Sugar Ray Robinson's legacy in the history of boxing is secure..?

Question

He is recognized and justly so as the best pound for pound fighter ever. He is also recognized as the best welterweight ever. Great achievements and the ultimate compliment of a fighter's talent. I agree with these two statements. He is also recognized by many as the best middleweight ever. I disagree. He was vulnerable as a middleweight. Granted a great achievement to win the middleweight title a record 5 times, but as we know that means he lost it 4 times. The fighters he lost the title to: Turpin, Basilio, Fullmer, Pender. Granted three of these fighters are in the Hall of Fame. But does anyone out there think these fighters that Robinson lost to were better than Carlos Monzon or Marvin Hagler? In my mind no. I believe Monzon and Hagler beat Robinson at least two out of three. Agree or disagree and why? Analytical explanation. Thanks.

Smitty - If Robinson on his worst night could beat any welter or middle in history then why did he lose to Turpin, Basilio, Fullmer and Pender?

13 of his 19 losses came after the age of 40. BUT the lost bouts I refer to in my question all took place before the age of 40. A fighter tends to get past his peak at the age of 30. Robinson fought LaMotta in '51 at the age of 30. As I stated in my question I believe he is the best pound for ever, and that includes him at weltereight. He was not the best middleweight ever because he was not at his PEAK when he fought as a middleweight and therefore vulnerable. Smitty you come across sometimes as rough and tough guy. I didn't realize you were so sensitive, and take offense so easliy when it comes to Robinson.

The "rerun" bouts are for the benefit of (my benefit too)people who haven't answered them before. If you've answered previously then refrain from answering in the future

I must correct myself just to be thorough and in the process correct Smitty. Robinson lost 10 times after the age of 40. I obtained this info by using Smitty's favorite research tool when it comes to boxing: boxrec.

Santana, Pancho Kudos to you! You disagreed but backed your point of views up well and I respect them greatly! Brad short and to the point as usual. Smitty I'd like you to share your boxing knowledge in reference to this question instead of being reactionary. I'd like to hear what your analysis is on this particular question.

Toughguy thanks for your knowledgeable input, as always.

Pancho once again great analysis. But Hagler didn't lose to Duran and the loss to Leonard was extremely questionable.

Panther good analysis. You may have lost sight of the question. As I stated in my question I believe wholeheartedly Robinson is pound for pound the best fighter ever, and best welter ever, just not the best middlweight. There is a difference.

Answer 1

ya know, there is a reason why the greats are considered great: ali lost "the fight of the century," yet he stands so high above frazier, no one questions who was the better fighter - in fact his stature rose dramtically as a result of that loss bec he was so valiant and honorable and honest in defeat; tyson lost some of the biggest fights of his career, but yet the argument rages on as to how great he truly was(and could've been); sugar ray leonard won over so many people bec he lost to duran, a fight that was much closer than many of us remember...and he fought duran's fight! joe louis got the snot kicked out of him(in his prime) by max schmeling, yet who is remembered for greatness, and who is an asterisk?! the point is, a great fighter is not great because he never loses. a great fighter is great because of the obstacles he overcomes and the way he accepts and comes back from defeat: ali over foreman, frazier, and norton; tyson over spinks; leonard over hearns(1st fight); louis vs schemiling II; etc.

sugar ray robinson is the model of the perfect fighter, a boxer-puncher, with speed, power, agility, ring smarts, heart! he could knock a man out going backwards and fought the great jake lamotta six times, bec no one else would(only losing once!). initially, i thought your question was interesting, but not so, upon second thought, rather, it was obvious. everyone who knows anything about boxing, rates sugar ray above anyone else, and this is for a very good reason. he fought wars and stretched himself and mixed it up w/the best fighters of his and several generations. he is great, not just bec so many people think so but, rather, bec he earned that label with blood, sweat, and grit, much moreso than anyone else: ali, louis, armstrong, etc. hagler was great, but i am sorry, i don't think he would ever beat robinson. ali could hardly be touched in the 60's bec he was too far above the quality of fighters he faced. yet his fights in the 70's were better and more dramatic BECAUSE HE COULD BE TAGGED, and that showed his heart and that granite jaw he had. yet he triumphed. likewise, sugar ray may have been more "human" as middleweight, but he was no less great. yes he would've easily tamed monzon bec the style would've been perfect for him. had he fought hagler, these would have been wars, but robinson would've tamed him, as well~

...sorry, thx brent....let me amplify my answer. i do believe sugar ray was the best middleweight ever, although he was not as dominant at that weight as he was as a welterweight. i drew comparisons between sugar and ali bec ali in the 70's and ray as middleweight were more human, more reachable, and thus had more exciting and dramatic fights. i studied your question yet again and, as much as i like bernard hopkins, roy jones, sugar ray leonard, duran, hearns, hagler, hamsho, monzon, antuofermo, ayala, etc. as m-wt's, i honestly cannot, in my mind, see any way they could ever defeat sugar ray robinson...therefore i have to rate him the top middleweight, although by a much smaller margin of dominance than as a welterweight(no one could touch him here!).....thx for bringing me back on point!~

