View Full Version : top 10 welterweights of all time


SuzieQ49
03-15-2006, 12:28 AM
what are your top 10 welterweights of all time?


heres mine



1. sugar ray robinson
2. Sugar Ray Leonard
3. Emile Griffith
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Thomas Hearns
6. Jose Napoles
7. Joe Walcott
8. Kid Gavilan
9. Barney Ross
10. Roberto Duran





emile griffith the most underated welterweight of all time
http://www.pugilistica.com/BoxingArchive2/EmileGriffithWaistUpFPInRingCornerGym.JPG

RockyMarcianofan00
03-15-2006, 12:30 AM
well i could tell you guys that should be on the top 10 list but i don't know enough about welterweights (beside these three)

Sugar Ray Robinson
Jake Lamatta
Sugar Ray Leonard

SuzieQ49
03-15-2006, 12:41 AM
jake lamotta was NOT a welterweight

DudeManGuy216
03-15-2006, 12:48 AM
yeah Jake was not a welterweight, he was a middle/lightheavy weight.
As for best welterweights, i don't know much about them but I know Sugar Ray Robinson and Henry Armstrong are always in the top ten. Fritzie Zivic kicked arse too.

smasher
03-15-2006, 12:52 AM
what are your top 10 welterweights of all time?


heres mine



1. sugar ray robinson
2. Sugar Ray Leonard
3. Emile Griffith
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Thomas Hearns
6. Jose Napoles
7. Joe Walcott
8. Kid Gavilan
9. Barney Ross
10. Roberto Duran





I agree with 1 & 2 in that order while I'm undecided on Duran being in the top 10 although P4P he is as good or better than anyone on the list excluding SRR. Benitez at welter possibly could squeeze him out.

I would also like to see more of Mickey Walker or Charley Burley.

Yogi
03-15-2006, 01:11 AM
I haven't made a Welterweight list in quite some time and really have no idea of the exact ranking when I did so. Brockton's ranking looks as good as any, although like Smasher, I'm not sure Duran had the overall resume at that weight...Beyond one great win/great performance against Leonard (and the embarrasment in the rematch) and a great performance/very good win against Palomino, there's not much else on his Welterweight ledger that suggests to me that he's one of the greatest ever at that weight...

In addition to the other nine names mentioned besides Duran, the likes of Jimmy McLarnin, Mickey Walker, Carmen Basilio, Jack Britton, Ted 'Kid' Lewis, Luis Rodriguez, Tommy Ryan, etc, just might(in some cases "will") get more consideration from me for a spot in the top ten than does Duran.

SuzieQ49
03-15-2006, 01:25 AM
I agree with 1 & 2 in that order while I'm undecided on Duran being in the top 10 although P4P he is as good or better than anyone on the list excluding SRR. Benitez at welter possibly could squeeze him out.

I would also like to see more of Mickey Walker or Charley Burley.


i wanted to squeeze burley in. burley and walker are both in my top 15 welterweights.


- I believe duran is underated as a welter. i mean look what he did in his short 2 year career. he beat top 2 greatest welter of all time sugar ray leonard and virtually shutout a very good welterweight in carlos palomino.


if everyones going to rate hearns so high at welter, why not duran who at least accomplishmed more by beating leonard?

i mean with hearns, the ranking is all based on head to head. he didnt accomplish much at all. however, almost everyone knows only a few welters in history would be able to deal with a peak 147lb tommy hearns.



cocoa kid is another welter who deserves mention

SuzieQ49
03-15-2006, 01:28 AM
I'm not sure Duran had the overall resume at that weight...Beyond one great win/great performance against Leonard (and the embarrasment in the rematch) and a great performance/very good win against Palomino, there's not much else on his Welterweight ledger that suggests to me that he's one of the greatest ever at that weight...



well then why does everyone rank hearns in there top 10 welters?

i mean how does hearns have the overall resume at that weight to be a great welter? what did he accomplish more than duran at 147? least duran beat leonard. i think its clear duran accomplished more, so why hearns top 10 welter, and duran not?

