What does it take to be TBE?

I'm tired of the recency bias of those only considering bipedal hominids valid in the debate for TBE.

 

I agree, but if we consider TBE, then achievement imo means more than how the fighter looks.

If we go by the eye test, I believe firmly that SRL > SRR

 

Your eye test is different from mine, cause prime Robinson looks better than Leonard to me.

I would look into the myriad of film studies on Robinson that are online to see a breakdown of how brilliant his offense was.

Only edge I would give Leonard is handspeed. Robinson was better offensively, and better at rolling, blocking, parrying punches.

Leonard really only had two modes of defense - his reflexes, and his legs. Once those went, we was pretty easy to find.

Robinson was more defensively adept. And when shots did land, Robinson had a significantly better chin.

What makes Leonard better?

 

Leonard was far better defensively

 

Leonard had the edge in speed and combination punching, plus Robinson looped his shots more, compared to SRL.

Robinson's highlight reel is incredible and I know we don't have much film of him at his best. However, when I watch whole fights from him, there is much more clinching in them than you would think.

And, there are the losses. Again, I am fully aware that at his absolute best SRR didn't lose much, but I can't totally discount the losses against LaMotta, Turpin and Basilio either, considering I'd pick Leonard over all of them.

E: plus, I don't think it matters how Leonard defended himself, when we speak about prime vs prime. It is a question of styles, which is very secondary

 

The losses? LMAO!

Robinson was 40-0 when he first lost Lamotta.

He wouldn't lose again until he was 129-1. And when he lost to Turpin, he was no longer in his 20s.

If you wanna go down that road, we could easily say that even an old Robinson would kill Terry Norris.

 

I agree Leonard had shorter shots, especially to the body, but I'd argue that Robinson's use of the kinetic chain and throwing his power through his elbow us more impressive than throwing shorter shots. Especially when we know Robinson could do both. Robinson was definitely a better combination fighter IMO. His footwork while throwing them sets him apart, he just didn't stop shifting his weight. Leonard's combos were brilliant, Robinson's are probably the best ever.

We have loads of film of his best. That's a Bert Sugar special load of shit.

Do you think Leonard would beat Turpin on two weeks notice? After fighting multiple times that month in different countries? Or that he'd win all six fights with LaMotta? Or that he'd be able to beat Basilio aged 36?

 

Couldn't even beat Norris at 34, much less Basillo at 36.

This reminds me of the time that Sly called Duran an inconsistent fighter... because of ya know, the OLD Duran was inconsistent.

 

Sure.

And if we go down this road, Leonard's number of victories pales against several fighters. And no modern fighter is very good at all, considering how many wins guys like Archie Moore had.

And if we approximate fighters based on what they did at the age of 36, then Benitez, Tydon, Cuevas were all crap. If losses after 36 don't count, then do not criticize Wlad's performance against Fury.

Everybody knows fighters age differently. That much is obvious. However it does not matter when we compare them prime for prime, h2h, which was the question here.

Robinson was, imo, closer to his prime against Lamotta and even Turpin, than Leonard was to his prime when he faced Norris. Do you disagree?

 

Now you are just battling against a strawman.

I specifically said "I can't totally discount"

 

Yes, but the circumstances in which he faced lost to those guys should discount them. Especially when he proved himself far superior in subsequent fights.

I don't think losing to LaMotta in a one off affair while outweighed significantly is worse than losing to any lightweight. Even one as good as Duran.

 

That is a very valid point, especially if we compare their ranking in all-time sense.

These losses don't mean much when we rate SRR in all time sense and that isn't what I meant at all.

The reason why I brought them up is that they might reveal us something about SRR's vulnerabilities, if he had them.

Robinson did have what it took to beat them all, but he needed rematches to figure it out. Leonard would be something he never saw, and I do believe he would be befuddled.

Leonard needed a rematch against Duran, but other times he was able to improvise on fly, when needed. That's why I'd give him an edge.

From Leonard vs Norris we could also assume that if Leonard didn't have the edge in speed and reflexes, his punch alone wasn't enough to bail him out (as his power was muchly based on timing).

However, since there is no fighter who had better speed and reflexes than prime SRL, that doesn't count against him.

