Is it impossible for the fighters of today to ever reach the greatness of SRR or SRL?

[eze]

I just dont think it can happen, no matter how much a fighter does no one will ever say they did better then SRR or SRL. And most fighters today would be destroyed by the fighters of the past. I hate these comments.


Why even fight for legacy when no matter what you do, you won't get that nod.

[Thread Stealer]

Leonard, yes.

Robinson, that's extremely hard.

The guy had 200 fights and was fighting 20 times a year, often against top fighters. He faced the lightweight champ in a non-title bout after about a year of his debut.

Top fighters nowadays just aren't that active. The closest were J.C. Chavez and James Toney.

[McGrain]

RJJ dominated everyone from 1990-2002 - went from being a Middleweight to a Heavyweight champ, yet he isn't seen anywhere near Sugar Ray Robinson

He has two ATG's on his resume.

Chances are at a catchweight, H2H, he fucking dominates Sugar Ray Robinson.

Jones wold be competitive in with Sugar - seems unlikely to me, he would beat him.

50 years later, perhaps - RJJ will be seen in a similar light..

Maybe Floyd, too, who knows.

These two just don't have the great fighters on their resumes. It's ok to fight less fighters but you have to fight great fighters to achieve the sort of status you are talking about.

[Marnoff]

It is 100% possible. No matter what, when you rank people, you must NEVER put one person on an unreachable pedastal. You simply cannot. If someone came along and mirrored Robinson's achievements, and then won ten more fights, he would simply have to be better than him. That's how it works.

Since no one will probably ever even fight that many times again at the top level, based on politics and other factors, the criteria need to be adjusted as such. For instance, do people really need to fight someone six times to find out who is best? Yes, it helps, but it isn't realistic in today's boxing picture. I don't believe anyone has surpassed Robinson (Leonard doesn't even need to be in this debate, because he's not number one) yet, but it is a very real possibility, and there is no reason to give it no chance.

[McGrain]

, the criteria need to be adjusted as such. For instance, do people really need to fight someone six times to find out who is best? Yes, it helps, but it isn't realistic in today's boxing picture. I don't believe anyone has surpassed Robinson (Leonard doesn't even need to be in this debate, because he's not number one) yet, but it is a very real possibility, and there is no reason to give it no chance.

Yes, quite right.

If a guy came along and took on the BEST at, say, three or four weights and won or avenged against all the key fighters in those divisions, that would be something worth considering, for example.

[McGrain]

How do you become an ATG? By beating ATGs.

Well this isn't always the case. Hopkins dominated an era to such an extent that his qualification is automatic, regardless of resume. So too does Joe Louis, who some say is the greatest heavyweight of all time and probably has no top ten fighters from his own division.


How many ATG's exist in boxing at the moment? Very few - Why? Because we don't like to consider them ATG's

Well it's very difficult when they are still campaigning. Of the top of my head i'd say we have Barrera, Hopkins, Oscar, Mayweather...Hollyfield and Jones are still kind of active.

[eze]

See. People think its crazy for Roy Jones to kick SRRs ass. Roy was bigger, stronger, faster. everything better then Ray. But ray wins.

[ajohnfp]

Is it possible? Yes. Nobody is saying it isn't. But it just hasn't happened. Bottom line, Roy Jones did not have as impressive a career as Ray Robinson. It's not because of bias, it's because of fact.

[pipe wrenched]

Leonard, yes.

Robinson, that's extremely hard.

The guy had 200 fights and was fighting 20 times a year, often against top fighters. He faced the lightweight champ in a non-title bout after about a year of his debut.

Top fighters nowadays just aren't that active. The closest were J.C. Chavez and James Toney.

This is what would make it extremely difficult IMO. Plus with old timers nothing can top the good old days. I often wonder, I am 30, if when i'm 60 or 70 thinkin back that Tyson, PBF, Oscar, Cotto, etc. stars of the present day will seem way better than what will be available then.
One thing though is our current guys get high quality footage, easily accessible reviews, and with the internet you can find out any thing you want to know in seconds, where i imagine in the old days you just talked and spread news in pubs with friends etc. You know how stories go without in your face proof too, things tend to get exagerated a bit.:hat

[ajohnfp]

See. People think its crazy for Roy Jones to kick SRRs ass. Roy was bigger, stronger, faster. everything better then Ray. But ray wins.

Who, exactly, is saying that it is crazy to say RJJ beats SRR at 160? I think Jones would probably be the favorite. Sweet Pea says "this is a close ass fight."

[nervousxtian]

No, because fans overrate the old timers.

