Top 5 lightweights of all times? Who's your number 1?

[BennyST]

Ortiz should be a top five lock on everyone's list.

He arguably has the best resume of all of them along with Leonard. I think his resume and accomplishments are clearly better than Canzoneri and Williams. Much better resume than Whitaker, and arguably better resume than Duran, and Gans.

The only guy to equal it would Leonard, and they could be equal. He's a top fiver easily.

[lazy]

In spite of what Arcel might say, I have Duran #1.

[Humean]

My best five to have ever fought a significant fight at 135 would probably be

Duran
Chavez
Arguello
Mayweather
Ortiz


A high proportion of Henry Armstrong's welterweight title run took place with him weighing within the lightweight limit, he should really be thought as as a lightweight for at least some of that reign. Worth baring in mind amongst those who love the older fighters.

[BennyST]

My best five to have ever fought a significant fight at 135 would probably be

Duran
Chavez
Arguello
Mayweather
Ortiz


A high proportion of Henry Armstrong's welterweight title run took place with him weighing within the lightweight limit, he should really be thought as as a lightweight for at least some of that reign. Worth baring in mind amongst those who love the older fighters.

Hold on, do you mean to say these are your favourite fighters who just had a fight at 135, or are these the guys you say are the greatest, most accomplished fighters ever at 135 because they had at least one title fight there? It's an odd way of looking at ranking the greatest fighters at 135. Because whatever else someone does in their career, unless it's at 135, it doesn't and shouldn't have any effect on how they are ranked at that division. If you were great at 130 and 147, but only had a few fights at 135, then you really shouldn't even be talked about as being in the picture. If you didn't do anything there, you shouldn't be ranked there, despite how good you might have been if you had done something there.

If the latter, I think you're severely off track with AA and FMJ. At 130, yes, both of them could certainly be top three/five, but not at 135. Maybe you're not even talking about ranking the greatest, most accomplished there, but are just listing guys who you assume to be the best because of at least one significant fight there, while basing it off the rest of their careers in other divisions....that's what I'm guessing. You think they are the best fighters to ever fight at 135, based on their whole careers, not what they actually did at 135....right?

Floyd had four fights at 135. That's it. Four fights. If we're talking about the greatest fighters at 135, and I'm thinking you're talking about something else, then he simply can't be above guys like Leonard, Ortiz, Whitaker, Gans etc etc. It doesn't matter what he did below and above. He only had four fights there, one of which was a controversial decision, another of which was the rematch for that, and the last two just standard defenses.

Arguello had a better lightweight run, but it's still just way too small to possibly rank him anywhere near the top five, especially above fighters Benny Leonard. Arguello beat some good champs, but he still doesn't even make it into the top ten, or top fifteen probably.

Anyway, I realise you must talking about something other than the greatest 135ers, but I'm just not sure exactly what or why...

[Humean]

Hold on, do you mean to say these are your favourite fighters who just had a fight at 135, or are these the guys you say are the greatest, most accomplished fighters ever at 135 because they had at least one title fight there? It's an odd way of looking at ranking the greatest fighters at 135. Because whatever else someone does in their career, unless it's at 135, it doesn't and shouldn't have any effect on how they are ranked at that division. If you were great at 130 and 147, but only had a few fights at 135, then you really shouldn't even be talked about as being in the picture. If you didn't do anything there, you shouldn't be ranked there, despite how good you might have been if you had done something there.

If the latter, I think you're severely off track with AA and FMJ. At 130, yes, both of them could certainly be top three/five, but not at 135. Maybe you're not even talking about ranking the greatest, most accomplished there, but are just listing guys who you assume to be the best because of at least one significant fight there, while basing it off the rest of their careers in other divisions....that's what I'm guessing. You think they are the best fighters to ever fight at 135, based on their whole careers, not what they actually did at 135....right?

Floyd had four fights at 135. That's it. Four fights. If we're talking about the greatest fighters at 135, and I'm thinking you're talking about something else, then he simply can't be above guys like Leonard, Ortiz, Whitaker, Gans etc etc. It doesn't matter what he did below and above. He only had four fights there, one of which was a controversial decision, another of which was the rematch for that, and the last two just standard defenses.

Arguello had a better lightweight run, but it's still just way too small to possibly rank him anywhere near the top five, especially above fighters Benny Leonard. Arguello beat some good champs, but he still doesn't even make it into the top ten, or top fifteen probably.

Anyway, I realise you must talking about something other than the greatest 135ers, but I'm just not sure exactly what or why...

I care mostly, although not wholly, about who I think was the best when thinking about who is or is not 'great'. In this regard the only limit I placed on my greatest lightweights was that a fighter had to have at least one significant fight at 135. Other aspects of their career at 135 are important but far less than how good I think they were. Now because I care about how good the fighter was I do take into consideration what they did at other weights, not to add that to their achievements, but as evidence of how good they were as a fighter.

Here is an example of to illustrate my reasoning, compare Ike Williams and Julio Cesar Chavez. Williams had many more fights at lightweight than Chavez (over 100 compared to 3?) but both defeated two of the finest lightweights of their respective eras. Williams defeated Beau Jack and Bob Montgomery and Chavez defeated Rosario and Ramirez. Williams of course had all those other title and non-title fights to add to that so certainly a strong case can be made for Ike Williams. However as good as Williams was I do not think he'd defeat Chavez at 135 plus I also think Ramirez and Rosario may have been better than Jack and Montgomery.

Now there is a potential problem with these lists 'within' a weight particularly if you want to do the whole 'he has wins against such and such' thing. Has there been consistency across eras for what constitutes a lightweight? Since 1913 the lightweight limit for title fights has conventionally been 135 pounds but what is a lightweight outside the confines of a title fight since 1913? Are you a lightweight when you weigh in at 139 pounds? There were earlier periods that recognized the light-welterweight division but it has only been since 1959 that the 140 pound division has been continuously in existence. If you say that an Ike Williams non-title fight where he weighed in at 139 pounds is a lightweight fight then is a light welterweight title fight where Chavez or someone else weighs in at 139 also counting as a lightweight fight for historically purposes, for the purpose of these lists? Now I didn't entirely take into consideration this problem with my original five although it was in the back of my mind.

I actually made a mistake in my list, Whitaker should be there and the man i'd take off would probably be Ortiz.

Also in regards to Benny Leonard. Relative to their own eras then Leonard could probably be considered the greatest lightweight. However by my own criteria he cannot rank nearly so high because I simply do not think he was as good as the best lightweights who came later. I don't think the best fighters from the 1910s or 1920s would match up well with the best of subsequent eras.

[nerdjack]

1. Gans
2. Leonard
3. Duran
4. Whitaker
5. Canzoneri

[Rspen46]

Benny #1

Benny Leonard
Henry Armstrong
Roberto Duran
Pernell Whitaker
Joe Gans

These 5 were so good and much better than the next 5, you could probably rank them in any order for the top 5 and not hurt too many feelings, because I don't believe anyone of them, dominates the others, they would probably go back and forth with their victories against each other.

[The Old LefHook]

how many joe gans fights have u seen?

One of the founding fathers.

[The Old LefHook]

1 Camacho
2 Duran
3 Whitaker
4 Mosley
5 Leonard

[Suckmedry]

TBH i think it a bit ridiculous having guys like Gans and Leonard so high.

Im no old time basher- i think the sport peaked in the 70s and 80s with some exceptions today such as floyd etc

but its definitely the case that technique was still evolving in the 10s and 20s. 30s and 40s it began to catch up with the modern era.