H2h I maintain my take that Leonard wins. Achievements are a different matter entirely

 

The gap in speed isn't substantial. Not substantial enough that Leonard wins on speed alone.

Robinson had the skill and IQ to hold his own in a pure boxing match.

Whereas in a tear up, Robinson had a SIGNICANT advantage given he had much bigger guns, and a much better chin.

Leonard would be best guy to pull it off, but I don't think he does.

I think the Robinson of the 40s UD's Leonard, scoring a KD along the way.

 

I think Pac has secured a top 10 spot - the Thurman win puts him over the edge IMO. Prior to that, I would've said it was debatable.

I have Whitaker and Mayweather in my top 20 (probably in the bottom 5), and I think Holyfield can at least be debated for a spot in there as well.


As far as Mayweather goes, he's the only fighter I can think of who is arguably both top 20 AND an underachiever at the same time. What undermines his legacy for me is the fact that he spent a good chunk of his career fighting a level or two below the top fighters in every weight class he was in - he fought Corley, Bruseles, and Gatti at a time when the top jr. WWs were Tszyu, Hatton, and Cotto, and he fought Judah, Mitchell, Baldomir, and Hatton at a time when the top WWs were Williams and Margarito. I think his late career wins against Cotto (future MW champ), Canelo (future ATG), and Pac (still good enough to become champ again) redeem his legacy enough to get him into the top 20, but with more aggressive matchmaking in his prime he could've been top 15 or perhaps even top 10 in my eyes.

 

Maybe, but in the end, he doesn't have a realistic claim to being either - he was not the single most phenomenally talented or well-rounded fighter that ever lived, nor was he the most accomplished.

 

Floyd is closer in greatness than he is in "better."

He's not even the "best" fighter of the last 30 years. I would clearly say that goes to Roy, and I would also that prime Whitaker was better than Floyd.

 

I agree, Moon-Watcher's counterpunching technique was pretty innovative.

 

I think these two arguments are very contradictory.

Robinson was called on to improvise far more frequently in his career than Leonard ever was. In his first year or so as a pro, he beat both a reigning LW champ with a notoriously difficult style and a recently deposed WW champ who was one of the most notoriously dirty fighters in history. Later, he twice beat one of the most skilled and versatile fighters in his WW history (Gavilan). This is all while fighting far more frequently than Leonard did, with less time to prepare in between fights, AND less availability of footage of opponents to study beforehand.

Robi certainly didn't go 40 and then 100-plus consecutive fights without a loss without being able to improvise.

I also wouldn't presume to make Leonard a surefire favorite to beat an unorthodox MW like Turpin, if even a favorite at all.

 

I agree, I think that Robinson basically does to Leonard what Leonard did to Benitez.

 

I feel you could make the same claim for RJ (though he never ducked a fighter as blatantly as Floyd did with Pac, please don't tell me Michalczewski). Great fighter, but wasted a lot of his prime years fighting subpar competition.

 

I get annoyed when people seriously buy into the claims of Floyd being the best or greatest ever

 

Don't feel insulted but your post is reminiscent of what was posted here by Jones' haters 15 years ago. To be frank, I'm not sure Michalczewski was that interested in fighting Roy either.

Leaving greatness aside, Prime Jones certainly looked like one of the best ever, if not the best. I understand his competition left a bit to be desired but even when he fought very good fighters, he hardly lost a round. He was unorthodox but his style was still very compelling and PFP, I believe he was the fastest fighter ever.

 

Casuals think Floyd, Tyson, and Ali are the three greatest fighters of all time.

 

Really Ive never heard anyone say floyd was the greatest. Not in a serious conversation . Ali yes, tyson rarely.

 

If you were here a few years ago you would have heard it.

One of our long time posters here thought of Floyd as the GOAT.

 

just to be perfectly clear, I feel it does hurt RJ legacy that he never fought Michalczewski, who was basically his only (slight) threat for a long time. But unlike Pac-Floyd, it wasn't really clear who was ducking who (RJ seemed happy to ignore him, and it was a bit shameful how he asked HBO not to mention his name during the broadcast of his fights, still, not exactly sure how much Michalczewski pursue it, save from the occasional press release from Universum). And of course, Michalczewski is far from Manny Pacquiao legacy wise.