What would be your top 10 welterweights of all time ?

[QueensburyRules]

Maybe I unfairly downgrade Pac at welter because I find him relatively better at lower weights. He does have some decent scalps there-Mosley, Bradley, etc.

Although I've never given him much credit for the ODH win as I felt Oscar was pretty much cooked by then.

- -PAC jumped 2 div to take the fight TUE 50-0 ducked in lieu of his biggest purse.

Oscar unlike the first fight that many thought he had won was in training for over a year for the rematch. TUE didn't favor his chances.

[DeeMoney]

I am shocked at all the Duran votes here, ya'll realize his prime was spent at lightweight and he only had half a dozen fights as a welter. Thats fairly noteworthy as he fought darn near 120 pro bouts. Moreover, his welterweight days came after over 70 fights and a decade as a pro; the great version of Duran we remember was NOT the welterweight version.

I get it, he's probably the best lightweight ever, and had he wanted to fight more as a welter could have been a great welter too. But isn't there a minimum number of fights or sample size before we rank someone in a weight class? Is there a difference between a great fighter who had some fights as a welterweight and someone who was a great welterweight?

[The Old LefHook]

We go by who beats whom and couldn't care less how long someone fought at a weight. Who beats whom? From there it is self explanatory.

[DeeMoney]

We go by who beats whom and couldn't care less how long someone fought at a weight. Who beats whom? From there it is self explanatory.

Which is fine if thats how you want to do it. Except he only beat 2 good fighters and 1 great fighter while fighting at welterweight. I don't think thats enough to warrant this high of a ranking.

I think we are looking at his wins at lightweight and giving him credit as a welter. Any way you want to cut it he simply did not do a lot as a welter (not meant to disparage him in anyway he is in my top 7 P4P, its just not because of his limited work as a welter)

[Rusty Tromboni]

I am shocked at all the Duran votes here, ya'll realize his prime was spent at lightweight and he only had half a dozen fights as a welter. Thats fairly noteworthy as he fought darn near 120 pro bouts. Moreover, his welterweight days came after over 70 fights and a decade as a pro; the great version of Duran we remember was NOT the welterweight version.

I get it, he's probably the best lightweight ever, and had he wanted to fight more as a welter could have been a great welter too. But isn't there a minimum number of fights or sample size before we rank someone in a weight class? Is there a difference between a great fighter who had some fights as a welterweight and someone who was a great welterweight?

In that case Jack Britton and MacFarland should be in everyone's top 5.

Name me a fighter who could do what Duran did against Leonard, Cuevas and Palomino.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Too many guys can out speed Napoles. Not fast enough to hang with the all time cream.

Yes, there were faster fighters. But his footwork, power and rhythym compesated for all of that. He one of the greatest ever P4P.

[DeeMoney]

In that case Jack Britton and MacFarland should be in everyone's top 5.

Name me a fighter who could do what Duran did against Leonard, Cuevas and Palomino.

I am not writing he wasn't great. I am just writing that the sample size is too small for me to give him a nod at this weight class. I'd rather reward someone with a track record over a significant amount of fights. If all we are doing is rewarding fighters based on their best few fights (as we seem to do with Duran at welterweight) then we could place DeJesus as a top 20 Lightweight or Baby Arizmendi as a top 5 featherweight (who else could beat Armstrong back to back at that weight).

We are all free to utilize our own criteria, I prefer to rank based off of sustained peak over a significant sample size. Not necessarily 20+ fights, but definitely more than a few.

[The Old LefHook]

Which is fine if thats how you want to do it. Except he only beat 2 good fighters and 1 great fighter while fighting at welterweight. I don't think thats enough to warrant this high of a ranking.

I think we are looking at his wins at lightweight and giving him credit as a welter. Any way you want to cut it he simply did not do a lot as a welter (not meant to disparage him in anyway he is in my top 7 P4P, its just not because of his limited work as a welter)

You don't get it. It is called an opinion. We can even have an opinion on whether Pacquiao could whip Jack Dempsey. We couldn't? Well, we've got one anyway. Now that is wrong?

Correct: Pac man does not belong at AT welter. He will not win many against AT welters. Armstrong does not belong at AT welter, either. He was not big enough and gets absolutely creamed by guys like Hearns, and there is no way he could even touch many fighters such as Robby, Gavilan and Leonard. He would have his hands completely full against Art Hafey, by God.

[DeeMoney]

You don't get it. It is called an opinion. We can even have an opinion on whether Pacquiao could whip Jack Dempsey. We couldn't? Well, we've got one anyway. Now that is wrong?

Correct: Pac man does not belong at AT welter. He will not win many against AT welters. Armstrong does not belong at AT welter, either. He was not big enough and gets absolutely creamed by guys like Hearns, and there is no way he could even touch many fighters such as Robby, Gavilan and Leonard. He would have his hands completely full against Art Hafey, by God.

Whoa, nobody is saying you can't have an opinion. But like any barstool discussion we can ask each other to defend an opinion and give a retort to why we have a difference of opinion.

[The Old LefHook]

Yes, there were faster fighters. But his footwork, power and rhythym compesated for all of that. He one of the greatest ever P4P.

I don't think so. Overrated is what he is.