O I GET IT.......


fact is people rate hearns so high because they know head to head only a handful of welters in history could beat him. his combination of freakish size, power, skill is too much for most welters in history.



so why hearns in the top 10 welters and not duran?

dansweeney
03-15-2006, 01:34 AM
definitly SRR,SRL,Hearns and i think Tito should squeeze in that top ten, he had 15 ibf defenses, beat de la hoya and was undefeated at the weight.

SuzieQ49
03-15-2006, 01:36 AM
beat de la hoya and was undefeated at the weight


you made a mistake. tito lost to oscar.

dansweeney
03-15-2006, 01:38 AM
you made a mistake. tito lost to oscar.

i know, he won on the scorecards though. i had oscar winning that fight too

SuzieQ49
03-15-2006, 01:43 AM
sory, i get carried away sometimes. oscars one of my favorite fighters and add that to the fact i clearly thought he won the tito fight, it makes me angry when the fight is brought up.


de la hoya hurt his legacy forever in that fight because of two reasons......

A. he "lost"

B. he ran away the final rounds instead of finishing like a true champion and as a result it cost him his welterweight legacy forever.

smasher
03-15-2006, 01:50 AM
well then why does everyone rank hearns in there top 10 welters?

i mean how does hearns have the overall resume at that weight to be a great welter? what did he accomplish more than duran at 147? least duran beat leonard. i think its clear duran accomplished more, so why hearns top 10 welter, and duran not?

O I GET IT.......


fact is people rate hearns so high because they know head to head only a handful of welters in history could beat him. his combination of freakish size, power, skill is too much for most welters in history.



so why hearns in the top 10 welters and not duran?

Although Duran beat Leonard and Hearns didn't, Ray was a smarter more experienced fighter after his loss to Duran. The first Duran fight was an education for Leonard and he learned from it which helped him in the Hearns fight when he ran into adversity. Had Leonard and Duran fought another 5 times I'm confident Leonard wins every time.

Had Hearns and Leonard fought another 5 times , I'm not so sure Leonard wins every time. Leonard's most effective style was as a couterpuncher although his versatility allowed him to use different styles according to the opposition. Fighting a welterweight Hearns as a counterpuncher is a daunting task for most fighters including Leonard who likely would be giving away height, reach and power. Hearns jab and right hand were also equal in speed to most welters although he was not as quick or fluid when punching in combination.

The most effective way to beat Hearns was as a swarmer and you better have a great chin and you better get to him early.

As for rating Hearns ahead of Duran it's quite simple. The mental image of Hearn's two round demolition of Duran is a lasting one. Even if it was at junior middleweight it was probably the most one-sided thrashing in a fight between to P4P ATG's ever.

Yogi
03-15-2006, 02:29 AM
well then why does everyone rank hearns in there top 10 welters?

i mean how does hearns have the overall resume at that weight to be a great welter? what did he accomplish more than duran at 147? least duran beat leonard. i think its clear duran accomplished more, so why hearns top 10 welter, and duran not?

O I GET IT.......


fact is people rate hearns so high because they know head to head only a handful of welters in history could beat him. his combination of freakish size, power, skill is too much for most welters in history.



so why hearns in the top 10 welters and not duran?

I don't include head-to-head matchups in assessing greatness and even Hearns' resume at 147 isn't all that impressive to me...If I was to include him in the top ten it would be towards the very bottom.

At Welterweight, Leonard proved to be the slightly superior to both of them during those fights, so that's basically a wash to me.

Palomino and Cuevas are about on the same level historically as far as I'm concerned, and seeing as how both Duran & Hearns were very dominant in those fights, again that seems like basically a wash to me.

After that Duran's best win at that weight was what?

A win against a Jr. Welterweight that had moved up, like Brooks or Heair, who weren't even ranked Welterweights at the time?

Sorry, but Hearns' wins over ranked Welterweight contenders like Clyde Gray, Harold Weston, Angel Espada, Luis Primera, Randy Shields, definately look more impressive than those two victories by Duran and with these eyes, certainly tip the scales to Hearns' side as far as Welterweight resumes go.

