foot is off the ground and pushes to rotate the body rather than sunk to gain backward leverage. It's a matter of preference, and helps his forward momentum since it allows him a few leaping left hooks to compensate for his short arms. He sometimes arm-punches with his jab, but he's mostly using it as an annoyance anyway to get inside. He is, however, stepping and moving forward with the jab, so clearly there's momentum there.

No Speed -- He's fairly fast here. Not Mayweather fast, but faster than many middleweights today. (Including your bete noire Jermain Taylor :yep). I think you're seeing what you want to see. If you like, we could compare average combination punch time between the two using Youtube film, but that would take a while.

Timing and Distance -- Don't know what you're seeing here. LaMotta doesn't flinch when Robinson is firing too far away to do damage, so his distance can't be that bad. As for timing, he lands enough on a moving target that I doubt his timing was poor. You're going to have to give examples for these generalizations.

[cross_trainer]

But that was a past prime, middleweight (not welter) Robinson, who was tired and pacing himself in a 15 rounder.

And LaMotta, well he is better than he looks, he has one of those styles, like Monzon. That jab is also faster than it looks, jerky 1940s film footage makes it seem slower. And he is a very tall 5"8.
Excuses aren't necessary here. :good

(By the way, what do you say about Monzon? Is he also a bum because he doesn't look great on film?)

[SugarRay]

It's almost as if we're watching different films...:lol:

Footwork -- 5:07-5:03 (counting backwards due to the way Youtube videos upload) is a good demonstration as any. LaMotta punches, pivots around Ray, and continues punching, with good leverage on all of his blows. 5:27-5:25, or thereabouts, he does a forward skip that is fairly standard in boxing today. He makes pretty good use of these skip-steps to maintain distance and avoid counterpunches (5:19-5:17 is a good example. There's also one before that.). He's in pretty good position to crouch and recover, the best example ending at 4:51.

No Guard -- His guard isn't up when they're out of range, if that's what you mean (it would be pretty useless there anyway). When in range, his right hand is usually at his chin and his left is drawn forward and back rather than dropped after the jab. It's low, but the shoulder is drawn up to compensate, much as Toney's. He uses it too. I can cite specific examples if you like.

Absurdly Wide Open -- Give examples. This is rather general.

Incorrect Sloppy Arm Punching -- He throws his left hooks similarly to Frazier (see "Boxing like the pros" and Dempsey's "Championship Fighting") rather than the modern method ("USA Boxing" manual). The back foot is off the ground and pushes to rotate the body rather than sunk to gain backward leverage. It's a matter of preference, and helps his forward momentum since it allows him a few leaping left hooks to compensate for his short arms. He sometimes arm-punches with his jab, but he's mostly using it as an annoyance anyway to get inside. He is, however, stepping and moving forward with the jab, so clearly there's momentum there.

No Speed -- He's fairly fast here. Not Mayweather fast, but faster than many middleweights today. (Including your bete noire Jermain Taylor :yep). I think you're seeing what you want to see. If you like, we could compare average combination punch time between the two using Youtube film, but that would take a while.

Timing and Distance -- Don't know what you're seeing here. LaMotta doesn't flinch when Robinson is firing too far away to do damage, so his distance can't be that bad. As for timing, he lands enough on a moving target that I doubt his timing was poor. You're going to have to give examples for these generalizations.

Don't waste your time. The majority of the boxing community have Robinson as No. 1 GOAT. That's all that matters.

[OLD FOGEY]

When do you think boxig rpughly started becoming high quality mate -questionmark-

I know it was gradual, but can you list an example time when you think it would have been vastly weaker -qm-

In the United States, boxing became vastly stronger, in my judgement, in the late thirties with the Joe Louis era. The reason is obvious. Integration. Black talent had been cut off at the roots. Why even go into a sport where one got the nothing end of the purse, the best trainers looked the other way, and one was expected to lay down for top white fighters. Things weren't perfect after Joe Louis, but they were better, and there was a tremendous influx of black talent. The forties were certainly better for boxing in America than any previous decade had been.
It should be noted that there were also few other options for black athletes. Most major Amercican sports remained segregated until the late forties (baseball, gridiron football) or even the fifties (NBA).
Sugar Ray Robinson is perhaps the best example of the impact on boxing. Robinson's first love was baseball and baseball scouts who saw him play rated him a top prospect. Had he been born ten years later, Robinson would most likely have been a major league baseball player.

