Given Robinson's consensus as pound-for-pound the best the sport has ever seen (which I agree with, though there should be far more people arguing for Armstrong's case than is usually the situation), do you think his mantle is permanent? The reason I ask is because of Boxing's structure right now, & for the foreseeable future. With top-flight fighters rarely averaging more than fifty or sixty fights in a career (if that), is it possible for a man fighting, at his peak, between once & three times a year to truly eclipse Robinson's status? Let me say at this point I am a firm, firm believer in the notion that, "There's always someone who comes along," in all sports. That is a core belief of mine --- that no one is the greatest indefinitely. With that said, how does a man convince you he's the greatest when he's up against impossible-to-duplicate records? For instance, you look at Henry Armstrong --- arguably the best there ever was. In 1937, Armstrong partakes in twenty-seven fights. He wins all. Manages over a hundred-fifty fights in his career. Holds titles simultaneously in three divisions --- now illegal --- almost wins the Middleweight belt, & fights & beats Boxing's best for a solid ten years from his fourteen-year career. You could take a three or four-year stretch in the careers of fellows like Armstrong, or Greb, & argue that was more substantial than the entire careers of former pound-for-pound stars of modern days, such as De La Hoya, Mayweather, or Jones. Not in itself to say that confirms someone like Armstrong as greater, but it is such a huge gulf in achievements, how can anyone be sure? That's just one instance. Of course, Robinson has a long list of achievements which, while owing to his great gifts & utter tenacity, were not out of the realm of possibility for a boxer of his day, because of the sport's structure. Simply, no one else could emulate what he did, because they weren't capable enough. Can a boxer really prove to us he is Ray Robinson's superior in the current climate? Can he oust Henry Armstrong? Surpass Harry Greb, or eclipse Willie Pep? It's difficult to make the case Manny Pacquiao has gone past any of these men, & yet he has climbed every mountain, & mopped the floor with unprecedent foe after unprecedented foe. I still believe there is always someone who comes along, but will there ever be someone who can do enough to make believers out of the masses, in the face of Robinson's immortality?
ray robinson had an incredible winning streak. i dont know the exact number, but i'm assuming his unbeatable run at welterweight and his success of winning the middleweight crown at 5 diff. occasions give him the distinction of his all-time status. imagine if roy jones won 50 some fights as a middlweight or super middleweight w/o losing and winning the light heavyweight crown on 5 different occasions well into his 30s and also beating fellow hall of famers in the process. robinson was also the king of rematches. he virtually beat EVERYONE he fought before his twilight years. it's a hard feat to surpass especially now days when fighters only fight 2-3 times a year. historically, i can't see anyone doing it. these days, success and all-time status is more attributed by winning titles in multiple-weight divisions w/o having to clean up a certain weight class. i guess pacquiao and mayweather are good examples, but it's not like those two leave nothing else to be desired for.
It's almost like two entirely different sets of rules for greatness, so far have the goalposts moved. Like I say, I do believe a fighter comes along to knock the greatest off their mantle, but how one could ever convince the masses is beyond me. Roy Jones wouldn't look so hot fighting 200+ fights a career, or would he? How would Floyd Mayweather fare averaging twenty fights a year, for fifteen or twenty years? Would these guys adapt, or break down? I don't know how Robinson can possibly be ousted, in the eyes of the public. That's a shame, because one day, someone will appear, & take their place in the HOF, but we'll have missed his true depth of ability, I fear. With achievements probably a no-go zone, Robinson had flaws, on the head-to-head front. He was not invincible. He made mistakes, & had recurring weaknesses against particular opponents, given enough ability on their part. He could be beaten. Any man can.
It's a great question, I think achievements have to be put into context, as to what is actually possibly to do at the time. So in theory yes there could be someone come along who is better than Robinson, but convincing the masses that they're better would take some extraordinary achievements, imo, and I fear nostalgia may prove the hardest foe for that fighter to overcome.
Good thread and I agree. The sport has changed so much that the fighters can not really be compared fairly. Too few people have understood that, which is why the all-time rankings are dominated by old generation athletes more than in any other sport
Good thread. Depends how you set your criteria of course. To my mind the measure of a career is in the overall impressiveness of your, lets say, seven or so best wins. You can prove everything you need to about your ability in that many big fights. Of course, having three times more fights increases the chances of doing great things in the same way that writing 3 times as many songs probably increases your chances of writing some great ones, but it isn't an insurmountable limitation. Ray had 36 fights the morning after the Lalonde fight and didn't do a single legacy enhancing thing after that. How many folk don't have him top 10? He proved his greatness incontrovertibly in less fights than most modern fighters have, so it's possible if you're good enough AND willing enough to take the chances needed to prove it. Nobody since has had both elements together, though Pac seems on the verge of coming closest if he finishes his career very strong.
There were a hell of lot more fighters in those days than there are now the talent pool is puddle-thin nowadays so unless boxing enjoys a massive comeback, the answer to this question is no
Henry Armstrong cheated, he had a genetic advantage because a deformity allowed him superhuman stamina.
How is that cheating? That's like saying a professional swimmer is cheating because he was born with big feet.
Isn't it also because boxing has declined more than any other sport? The talent pool is infinitesimal compared to the 30s thru 60s, the number of kids in gyms is just a very tiny fraction. If 1/10th as many kids were playing football now you'd probably see the rankings dominated by old timers too.....I don't know anything about baseball but it might actually be similar. Plus there's also the unfortunate coincidence that the most talented guy of the 90s and the most talented guy of the 00s both had severe attitude problems in regards to proving themselves or taking risks. If Jones & Floyd had really pushed the boat to make everything of their talent both might have been top 10.