I dare you to take a look at SRR resume, how many of those fights could you toss out as bum of the week canidates.

If the champs of today fought those kinds of tune-up paycheck fights in between "real" title fights they'd be crucified.

I think the question that needs to be asked is this. If Sugar Ray Robinson fought today, would he win 173 fights? Would he be light years better than Winky, Miranda, Pavlik, Taylor, Calzaghe, Abraham, etc?

Do you not think that those same guys couldn't hang with Basilio, Fullmer, LaMotta, and Turpin??

You really think Robinson would win against Hagler? You think he could of dominated Leonard, Hearns, Nunn, and Toney? Let alone Roy Jones.

He might win some of those fights, but he wouldn't dominate all those guys.

He was a superior athlete in a era of tough guy punching bags and a few other skilled fighters who fought too much and got their heads beat in for a living, and not to name the dirty fights and fixed outcomes of the era.

[McGrain]

[quote]A: There was only one belt for much of it

How do you see this as a help? The one good thing about multiple belts is it makes it EASIER for gus to get status and cash by fighting title fights and unifying the titles.

I think you're way of with this.


B: There weren't Don King like promoters making money the biggest issue

They were far worse than King, and money was the only issue. Fighters got robbed by promoters left right and centre.

No disrespect but you need to educate yourself on this issue before you wade in.


No where near as many crafty trainers/fighters out there

I'm not sure what you mean here.

You have one belt that you have to fight the best to get and booya, you're seen as the best... even when unifying all belts, someone will still say "Oh you didn't face blah" - when Blah goes after another trinket, rather than coming to face you for yours.

There was about as much ducking in the old days as there is now.


If there was just ONE belt per division, you'd have more ATG's.

Wills, Burley and Langford are examples of bona fide ATG's who NEVER held a world belt at any weight.

What's more, people would start to realise that the dickheads people like Sugar Ray Robinson accumulated so many wins against weren't even fucking close to the Firemen and Policemen fighters Roy was supposedly beating up.

Kid, what the fuck are you talking about?

[ajohnfp]

No, because fans overrate the old timers.

I dare you to take a look at SRR resume, how many of those fights could you toss out as bum of the week canidates.

If the champs of today fought those kinds of tune-up paycheck fights in between "real" title fights they'd be crucified.

I think the question that needs to be asked is this. If Sugar Ray Robinson fought today, would he win 173 fights? Would he be light years better than Winky, Miranda, Pavlik, Taylor, Calzaghe, Abraham, etc?

Do you not think that those same guys couldn't hang with Basilio, Fullmer, LaMotta, and Turpin??

You really think Robinson would win against Hagler? You think he could of dominated Leonard, Hearns, Nunn, and Toney? Let alone Roy Jones.

He might win some of those fights, but he wouldn't dominate all those guys.

He was a superior athlete in a era of tough guy punching bags and a few other skilled fighters who fought too much and got their heads beat in for a living, and not to name the dirty fights and fixed outcomes of the era.

Where do you find these people who say that Robinson's middleweight era was the best of all time? Or that Robinson would dominate Leonard, Hearns, Nunn, Toney, and Jones? Because whoever these people are, they are wrong. Fortunately, there don't appear to be any on this thread or really on this site.

Nobody says that every guy Robinson fought was an ATG. Sure, there were some weak fighters, but, more often than not, he was fighting excellent fighters.

And if any fighter from any era has over 200 fights, I will forgive the occasional tuneup against a weak fighter. On the other hand, anybody fighting twice a year should be fighting the best opposition in every fight.

[McGrain]

If the champs of today fought those kinds of tune-up paycheck fights in between "real" title fights they'd be crucified.

I don't agree with this at all. As long as they were fighting the best in title fights I think they could fight whoever they want in between - as long as they weren't asking me to fork out £25 for the privalidge!

I think the question that needs to be asked is this. If Sugar Ray Robinson fought today, would he win 173 fights?

He wouldn't fight that many. I'd bet his win/loss ratio would still be about the same in prime, though.


Would he be light years better than Winky, Miranda, Pavlik, Taylor, Calzaghe, Abraham, etc?

Not light years. But I would personally pick him to beat all these guys.

Do you not think that those same guys couldn't hang with Basilio, Fullmer, LaMotta, and Turpin??


There's a lot going on in here as far as variety and styles go, but of the top of my head I think that Winky would be better than these guys and the rest around the same water-mark in terms of quality, though i'd pick LaMotta to beat many of them in terms of style.

You really think Robinson would win against Hagler? You think he could of dominated Leonard, Hearns, Nunn, and Toney? Let alone Roy Jones.

