Sugar Ray Robinson

[gnasher16 30,025]

 

 

I think people put the older fighters on a pedestal,I don't see anyone between middle and light heavy beat beating Jones jr.

 

We can say yes they lived in different times,didn't have the training or nutrition of modern times and fought more regularly,but the fact remains they were slower,smaller and weaker (in general).

 

They were slower smaller and weaker for that very reason.....can you imagine the Robinson/LaMotta series of fights with todays advances in training/nutrition ? They were unbelievable fights and they were men off the streets in physical comparison....................its like comparing Roger Bannister to Seb Coe......was Coe a FASTER runner of course he was......was he a BETTER runner not necessarily.

 

Bannister was a sprinter, Coe was an 800metres specialist, but I see the analogy and its misleading.Track surfaces and different shoes have helped, and men are bigger , but running is relatively simple, boxing is not, it is a science. Training? What trainers today can compare with Whitey Bimstein,Ray Arcel,Harry Lenny,Eddie Futch,Benny Georgino,Charley Goldman,Jack Blackburn,Doc Robb,Freddie Brown etc?

 

 

So sport science doesnt play any part for you ?..........What Ray Arcel and Eddie Futch didnt know about the sport of boxing wasnt worth knowing......but would they have been able to evolve scientifically and grasp the understanding both mentally and physically that todays camps must do ?......Training a fighter to fight in a boxing ring hasnt changed one bit but back then a fighter had a trainer and a cutman..........today taking daily bloods,strength & conditioning coaches,dieticians,massage,sports psycologists and every other detail that go,s into making a top prize fighter cannot be done by 1 man be that Eddie Futch or Freddie Roach the fields are too vast.

Im not getting into a thing about 800 metre runners i know nothing about them it was analogy i think you understood and thats good enough.

Edited July 20, 2014 by gnasher16

[neems 2,406]

 

 

 

I think people put the older fighters on a pedestal,I don't see anyone between middle and light heavy beat beating Jones jr.

We can say yes they lived in different times,didn't have the training or nutrition of modern times and fought more regularly,but the fact remains they were slower,smaller and weaker (in general).

 

They were slower smaller and weaker for that very reason.....can you imagine the Robinson/LaMotta series of fights with todays advances in training/nutrition ? They were unbelievable fights and they were men off the streets in physical comparison....................its like comparing Roger Bannister to Seb Coe......was Coe a FASTER runner of course he was......was he a BETTER runner not necessarily.

We can only go off what we see,Jones was a better middleweight than Robinson.

We can only guess how much better Robinson would have been with advances in training and nutrition,maybe he'd be knocking heavyweights out or maybe he'd be almost exactly the same.

Cant agree with that mate it doesnt matter what you are comparing from different generations sport,cars,tools anything you just have to keep a common sense approach and take everything into account............surely thats the essence of what " comparison " is.

It's all just complete guesswork though,we really don't know how much difference all the things you mention above would make,if we get really anal about it he probably would have had a very different arguably worse diet growing up,maybe been exposed to more pollutions etc etc

 

we can only really go off what we see,and I see modern athletes getting stronger and faster.

[gnasher16 30,025]

 

 

 

 

I think people put the older fighters on a pedestal,I don't see anyone between middle and light heavy beat beating Jones jr.

We can say yes they lived in different times,didn't have the training or nutrition of modern times and fought more regularly,but the fact remains they were slower,smaller and weaker (in general).

They were slower smaller and weaker for that very reason.....can you imagine the Robinson/LaMotta series of fights with todays advances in training/nutrition ? They were unbelievable fights and they were men off the streets in physical comparison....................its like comparing Roger Bannister to Seb Coe......was Coe a FASTER runner of course he was......was he a BETTER runner not necessarily.

We can only go off what we see,Jones was a better middleweight than Robinson.

We can only guess how much better Robinson would have been with advances in training and nutrition,maybe he'd be knocking heavyweights out or maybe he'd be almost exactly the same.

Cant agree with that mate it doesnt matter what you are comparing from different generations sport,cars,tools anything you just have to keep a common sense approach and take everything into account............surely thats the essence of what " comparison " is.