It is also fair to state that historical fluctuations can go the other way. In the United States, the white ethnic boxers so prominent in the first half of the century began to abandon the sport after about 1950 and perhaps a little earlier. This process can actually be traced by checking the Ring Magazine top tens. For example, between 1946 and 1955 there were 12 white American-born fighters rated among the top five heavyweight contenders. Between 1960 and 1979, there were only two, Quarry and Bobick.

If there was a cliche among American boxing "experts" in the sixties, it was that boxing was regressing, or even dying. Everyone harped on the theme that there just weren't as many good fighters as there used to be.

[China_hand_Joe]

Excuses aren't necessary here. :good

(By the way, what do you say about Monzon? Is he also a bum because he doesn't look great on film?)

I have no major issues with Monzon.

[cross_trainer]

I have no major issues with Monzon.

Yet he and his opponents did not exhibit skills above and beyond the likes of Robinson & co....

Did boxing skill improve at the same time that color film became available?

[cross_trainer]

Bumped for Amsterdam (it's back a few pages)

[Amsterdam]

Bumped for Amsterdam (it's back a few pages)

Thanks, I'll review.

[Amsterdam]

Okay, first of all, he's flat footed and leans into that awful jab far too much instead of stepping behind it like any modern top class fighter does.

In the first bit, around 5:05 he throws a sloppy flurry very off balance, showcasing what I was talking about with footwork, during this, he was wide open for a monster counter.

Also, leverage on his shots? That jab is just awful and he's leaning into it with no snap. There is no precision at all in his punches and they are not coming up through the legs. I'm really amazed at what I am seeing here honestly, in a negative way.

I could finish the video and cite more problems, but honestly, it's depressing.

I await your response.

[Dempsey1238]

Well outside of the heavyweights, There was no color bar in the lower weights in the EARLY 1930's.


The lower weights were pretty much taking over by the blacks and the jews.

Barney Ross hide behind no color bar.

[Manassa]

Okay, first of all, he's flat footed and leans into that awful jab far too much instead of stepping behind it like any modern top class fighter does.

In the first bit, around 5:05 he throws a sloppy flurry very off balance, showcasing what I was talking about with footwork, during this, he was wide open for a monster counter.

Also, leverage on his shots? That jab is just awful and he's leaning into it with no snap. There is no precision at all in his punches and they are not coming up through the legs. I'm really amazed at what I am seeing here honestly, in a negative way.

I could finish the video and cite more problems, but honestly, it's depressing.

I await your response.

I can't believe a Calzaghe fan is criticizing the technique of others.

[cross_trainer]

Okay, first of all, he's flat footed and leans into that awful jab far too much instead of stepping behind it like any modern top class fighter does.

He's twisting slightly to turn his shoulder to the opponent to guard his head as he's throwing the jab. This causes him to lean in a little, but it isn't a massive flaw. A flaw, but not a terrible one.

As to flat footedness...he has his back foot elevated, as is typical. He drags and push-steps at times, but this is not bad boxing technique (in fact, it's one of the first things learned). And at any rate, he skip-steps pretty frequently in the opening frames.


In the first bit, around 5:05 he throws a sloppy flurry very off balance, showcasing what I was talking about with footwork, during this, he was wide open for a monster counter.

He is only off balance for the last punch--the lunging right to the body. For the rest, he fires and repositions, shifting to Ray's left blind side as he does so. This particular part weakens your case, since as mentioned earlier he does it against a moving target.


Also, leverage on his shots? That jab is just awful and he's leaning into it with no snap.

He's getting good leverage on many of his shots.

