Top 10 Welterweights from best to worst

[Jim Jeffries]

1/. Ray Robinson
2/. Henry Armstrong
3/. Sam Langford
4/. Ray Leonard
5/. Jose Napoles
6/. Pernell Whitaker
7/. Jack Britton
8/. Jimmy McLarnin
9/. Thomas Hearns
10/. Floyd Mayweather Jr.

No DLH or Trinidad, but you have Mayweather?

[mhager91490]

1-Robinson
2-Armstrong
3-Gavilan
4-Burley
5-Napoles
6-Leonard
7-Rodriguez
8-Griffith
9-Walker
10-Walcott

[StarshipTrooper]

What's the story here, buddy?

Same question to sonnyboy.

Langford fought everyone from Lightweight to Heavyweight but he was a natural Welter.

Poet

[McGrain]

Langford fought everyone from Lightweight to Heavyweight but he was a natural Welter.

Poet

You really think so? What makes you say that?

Also, given that Langford's actually resume at 147 is on the thin side, is your list, in the main, head to head?

[StarshipTrooper]

You really think so? What makes you say that?

Also, given that Langford's actually resume at 147 is on the thin side, is your list, in the main, head to head?

It's based on who I think are the better fighters ability wise. Resume comes into play as a factor in that showing one's skills against better competition counts for more than showing them against lesser competition. Ultimately it comes down to how good they are as fighters with resume being one but far from the only factor considered.

I could easily have placed Langford anywhere from Lightweight up to Heavy because his career was spent fighting anyone without regard for weight class. So how do I decide where to place him? In his case from everything I've read about Langford he was a natural Welter so that decided it for me.

On a related point, I only rate fighters in one weight class (with the honorary exception of Ray Robinson). In most cases this is relatively easy as I just select the division where they spent the vast majority of their prime at (case in point, I rate Gene Tunney and Michael Spinks as Light-Heavys). In the cases of fighters who spent large portions of their prime in two or more weight classes I place them in the division that I think they were at their best which is why I also rate Ezzard Charles as a Light-Heavy.

Poet

[McGrain]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]It's based on who I think are the better fighters ability wise. Resume comes into play as a factor in that showing one's skills against better competition counts for more than showing them against lesser competition. Ultimately it comes down to how good they are as fighters with resume being one but far from the only factor considered.

In relation to Langford's placing, then, what do you make his 0-2-1 record versus Jack Blacburn at this weight at this time?

So how do I decide where to place him? In his case from everything I've read about Langford he was a natural Welter so that decided it for me.

I think it is a stretch to call him a natural welterweight. Certainly he didn't fight at this limit in 1905 to the best of my knowledge, and it has been suggested that weights for the 1904 meeting between Langford and Walcott were not revealed because Langford couldn't make the ww limit, just as he had been unable to make 138 for Gans the year before. To my knowledge, this is the last confirmed making of the WW limit for Sam and he was seventeen years old according to Moyle. Even if he made the weight in 1905 (and my guess is that he hadn't made it since the Elbows McFadden catchweight encounter in mid 04), he would still have been a teenager.


Here he is weighing around 160 in 1909 for Iron Hague, and he looks absolutley rock solid at this weight:

[IMG]http://i181.***********.com/albums/x175/McGrain_bucket/SL4.jpg[/IMG]

There's no sense in which Sam carries an artificial 15lbs here.

Here he is a little nearer the Ketchel fight, I think, for which he weighed 170 plus:

[IMG]http://i181.***********.com/albums/x175/McGrain_bucket/5677_1.jpg[/IMG]

Still carrying no fat.

Moyle labels his best weight as between 170 and 180. I'd temper that, and say between 165 and 175ish was probably his ideal fighting weight. But I do baulk at his being labelled a natural welterweight. Certainly, the proof isn't there, he looks strong at higher weights and I doubt he made the WW limit outside of his teens.

