View Full Version : Greatest Welterweights of All Time


K-DOGG
08-21-2006, 01:55 PM
Accidentally posted this on the Global thread....

Just want some feedback; what are your thoughts on the all time Top Ten?

Here's my list...


1. Ray Robinson
2. Hank Armstrong
3. Jose Napoles
4. Ray Leonard
5. Barney Ross
6. Barbados Joe Walcott
7. Micky Walker
8. Jimmy McLarnin
9. Carmen Basilio
10.Emille Griffith

Dr Cynical
08-21-2006, 05:37 PM
Accidentally posted this on the Global thread....

Just want some feedback; what are your thoughts on the all time Top Ten?

Here's my list...


1. Ray Robinson
2. Hank Armstrong
3. Jose Napoles
4. Ray Leonard
5. Barney Ross
6. Barbados Joe Walcott
7. Micky Walker
8. Jimmy McLarnin
9. Emille Griffith
10. Felix Trinidad
I think the No.10 spot should go to an actual great who's deserving of that spot.

I don't think Trinidad should be mentioned anywhere near the top ten greatest.

I know I'm going to get weakly flamed and called a "hater".
But, whatever. If you guys really think about it, you'll know I'm right.

Oasis_Lad
08-21-2006, 05:39 PM
I think the No.10 spot should go to an actual great who's deserving of that spot.

I don't think Trinidad should be mentioned anywhere near the top ten greatest.

I know I'm going to get weakly flamed and called a "hater".
But, whatever. If you guys really think about it, you'll know I'm right.

exaxctly

tito aint a great!

K-DOGG
08-21-2006, 05:54 PM
There....forgot to edit it. Sorry 'botu that; but Tito's firm at # 11. :D

oldgringo
08-22-2006, 03:35 AM
I'd have something such as:

Robinson
Leonard
Armstrong
Napoles
Walcott
Walker
Griffith
Gavilan
Trinidad
Hearns

cple
08-22-2006, 06:11 AM
I love Tito as much as the next guy, but i don't think i could ever make a welterweight list ranking him above Tommy Hearns, a fighter who i believe had the physical tools and skill to beat any man weighing 147 pounds. I cannot say that about Trinidad.

While it is true that on paper Trinidad's welterweight accomplishments (7 year reign, 14 or 15 title defenses) dwarf that of Hearns (1 year, 4 titles defenses), you had to see them in action to know that they were--as much as i hate to say it--of two different classes of fighter. Hearns was absolutely devastating in his victories, as opposed to Trinidad, who often had to come off the canvas to win against far inferior opposition. I might even say that Cuevas was better than anyone Trinidad faced at 147, even De La Hoya; well, that De La Hoya. Hell, i'm not sure if Hearn's loss to Leonard detracts from his greatness. That fight elevated both Hearn's and Leonard's legend, imo.

The way i see it, Trinidad probably wouldn't have had all those title defenses had he fought in Hearns' time. But i think Hearns would been completely dominant in Trinidad's era.

As for the rest of the top 10, if i remember correctly, my lists consists of roughly the same fighters as you all. Others that deserve mention: Tommy Ryan, Nonpariel Jack Dempsey (who weighed around 147 for many of his bouts against heavier opponents), Luis Rodriguez, Kid McCoy.

BuddyChacon
08-22-2006, 11:09 AM
I love Tito as much as the next guy, but i don't think i could ever make a welterweight list ranking him above Tommy Hearns, a fighter who i believe had the physical tools and skill to beat any man weighing 147 pounds. I cannot say that about Trinidad.

While it is true that on paper Trinidad's welterweight accomplishments (7 year reign, 14 or 15 title defenses) dwarf that of Hearns (1 year, 4 titles defenses), you had to see them in action to know that they were--as much as i hate to say it--of two different classes of fighter. Hearns was absolutely devastating in his victories, as opposed to Trinidad, who often had to come off the canvas to win against far inferior opposition. I might even say that Cuevas was better than anyone Trinidad faced at 147, even De La Hoya; well, that De La Hoya. Hell, i'm not sure if Hearn's loss to Leonard detracts from his greatness. That fight elevated both Hearn's and Leonard's legend, imo.

The way i see it, Trinidad probably wouldn't have had all those title defenses had he fought in Hearns' time. But i think Hearns would been completely dominant in Trinidad's era.

As for the rest of the top 10, if i remember correctly, my lists consists of roughly the same fighters as you all. Others that deserve mention: Tommy Ryan, Nonpariel Jack Dempsey (who weighed around 147 for many of his bouts against heavier opponents), Luis Rodriguez, Kid McCoy.

Luis Rodriguez was great but didn't have enough of a reign to rank in the top ten. He makes top fifteen based on his skills. Read about the others and they were also great. You are all forgetting Rocky Graziano I know he was a middleweight but most of his wins were against very good welterweights :D

K-DOGG
08-22-2006, 12:58 PM
I love Tito as much as the next guy, but i don't think i could ever make a welterweight list ranking him above Tommy Hearns, a fighter who i believe had the physical tools and skill to beat any man weighing 147 pounds. I cannot say that about Trinidad.