It's all just complete guesswork though,we really don't know how much difference all the things you mention above would make,if we get really anal about it he probably would have had a very different arguably worse diet growing up,maybe been exposed to more pollutions etc etc

 

we can only really go off what we see,and I see modern athletes getting stronger and faster.

 

 

Well in that case you would have to say the Klitchko,s are better fighters than Ali,Frazier,Foreman the lot..............if we dont use common sense theres no type of comparison of era,s conversations to have on sport or anything else in life.

[neems 2,406]

 

 

 

 

 

I think people put the older fighters on a pedestal,I don't see anyone between middle and light heavy beat beating Jones jr.

We can say yes they lived in different times,didn't have the training or nutrition of modern times and fought more regularly,but the fact remains they were slower,smaller and weaker (in general).

 

They were slower smaller and weaker for that very reason.....can you imagine the Robinson/LaMotta series of fights with todays advances in training/nutrition ? They were unbelievable fights and they were men off the streets in physical comparison....................its like comparing Roger Bannister to Seb Coe......was Coe a FASTER runner of course he was......was he a BETTER runner not necessarily.

We can only go off what we see,Jones was a better middleweight than Robinson.

We can only guess how much better Robinson would have been with advances in training and nutrition,maybe he'd be knocking heavyweights out or maybe he'd be almost exactly the same.

Cant agree with that mate it doesnt matter what you are comparing from different generations sport,cars,tools anything you just have to keep a common sense approach and take everything into account............surely thats the essence of what " comparison " is.

It's all just complete guesswork though,we really don't know how much difference all the things you mention above would make,if we get really abnal about it he probably would have had a very different arguably worse diet growing up,maybe been exposed to more pollutions etc etc

we can only really go off what we see,and I see modern athletes getting stronger and faster.

Well in that case you would have to say the Klitchko,s are better fighters than Ali,Frazier,Foreman the lot..............if we dont use common sense theres no type of comparison of era,s conversations to have on sport or anything else in life.

we can compare,but we should compare what we see and know first and foremost.

 

how much more sparring did they do back then?

 

How much better and more pro-like was their amateur days?

 

We'd have entirely different fighters to what we seen if they came up the ranks today.

 

for me there are only really 2 ways to compare them,either you imagine X went back in time on his best day and fought Y on his.

 

or by their achievements in their own time and how dominant they were and how much competition there was.

Edited July 21, 2014 by neems

[MickC 1,825]

Another thing when comparing the fighters of the older days with the modern day fighters is things that were not available to the older fighters but available anywhere these days and have been found used by athletes in every performance sport not just Boxing. Basically Im getting at Steroid/Ped use in the sport. No need to name names but a lot of modern day Boxers have been caught out using them and served bans etc from the sport but how many in the modern game are actually using them and have not been caught ? Should Olympic style drug testing be mandatory for all fighters ?

Edited July 21, 2014 by MickC

[gnasher16 30,025]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think people put the older fighters on a pedestal,I don't see anyone between middle and light heavy beat beating Jones jr.

We can say yes they lived in different times,didn't have the training or nutrition of modern times and fought more regularly,but the fact remains they were slower,smaller and weaker (in general).

They were slower smaller and weaker for that very reason.....can you imagine the Robinson/LaMotta series of fights with todays advances in training/nutrition ? They were unbelievable fights and they were men off the streets in physical comparison....................its like comparing Roger Bannister to Seb Coe......was Coe a FASTER runner of course he was......was he a BETTER runner not necessarily.

We can only go off what we see,Jones was a better middleweight than Robinson.

We can only guess how much better Robinson would have been with advances in training and nutrition,maybe he'd be knocking heavyweights out or maybe he'd be almost exactly the same.

Cant agree with that mate it doesnt matter what you are comparing from different generations sport,cars,tools anything you just have to keep a common sense approach and take everything into account............surely thats the essence of what " comparison " is.

It's all just complete guesswork though,we really don't know how much difference all the things you mention above would make,if we get really abnal about it he probably would have had a very different arguably worse diet growing up,maybe been exposed to more pollutions etc etc

we can only really go off what we see,and I see modern athletes getting stronger and faster.

Well in that case you would have to say the Klitchko,s are better fighters than Ali,Frazier,Foreman the lot..............if we dont use common sense theres no type of comparison of era,s conversations to have on sport or anything else in life.

we can compare,but we should compare what we see and know first and foremost.