Answer 2

I would have to disagree. If you look at the records Robinson seldom ever lost to the same man twice. He often would under estimate a man the first time but look out when the rematch was made. He was a much more skilled boxer than Monzon and was also a harder puncher. Hagler would have given Sugar Ray a fight but the superior boxing skills of Robinson would have won him at least 2 out of three matches. Its true I also thought the loss to Lenord was very questionable, I had Marvin winning the fight, but not against a better boxer and puncher. Remember that Robinson would have won the light heavyweight title had not the heat got ton to him.(they had to bring in a second referee as the first won collapsed from the heat). Robinson's hand speed was far faster than Hagler or Monzon

Answer 3

Brent ~
In my opinion, Ray Robinson was in a class by himself. As you know by now I'm very partial to the fighters of the 80's, it was the richest area of boxing that I have ever seen, granted other decades produced great fighters, but the 80's were unique in it's self. Hagler, Leonard, Duran, Hearns, Pryor, Antuofermo, Hilton, Hart, Briscoe, Hamsho, Minter the list goes on and on.
Ray wasn't that great at Middleweight, although he had some unbelievable wars there with LaMotta and Basilio and a few more. His grace and conduct inside as well as outside of the ring were indeed a credit to the great sport of Boxing.
Ray wouldn't be able to Keep Hagler off him very long, Hagler would adjust to anything Ray had to give him and Hagler being the naturally bigger man would begin to connect with shots Ray was able to get away from earlier in the fight. Hagler wouldn't be able to stop Ray, but he would win a unanimous decision.
Monzon wouldn't fear so well against Sugar Ray, Ray had a way to make fighters with Monzons style look foolish. I'm not taking away anything from Monzon, he was one of the best Middleweights of all time, but Ray would box circles around the heavy handed Monzon. If what they say is true about Ray "Running six miles a day while he was preparing to fight LaMotta." He would run 12 miles backwards to train for Monzon. I think this fight, especially this fight would make Ray train like never before and would bring out the very best Ray the world would ever see. I see Ray winning a Split Decision in this one.

Toughguy is right on point too Brent. It's hard to make a point against a Man that knows his boxing such as you, Toughguy, Brad, Pancho and a few others here, But Ray Robinson, is right up there with the boxing God's to me. Hagler? Maybe. Monzon, should be. Sugar Ray, in a class by himself.
Thanks Brent.

Answer 4

Wow Brent! Sugar Ray was truly amazing with dazzling footwork, boxing ablity, and ring generalship. Of course he won 175 fights in his legenday career and beat great competition along the way. Yes he lost some tough fights to some good fighters too and no I don't believe that they were better than Monzon or Hagler. I rate Robinson ahead of these guys because of his accomplishments but believe if they had met in the ring , we would have had some legendary fights. For instance a fight with Robinson vs Hagler or Monzon could have went either way in my opinion and would have been some memorable battles. To be honest in say a 3 fight series I'm really not sure if he would have won 2 against these great fighters! Great question sir and I appreciate your boxing knowledge.

Answer 5

This is one of best questions i have come across! Ray Robinson was such a great fighter that it's hard to argue about any of his accomplishments, And you do make an excellent point about him as a middleweight, but remember, this is a Welterweight champ moving up 2 weight classes and beating the best in that division as well. Sure he lost to them, but great fighters will always lose to other great fighters. Ali, Leonard, Duran, they all lost to other great fighters. As great a fighter as Hagler was, could you honestly see him moving up 2 weight classes to light heavy and beating the best of that era, like Michael Spinks, Dwight Qawi, Eddie Mustafa Muhammad or Matthew Saad Muhammad? I think he would've had a couple of losses in their at some point. And as far as Monzon or Hagler beating Robinson 2 out of 3? Robinson was just to fast for Monzon and would decision him easily, and i think he would outsmart Hagler also. Marvin had trouble against agile fighters who could move and box like Leonard and even Duran, who gave Hagler lots of upper body movement. I think Robinson would outbox Hagler as well with speed and movement. Hagler was most impressive with fighters who stood right in front of him like Mustafa Hamsho, Tony Sibson, Hearns(who could've chose to box but tried to knock Marvin out) Juan Roldan, and Mugabi. Taking nothing away from Hagler because he's one of my favorite fighters, but beating Ray Robinson 2 out of 3? I just don't see that happening.

Answer 6

Brent, all those rerun "Dream Bouts" are getting to you. Let me help you out a little. Robinson suffered 13 of his 19 defeats after he was 40 years old. That is when he lost those Middle wt bouts.
Robinson on his worst night could beat any Welter or Middle wt in history.

Answer 7

Robinson is probably the greatest middle that ever lived.
If Leonard could beat Hagler, I think Robinson could get the trick done.
As for Monzon, Robinson is in another class.

Answer 8

Ray Robinson will always have a legacy in boxing history no doubt. He had a gift and was a versatile champion. He was also smart and knew how to protect his record and his reputation. He declined several fights (charley burley, ect...) that may have been a little too risky even for the"Sugar". Savvy in and out of the ring. Classic....