But let me ask you, Brockton...If you're basing Duran's ranking on his splitting two fights with Leonard at that weight (Leonard I think deserves the slight advantage over their two fights at that weight), why not include Luis Rodriguez, who was able to score one official victory over a guy you consider just about as good as Leonard, Emile Griffith, and also may have been robbed of at least one other victory when the Garden reportedly showed their displeasure(by boo'ing) over the decision given to Griffith in their third fight?

Rodriguez didn't do any worse against Griffith than Duran did against Leonard, and to me clearly & easily has the advantage when adding up the rest of their respective Welterweight resumes.

SuzieQ49
03-15-2006, 03:41 AM
o man yogi, now ur sending me back to deep waters again..........

I have luis rodriguez at 11. i contemplated for a while who to put at the last # 10 spot. carmen basillio is a very close # 12 and i seriosely considered him at # 10.




At Welterweight, Leonard proved to be the slightly superior to both of them during those fights, so that's basically a wash to me.

Palomino and Cuevas are about on the same level historically as far as I'm concerned, and seeing as how both Duran & Hearns were very dominant in those fights, again that seems like basically a wash to me.

After that Duran's best win at that weight was what?

A win against a Jr. Welterweight that had moved up, like Brooks or Heair, who weren't even ranked Welterweights at the time?

Sorry, but Hearns' wins over ranked Welterweight contenders like Clyde Gray, Harold Weston, Angel Espada, Luis Primera, Randy Shields, definately look more impressive than those two victories by Duran and with these eyes, certainly tip the scales to Hearns' side as far as Welterweight resumes go.



i agree everywhere EXCEPT

At Welterweight, Leonard proved to be the slightly superior to both of them during those fights, so that's basically a wash to me.

i cant say thats a wash........

duran DID beat leonard. so automatically, he has the edge. i think the 1st leonard fight showed everyone why duran is one of the greatest fighters who ever lived. duran showed up in peak shape and fought the best fight of his career. leonard in this fight showed how good he was because he fought a horrible game plan and fought durans type of fight yet still managed to keep the fight damm close. leonard let durans prefight remarks get to his head.



i dont think many welters in history could beat the 1980 duran of that first leonardfight.

SuzieQ49
03-15-2006, 03:45 AM
durans wins over leonard and palomino > hearns welter win resume


you can take all those contenders hearns beat and they still dont add up to a win over a prime sugar ray leonard.



yes hearns nearly beat leonard and was winning the fight, but still he lost!



now what makes duran and hearns welterweight resumes even is the no mas fight which takes points away from duran



i still rate hearns over duran. hearns overall size,skill,power is too much for most welter champs.

ALSO hearns never got a rematch at 147 to prove he was better than SRL.

Yogi
03-15-2006, 04:59 AM
durans wins over leonard and palomino > hearns welter win resume

Sure.

But on paper & with my eyes, Duran's two biggest wins at Welterweight are about equal with somebody like Billy Graham's two biggest wins, if not inferior to them (he beat both Gavilan & Basilio, didn't he?). But in my mind, only including Graham's two biggest wins as evidence of his greatest doesn't stack up well and I personally wouldn't consider him among the all-time best in the division because of those victories (possibly a top 25/30 maybe, but definately not top ten)...Neither would I consider a guy like Fritzie Zivic amongst the very elite of the division just because he scored a few great wins during his career at Welterweight over the likes of Armstrong, Burley, LaMotta, etc. (Zivic might be another top 25/30 guy)...Ditto with a guy like Tommy West, who defeated Barbados Joe on atleast one occasion, possibly twice...Heck, if one was basing rankings on two great wins, then I'd be ashamed to include a less than .500 guy like Doug Ratford, who defeated Gavilan on a couple of occasions.

There's a whole ****load of examples like that throughout history and I guess all I'm saying is that two great wins (and one subsequently avenged in a rematch by his opponent) and really nothing else of note during a very brief stay at that weight doesn't equate to that fighter being an elite all-time great at that weight, in my opinion.