 

how much more sparring did they do back then?

 

How much better and more pro-like was their amateur days?

 

We'd have entirely different fighters to what we seen if they came up the ranks today.

 

for me there are only really 2 ways to compare them,either you imagine X went back in time on his best day and fought Y on his.

 

or by their achievements in their own time and how dominant they were and how much competition there was.

 

 

So i say again,would you class Klitchko a better fighter than Joe Frazier ? as theres little doubt he would beat him based on what we see and know ?

[neems 2,406]

I certainly agree he'd beat him,so in that sense he is the better fighter.

 

the other way to look at it is by their achievements and how competitive and popular the weight class and sport was,I suppose you could even just base how 'great' a fighter was by how much better than average he was in his day.

 

but that's all very much opinion,involving emotion,nostalgia,preference etc

[gnasher16 30,025]

Another thing when comparing the fighters of the older days with the modern day fighters is things that were not available to the older fighters but available anywhere these days and have been found used by athletes in every performance sport not just Boxing. Basically Im getting at Steroid/Ped use in the sport. No need to name names but a lot of modern day Boxers have been caught out using them and served bans etc from the sport but how many in the modern game are actually using them and have not been caught ? Should Olympic style drug testing be mandatory for all fighters ?

 

Maybe im looking at it with rose tinted glasses MickC but i think the attitudes to steroids in British rings is completely different to America we still have that " fair play " mentality like not diving in Footie.......apart from our London lads Larry O,Ali Adams and Dom Negus ...off the top of my head i cant think of another British fighter whos tested positive.....maybe Enzo Mac did but im not 100%.

 

Whereas in America the list is endless......top fighters as well not just domestic level like over here.......when you look at American sport juicers are far more readily accepted you only have to look at Baseball or American Football its really not that big of a deal so naturally thats going to spill over into boxing as science is always one step ahead of testing and with the money in the game its always going to be hard to keep straight.Personally i believe fighters were using amphetamines and suchlike going way back before there was any such thing as drug testing but yet when you look at someone like Holyfield who was caught out buying a whole range of peds and steroids yet never failed a drug test you realise where the sport is at over there.

[gnasher16 30,025]

I certainly agree he'd beat him,so in that sense he is the better fighter.

 

the other way to look at it is by their achievements and how competitive and popular the weight class and sport was,I suppose you could even just base how 'great' a fighter was by how much better than average he was in his day.

 

but that's all very much opinion,involving emotion,nostalgia,preference etc

 

I would argue all day long that Klitchko was not a better fighter than Joe Frazier........it simply reiterates my point that when comparing different era,s theres so much to take into account and you just have to keep in sensible.

 

Jack Johnson would be the perfect example to use.

Edited July 21, 2014 by gnasher16

[inan 841]

 

 

 

 

I think people put the older fighters on a pedestal,I don't see anyone between middle and light heavy beat beating Jones jr.

We can say yes they lived in different times,didn't have the training or nutrition of modern times and fought more regularly,but the fact remains they were slower,smaller and weaker (in general).

They were slower smaller and weaker for that very reason.....can you imagine the Robinson/LaMotta series of fights with todays advances in training/nutrition ? They were unbelievable fights and they were men off the streets in physical comparison....................its like comparing Roger Bannister to Seb Coe......was Coe a FASTER runner of course he was......was he a BETTER runner not necessarily.

We can only go off what we see,Jones was a better middleweight than Robinson.

 

We can only guess how much better Robinson would have been with advances in training and nutrition,maybe he'd be knocking heavyweights out or maybe he'd be almost exactly the same.

 

Apart from a relatively untested Bernard Hopkins, who did Jones beat at 160lbs to give you the impression he was a better middleweight than Ray Robinson? Boxing has regressed since the 40's not improved,thousands of small clubs have closed,there are not the trainers in the game that there were to tutor young kids.

 

TV killed boxing in the US in the late 50's,it made it very big but because there were fights on virtually every night the demand overtook the supply, green kids were pushed beyond their abilties to satisfy the demand and did not have the opportunity to learn their trade. Today the emphasis is on keeping an unbeaten record,hard learning fights are avoided because of the risk of picking up a loss.Kids are fighting for world titles after 20 fights they no nothing of defence ,cannot feint or slip a punch and don't know how to parry a jab.

