Who was/is the best welterweight since Leonard/Hearns?

This has been a great thread... A lot of good debate.. My 2 cents, is that you can't really say any welter of the last 10-12 years... The division was been pretty weak and dominated by lightweights and jr welters ie floyd, marquez, Bradley, manny, etc... Those guys are great fighters but not true welters.. The division did get hot around 07-08 with floyd, cotto, williams, margarito, shane, zab, clottey but for the most part I think it's been a weak division in terms of true welters since the 2000ish when it had tito, Oscar, Ike, shane, vernon, mayorga... Those guys were straight killers Same thing with the post leonard/hearns era with curry, starling, McCrory, etc.. A lot of talent true welters... The division when weak, always gets dominated by blown up lightweights,, much like early 90s when pernell ran it, and the division over the past few years... The welter division is starting to comeback to life with natural welters like Brook, thurman. Porter, etc In terms of the thread,, I think you gotta go with h2h and not so much resume, as resumes can be deceiving, as wlad's heavyweight reign is clearly more dominant that evander, lennox, foreman and bowe combined in the 90s... When a division is stacked it's hard to dominat for any length of time and when it's shallow, jr welters can dominant over average welters for a longtime... Think floyd over Ortiz, ghost, Maidana, baldomir, Judah.. I doubt floyd or manny would have the same success in a deep welter division with true welters.. So in terms of h2h, who was the king welter,, I think the only logical answers are curry, Oscar, tito, Shane amd vernon... Those 5 are clearly the best true welters since leonard/hearns Using those five guys, I think if you had a round robin tournament, I think curry would come out on top..at his peak 84-86 he was about as well rounded fighter you could be.. He could box, he have power, and cleared out the division... No one else ever cleared out a division Floyd hasn't beaten margarito, manny, Bradley Manny never beat floyd Oscar didn't beat tito or shane Tito never fought Ike or shane Shane never beat forrest, tito, Ike Forrest never beat tito, Oscar, mayorga Curry is the only one that beat all the other champs in his era, and he was just as talented as anyone mentioned,, I believe he is the correct answer Thank you sir and I agree with you 100%

What makes Pacquiao a better WW than Floyd? He's never been the man at WW or ever beaten the legitimate #1 guy? I find that an odd statement. Also, those guys aren't better than Whitaker imo. That's a good question and one that is pretty easy to answer, Pacquiao has beaten Cotto..in fact he annihilated him, he battered Clottey too and gave Bradley a schooling on two separate occasions, all of these guys were regarded as top 2-3-5 welters at the time. It's not just who he beat, but also how he beat them. Floyd fans can try and twist it all they want with the Mosley win but we all know lineal doesn't mean best. Curry ruined his career through drug abuse, but H2H at his very best I would pick him over anyone thats come since. LOL no he couldn't, Floyd owuld be too savvy for him, Pacquiao too strong, too quick and too good, Oscar would jab and left hook him into oblivion and Tito would give him a war...and we all know Curry couldn't handle wars. Please don't turn Curry into one of those boxingscene fantasy greats. He was a good fighter with some potential but he lacked grit, may have had some personal issues and was skilled enough to beat a decent group of fighters in a mediocre division post Leonard/Benitez/Duran/Hearns. Oscar-Tito fought in one of the best welterweight division ever. Guys like Whitaker were present, Sr not at his best still had a stop over in the division, Quartey, Carr to name just a few. Mosley later on.

Felix Trinidad

This has been a great thread... A lot of good debate.. My 2 cents, is that you can't really say any welter of the last 10-12 years... The division was been pretty weak and dominated by lightweights and jr welters ie floyd, marquez, Bradley, manny, etc... Those guys are great fighters but not true welters.. The division did get hot around 07-08 with floyd, cotto, williams, margarito, shane, zab, clottey but for the most part I think it's been a weak division in terms of true welters since the 2000ish when it had tito, Oscar, Ike, shane, vernon, mayorga... Those guys were straight killers Same thing with the post leonard/hearns era with curry, starling, McCrory, etc.. A lot of talent true welters... The division when weak, always gets dominated by blown up lightweights,, much like early 90s when pernell ran it, and the division over the past few years... The welter division is starting to comeback to life with natural welters like Brook, thurman. Porter, etc In terms of the thread,, I think you gotta go with h2h and not so much resume, as resumes can be deceiving, as wlad's heavyweight reign is clearly more dominant that evander, lennox, foreman and bowe combined in the 90s... When a division is stacked it's hard to dominat for any length of time and when it's shallow, jr welters can dominant over average welters for a longtime... Think floyd over Ortiz, ghost, Maidana, baldomir, Judah.. I doubt floyd or manny would have the same success in a deep welter division with true welters.. So in terms of h2h, who was the king welter,, I think the only logical answers are curry, Oscar, tito, Shane amd vernon... Those 5 are clearly the best true welters since leonard/hearns Using those five guys, I think if you had a round robin tournament, I think curry would come out on top..at his peak 84-86 he was about as well rounded fighter you could be.. He could box, he have power, and cleared out the division... No one else ever cleared out a division Floyd hasn't beaten margarito, manny, Bradley Manny never beat floyd Oscar didn't beat tito or shane Tito never fought Ike or shane Shane never beat forrest, tito, Ike Forrest never beat tito, Oscar, mayorga Curry is the only one that beat all the other champs in his era, and he was just as talented as anyone mentioned,, I believe he is the correct answer

Good discussion. A lot of good names. I'd say it's between; Tito Oscar Mayweather Pacquaio Curry (good name included) Whitaker Other good names - Starling, Honeyghan, Brown The 80's were an awesome decade for Welterweights, 90's weren't shabby either. If I had to pick, I would probably go with Trinidad.