While it is true that on paper Trinidad's welterweight accomplishments (7 year reign, 14 or 15 title defenses) dwarf that of Hearns (1 year, 4 titles defenses), you had to see them in action to know that they were--as much as i hate to say it--of two different classes of fighter. Hearns was absolutely devastating in his victories, as opposed to Trinidad, who often had to come off the canvas to win against far inferior opposition. I might even say that Cuevas was better than anyone Trinidad faced at 147, even De La Hoya; well, that De La Hoya. Hell, i'm not sure if Hearn's loss to Leonard detracts from his greatness. That fight elevated both Hearn's and Leonard's legend, imo.

The way i see it, Trinidad probably wouldn't have had all those title defenses had he fought in Hearns' time. But i think Hearns would been completely dominant in Trinidad's era.

As for the rest of the top 10, if i remember correctly, my lists consists of roughly the same fighters as you all. Others that deserve mention: Tommy Ryan, Nonpariel Jack Dempsey (who weighed around 147 for many of his bouts against heavier opponents), Luis Rodriguez, Kid McCoy.

As always, you make great points concerning Trinidad and Heanrs. You've definetly given me food for thought, anyway. I am of the thought that Hearns was a greater fighter than Trinidad; but made my list based more on accomplishments. Of course, in the end, Tito fell out fo the top ten, anyway; but the points you make are indeed valid and worth further consideration.

Peace.

oldgringo
08-22-2006, 01:22 PM
I love Tito as much as the next guy, but i don't think i could ever make a welterweight list ranking him above Tommy Hearns, a fighter who i believe had the physical tools and skill to beat any man weighing 147 pounds. I cannot say that about Trinidad.

While it is true that on paper Trinidad's welterweight accomplishments (7 year reign, 14 or 15 title defenses) dwarf that of Hearns (1 year, 4 titles defenses), you had to see them in action to know that they were--as much as i hate to say it--of two different classes of fighter. Hearns was absolutely devastating in his victories, as opposed to Trinidad, who often had to come off the canvas to win against far inferior opposition. I might even say that Cuevas was better than anyone Trinidad faced at 147, even De La Hoya; well, that De La Hoya. Hell, i'm not sure if Hearn's loss to Leonard detracts from his greatness. That fight elevated both Hearn's and Leonard's legend, imo.

The way i see it, Trinidad probably wouldn't have had all those title defenses had he fought in Hearns' time. But i think Hearns would been completely dominant in Trinidad's era.

As for the rest of the top 10, if i remember correctly, my lists consists of roughly the same fighters as you all. Others that deserve mention: Tommy Ryan, Nonpariel Jack Dempsey (who weighed around 147 for many of his bouts against heavier opponents), Luis Rodriguez, Kid McCoy.


I'm in complete agreement with you...and even though the list I put up had Trinidad ahead of Hearns, it was on technicality. I thought about accomplishment solely here. Trinidad had the long reign, beat some damned good fighters, but couldn't have handled Hearns in the least. There are only two other fighters that I think could take a welterweight Hearns on his best night, one of those obviously being Leonard...and the other being Robinson of course.

I wish we could have seen another Leonard/HEarns bout at 147 or 154. I think Hearns would have won rather convincingly, kind of like I thought he did in their 160 rematch.

Keleneki
08-23-2006, 09:24 AM
I'm in complete agreement with you...and even though the list I put up had Trinidad ahead of Hearns, it was on technicality. I thought about accomplishment solely here. Trinidad had the long reign, beat some damned good fighters, but couldn't have handled Hearns in the least. There are only two other fighters that I think could take a welterweight Hearns on his best night, one of those obviously being Leonard...and the other being Robinson of course.

I wish we could have seen another Leonard/HEarns bout at 147 or 154. I think Hearns would have won rather convincingly, kind of like I thought he did in their 160 rematch.

I hear you. Too bad Hearns and Leonard had so many years pass before they had the rematch. I also believe that Hearns won the rematch. It amazed me when they called it a draw. Too bad they didn't fight each other as many times as Robinson and LaMotta did. Four more Hearns versus Leonard fights would have been awesome. :)

JMCbulls
08-23-2006, 11:18 AM
I'd have something such as:

Robinson
Leonard
Armstrong
Napoles
Walcott
Walker
Griffith
Gavilan
Trinidad
Hearns

i agree but id have hearns at 9, and have ttrinidad out of the top 10, im not sure who i would put at tho :confused:

La_Vibora
08-23-2006, 12:41 PM
What about my man Charley Burley? Eddie Futch once said that Charley was the best all around fighter that he ever saw, Archie Moore says that he is the best fighter that he ever fought, and Sugar Ray Robinson ducked him for years. In fact, Sugar was once quoted as saying that "he was too pretty to fight Burley" and constantly outpriced himself so that he didn't have to fight him. People talk about Margarito today, but fighters like Tony Zale, Billy Conn(who fought Joe Louis), Sugar Ray, and many of the other elite fighters of that time avoided him like the plague. Burley should definitely get a mention on this list somewhere as he is considered by many to be the greatest fighter ever that never won a title.