[StarshipTrooper]

In relation to Langford's placing, then, what do you make his 0-2-1 record versus Jack Blacburn at this weight at this time?

Jack Blackburn was certainly one of the all-time great Lightweights so him having wins over Langford certainly doesn't surprise me. Blackburn kind of gets lost in the mix these days.

I think it is a stretch to call him a natural welterweight. Certainly he didn't fight at this limit in 1905 to the best of my knowledge, and it has been suggested that weights for the 1904 meeting between Langford and Walcott were not revealed because Langford couldn't make the ww limit, just as he had been unable to make 138 for Gans the year before. To my knowledge, this is the last confirmed making of the WW limit for Sam and he was seventeen years old according to Moyle. Even if he made the weight in 1905 (and my guess is that he hadn't made it since the Elbows McFadden catchweight encounter in mid 04), he would still have been a teenager.

Here he is weighing around 160 in 1909 for Iron Hague, and he looks absolutley rock solid at this weight:

There's no sense in which Sam carries an artificial 15lbs here.

Here he is a little nearer the Ketchel fight, I think, for which he weighed 170 plus:

Still carrying no fat.

Moyle labels his best weight as between 170 and 180. I'd temper that, and say between 165 and 175ish was probably his ideal fighting weight. But I do baulk at his being labelled a natural welterweight. Certainly, the proof isn't there, he looks strong at higher weights and I doubt he made the WW limit outside of his teens.

You make a very good case and I may have to rethink my placing of Langford. Middleweight maybe?

Poet

[McGrain]

Jack Blackburn was certainly one of the all-time great Lightweights so him having wins over Langford certainly doesn't surprise me. Blackburn kind of gets lost in the mix these days.

Agree with you. I think Blackburn may have been an exceptional talent. If you consider the manner in which Langford dominated an injured Gans before Blackburn was able, in turn, to get the better of him, it's cause for thought. And his wider resume is exceptional too.

You make a very good case and I may have to rethink my placing of Langford. Middleweight maybe?

Poet

I rate fighters differently to you; i'm mostly interested in a fighter's defeated opposition at a given weight. But with Langford, I, too go against my better judgement (perhaps in the way you do with Robinson, in contrast to your usual way of ranking fighters?) in that I have him higher at LHW than at HW by virtue of the fact that he is so dangerous there. And, it doesn't hurt that a lot of the HW's and MW's he thrashed, he did so weighing in at or around that limit.

To answer your question, I think Langford is certainly breaking backs at 160. It's frightening to think what a man of his talent would do to basically any MW division in history, height differential and all.

[StarshipTrooper]

Agree with you. I think Blackburn may have been an exceptional talent. If you consider the manner in which Langford dominated an injured Gans before Blackburn was able, in turn, to get the better of him, it's cause for thought. And his wider resume is exceptional too.

I rate fighters differently to you; i'm mostly interested in a fighter's defeated opposition at a given weight. But with Langford, I, too go against my better judgement (perhaps in the way you do with Robinson, in contrast to your usual way of ranking fighters?) in that I have him higher at LHW than at HW by virtue of the fact that he is so dangerous there. And, it doesn't hurt that a lot of the HW's and MW's he thrashed, he did so weighing in at or around that limit.

To answer your question, I think Langford is certainly breaking backs at 160. It's frightening to think what a man of his talent would do to basically any MW division in history, height differential and all.

I agree completely. As for Robinson, I really only my usual with him in that I place him in two divisions instead of restricting him to one. The only reason I do this is to give a singular honor to the fighter I think was the best p4p ever.

Poet

[GJC]

You make a very good case and I may have to rethink my placing of Langford. Middleweight maybe?

Poet

Got to say I always like Langford @ MW and that "win" over Ketchell stands out for him.
I'm not a size **** but at 5'6 ish I don't like him above MW and I believe his most comfortable weight was 160-170 so to give him his best chance of being tip top prime I favour MW.