This is because there is no one around to teach those skills and also because they do not have time to learn them before they are pushed into title shots.

 

I'll tell you something that will make you laugh now.

Roy Jones is not a good boxer, his feet are too far apart he does not slip punches well, he seldom utilises his jab to its maximum , his head is there to be hit, and he throws wide punches. His technical flaws have only become apparent now that his god given,speed,and reflexes have slowed with age , he never learned to ride a punch so now ,when he is caught he takes the full impact of a shot. His chin is none too solid and because he takes shots that defensive technique would have allowed him to avoid, even as an older fighter he gets kod.

 

Bernard Hopkins is a far more complete fighter than Jones has ever been, that is why he can still be on top of the tree at 50 and Jones is washed up,he has learned every facet of the art, he was never blessed with Jones extraordinary speed and reflexes, but he compensated by learning the game inside out.He is "oldschool" a throw back to the 40's.If boxing had improved in the last say 5 decades do you think fighters of his age would still be champions let alone competitive?There isnt the competition to challenge these older guys who have learned their trade.

 

Hopkins recently defended against a Russian kid who had 15 fights under his belt he had the skill set of a novice,Hopkins lack of speed and stamina was never tested because the kid allowed him to dictate the pace of the fight, to box at a tempo he was comfortable with.

 

Boxing is dying MMA is far more popular now.The idea that todays fighters are better than those of the golden era is totally erroneous.

 

you certainly are a keen observer of the boxing game what are your views on a fit on his game james toney i think his defence and style was good to watch .

 

I've had some problems getting on here so this is a late reply.

Toney had excellent defence , brilliant shoulder roll and good head movement.

Unfortunately he lacked self discipline

[inan 841]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think people put the older fighters on a pedestal,I don't see anyone between middle and light heavy beat beating Jones jr.

We can say yes they lived in different times,didn't have the training or nutrition of modern times and fought more regularly,but the fact remains they were slower,smaller and weaker (in general).

They were slower smaller and weaker for that very reason.....can you imagine the Robinson/LaMotta series of fights with todays advances in training/nutrition ? They were unbelievable fights and they were men off the streets in physical comparison....................its like comparing Roger Bannister to Seb Coe......was Coe a FASTER runner of course he was......was he a BETTER runner not necessarily.

We can only go off what we see,Jones was a better middleweight than Robinson.

We can only guess how much better Robinson would have been with advances in training and nutrition,maybe he'd be knocking heavyweights out or maybe he'd be almost exactly the same.

Cant agree with that mate it doesnt matter what you are comparing from different generations sport,cars,tools anything you just have to keep a common sense approach and take everything into account............surely thats the essence of what " comparison " is.

It's all just complete guesswork though,we really don't know how much difference all the things you mention above would make,if we get really abnal about it he probably would have had a very different arguably worse diet growing up,maybe been exposed to more pollutions etc etc

we can only really go off what we see,and I see modern athletes getting stronger and faster.

Well in that case you would have to say the Klitchko,s are better fighters than Ali,Frazier,Foreman the lot..............if we dont use common sense theres no type of comparison of era,s conversations to have on sport or anything else in life.

we can compare,but we should compare what we see and know first and foremost.

 

how much more sparring did they do back then?

 

How much better and more pro-like was their amateur days?

 

We'd have entirely different fighters to what we seen if they came up the ranks today.

 

for me there are only really 2 ways to compare them,either you imagine X went back in time on his best day and fought Y on his.

 

or by their achievements in their own time and how dominant they were and how much competition there was.

 

 

So i say again,would you class Klitchko a better fighter than Joe Frazier ? as theres little doubt he would beat him based on what we see and know ?

 

Frazier faced one super heavy who was a huge puncher, that man dropped him 8 times in under 7 rounds.

[darbo 4,774]

 

 

 

 

 

I think people put the older fighters on a pedestal,I don't see anyone between middle and light heavy beat beating Jones jr.

We can say yes they lived in different times,didn't have the training or nutrition of modern times and fought more regularly,but the fact remains they were slower,smaller and weaker (in general).

