Printable View
You might be right, but really I don't think so. Pryor was good at crowding inferior (to him) fighters, but I don't think he could so easily have his way against Leonard. Sure Leonard lost it in the trenches against Duran, but that was in part because Leonard chose to fight there in the first fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by cpss
Fighters who say they would rather die than quit on the stool are idiots! Aaron Pryor is an idiot for saying that, tell the same story to Sugar Ray Robinson, Smokin' Joe Frazier and Oscar De La Hoya all who quit on the stool. Tell it to Roberto Duran who quit mid round in a fight that was close!!! Maybe they all didn't have the right bottle!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavlik
thats what i always thought. theres just not enough proof for me to consider him the best welter ever if i never seen him fight in that weightclass.Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonnyI don't really need to see the footage of SRR.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
When I watched SRL and Tommy in that fight (and I've watched it a lot) I'm convinced they were the two best welters ever.
People often say that SRR was the best ever.
Yet when faced with an arguement, they exclaim
"But there's no footage of SRR to judge correctly."
How can anyone call him the best ever welter if they've never seen him fight welter?
I understand what you're saying Jaz but he was beaten plenty at Middle.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkin
Far more than Tommy or Ray in fact.
Any o9ld time English boxer would have seen him lose to Turpin (albeit on the tail end of a dominant European tour.)
I feel that SRR has become a mythical figure.
People atest to his greatness, without question and as I said to Ice without evidence.
Sure he was great, his record solidifies this as a fact, but I think his status has been embossed in gold through the combination of nostalgia and longing for an embodiment of the perfect fighter.
Well im not the person that says that Donny, i can't really tell how great he is at Welterweight because i've never seen a full fight of his at Welterweight, all we can go by is article's and other peoples opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonnyI don't really need to see the footage of SRR.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
When I watched SRL and Tommy in that fight (and I've watched it a lot) I'm convinced they were the two best welters ever.
People often say that SRR was the best ever.
Yet when faced with an arguement, they exclaim
"But there's no footage of SRR to judge correctly."
How can anyone call him the best ever welter if they've never seen him fight welter?
I understand what you're saying Jaz but he was beaten plenty at Middle.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkin
Far more than Tommy or Ray in fact.
Any o9ld time English boxer would have seen him lose to Turpin (albeit on the tail end of a dominant European tour.)
I feel that SRR has become a mythical figure.
People atest to his greatness, without question and as I said to Ice without evidence.
Sure he was great, his record solidifies this as a fact, but I think his status has been embossed in gold through the combination of nostalgia and longing for an embodiment of the perfect fighter.
But from the footage i have seen of his at Middleweight, he looked pretty damn good. And well ahead of his time, so i can assume he was quite a bit better at his peak and at his natural weightclass.
But one thing i do disagree with you on Donny is the Middleweight thing, obviously SRR would lose quite alot at Middleweight. Because he wasn't at his best best weightclass, and he was past his peak. Plus he fought countless times at that weightclass.
Where as SRL only fought there once, and Thomas Hearns, only fought at Middleweight a few times. So obviously they wouldn't lose as much, thats pretty obvious.
SRR lost to Randolph Turpin, but didn't he bravely beat him in the rematch ? even great boxers always meet a style that cancel's there one out. But atleast he beat him in the return.
Where as Thomas Hearns lost to Iran Barkley at Middleweight, a fighter i truly believe would of been embarrassed by SRR. And Thomas Hearns lost the rematch aswell which is a big difference.
At Middleweight he was good Ice.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
But simply that, he definitely wasn't great.
Naturally he would be restricted by his size and physique, but is that not a badge that many great fighters pride themselves upon ; the ability to rise through weight divisions effectively?
Certainly in modern boxing it is almost demanded that a fighter wishing to be categorised as great jumps divisions and triumphs.
Ray Leonard was restricted by size too but he beat one of the greatest Middleweights ever.
Surely to rise and defeat the great Marvin Hagler, is as great an achievement as SRR's mixed fortunes at Middleweight?
(Keeping in mind SRL also moved to LH with success, which SRR could not)
The Blade may not have been a great fighter, but his power was tremendous. SRR wasn't a defensive fighter, I see the possibility he would have been clipped by Barkley.