Topic????????? Based on what standard?

Ive always liked Mosley but I cant believe people are bringing him up as possibly THE greatest welterweight since Leonard/Hearns, I can honestly say I didn't expect that.

gavilan and leonard get respect.. gavilan had a long reign at 147 over 6 years..leonard though shorter 3 years still fought some good names at 147..looking at resumes floyd definitely edges ray at 147 ray's regin was very short. floyd is going on 10 years undefeated so i see your point.. Yup. Everyone must surely consider Judah, Baldomir, Guerrero, Mosley etc. as a superior set of wins compared to Benitez, Hearns and Duran?

Tito. . Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

Trust me; he’s better than the Cuban poor man’s version of Calzaghe. Leonard wasn’t exactly elite either. I mean, how can someone lose against Duran? gavilan and leonard get respect.. gavilan had a long reign at 147 over 6 years..leonard though shorter 3 years still fought some good names at 147..looking at resumes floyd definitely edges ray at 147 ray's regin was very short. floyd is going on 10 years undefeated so i see your point..

haven't researched leonards or gavilans resume that in depth to make that distinction..i'm strictly basing this on fighters since 1990.. Trust me; he’s better than the Cuban poor man’s version of Calzaghe. Leonard wasn’t exactly elite either. I mean, how can someone lose against Duran?

Why stop there? It would probably see him surpass Gavilan, perhaps even Leonard. haven't researched leonards or gavilans resume that in depth to make that distinction..i'm strictly basing this on fighters since 1990..

if floyds next two fights are at 147 and he unifies with pac (WBO) and brook/khan (IBF) i would rate him ahead of tito and sweet pea since neither have unified the 147 division when they reigned. Why stop there? It would probably see him surpass Gavilan, perhaps even Leonard.

if floyds next two fights are at 147 and he unifies with pac (WBO) and brook/khan (IBF) i would rate him ahead of tito and sweet pea since neither have unified the 147 division when they reigned.

I would say Sweat Pea. Many others have a claim though. Tough question

resumes or head to head?

Head to head....prime curry, Tito, Oscar, Whitaker and Floyd Resume wise probably Floyd...curry was a shooting star who shined bright was actually undisputed champ his time at the top was short....ww isn't Floyd's best weight but its hard to argue with wins in only a few fights at the weight wins over Mosley, hatton, maidana, Judah, Ortiz, baldomir, mitchell, Guerrero, JM Marquez

top 5 welterweights since 1990: 1. Tito Trinidad 15 title defenses 2. pernell whitaker 9 title defenses 3. Floyd mayweather jr 8 title defenses 4. Donal Curry 7 title defenses 5. oscar De la hoya 7 title defenses when you look at welterwight reings floyd is going on 10 years undefeated at 147..he's been fighting at 147 since 2005..and every fighter he's faced at the weight was a former champion or current champion..no soft touches at 147 for floyd.

Tito Trinidad

Why? When Oscar and Tito achieved more than him, had more defenses and faced better opposition? Oscar is clearly the best, with possibly Tito second and then Manny third, the second tier guys could be Mayweather, Mosley or Cotto Did they really achieve more AT WELTERWEIGHT though? That’s the question at hand - not what they achieved in all the various weight-classes they participated in at one time or another during their careers. Did they really do that? Did they really, as you said, face better opposition AT WELTERWEIGHT? Okay if you rate them higher than Curry because you think they were the inherently better fighters, but to act like their wins at the weight is the ultimate tie-breaker and testament to their superiority, I must say I actually think you’re being a bit naive. Each to their own I guess, and those fancy trinket-defences might look good on paper, but who were they really against? Not that Curry’s whole reign was against world-beaters, but c’mon, especially Tito’s were piss poor stuff. De La Hoya’s was better, but clearly superior to Curry’s? In my opinion, nope. Admittedly I am not as high as others on that particular era of welters - good, but overrated IMO, not the type of Golden Age some would make you believe - but I like to at least think that it doesn’t cloud my judgment on their overall worth as fighters. Not that they weren't excellent fighters, they clearly were, just not at the level as an overall package as Curry IMO. Although I can see how the Honeyghan debacle is counted against him, he still doesn’t lag behind any of them record-wise and certainly not in terms of ability. He displayed a more complete and diverse skill-set than either of Tito and ODLH ever did, and I would favour him over both in a peak vs peak match-up even if there’s always the chance of Tito’s power turning it around. Maybe not a popular opinion, but it’s my two cents. I will never concede that any of Mayweather, Pacquiao and today’s equivalent to Oba Carr - Cotto - is better welterweights than Curry though. NEVER. Pac’ and May’ gets overestimated at the weight IMO and Cotto was never a great talent to begin with. They were just lucky to end up in the worst period in 147-pound history. ;)