What happened to Sugar Ray Robinson in the Mayweather Jr GOAT discussion?

[Seano]

Hagler has a shot, I guess, if he walks down Robinson and makes it a brawl. If he makes it a boxing fight, he's in trouble. He didn't light taller guys who could box.

A key factor is that Robinson has one hell of a chin and he hits pretty hard, while Hagler is a bleeder. I think he may stop Marvin on cuts before Hagler chops him down.

At 160, Robinson was a lot more beatable. He was drawn into a lot of firefights at the weight. Look at the guys who beat him.

 

[Hagler]

At 160, Robinson was a lot more beatable. He was drawn into a lot of firefights at the weight. Look at the guys who beat him.

Oh, I guess Hagler likely beats post 1955 SRR. Before 1952 Robinson was a different beast.

 

[moosaev]

I saw a few rounds of the Carmen Bastillio fight and it was pretty boring/unremarkable by todays standards. Was Robinson a "boring" fighter style-wise?

That was SRR way past prime. He was at his best as a WW, unfortunately most of the footage of him is as a MW when he was fighting for money after going broke. And he still whooped the best fighters even when washed, he just didn't look great doing it. As a young WW he was like a hurricane, could KO anyone almost at will.

 

[spacetime]

That was SRR way past prime. He was at his best as a WW, unfortunately most of the footage of him is as a MW when he was fighting for money after going broke. And he still whooped the best fighters even when washed, he just didn't look great doing it. As a young WW he was like a hurricane, could KO anyone almost at will.

Yeah but Mayweather faced higher level opposition, never lost, and moved up weight divisions, how does that not put him on top? And how on earth is he missing from that list linked here???

 

[Dr. Will]

Yeah but Mayweather faced higher level opposition, never lost, and moved up weight divisions, how does that not put him on top? And how on earth is he missing from that list linked here???

I think you should learn the sport. I would've had the same opinion as you if I didn't know much about boxing history, or understanding what Greatness is in boxing terms. It's too tiring to have a serious conversation with anyone who thinks Mayweather is even remotely CLOSE to GOAT discussions.
Top 20-30 in terms of achievements, maybe. GOAT level i.e Top 10, Top 5? No chance.

 

[Seano]

I think you should learn the sport. I would've had the same opinion as you if I didn't know much about boxing history, or understanding what Greatness is in boxing terms. It's too tiring to have a serious conversation with anyone who thinks Mayweather is even remotely CLOSE to GOAT discussions.
Top 20-30 in terms of achievements, maybe. GOAT level i.e Top 10, Top 5? No chance.

I think he could arguably be top 10. I'd have to see your top 10 first. The guy fought nothing but top ranked competition and champs for over a decade. The filler on Floyd's resume are still elite level guys. I mean, look at the scalps on his resume- Canelo, Cotto, Shane, Marquez, Pacquiao, De La Hoya.... and those are just the most recognizable names on his resume. His resume is deeper than Leonards, he has more quality wins than Duran (not to mention Duran and Leonard's humiliating losses).

Floyd is underrated by today's boxing fans because of his persona. When people look at the numbers, they'll realize he's one of the best to get in the ring. I think we've had a few high ranking all time greats in this era, personally.

 

[moosaev]

I think you should learn the sport. I would've had the same opinion as you if I didn't know much about boxing history, or understanding what Greatness is in boxing terms. It's too tiring to have a serious conversation with anyone who thinks Mayweather is even remotely CLOSE to GOAT discussions.
Top 20-30 in terms of achievements, maybe. GOAT level i.e Top 10, Top 5? No chance.

The problem with fans today is they don't have the historical context to understand how pervasive boxing really was in the old days and how diluted it's become today. The only way to possibly replicate the depth that existed in the old days is if you imagine all the best athletes of the nba and nfl growing up as boxers and then imagine them being 50 times more active than current boxers (fighting 3 times a month) and then reduce the # of belts from 4 to 1. Any top contender back then would be multiple weight class champions today easy. How many belts would Charley Burley, or Jimmy Bivins, or Billy Soose have in how many weight classes? Mayweathers accomplishments are wafer thin when you consider the arc of boxing.