Robinson was great, of that there is no doubt, but I refuse to place blind faith in nostalgic boxing writers and reporters who say he was the greatest. I am not simply arguing the point that SRL and Tommy were as good as SRR, I am suggesting that there have been fighters since that have equaled and even surpassed him.
SRR was easily ahead on all the score cards against Joey Maxim until he collapsed in the 13th round from the intense heat due to fighting outside under 103 degree sun. Shit I think the ref passed out too. So to say he wasn't successful is misleading.Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonnyAt Middleweight he was good Ice.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
But simply that, he definitely wasn't great.
Naturally he would be restricted by his size and physique, but is that not a badge that many great fighters pride themselves upon ; the ability to rise through weight divisions effectively?
Certainly in modern boxing it is almost demanded that a fighter wishing to be categorised as great jumps divisions and triumphs.
Ray Leonard was restricted by size too but he beat one of the greatest Middleweights ever.
Surely to rise and defeat the great Marvin Hagler, is as great an achievement as SRR's mixed fortunes at Middleweight?
(Keeping in mind SRL also moved to LH with success, which SRR could not)
The Blade may not have been a great fighter, but his power was tremendous. SRR wasn't a defensive fighter, I see the possibility he would have been clipped by Barkley.
Robinson was great, of that there is no doubt, but I refuse to place blind faith in nostalgic boxing writers and reporters who say he was the greatest. I am not simply arguing the point that SRL and Tommy were as good as SRR, I am suggesting that there have been fighters since that have equaled and even surpassed him.
I understand what your saying Donny but i think you are underrating, Sugar Ray Robinson. He was decades ahead of his time, the left hook he KO'ed Gene Fulmer with is possible the quickest/greatest left hook i've ever seen. That was like a RJJ type performance and KO.Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonnyAt Middleweight he was good Ice.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
But simply that, he definitely wasn't great.
Naturally he would be restricted by his size and physique, but is that not a badge that many great fighters pride themselves upon ; the ability to rise through weight divisions effectively?
Certainly in modern boxing it is almost demanded that a fighter wishing to be categorised as great jumps divisions and triumphs.
Ray Leonard was restricted by size too but he beat one of the greatest Middleweights ever.
Surely to rise and defeat the great Marvin Hagler, is as great an achievement as SRR's mixed fortunes at Middleweight?
(Keeping in mind SRL also moved to LH with success, which SRR could not)
The Blade may not have been a great fighter, but his power was tremendous. SRR wasn't a defensive fighter, I see the possibility he would have been clipped by Barkley.
Robinson was great, of that there is no doubt, but I refuse to place blind faith in nostalgic boxing writers and reporters who say he was the greatest. I am not simply arguing the point that SRL and Tommy were as good as SRR, I am suggesting that there have been fighters since that have equaled and even surpassed him.
I don't think it was to do with him not doing well at moving through the weightclasses, i think it was due to him being past his prime. And despite all that he still beat some very impressive names.
Sugar Ray Leonard beat a faded Marvin Hagler, who was on the slide. I think Marvin Hagler was for certain ready to be taken. By alot of the young upcoming Middleweights at that time,
It was an impressive display by Sugar Ray Leonard who was coming off a lay off. But Marvin Hagler was on the slide, especially after that brutal war with John Mugabi, which took alot out of him. Had Sugar Ray Leonard fought on at Middleweight, and had fought the young upcoming Middleweights. He for certain would of lost.
By the way Sugar Ray Leonard fought Donny Lalonde at catchweight. Sugar Ray Leonard was 165 where as Donny Lalonde was at 167. The difference being with Sugar Ray Robinson, he was 157 when he fought Joey Maxim, and Joey Maxim was at 173.
Sugar Ray Robinson was winning the fight until the unreal heat got to him, he was suffering from heat prostration. Which can kill you i believe, although im no expert on it.
Lastly you have got to be kidding me if you think Sugar Ray Robinson, may of lost to Iran Barkley. You say Sugar Ray Robinson was no defensive master. No he wasn't but he still had great reflexes, where as Iran Barkley stood straight up and would just eat punches all night long.