Dominated? No, he wouldn't dominate any of these guys. All great fighters. In a one of fight though, if I was gambling I'd be laying on Robinson in front of all of these gus. I think Hearns would give him the most trouble, personally.

[1lehudson]

It will have to happen after a fighters career is over. Robinson wasnt seen as the fight that he is seen as today. It took time, same with Leonard. Its not until the next group of fight fans come along and say DAMN that guy was great. Just a side note. When I was a kid, 7 or 8 my father took me to a fight, I had been fighting as an amatuer for about a year and a half at that time. While watching the fight I recall thinking, man all these people here to watch this, two skinny guys I dont see anything special here. I remember thinking that the big kids at the gym were better then these guys. The fight that I was at............................................ ............................... ..................... ........................ .......................... ......................... ...................... ............... ........... ...............Tommy Hearns vs Ray Leonard, go figure.

[nervousxtian]

And if any fighter from any era has over 200 fights, I will forgive the occasional tuneup against a weak fighter. On the other hand, anybody fighting twice a year should be fighting the best opposition in every fight.

Occasional tuneup? The old timers fought more than the occasional tuneup against the local garbage man.

I'm a SRR fan, I think he was a great fighter, but the games changed and I'm not one to believe that the old timers were any better than the elite today.

People do this in all the sports though.

[ajohnfp]

Occasional tuneup? The old timers fought more than the occasional tuneup against the local garbage man.

I'm a SRR fan, I think he was a great fighter, but the games changed and I'm not one to believe that the old timers were any better than the elite today.

People do this in all the sports though.

Occasional tuneup is a bit of an understatement, but he was still fighting top fighters multiple times every year. Over the course of his career, he still beat many ATGs, many more than Roy Jones has, many more than Bernard Hopkins has, many more than Floyd Mayweather has. Nobody would criticize any of these guys if they fought a shitty fighter every couple of weeks if they fought every few weeks. But they don't, so we don't afford them that luxury.

[acb]

[quote=Blocky]

Kid, what the fuck are you talking about?

Im actually suprised he has shown up after humiliating himself last week.

[Oscar de la Roa]

thats possible, thats what they used to say about pele and maradona and look at leonel messi and ronaldinho now days

[ajohnfp]

Too many on here are nuthugging these guys from the past....They all, including todays, could be beaten at one time orm another,
RAY Robinson was beaten by Lamotta, and TWICE by Fullmer....no one is /was perfect

Seriously, who is saying that Ray Robinson was unbeatable at middleweight? Who are these nuthuggers? They certainly aren't in this thread.

[nervousxtian]

ajohnfp, if you've been around the ESB long enough, you know these people exist.

[ajohnfp]

ajohnfp, if you've been around the ESB long enough, you know these people exist.

Tell you what: I'll start a thread in the classic forum, and see who these nuthuggers are.

[Asterion]

It's almost impossible to reach Robinson's greatness.

But today it's still possible to reach Leonard's status. Floyd can do it if he beats Mosley or Cotto, Hatton, etc

[pejevan]

It is impossible to match the number of fights that the fighters of yesteryears accumulate. If you analyze their records, apparently they were fighting 5-6 times per year or more. But the degree of oppisition is not as stiff as today's PPV era where at least matches should be competitve at least in paper. Example, After Duran fought Marcel who had a record of 24-2-1, he fought in succession mucino, herrera, castaneda, acosta, castaneda with a combined record of 16-18-4, after de jesus he fought vazquez and vanegas with a combnined record of 3-1-1. I am sure that if you analyze the careers of other greats, you would get similar picture.

So to use one criteria to compare today's fighters with that of the past would be wrong.

[MachineGunMitch]

its impossible with 4+ champions in every weight catagory.....
only 1 can be the best and have the legacy to last a lifetime

[Shake]

When I look at footage of Sugar Ray Robinson, I'm impressed. The man has, just from watching him, speed, power, ferocity, incredible coördination, a good chin and ring generalship.

Then I hear that there is no footage of him in his prime at his best weight -- that he went undefeated for a seventy-three fight stretch and that everyone agreed he was slightly over the hill even in the best videos available.

I'm no longer impressed. I'm scared.

What Sugar Ray Robinson did was incredible. Give the man his ****ing credit. I'm pretty sure he deserves it.

No-one is unreachable. Had Tyson continued as he started starching everyone and retired undefeated, people would rank him above Ali. Some still do. I don't see anyone fighting 200 fights at the level Robinson did, though.

