Fifty years from now, a young fighter could watch Shakur Stevenson and call him “buns.”
That would not automatically mean Shakur lacked skill. It could mean boxing had spent another half-century studying, adapting, and building on the knowledge available to him. What looks advanced today might look ordinary to someone who inherited everything that came afterward.
That is the problem with dismissing Sugar Ray Robinson through a modern lens.
Stevenson’s remark about Robinson was reported in July 2025, alongside his argument that boxing had evolved. Later reporting said he acknowledged Robinson’s greatness and described his earlier comments as trash talk. That context belongs in the discussion. But the original remark raises a question bigger than Shakur: how fairly do we judge the fighters who helped establish the sport we recognize today? [1][2]
Modern fighters have every right to study legends critically. Respect does not require pretending that every old champion would beat every contemporary champion. It does require understanding the conditions in which those fighters developed and what they accomplished against the competition of their time.
Consider Jack Johnson. Viewed through today’s expectations, his boxing can seem unfamiliar. Yet his defensive approach included catching punches, drawing mistakes, countering, and tying opponents up. The presentation belongs to another era. The problems he was solving remain recognizable. [3]
A hypothetical comparison also needs clear assumptions. Are we placing Johnson, exactly as he fought, into a modern ring? Or are we imagining the same fighter developing with today’s training, preparation, and accumulated knowledge?
Those are different exercises. Neither can be settled by laughing at an old recording.
The footage itself can shape the judgment. Black-and-white images, grain, and distant camera angles can make a fight feel prehistoric before a viewer examines a single exchange. Modern footage makes subtle movement easier to see. Older footage demands closer attention.
“This looks old” is an impression. “This fighter could not box” is a conclusion that requires evidence.
I also believe many past fighters displayed sharper fundamentals, particularly in close-range positioning, inside defense, and body punching. That is a technical argument to examine fighter by fighter, not a reason to declare that everyone from the past was better.
Watch what happens around the punch. Where are the feet? Is the fighter balanced? How does he create the opening? Where does he finish after the exchange?
Athletic movement can be impressive. Those details reveal whether the movement serves a purpose.
Evolution does not guarantee that every part of a sport improves at the same pace. A generation can develop new strengths while giving less attention to older skills.
The same historical discipline should apply to résumés.
Rocky Marciano was an all-time great. I also believe his résumé can be overstated when famous names are presented without the circumstances surrounding those victories.
Joe Louis was 37 and making a comeback when Marciano beat him. Jersey Joe Walcott was 38 when Marciano took his heavyweight championship. Those facts matter.
So do the distinctions. Walcott was the reigning heavyweight champion. Archie Moore was the reigning light heavyweight champion when he challenged Marciano. Rocky also defeated former heavyweight champion Ezzard Charles twice. His accomplishments deserve credit, with their context attached. [4]
Beating a legendary name does not automatically mean beating that fighter at his best. Age alone does not make an opponent ineffective, either.
That is why dismissing Floyd Mayweather’s career through the Conor McGregor fight while broadly endorsing Marciano’s opposition is an uneven comparison. Evaluate both careers with the same questions: who was the opponent, how capable was he at that moment, and what did the victory demonstrate?
An undefeated record deserves recognition. It cannot answer those questions by itself. Neither can a list of famous opponents.
Shakur’s own career deserves the same care. Before reducing him to an insult, a future fighter should understand what made him effective against the opponents and styles of his time.
Robinson deserves that consideration today.
Boxing’s foundation is collective. Fighters inherit lessons from champions, contenders, trainers, and rivals, then add their own. Tomorrow’s boxers may benefit from studying Shakur, just as his generation benefits from the accumulated work of those who came before him.
If future fighters see farther, part of the reason will be everything they were given.
The fair response is to examine what each generation contributed, how well its fighters competed, and what their successors learned from them.
Calling the foundation “buns” explains very little about the building.
Sources
- Boxing News 24, July 10, 2025: Reporting on Stevenson’s comments about Robinson.
- Boxing News 24, September 24, 2026: Later context on Stevenson’s remarks.
- PBS, Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson, Part 1.
- International Boxing Hall of Fame: Rocky Marciano.