If you're including a hefty element of head-to-head matchups in determining your rankings, then fine...In that sense, the Duran of the first Leonard fight just might've been a tough ordeal for the vast majority of the greatest fighters in this division and it's quite possible & maybe likely that he beats a few of the elites. But if you're ranking Duran on the strength of his Welterweight resume with focus on his two biggest wins at that weight in particular, then I say "Ho Hum", because there's been plenty of other non-elite (in an all-time sense of things) fighters throughout history & all divisions that have a couple of wins that could rival Duran's at Welterweight.

abdiel2k3
03-15-2006, 05:16 AM
what are your top 10 welterweights of all time?


heres mine



1. sugar ray robinson
2. Sugar Ray Leonard
3. Emile Griffith
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Thomas Hearns
6. Jose Napoles
7. Joe Walcott
8. Kid Gavilan
9. Barney Ross
10. Roberto Duran





emile griffith the most underated welterweight of all time
http://www.pugilistica.com/BoxingArchive2/EmileGriffithWaistUpFPInRingCornerGym.JPG
WHAT???
wheres baldomir
Lol
:D

Da Iceman
03-15-2006, 08:14 AM
what are your top 10 welterweights of all time?


heres mine



1. sugar ray robinson
2. Sugar Ray Leonard
3. Emile Griffith
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Thomas Hearns
6. Jose Napoles
7. Joe Walcott
8. Kid Gavilan
9. Barney Ross
10. Roberto Duran





emile griffith the most underated welterweight of all time
http://www.pugilistica.com/BoxingArchive2/EmileGriffithWaistUpFPInRingCornerGym.JPG
please dont support ****.

Shanus
03-15-2006, 10:12 AM
There was NO footage of Robinson as a welterweight, though his record speaks for itself.. my top 3.

Sugar Ray Robinson
Sugar Ray Leonard
Roberto Duran

When PBF retires, replace Duran with him.

Yogi
03-15-2006, 11:03 AM
There was NO footage of Robinson as a welterweight

Yes, there is footage of Robinson at Welterweight.

Shanus
03-15-2006, 11:39 AM
Which fights? I've been told by a few fight writers that to date there hasn't been any welterweight footage of robinson.

Yogi
03-15-2006, 11:52 AM
Which fights? I've been told by a few fight writers that to date there hasn't been any welterweight footage of robinson.

Well, I have about ten minutes of his 1950 Welterweight title defense against Charley Fusari on tape (as well as a short clip on my comp, which I would be willing to pass along to you via a PM if you'd like...give me a minute to upload that), so I know for a fact that there's footage of that fight available nowadays.

I've also been told by someone with an extensive collection that one of his fights with Sammy Angott is still nowadays, as well, but he told me the quality of the footage made in almost unwatchable in assessing Robinson's talents in it (due to water damage, I believe it was).

Not much is available, but there is a little something still around from his Welterweight days.

Yogi
03-15-2006, 12:03 PM
Shanus, I'll just throw this link in the thread so others can take a peak at it, as well, if they so chose. I can only hope that you get the chance to grab it too, though, since you're the one it's really intended for;

http://s35.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=32MLDNBVV76ZE2WEJYRUU90LEZ

SuzieQ49
03-15-2006, 12:33 PM
please dont support ****.


what does griffiths sexuality have to do with this? do u hold it against him as a fighter because of his sexuality?


thats his own personel business. emile griffiths sexuality has nothing to do with him as a prizefighter.


-I support emile griffith the fighter




just remember what happened what happened to the last guy who made fun of emile griffiths sexuality.

Kid Achilles
03-15-2006, 01:12 PM
please dont support ****.

Glad to see the maturity and intelligence levels on this forum haven't changed a bit.

Shanus
03-15-2006, 01:52 PM
Shanus, I'll just throw this link in the thread so others can take a peak at it, as well, if they so chose. I can only hope that you get the chance to grab it too, though, since you're the one it's really intended for;

http://s35.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=32MLDNBVV76ZE2WEJYRUU90LEZ


Oh nice, thanks for this. Good K incoming.

specialfx
03-15-2006, 02:00 PM
someone told me folyd mayweather was wealtherweight is it true

oldgringo
03-15-2006, 02:30 PM
I am also one who believes that Thomas Hearns would beat pretty much every other welterweight throughout history (besides Robinson and Leonard of course). I wish they could have done a rematch at 147 because Hearns learned a lot from that fight and undoubtedly would have come back stronger (like he did in that second fight that he should have won). Hearns was an animal at 147 and 154.