Watch about 5:04 to 4:52. He steps into the jab, feints stepping into the jab, prepares to jab again and in so doing steps in. Also rotates his body while changing direction and jabbing to get leverage on it. He then clearly rotates his body, and especially his back foot, when he throws his power punches at Robinson's body.


There is no precision at all in his punches and they are not coming up through the legs. I'm really amazed at what I am seeing here honestly, in a negative way.

It's hard to be precise against Robinson. But many of them ARE coming up through the legs. Most, except for when he paws with the jab.


I could finish the video and cite more problems, but honestly, it's depressing.

I await your response.

Tag. :D

[Danny Ocean]

:rofl I have no doubt I could land jabs on Sugar Ray Robinson with relative ease, whether I'd be punished after landing is another matter.

Anyhow, LaMotta was a one dimensionsal fighter, Lacy would likely beat him. There may be people under the impression LaMotta was more versatile, but that is only because Robinson's leaking defence allowed Jake to land his Baldomir like jab.

A prime focused Robin Reid is fully capable of beating any <170 name on Robinson's record.


It isn't Sugar Rays fault everyone else was so abysmal though, so lets not get on his back.

:rofl :rofl :rofl

[Street Lethal]

Well outside of the heavyweights, There was no color bar in the lower weights in the EARLY 1930's.


The lower weights were pretty much taking over by the blacks and the jews.

Barney Ross hide behind no color bar.
Excellent point.

[OLD FOGEY]

I'll make it easy for you. Amsterdam, feel free to jump in.


Here's Pep fighting Saddler:

IpKHFZ6ixKs




Here's Robinson fighting LaMotta:

KUYhjX64pDo




Here's Mayweather fighting Baldomir:

hECeVAIXYBs



Here's Calzaghe fighting Manfredo:

Kv1Et0W3xeI






What SPECIFICALLY does the second group do that the first group cannot? And don't say something like "Oh, they are crisper and show better boxing knowledge" because that's a generalization that answers nothing.

I got a chance to drop down to the library and view your clips. I can't give you a specific time, but what impressed me was LaMotta's superior head movement. He fought in a crouch but constantly shifted his torso. If you imagine his head against a clock background, his head would be swinging between the 8 and the 4, depending on what punch Robinson was trying to hit him with. The modern fighters fought straight up with less headmovement in these clips from Manfredo and Baldimir. Mayweather showed good head movement. Calzaghe didn't but didn't have to against a hapless opponent.
I didn't get a chance to view Pep and Saddler, but I didn't myself notice anything the modern guys were doing that the old timers didn't. Clearly LaMotta has a different style than all the others.

[McGrain]

I got a chance to drop down to the library and view your clips.

Boss, you really got to get your computer sorted so you can see the clips at home.

Nice post though.

[Calroid]

In the United States, boxing became vastly stronger, in my judgement, in the late thirties with the Joe Louis era. The reason is obvious. Integration. Black talent had been cut off at the roots. Why even go into a sport where one got the nothing end of the purse, the best trainers looked the other way, and one was expected to lay down for top white fighters. Things weren't perfect after Joe Louis, but they were better, and there was a tremendous influx of black talent. The forties were certainly better for boxing in America than any previous decade had been.
It should be noted that there were also few other options for black athletes. Most major Amercican sports remained segregated until the late forties (baseball, gridiron football) or even the fifties (NBA).
Sugar Ray Robinson is perhaps the best example of the impact on boxing. Robinson's first love was baseball and baseball scouts who saw him play rated him a top prospect. Had he been born ten years later, Robinson would most likely have been a major league baseball player.

It is also fair to state that historical fluctuations can go the other way. In the United States, the white ethnic boxers so prominent in the first half of the century began to abandon the sport after about 1950 and perhaps a little earlier. This process can actually be traced by checking the Ring Magazine top tens. For example, between 1946 and 1955 there were 12 white American-born fighters rated among the top five heavyweight contenders. Between 1960 and 1979, there were only two, Quarry and Bobick.

If there was a cliche among American boxing "experts" in the sixties, it was that boxing was regressing, or even dying. Everyone harped on the theme that there just weren't as many good fighters as there used to be.

Nice post. It makes a lot of sense.