K-DOGG
08-23-2006, 03:50 PM
Burley does indeed deserve to be mentioned. Eddie Futch, himself, called Burley the best all around fighter he'd ever seen....that's high praise.

oldgringo
08-23-2006, 04:00 PM
What about my man Charley Burley? Eddie Futch once said that Charley was the best all around fighter that he ever saw, Archie Moore says that he is the best fighter that he ever fought, and Sugar Ray Robinson ducked him for years. In fact, Sugar was once quoted as saying that "he was too pretty to fight Burley" and constantly outpriced himself so that he didn't have to fight him. People talk about Margarito today, but fighters like Tony Zale, Billy Conn(who fought Joe Louis), Sugar Ray, and many of the other elite fighters of that time avoided him like the plague. Burley should definitely get a mention on this list somewhere as he is considered by many to be the greatest fighter ever that never won a title.


I'd say he's better remembered at middleweight, but then again I don't know as much as I should about his career. He had the rivalries with Holman and Zivic...splitting fights with them throughout his career. I wish there was some tape of this guy.

oldgringo
08-23-2006, 04:02 PM
Fritzie Zivic also deserves a mention...maybe even a spot.

cple
08-23-2006, 05:29 PM
Zivic was an absolute handful and, at his best, would've been too much for a lot of fighters throughout history. I don't think there is a welterweight or middleweight today that could've hung in there with Zivic; he's too tough, rugged, and dirty. When you look at his resume, you see that he beat some of the greatest fighters to ever grace the sport, but the knock on Zivic is that he was inconsistent. Here's a little factoid: Zivic has the most losses (64) of all the HOF inductees.

La_Vibora
08-23-2006, 05:33 PM
I'd say he's better remembered at middleweight, but then again I don't know as much as I should about his career. He had the rivalries with Holman and Zivic...splitting fights with them throughout his career. I wish there was some tape of this guy.


Well he was a natural welterweight, but the problem is that no one at welterweight would give him a shot, which is why he began taking on middleweights, light heavyweights, and even heavyweights. Also, it is said that his 2nd fight against "Oakland" Billy Smith was filmed, I also know of people that have seen it, I am trying to get my hands on a copy myself.


BTW, I agree that Zivic deserves mention.

La_Vibora
08-23-2006, 05:48 PM
Zivic was an absolute handful and, at his best, would've been too much for a lot of fighters throughout history. I don't think there is a welterweight or middleweight today that could've hung in there with Zivic; he's too tough, rugged, and dirty. When you look at his resume, you see that he beat some of the greatest fighters to ever grace the sport, but the knock on Zivic is that he was inconsistent. Here's a little factoid: Zivic has the most losses (64) of all the HOF inductees.


Agreed, I can't think of a welterweight out there today that Zivic couldn't beat. In fact, his style is exactly the kind of fighter I would love to see Floyd Mayweather in with, too many times I see fighters in there trying to box with Floyd, I think a bruiser who gets down and dirty like Zivic(sort of like Jose Luis Castillo did in their fight) would have the greatest chance of defeating him.

hellfire508
08-23-2006, 10:38 PM
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Sugar Ray Leonard
4. Jose Napoles
5. Emile Griffith
6. Thomas Hearns
7. Kid Gavilan
8. Joe Walcott
9. Barney Ross
10. Carmen Basilio

Something like that.

The likes of McLarnin, De La Hoya, Benitez, Whitaker, Curry all just miss out.

Heckler
08-28-2006, 03:43 AM
There....forgot to edit it. Sorry 'botu that; but Tito's firm at # 11. :D
i think oscar is more deserving, more depth than the relatively limited and methodical trinidad.

K-DOGG
08-28-2006, 02:09 PM
i think oscar is more deserving, more depth than the relatively limited and methodical trinidad.


....ah; but De La Hoya blew it against Trinidad.....and then went on to lose to Mosley. Trinidad also handed Campas and Carr their first loses while Oscar batted clean-up.

While I'll admit Oscar won the Trinidad bout on "my" scorecard, I can't argue with him losing that fight because of the way he closed the show. He didn't fight like he wanted it; he fought like he thought he deserved to win. You can't do that against another top fighter....it is boxing, afterall....and that fight was for The World Championship. Oscar fought so beautifully for the first 8 rounds; but he blew it in the "championship rounds"....how ironic.

Trinidad officially never lost a Welterweight fight where Oscar lost against the two best prime welters he faced. He beat Quartey; but lost to Trinidad and Mosley, who was coming up from lightweight.

Sorry, can't agree with that.