SuzieQ49
03-15-2006, 03:41 PM
I am also one who believes that Thomas Hearns would beat pretty much every other welterweight throughout history (besides Robinson and Leonard of course). I wish they could have done a rematch at 147 because Hearns learned a lot from that fight and undoubtedly would have come back stronger (like he did in that second fight that he should have won). Hearns was an animal at 147 and 154.


you know wut, i cant disagree with that. i pretty much think the same of a 147lb hearns as well.



imagine 5'1 joe walcott vs 6'1 78" reach tommy hearns


that would be a hilarious site!

eazy_mas
03-15-2006, 04:32 PM
what about Tszyu?

blockhead
03-15-2006, 05:23 PM
carmen basilio should definately be on the list, other than his omision its a good list.

hellfire508
03-16-2006, 01:41 AM
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Sugar Ray Leonard
4. Jose Napoles
5. Kid Gavilan
6. Thomas Hearns
7. Joe Walcott
8. Barney Ross
9. Carmen Basilio
10. Emile Griffith

hellfire508
03-16-2006, 01:42 AM
what about Tszyu?

Tszyu is a Jr. Welter.

SuzieQ49
03-16-2006, 02:58 AM
carmen basilio should definately be on the list, other than his omision its a good list.


i have no problem with him in the top 10, he deserves it.

SuzieQ49
03-16-2006, 02:58 AM
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Sugar Ray Leonard
4. Jose Napoles
5. Kid Gavilan
6. Thomas Hearns
7. Joe Walcott
8. Barney Ross
9. Carmen Basilio
10. Emile Griffith


why griffith so low?

mokele
03-21-2006, 11:46 AM
what are your top 10 welterweights of all time?
heres mine

1. Sugar Ray robinson
2. Sugar Ray Leonard
3. Emile Griffith
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Thomas Hearns
6. Jose Napoles
7. Joe Walcott
8. Kid Gavilan
9. Barney Ross
10. Roberto Duran

Emile Griffith the most underated welterweight of all time
http://www.pugilistica.com/BoxingArchive2/EmileGriffithWaistUpFPInRingCornerGym.JPG

I have to include Felix Trinidad to your list, and perhaps remove Hearns, who moved up to middleweight shortly after losing to Leonard. I agree that Hearns is an all-time great, but he was not a welterweight for long enough. Maybe the same could be said for Duran. It's a tough call.

Jim Jeffries
11-13-2007, 12:16 AM
There was NO footage of Robinson as a welterweight, though his record speaks for itself.. my top 3.

Sugar Ray Robinson
Sugar Ray Leonard
Roberto Duran

When PBF retires, replace Duran with him.

based on what? 4 fights at welter?

wpink1
11-13-2007, 01:27 PM
how was hearns not at welterweight lond enought...33 fights? Roughly the same for Leonard

Jim Jeffries
11-16-2007, 01:21 AM
how was hearns not at welterweight lond enought...33 fights? Roughly the same for Leonard

Yeah, but Hearns only had 3 successful title defences, before losing to Leonard and moving up in weight.

Jim Jeffries
11-16-2007, 01:25 AM
There was NO footage of Robinson as a welterweight, though his record speaks for itself.. my top 3.

Sugar Ray Robinson
Sugar Ray Leonard
Roberto Duran

When PBF retires, replace Duran with him.
Duran had 8 total fights at welterweight, won a title but had 0 successful title defences. A top 10 ATG lightweight, but not welterweight.

wpink1
11-16-2007, 07:18 AM
Gavin....Hmmm help me understand you agree Leoanrd is a top Welterweight but Hearns is not ,,simply because he only had 3 defenses. How many defenses did Leoanrd have.

you gotta do better than that.

215Chaingang
02-25-2008, 02:56 PM
where is sweet pea at?