Iran Barkley defeated Tommy Hearns because Tommy Hearns had a suspect chin, and suspect stamina. It was just a bad style match up for Tommy Hearns, who was the better fighter by far. But Iran Barkley could take his punches, and had the power to turn Tommy Hearns lights out.
But other than that what did Iran Barkley do ? he couldn't beat the smaller Roberto Duran, he couldn't beat Robbie Simms in an all out war, he couldn't beat Sumbu Kalmabay, who had good upper bodyment and a good jab. All of which Sugar Ray Robinson done better than Sumbu Kalambay.
He couldn't beat Nigel Benn, and he was embarrassed by James Toney. His career is based off two wins over Tommy Hearns. Now im not saying he was a bad fighter, because he certainly wasn't. But he was pretty lucky to get where he was, because he only had an average skill set. And his power although good was also nothing special either.
I'm not having a go at Ray Robinson by any means.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
the hook KO of Fulmer was magnificent, even scary, but one punch can't define a career.
I remember reading that Ray was alleged to be in his prime when moving to Middleweight.
He had a very long career and it was much later he truely started to take beatings.
From the footage I've seen of Robinson (admitedly at MW he seemed to be a fighter that was reliant on moving left, when forced right he seemed to get hit a lot, to me this suggests a weakness that could be identified and exploited by many fighters.
I won't argue that Marvin was on the slide. he hadn't looked inspiring in the Duran fight and he took a lot in the Mugabi fight, man the Hearns fight must've took its toll too!
However, i still would've picked him to beat 80% of challengers!
I know that Leonard has always claimed to have weighed 160 for that fight as he weighed in with a tracksuit pants in which he claimed to have held weights in the pockets, that is hearsay, perhaps sensationalism, but it looked to me like Lalonde enjoyed a considerable size advantage. Leonard dominated if me memory served me right???
Heat prostation is essentially severe dehydration and heatstroke.
maxim was subject to the same conditions that Robinson was. The problem was that Robinson was past prime and not as well conditioned as he once had.
I'd rate Barkley highwer than you I think. I always attributed the Tommy wins to a "stylistic luxury," but at the same time I wouldn't say thats all he had.
With the size advantage and his mentality I'll bet he could work his way into a good fight there.
I mean if Turpin did ???
This is basically replying to a number of posts on the subject rather than this one particularly.Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
On comparing SRL & Hearns to SRR, I can see them as comparable, but SRR was greater.
SRL managed 40 fights in his career, whilst SRR didn't lose his 1st fight till his 41st fight against Jake LaMotta, a guaranteed HoFer, similar in context to SRL losing to Duran by fighting his fight. Both obviously won the rematches by adapting & by being better technical fighters.
At welterweight, SRR beat some of the all-time greats at the weight like LaMotta, Zivic, Armstrong, Kid Gavilan, as did SRL & Hearns, however, SRR fought 100 fights at the weight & was only bested that once by LaMotta.
You've also mentioned the Turpin fight, but he fought that having fought just 9 days previously in Italy. Can you say with certainty that SRL & Hearns would not have lost under similar circumstances. The fact he lost so little in his prime (5 times in the first 20 years of his career) despite fighting so regularly is a testament to his greatness. If we give their careers even 75% the longevity they were beaten by a similar level of fighter despite having considerably greater preparation time.
& whilst they were KO'd by Camacho & Barkley, the only KO loss of SRR's career was at LHW to Joey Maxim when he retired from heat exhaustion in a fight he was winning.
I'm not trying to underplay SRL & Hearns, I have SRL comfortably in my all-time Top 10, maybe at 5, whilst Hearns is definitely Top 20.
I just think SRR WAS greater, & even Leonard acknowledged that. I'll try dig up a link to the quote, but I believe he said 'They always tried to compare me to Sugar Ray Robinson. Believe me, there is no comparisom.'
There are many strong points in your arguement Jaz and I liek how you put it together, but essentially my doubts are summarised in two points.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkin
The first is the era. Fighters a were a lot less articulate in terms of boxing skill and conditioing was primitive and ineffectual.