 

[Seano]

The problem with fans today is they don't have the historical context to understand how pervasive boxing really was in the old days and how diluted it's become today. The only way to possibly replicate the depth that existed in the old days is if you imagine all the best athletes of the nba and nfl growing up as boxers and then imagine them being 50 times more active than current boxers (fighting 3 times a month) and then reduce the # of belts from 4 to 1. Any top contender back then would be multiple weight class champions easy. How many belts would Charley Burley, or Jimmy Bivins, or Billy Soose have in how many weight classes? Mayweathers accomplishments are wafer thin when you consider the arc of boxing.

Thats why you have to compare them based on stats alone and not romantic ideas of how you believe the sport should be. Who cares if guys fought 3 times a month if they were fighting guys that couldn't even be sanctioned to fight them today? Guys like Robinson and Greb get too much credit for what were little more than public sparring sessions for money. What did a guy accomplish? Who did he beat? Those are the important questions. When you start saying a guy is great based on having a lot of fights, I feel like you're having to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

 

[proncley]

The problem with fans today is they don't have the historical context to understand how pervasive boxing really was in the old days and how diluted it's become today. The only way to possibly replicate the depth that existed in the old days is if you imagine all the best athletes of the nba and nfl growing up as boxers and then imagine them being 50 times more active than current boxers (fighting 3 times a month) and then reduce the # of belts from 4 to 1. Any top contender back then would be multiple weight class champions today . How many belts would Charley Burley, or Jimmy Bivins, or Billy Soose have in how many weight classes? Mayweathers accomplishments are wafer thin when you consider the arc of boxing.

Lol this is the typical romanticization of the past.

"Any top contender back then would be multiple weight class champions today“

Yea sure...they'd fuck them up with their black & White witchcraft. They wouldn't even have to throw a punch to win rounds, thats how good they were.

 

[JayE]

Lol this is the typical romanticization of the past.

"Any top contender back then would be multiple weight class champions today“

Yea sure...they'd fuck them up with their black & White witchcraft. They wouldn't even have to throw a punch to win rounds, thats how good they were.

You don't think Charley Burley or Jimmy Bivins could easily be multiple weight titlists today? Adrien Broner is a four weight titlist. Ricky fucking Burns is a multiple weight titlist.

 

[proncley]

Oh I read BEAT instead of be.

However, the post is typical nonsense, like "back then they fought 50x a year".

 

[613]

Not in the media. Maybe on forums.

Google top 10 Boxers ever. SRR will probably be #1 on 8 out of 10 lists you can find. You are probably hearing Floyd is the GOAT it from the MMA "media"

 

[spacetime]

I think you should learn the sport. I would've had the same opinion as you if I didn't know much about boxing history, or understanding what Greatness is in boxing terms. It's too tiring to have a serious conversation with anyone who thinks Mayweather is even remotely CLOSE to GOAT discussions.
Top 20-30 in terms of achievements, maybe. GOAT level i.e Top 10, Top 5? No chance.

So enlighet me then. What citeria am I mission?

 

[Dr. Will]

The problem with fans today is they don't have the historical context to understand how pervasive boxing really was in the old days and how diluted it's become today. The only way to possibly replicate the depth that existed in the old days is if you imagine all the best athletes of the nba and nfl growing up as boxers and then imagine them being 50 times more active than current boxers (fighting 3 times a month) and then reduce the # of belts from 4 to 1. Any top contender back then would be multiple weight class champions today easy. How many belts would Charley Burley, or Jimmy Bivins, or Billy Soose have in how many weight classes? Mayweathers accomplishments are wafer thin when you consider the arc of boxing.