SugarShanep4p
03-04-2008, 10:23 PM
im friends with griffith :).....he hangs out at my gym haha

Jim Jeffries
03-05-2008, 03:02 AM
Gavin....Hmmm help me understand you agree Leoanrd is a top Welterweight but Hearns is not ,,simply because he only had 3 defenses. How many defenses did Leoanrd have.

you gotta do better than that.

Lets look at who Hearns beat at WW:
his title defences
Luis Primera (very green)
Randy Shields
Pablo Baez (discraseful defence)

Beside Cuevas, who he beat for the title, who else did he really beat?

Now Leonard:

Benitez, Duran, need I go on?

TheGreatA
03-05-2008, 03:55 AM
Lets look at who Hearns beat at WW:
his title defences
Luis Primera (very green)
Randy Shields
Pablo Baez (discraseful defence)

Beside Cuevas, who he beat for the title, who else did he really beat?


Hearns beat these top fighters before fighting for the world title:

KO1 Eddie Gazo (former WBA light middleweight champion)
TKO4 Angel Espada (former WBA welterweight champion)
KO3 Bruce Curry (had 2 close fights with Benitez, future WBC LWW champion)
TKO Clyde Gray (65-6 at the time, top contender)
TKO Saensak Muangsurin (former 2-time WBC LWW champion, won the world title in his 3rd fight)

Hearns had some good wins at welterweight, I'm not sure if his resume makes him a top 10 welterweight great but he didn't just beat those 3 guys.

Sweet Pete
03-17-2008, 11:24 PM
1. Ray Robinson
2. Ray Leonard
3. Kid Gavilan
4. Jose Napoles
5. Emile Griffith
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Joe Walcott
8. Tommy Hearns
9. Mickey Walker
10. Charley Burley

JAB5239
09-30-2008, 09:58 PM
Im putting no research into this, its off the top of my head so feel free to tear it apart and I will do my best to defend it anyway. Ok, here it is.

1. SRR
2. SRL
3. Emile Griffith
4. Jose Napoles
5. Jimmy McClarnin
6. Carmen Basilio
7. Tommy Hearns
8. Barney Ross
9. Mickey Walker
10. Ted Kid Lewis

black.ink
10-02-2008, 10:59 AM
Does anybody have a link to Nat Fleischers all-time division ranking lists? Especially Welterweight and Lightweight.

I know cyber boxing mentions his rankings of certain fighters (top 10) but it would be interesting to see his full lists.

them_apples
10-03-2008, 06:48 AM
tito and oscar, both solid welterweight fighters.

Ziggy Stardust
10-03-2008, 11:40 PM
Does anybody have a link to Nat Fleischers all-time division ranking lists? Especially Welterweight and Lightweight.

I know cyber boxing mentions his rankings of certain fighters (top 10) but it would be interesting to see his full lists.

Careful now! Nat Fleischer is OLD and OLD boxing historians offend certain troglodyte posters here :D

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
10-03-2008, 11:48 PM
1. Ray Robinson
2. Sam Langford
3. Ray Leonard
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Emile Griffith
6. Wilfred Benitez
7. Thomas Hearns
8. Oscar De La Hoya
9. Felix Trinidad
10. Barney Ross

Poet

C.Y.
10-08-2008, 07:55 AM
you made a mistake. tito lost to oscar.

if everyones going to rate hearns so high at welter, why not duran who at least accomplishmed more by beating leonard?

u also made a mistake hearns beat leonard too

Ziggy Stardust
10-08-2008, 06:10 PM
u also made a mistake hearns beat leonard too

I'm afraid the mistake is yours my friend: Leonard and Hearns fought twice, the first was Leonard KO14 and the second was Draw12. However we may feel about the bad decision (and yes, I DO think it was a terrible decision), the official record is clear on the matter. The truth is most fighters have gotten screwed by a bad decision at some point, but I think it's equally true that most fighters have also benifited from a bad decision as well. In the end, things tend to even out.