I would expect SRL and Tommy to scythe through most of SRR's competition, with the exception of Gavilan, La Motta, HurricaneHank and perhaps Basilio/Fulmer. Fighting at the time was just that and SRR's concept of boxing was radical and new. Fighters didn't know how to deal with it. SRL and Tommy wer by far more equiped to deal with SRR's skill.
The second is the lack of evidence. I can't put blind faith in any fighter, particularly in an era notorious for fixed fights and jobbers.
Remeber Mike Tyson stated after he fought Holmes that he wouldn't have stood a chance against a Prime Larry. Few rate larry above Tyson, so SRL like many writers and fans may have been nostalgic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonnyThere are many strong points in your arguement Jaz and I liek how you put it together, but essentially my doubts are summarised in two points.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkin
The first is the era. Fighters a were a lot less articulate in terms of boxing skill and conditioing was primitive and ineffectual.
I would expect SRL and Tommy to scythe through most of SRR's competition, with the exception of Gavilan, La Motta, HurricaneHank and perhaps Basilio/Fulmer. Fighting at the time was just that and SRR's concept of boxing was radical and new. Fighters didn't know how to deal with it. SRL and Tommy wer by far more equiped to deal with SRR's skill.
The second is the lack of evidence. I can't put blind faith in any fighter, particularly in an era notorious for fixed fights and jobbers.
Remeber Mike Tyson stated after he fought Holmes that he wouldn't have stood a chance against a Prime Larry. Few rate larry above Tyson, so SRL like many writers and fans may have been nostalgic.
Have to disagree with your last comment, i can't see how anyone don't rate Larry Holmes above Mike Tyson. He dominated the division for years and made 20 title defenses, aswell as having a good career past 40+.
Mike Tyson dominated only briefly and after he was beaten, he hardly done anything and was embarrassed numerous times. Prime Larry Holmes would beat Mike Tyson no doubt in my mind.
Although I personally rate Tyson on a similar level to Holmes, a prime Holmes would've been a completely different proposition for Tyson & I'm not sure he could've got in under that jab in the way he was able to once Holmes was shot. I also notice that the majority of people with good boxing knowledge tend to rate Holmes above Tyson. It's not how I feel, but that doesn't mean I'm right.Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
On your notes on the eras, fighters were FAR hungrier in those days & you would get a lot more even fights. SRR was being matched with guys with positive solid records from early in his career. Yes skill was not on the same level, however the argument that they were more poorly conditioned always strikes me as odd as those guys would fight longer fights often in poor conditions, meaning that their conditioning had to be pretty top-class. Whilst skill levels & instruction has been improved, the fact is the methods used to condition a fighter have not significantly changed in the past 60 odd years. Yes, things were crooked back then, but can you honestly say that under influence of the likes of Arum & King that boxing has become honest.
In terms of competition, as well as those mentioned, Fritzie Zivic, Bobo Olson, Paul Pender & Rocky Graziano are also worthy of mention, certainly the equivalent of Kalule, Lalonde or Hutchings. I would expect SRR to deal with the competition of both men handily with the exception of Hagler & maybe Duran, although I think he still beats both of them.
I can understand not putting faith in what you haven't seen, but from what I HAVE seen, he stands head & shoulders above, & when those such as Leonard, Louis & Ali all rate him as the greatest I think I'll trust in what they say. We all know Ali wouldn't say that if he didn't mean it.
Well i for certain rate Larry Holmes above Mike Tyson, i've seen most of Larry Holmes's fights and he is one of my favorites. But i still wouldn't be biased i truly believe he is better and achieved more.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkinAlthough I personally rate Tyson on a similar level to Holmes, a prime Holmes would've been a completely different proposition for Tyson & I'm not sure he could've got in under that jab in the way he was able to once Holmes was shot. I also notice that the majority of people with good boxing knowledge tend to rate Holmes above Tyson. It's not how I feel, but that doesn't mean I'm right.Quote:
Originally Posted by hitmandonny
On your notes on the eras, fighters were FAR hungrier in those days & you would get a lot more even fights. SRR was being matched with guys with positive solid records from early in his career. Yes skill was not on the same level, however the argument that they were more poorly conditioned always strikes me as odd as those guys would fight longer fights often in poor conditions, meaning that their conditioning had to be pretty top-class. Whilst skill levels & instruction has been improved, the fact is the methods used to condition a fighter have not significantly changed in the past 60 odd years. Yes, things were crooked back then, but can you honestly say that under influence of the likes of Arum & King that boxing has become honest.
