top 10 welterweights of all time

[dansweeney]

you made a mistake. tito lost to oscar.

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

[SuzieQ49]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

WHAT???
wheres baldomir
Lol

[Da Iceman]

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

please dont support ****.

[Shanus]

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.