Poet

Thread Stealer
10-08-2008, 06:46 PM
u also made a mistake hearns beat leonard too

But this discussion is about welterweights and their standing in the division, not what happened when they fought at 160+.

them_apples
10-09-2008, 07:30 PM
Top welterweights..not sure what order

Ray Robinson
Ray Leonard
Thomas Hearns
Oscar De La Hoya
Tito Trinidad
Roberto Duran

JAB5239
10-09-2008, 08:01 PM
Top welterweights..not sure what order

Ray Robinson
Ray Leonard
Thomas Hearns
Oscar De La Hoya
Tito Trinidad
Roberto Duran

Duran had less than 10 fights at 147. No way his name belongs on a list of greatest welterweights, at least not in the top 15 or 20. Oscar and Tito have more a claim to that than Duran, and Im not sure either of them belong in the top 10 either.

wpink1
10-09-2008, 10:49 PM
Robinson
Leonard
Hearns
Henry Armstrong
Sam Langford

LondonRingRules
10-09-2008, 11:02 PM
Duran had less than 10 fights at 147. No way his name belongs on a list of greatest welterweights, at least not in the top 15 or 20. .

** I see the point, but concensus IBRO rankings put him at 20th. They also put Leonard 2nd in spite of barely having 30 fights and 7 title fights there before having to retire. Tunney had less than a half dozen heavy fights, and he ends up 11th.

It seems all beat a prevailing media star which apparently resonates with those raters, that and all were topshelf talents.

them_apples
10-09-2008, 11:33 PM
Duran had less than 10 fights at 147. No way his name belongs on a list of greatest welterweights, at least not in the top 15 or 20. Oscar and Tito have more a claim to that than Duran, and Im not sure either of them belong in the top 10 either.


i'm assuming you have a list of welterweights from the 19th century that are all better than Duran then?

Saying Oscar and Tito don't belong there is just pure Bias.

JAB5239
10-09-2008, 11:53 PM
i'm assuming you have a list of welterweights from the 19th century that are all better than Duran then?

I posted my list off the top of my head, go find it. And what does the time frame a fighter fought in have to do with anything? I rank fighters based on facts and accomplishments, not ASSumptions.

Saying Oscar and Tito don't belong there is just pure Bias.

In your eyes, maybe. But just sticking them in there while dismissing fighters who fought in era's gone by is just plain stupid.Then again, if you don't do the research you can never know the difference.

Ziggy Stardust
10-10-2008, 12:04 AM
In your eyes, maybe. But just sticking them in there while dismissing fighters who fought in era's gone by is just plain stupid.Then again, if you don't do the research you can never know the difference.

them_apples thinks any fighter who fought before 1980 automatically sucks. He also blows off any opinion given by a boxing historian because those OLD peeps don't know what they're talking about.

Poet

JAB5239
10-10-2008, 12:10 AM
them_apples thinks any fighter who fought before 1980 automatically sucks. He also blows off any opinion given by a boxing historian because those OLD peeps don't know what they're talking about.

Poet

Yeah, I know. Dude just doesn't know how to be objective. Thats fine though. Just makes it that much easier to tear down any argument he presents.

slicksouthpaw16
10-10-2008, 07:53 AM
1. Ray Robinson
2. Kid Galivan
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Ray Leonard
5. Jose Napoles
6. Joe Walcott
7. Barney Ross
8. Carmon Basilio
9. Thomas Hearns
10. Felix Trinidad

Honorable mentions to Fritizi Zivic( who is from my hometown) Charlie Burley( who is also from my hometown) Ted Lewis, Micky Walker and Wilfred Benitez.

them_apples
10-10-2008, 10:33 AM
them_apples thinks any fighter who fought before 1980 automatically sucks. He also blows off any opinion given by a boxing historian because those OLD peeps don't know what they're talking about.

Poet

lol fool, you say I dismiss all fighters before the 1980's yet my argument was for Duran! Dumbass

them_apples
10-10-2008, 10:40 AM
Yeah, I know. Dude just doesn't know how to be objective. Thats fine though. Just makes it that much easier to tear down any argument he presents.