They were slower smaller and weaker for that very reason.....can you imagine the Robinson/LaMotta series of fights with todays advances in training/nutrition ? They were unbelievable fights and they were men off the streets in physical comparison....................its like comparing Roger Bannister to Seb Coe......was Coe a FASTER runner of course he was......was he a BETTER runner not necessarily.

We can only go off what we see,Jones was a better middleweight than Robinson.

 

We can only guess how much better Robinson would have been with advances in training and nutrition,maybe he'd be knocking heavyweights out or maybe he'd be almost exactly the same.

 

Apart from a relatively untested Bernard Hopkins, who did Jones beat at 160lbs to give you the impression he was a better middleweight than Ray Robinson? Boxing has regressed since the 40's not improved,thousands of small clubs have closed,there are not the trainers in the game that there were to tutor young kids.

 

TV killed boxing in the US in the late 50's,it made it very big but because there were fights on virtually every night the demand overtook the supply, green kids were pushed beyond their abilties to satisfy the demand and did not have the opportunity to learn their trade. Today the emphasis is on keeping an unbeaten record,hard learning fights are avoided because of the risk of picking up a loss.Kids are fighting for world titles after 20 fights they no nothing of defence ,cannot feint or slip a punch and don't know how to parry a jab.

This is because there is no one around to teach those skills and also because they do not have time to learn them before they are pushed into title shots.

 

I'll tell you something that will make you laugh now.

Roy Jones is not a good boxer, his feet are too far apart he does not slip punches well, he seldom utilises his jab to its maximum , his head is there to be hit, and he throws wide punches. His technical flaws have only become apparent now that his god given,speed,and reflexes have slowed with age , he never learned to ride a punch so now ,when he is caught he takes the full impact of a shot. His chin is none too solid and because he takes shots that defensive technique would have allowed him to avoid, even as an older fighter he gets kod.

 

Bernard Hopkins is a far more complete fighter than Jones has ever been, that is why he can still be on top of the tree at 50 and Jones is washed up,he has learned every facet of the art, he was never blessed with Jones extraordinary speed and reflexes, but he compensated by learning the game inside out.He is "oldschool" a throw back to the 40's.If boxing had improved in the last say 5 decades do you think fighters of his age would still be champions let alone competitive?There isnt the competition to challenge these older guys who have learned their trade.

 

Hopkins recently defended against a Russian kid who had 15 fights under his belt he had the skill set of a novice,Hopkins lack of speed and stamina was never tested because the kid allowed him to dictate the pace of the fight, to box at a tempo he was comfortable with.

 

Boxing is dying MMA is far more popular now.The idea that todays fighters are better than those of the golden era is totally erroneous.

 

you certainly are a keen observer of the boxing game what are your views on a fit on his game james toney i think his defence and style was good to watch .

 

I've had some problems getting on here so this is a late reply.

Toney had excellent defence , brilliant shoulder roll and good head movement.

Unfortunately he lacked self discipline

 

couldnt have put it better myself thanks for the reply.

[inan 841]

 

 

 

I think people put the older fighters on a pedestal,I don't see anyone between middle and light heavy beat beating Jones jr.

 

We can say yes they lived in different times,didn't have the training or nutrition of modern times and fought more regularly,but the fact remains they were slower,smaller and weaker (in general).

 

They were slower smaller and weaker for that very reason.....can you imagine the Robinson/LaMotta series of fights with todays advances in training/nutrition ? They were unbelievable fights and they were men off the streets in physical comparison....................its like comparing Roger Bannister to Seb Coe......was Coe a FASTER runner of course he was......was he a BETTER runner not necessarily.

 

Bannister was a sprinter, Coe was an 800metres specialist, but I see the analogy and its misleading.Track surfaces and different shoes have helped, and men are bigger , but running is relatively simple, boxing is not, it is a science. Training? What trainers today can compare with Whitey Bimstein,Ray Arcel,Harry Lenny,Eddie Futch,Benny Georgino,Charley Goldman,Jack Blackburn,Doc Robb,Freddie Brown etc?