[Azania]

Here's my take...Roy Jones,purely as an athlete,is probably the best we've seen.Bar none.No body had his combination of power and speed,movement,unothordoxy etc....No even SRR.In fact there's a few fighters who are much closer to Jones than SRR.Mayweather,SRL,Hearns etc...come to mind.

However,purely as a fighter,RJJ does'nt even come close to SRR.If we measure by what SRR actually did in the ring,there is no comparison.The Sugarman's resume and accomplishments stand undisputed in boxing history.In the ring,Ray was a force of nature,....even when he was outgunned,Ray came back with a PlanB.And to think,this was nearly 50yrs ago,makes it more awe-inspiring.SRR revolutionised the sport.Up until then,there were none quite like him.

IMO,Roy Jones had the talent and tools to KO anyone his ever met in the ring.Bu it never happened.In fact his KO ratio does'nt reflect the physical attributes he so well ardoned with.Could he beat SRR one-on-one?I say ver possible.But certainly not a forgone conclusion.He had the tools for sure.But would he be able to use them to win?We'll never know....

SRR is not the P4P king because of his physical attribute,but because of what he did in the ring.In that regard,no-one comes close.

[Smazz20]

Nope, because the PS2 generation considers any fighter with a loss (exposed:patsch )

yeah. good gods. what will the ps3 generation think:lol:

[bladerunner]

It's almost impossible to reach Robinson's greatness.

But today it's still possible to reach Leonard's status. Floyd can do it if he beats Mosley or Cotto, Hatton, etc
no he cant.
SRL beat arguably the best middleweight ever (Hagler).
SRL beat arguably the best Jr Middle ever (Hearns).
SRL beat arguably the best lightweight ever (Duran).
SRL beat one of the best Jr Welterweights ever (Benitez).

Floyd doesnt have the comp to surpass that.

[Muskyrat]

Leonard, yes.

Robinson, that's extremely hard.

The guy had 200 fights and was fighting 20 times a year, often against top fighters. He faced the lightweight champ in a non-title bout after about a year of his debut.

Top fighters nowadays just aren't that active. The closest were J.C. Chavez and James Toney.

pretty much sums it up i reckon

[Tettsuo]

Nope. It's impossible because of what SRR accomplished during his time.

Skillwise, absolutely. Boxers of today have learned from the boxers of the past and have better technique because of it.

Talent wise, without a doubt. Athletes of today have systematically surpassed the athletes of yesteryear in every catergory.

The only thing that cannot be surpassed is the legacy that those from the past have created.

It's impossible to be the first again....

[eze]

Roy Jones after the GM incident has stated before that he holds back on fires rather then going for the KO. He doesn't want to see anyone hurt like him by his hands.



But beyond that. I feel it's impossible for fighters of today to get there. If a fighter today loses one fight by KO he is forever tarnished and his chances of ever being a top 5 are greatly diminished. No matter how good his comp is.


Although I think Floyd has the greatest chance. With Hatton,Cotto, Mosley still on the table. But I laugh at the fact that people whenever you compare a match up, Floyd vs SRL. Its always SRL wins all 15 rounds and Floyd stands no chance. Its unbelievable that people are like this. IDK Maybe its because Im only 20 and rate the new age so greatly but thats how I feel.


Also isn't there restrictions on how fast you can fight after you've just fought.

I know theres a restriction when you lose and how badly you've lost and if it was by a KO.

[Lar Janus]

Only time will tell. I think fighter, today, labor under some disadvantages like:

--12 rd. fights--which causes less decisive outcomes
--Multiple 'champions'
--Jr. Weight divisions
--Unwillingness for some fighters (American AND European) to go overseas
--Boxing, itself, just isn't as popular as it was, even just 20 years ago, let alone 50 or 60 years, ago
--Guys (esp. tough ones like SSM and Clottey) who get beat are hard-pressed to get back into the mix; fans share some of the blame here, for acting like a loss is the kiss of death to someone's career
--Some fighters just refuse to fight other top contenders (will PBF fight a SSM, Clottey, Hatton, Williams/Margarito winner, or Cotto?)
--Low-risk fighting styles


To me, ODLH came pretty close to attaining this type of greatness. He's been the beneficiary of one of the biggest robberies I've seen, against Sturm, and he DID get ko'd by BHop, after being competitive for most of the fight. 160 was just too heavy for him. Outside of these two fights, though, he's been a HAIR away from winning ALL of his other fights.

For someone to reach that level of greatness, today, is going to take someone WANTING that kind of recognition, and willing to take on ALL comers. Not this 'risk vs. reward' bullshit attitude we see from some fighters, today.