This is perfectly said.
These other posters are dismissive of their schedules as if dismissing it makes this point invalid. This is what makes it a more difficult era - they were fighting with 4oz gloves, many times, most often bringing injuries into the fight against someone who could've had more rest than them. Their careers were essentially like modern day amateur careers but more brutal.
Taking a loss in these circumstances are thus not as big of a deal, either when assessing greatness. If Mayweather fought with this schedule, he would've had multiple losses, after all he went 84-8 as an amateur.
Interestingly enough, the best trainers and the skills were stronger before than they are now. There has been a degeneration of skill and learning.

I also contend that PED's, in its most potent form has been around since the mid 40's. Now we are getting knock off simulations.

Canelo was a great win because of the weight class, but he's not historically elite. Hatton again, a good fighter but not historically elite - possibly the most overrated fighter in this era.
Mosley was completely done, as was De La Hoya and Pac was also done by 2015. No way near the same whereas Floyd remained in considerably better condition than all three at the time he fought them. Why was anyone taking seriously a Pacquiao who had slowed down in 2012 and then was knocked out in the most scariest manner I've ever seen?
Marquez put on weight extremely poorly (went up two weight classes) AND was outweighed by 5lbs at the weigh in - that is not a fight worth mentioning in the slightest.

Floyd is a great fighter, he could've possibly beaten all three if they were prime-for-prime matchups, but he quite simply didn't get the opportunity/create the opportunity to face them then. Because of how past prime his best opponents were, it cannot be excused.

Seano and I have completely different views on greatness and our understanding of the sport.

I believe there's a double standard if you were to discuss the greatest amateurs of all time because it models old timers careers more - but they've never had a discussion with you about it I'm sure lol.

 

[Dr. Will]

So enlighet me then. What citeria am I mission?

who did you beat...their h2h ability
what condition were they in...
what condition were you in...(the era they fought in influences both conditions)
were they stylistic threats...
what manner did you beat them/lose to them
your h2h ability
longevity - ring age not chronological age otherwise Hopkins is GOAT

Beating someone like a prime Mayweather and prime Whitaker is greater than beating 5 or 6 Hatton tier fighters to me because the number of people who would beat a prime Mayweather and prime Whitaker is emphatically lower than the number of people who can beat 5 or 6 Hatton tier fighters.

I don't operate by saying 'how many top 10 fighters did you beat' because it's not fair to old timer eras for their top 10 fighters to be considered on par with the Top 10 fighters today. Also, 'how many world champions did you beat?' is a silly question because there are 75 world champions in today's era at any given time and that doesn't include the lineal title. Edit: this also means people will get to the official Top 10 in divisional rankings without having beaten the necessary scalps.

 

[spacetime]

I agree that canelo is nowhere near the historical champs. But he is likely better than anyone SRR ever faced and Mayweather dismissed him effortlessly, arguably winning all rounds

 

[proncley]

This is perfectly said.
These other posters are dismissive of their schedules as if dismissing it makes this point invalid. This is what makes it a more difficult era - they were fighting with 4oz gloves, many times, most often bringing injuries into the fight against someone who could've had more rest than them. Their careers were essentially like modern day amateur careers but more brutal.
Taking a loss in these circumstances are thus not as big of a deal, either when assessing greatness. If Mayweather fought with this schedule, he would've had multiple losses, after all he went 84-8 as an amateur.
Interestingly enough, the best trainers and the skills were stronger before than they are now. There has been a degeneration of skill and learning.

I also contend that PED's, in its most potent form has been around since the mid 40's. Now we are getting knock off simulations.

Canelo was a great win because of the weight class, but he's not historically elite. Hatton again, a good fighter but not historically elite - possibly the most overrated fighter in this era.
Mosley was completely done, as was De La Hoya and Pac was also done by 2015. No way near the same whereas Floyd remained in considerably better condition than all three at the time he fought them. Why was anyone taking seriously a Pacquiao who had slowed down in 2012 and then was knocked out in the most scariest manner I've ever seen?
Marquez put on weight extremely poorly (went up two weight classes) AND was outweighed by 5lbs at the weigh in - that is not a fight worth mentioning in the slightest.