 

 

So sport science doesnt play any part for you ?..........What Ray Arcel and Eddie Futch didnt know about the sport of boxing wasnt worth knowing......but would they have been able to evolve scientifically and grasp the understanding both mentally and physically that todays camps must do ?......Training a fighter to fight in a boxing ring hasnt changed one bit but back then a fighter had a trainer and a cutman..........today taking daily bloods,strength & conditioning coaches,dieticians,massage,sports psycologists and every other detail that go,s into making a top prize fighter cannot be done by 1 man be that Eddie Futch or Freddie Roach the fields are too vast.

Im not getting into a thing about 800 metre runners i know nothing about them it was analogy i think you understood and thats good enough.

 

Name one skill area in boxing that has improved since the 40's.

 

Do you think because a fighter has an an entourage like a pop star that necessarily makes him superior to the old school fighters?

Muhammad Ali had a trainer and a masseur ,end of . Which heavyweight was better than him?

I say with complete confidence that apart from a few isolated cases,[Mayweather,Hopkins, Marquez etc,] that the skill levels of fighters are significantly lower than they were 60 years ago.

Edited July 28, 2014 by inan

[inan 841]

 

 

 

 

I think people put the older fighters on a pedestal,I don't see anyone between middle and light heavy beat beating Jones jr.

We can say yes they lived in different times,didn't have the training or nutrition of modern times and fought more regularly,but the fact remains they were slower,smaller and weaker (in general).

They were slower smaller and weaker for that very reason.....can you imagine the Robinson/LaMotta series of fights with todays advances in training/nutrition ? They were unbelievable fights and they were men off the streets in physical comparison....................its like comparing Roger Bannister to Seb Coe......was Coe a FASTER runner of course he was......was he a BETTER runner not necessarily.

We can only go off what we see,Jones was a better middleweight than Robinson.

We can only guess how much better Robinson would have been with advances in training and nutrition,maybe he'd be knocking heavyweights out or maybe he'd be almost exactly the same.

Cant agree with that mate it doesnt matter what you are comparing from different generations sport,cars,tools anything you just have to keep a common sense approach and take everything into account............surely thats the essence of what " comparison " is.

It's all just complete guesswork though,we really don't know how much difference all the things you mention above would make,if we get really anal about it he probably would have had a very different arguably worse diet growing up,maybe been exposed to more pollutions etc etc

 

we can only really go off what we see,and I see modern athletes getting stronger and faster.

 

I see the majority of todays boxers having less skills than their predecessors.

[inan 841]

 

 

 

Neems

I agree , Calzaghe fought them at the end of there careers but both were still able to drop him. A prime Jones was the best fighter I've seen in the last 30 years, just look at Jones record and who he fought then look at Calzaghes record.Calzaghes biggest win was over Kessler, a Calzaghe was good but he wasn't Roy Jones.Jones was told if he moved upto heavyweight he would have to stay at that weight as his body would never be the same again, he didn't listen and moved back down to lightheavyweight ,he won over Tarver then his career fell apart,Jones is still fighting now and is a shell of his former self he simply can't walk away from the sport.

It's hard to imagine any of these old pre 60s fighters who fought much more regularly even getting near him at middle or light heavy,let alone beating him.

Actually its hard to imagine Jones beating.Harold Johnson,Archie Moore, Bob Foster,Mike Spinks,Billy Conn,Jack Delaney,Tommy Loughran, and also at 175lbs Sam Langford, Ezzard Charles,Gene Tunney John Henry Lewis,Maxie Rosenbloom,and about 20 others.Later light heavies such as Saad Muhammad ,Dwight Braxton, Marvin Johnson ,Eddie Gregory,John Conteh,Victor Galindez ,would have walked through Jones.

 

Middleweights that would beat him ? Monzon ,Hagler,Robinson,Greb,Ketchel,Steele,Hostak,Tiger,Walker,Burley.toss ups Giardello, Apostoli,Zale,Lamotta,Valdez.

 

 

Jones's competition has been very average.

What you say would hold up if you were comparing the relative achievements of fighters,which probably is a fairer way of comparing them.

 

but even a casual observer can see modern fighters are far faster and stronger,head to head Jones on his best day beats every man on your list on theirs.

 

without wanting to sound disrespectful to the old timers,he'd make most of them look very bad.

 

Without sounding disrespectful I'd have to ask you how much you have seen of the old champs to make such a confident prediction?