Hey Jab, if you want to argue with me thats fine, but siding with Poet, the biggest troll on these forums..is stooping rather low. Go look up some of his posts..all the guy does is trash talk.


What I said about Duran, he may not be as great as some welterweights..but he did beat Leonard the first time..that is saying something. I do get rather pissed when very, very old boxers are thrown on these lists because boxing during Jack Johnsons time was very undeveloped, strength training consisted of smoking and drinking rum. fighting was usually clashing heads for 20+ rounds extremely tired..usually hyped up by calling it insane stamina..but if you throw 6 weak ass punches for 20+ rounds I guess it wouldn't be so hard. Thats why I'd pick a fighter like Leonard or even Oscar to woop those old school bums that get overrated because they have had 200 fights.

I'm talking OLDSCHOOL..as in Jack Johnson..don't get mislead by Poet's fabrication.

JAB5239
10-12-2008, 03:11 PM
Hey Jab, if you want to argue with me thats fine, but siding with Poet, the biggest troll on these forums..is stooping rather low. Go look up some of his posts..all the guy does is trash talk.

Look, you're probably a good guy. You and I just don't see eye to eye on boxing. It seems that, in my opinion whether we post with each other or not, our opinions are contrasting most of the time. It is what it is. what it isn't is personal. Ok?

As far as Poet goes.....he's been nothing but a gentleman to me, and I often agree and respect his boxing opinions. That in no way effects my opinion of others though. If you and him don't get along, thats your buisness. It has nothing to do with when I debate you or when I debate him. I can't say its never happened, but I try not to just side with somebody to piss somebody else off. If nothing else, I try to be my own man.

What I said about Duran, he may not be as great as some welterweights..but he did beat Leonard the first time..that is saying something.

This acheivement was huge and you will never hear me say otherwise. But it doesn't put him into the 10 best welters of all time. There are guys at that weight that did so much more there, for a longer amount of time. Duran beating Leonard was incredible. Its just not incredible enough for me to dismiss a lot of other great fighters from the list in order to make room for Roberto.

I do get rather pissed when very, very old boxers are thrown on these lists because boxing during Jack Johnsons time was very undeveloped, strength training consisted of smoking and drinking rum. fighting was usually clashing heads for 20+ rounds extremely tired..usually hyped up by calling it insane stamina..but if you throw 6 weak ass punches for 20+ rounds I guess it wouldn't be so hard. Thats why I'd pick a fighter like Leonard or even Oscar to woop those old school bums that get overrated because they have had 200 fights.

I'm talking OLDSCHOOL..as in Jack Johnson..don't get mislead by Poet's fabrication.

This is where you and I disagree most. While fighters of the time did drink and smoke, they also ran 15 and sometimes 20 miles a day. The also chopped wood, carried logs and other such vigorous exercises. You say the were "insanely" tired after a 20 round fight throwing few punches, yet I can give you examples of fighters going to war. Greb vs Walker was a 15 round fight that is a perfect example among many others. You also seem to miss the point that these guys were doing their fighting with 2 to 4oz gloves. Most had to fight on with injuries or risk not getting paid.

No matter what though, you have to distinguish the differences in era's. Back in the 50's there were like 12,000 pro fighters with 8 weight classes and 1 belt per. Today there are like 3,000 fighters with 17 weight classes and 4 titles per.

Back in the day they had same day weigh ins. Today fighters weigh in almost a full 48 hrs before the fight and get to replenish their systems.

Back then medical science wasn't close to what it is today, yet fighters HAD to fight injured to put food on the table. Not so today.

And honestly, can you tell me that heavyweights today really throw more punches on average and are as exciting as years past? I would bet any thing that if you took the big boys of today and put them on grainy black and white film, managed to get the same film speed, you wou be equally as unimpressed. Jmo. Peace.

1SILVA
10-27-2008, 01:06 AM
10 greatest welterweights of all time
1. Ray Robinson
2. Ray Leonard
3. Kid Gavilan
4. Carmen Basilio
5. Felix Trinidad
6. Thomas Hearns
7. Jose Napoles
8. Donald Curry
9. Henry Armstrong
10. Emile Griffith