Floyd is a great fighter, he could've possibly beaten all three if they were prime-for-prime matchups, but he quite simply didn't get the opportunity/create the opportunity to face them then. Because of how past prime his best opponents were, it cannot be excused.

Seano and I have completely different views on greatness and our understanding of the sport.

I believe there's a double standard if you were to discuss the greatest amateurs of all time because it models old timers careers more - but they've never had a discussion with you about it I'm sure lol.

You don't even notice how you jump from general statements about past eras over to detailed valuations about a specific boxer (Floyd) with specific numbers (84-8) and specific fights of his (Canelo, Hatton, Mosley, De La Hoya) from a contemporary era. Futhermore you go into detail how Mosley, DLH and Pacquiao were that good at that time and good bad at another time. You evaluate Canelo and Hatton.

How are you able to do that? Simply because they're contemporary boxers and you have access to great footage and everything is well documented.

You're not able to do that with boxers from the past. Maybe Benny Leonard beat great boxers who weren't that great when he beat them them. You simply don't know.

By the way, I don't agree with your evaluations about Canelo and Hatton at all. IMO Hatton is a historical 140 pounder,
and Canelo is in his mid 20s...evaluating him at this point makes as much sense as building a wall along the US-Mexico border. He's possibly going to be a world champion at 5 weight classes when everythings said and done.

 

[Dr. Will]

You don't even notice how you jump from general statements about past eras over to detailed valuations about a specific boxer (Floyd) with specific numbers (84-8) and specific fights of his (Canelo, Hatton, Mosley, De La Hoya) from a contemporary era. Futhermore you go into detail how Mosley, DLH and Pacquiao were that good at that time and good bad at another time. You evaluate Canelo and Hatton.

How are you able to do that? Simply because they're contemporary boxers and you have access to great footage and everything is well documented.

You're not able to do that with boxers from the past. Maybe Benny Leonard beat great boxers who weren't that great when he beat them them. You simply don't know.

By the way, I don't agree with your evaluations about Canelo and Hatton at all. IMO Hatton is a historical 140 pounder,
and Canelo is in his mid 20s...evaluating him at this point makes as much sense as building a wall along the US-Mexico border. He's possibly going to be a world champion at 5 weight classes when everythings said and done.

That's because I was making a comment about the old time era. It's not about conflating general and detailed statements, it's simply setting a basic scene. I got specific to illustrate the volatility of a schedule like that, but even that is not fair to old timers who have it more gruelling. Take the medalists at the 2012 Olympics, their win:loss ratios range, with some of them losing almost 50% of their bouts in the past.

We have tape from the past, we also have newspaper reports too for eras way back in the past. Greatness is not about who is the 'best', it's about all of the factors I listed, which does include but is not restricted to that. It is no surprise that all modern lists have the old-timers occupying Top 10 spots.

A historical 140lber shortens it a lot because the weight class didn't even exist. Also, Hatton is not a historical fighter lol he lost to Collazo IMO and I love the guy.

 

[proncley]

It is no surprise that all modern lists have the old-timers occupying Top 10 spots.

Please post some sort of those lists. Most of them are laughable ... can't take a list serious that has Sonny Liston among the top 10, he's not even top 10 among heavyweights.

 

[Dr. Will]

Please post some sort of those lists. Most of them are laughable ... can't take a list serious that has Sonny Liston among the top 10, he's not even top 10 among heavyweights.

I agree to some extent but the basic precedent of virtually every list and everyone who knows boxing history will agree with mine.

Since we're on the topic of assessing this stuff, I read someone write 'multi-weight world champion' as if it's supposed to mean something very significant in this era. It doesn't for some reasons:
- People are growing into their weight as they age. It's not like they are campainging at weight classes they are small for. Mayweather weighs 149lbs on fight night but has a fully fledged Welterweight frame and overall size like the other guys who rehydrated 20lbs.
- Weight classes today are many.
- PED's allowing for cutting weight to become a weight bully
- There are 4 champs per weight class
- Did you beat the mediocre champ or did you beat a genuinely top champ at the weight class?