In terms of competition, as well as those mentioned, Fritzie Zivic, Bobo Olson, Paul Pender & Rocky Graziano are also worthy of mention, certainly the equivalent of Kalule, Lalonde or Hutchings. I would expect SRR to deal with the competition of both men handily with the exception of Hagler & maybe Duran, although I think he still beats both of them.
I can understand not putting faith in what you haven't seen, but from what I HAVE seen, he stands head & shoulders above, & when those such as Leonard, Louis & Ali all rate him as the greatest I think I'll trust in what they say. We all know Ali wouldn't say that if he didn't mean it.
He beat fighters like Ken Norton, Tim Witherspoon, Earnie Shavers x2, Gerry Cooney, ETC. Those names are much better than anything on Mike Tyson's resume, except for obviously Larry Holmes himself.
But Larry Holmes was ring rusty, and he was coming off a bad stretch. Where he hadn't looked good in quite awhile. I think the early 40's version was better than the faded late 30s version. Plus he only had a few weeks to train for the Mike Tyson fight.
Just watch a prime Larry Holmes at work against Earnie Shavers, in there 1st and tell me that version of Larry Holmes wouldn't of beat Mike Tyson. He was simply superb and looked like one of the best Heavyweights of all time in that fight, which he already is but im on about all the greatest Heavyweights on there best night. That night he was probably top 3 easily.
He could also comeback from near defeat something Mike Tyson never did, which is another reason i rate him above Mike Tyson. He was in deep trouble against Earnie Shavers 2, Mike Weaver, Renaldo Snipes, yet he would comeback brilliantly like a true champion does.
Larry Holmes was the complete package he had the greatest Heavyweight jab of all time IMO, a heart on a similar level to Muhammad Ali. Good chin, Athletic, Fast, Underrated power, Good footwork, Excellent technical skills. Just really all the attributes a great fighter needs.
20 title defenses in 7 years ducking nobody, and was very unlucky in his 2nd career not to win the world title at 45. Because i think he beat Oliver McCall, and he almost beat a prime Evander Holyfield, plus his amazing display giving a prime Ray Mercer a boxing lesson aswell.
I dunno if you think I was trying to say Tyson was better, I consider them on a similar level, but I accept Holmes as a great HW, certainly in or around the top 5 of all timeQuote:
Originally Posted by ICB
In honesty Ice I believe that larry was greater than Tyson.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICB
I for one feel that his jab was the perfect offset to tysons aggression and during his prime he would have handled Tyson easier than many other greats.
However, few will acknowledge Larry above Tyson.
This is as much down to the hype surrounding the man and the aura of his legacy.
IMO not disimilar form the case of SRR
Agred on Holmes, would've loved to have seen it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JazMerkin
It would have been excellent to see young Mike vs. Prime Larry as for me it would have given the young Mike that opportunity to truely prove himself.
As we know Mikes opposition at his peak was less that stellar.
Its an age old debate; old vs. new methods.
However, although fighters were extremely hungry back then, conditioning was simply not on the same level.
In other sports we see sprinters shattering records, jumpers going higher and longer, seconds peeled off old distance runs.
Modern athletes avail of a much greater knowledge on how to train the body and as a result competition is heightened.
Boxing has really only revolutionised in the past 20 years, but even in the amateurs, fitness is far more scientific nowthan in the days of Armstrong, pep and SRR.
That competition was commendable, certainly huge merit to his record.
We actually seriously differ here....I see Hagler take SRR out. Hagler in his prime...simply a force!
Duran may have been undersized for SRR, I'm not sure.
Ali's word is actually a viable arguement. He had a great respect for the man, which was representative of the huge respect and adoration that was held for SRR within the boxing fraternity.
Unfortunately my doubt lingers.
For me.....GOAT would be Pep