Post Benitez/Leonard/Hearns/Duran Welterweight Top 20

[daggum]

top 20 is a bit hard. I based mine on A level competition beaten and faced. I didn't rank one win wonders too highly or guys who just beat around the bush fighting b level guys so that's why you will see guys like forrest and floyd so low. i didn't do some piece of sh-ite fantasy who would beat who either. i ranked them on what they did do and how guys performed in fights even if "officially" there's an L where i don't agree.

1. marlon starling
2. oscar de la hoya
3. donald curry

4. mosley
5. honeyghan
6. margarito
7. pac

8. cotto
9. whitaker
10. trinidad

11. mayweather
12. mayorga
13. breland
14. clottey
15. quartey
16. spinks
17. brown
18. forrest
19. williams
20. mcgirt

[oc9979]

Of course, Margarito at the time was coming off of beating Cotto....no, annihilating him and making him take a knee. Margarito was the baddest man in the division at the time. Mosley battered him. That is an "A" win.

Oscar beat Whitaker who at the time was undefeated at the weight, WBC champ and regarded as the best welterweight on the planet. Oscar beat him and although some say it was controversial, Oscar beat the best welterweight on the planet and caused Sweet Peas work rate to drop. Yes Whitaker made it difficult and the fight looked clumsy but some of those rights and lefts that Whitaker tasted in the early rounds made him decide he'd rather make it ugly than try to win. A win.

Mayweather beat an almost shot to hell version of Mosley, if I had a Z ranking I'd place that win there.

Clottey was one of the top 5 leading welterweights at the time who had given Cotto hell and a legitimate contender for Pacquiao. Not only did the Pacman win, he won a complete shutout, the gulf between the two was vast. The Oscar win is a "B" because the general consensus amongst fans, journalists and fighters was that Oscar would destroy Pacquiao, too big, too strong etc. Pacquiao knocked Oscar into retirement.

Baldomir is quite possibly the worst welterweight champion ever, who caught Judah going through one of his "phases". Mayweather won and yes he won the so called lineal title but he did not look impressive at all, other great welterweights of the past would have battered Baldomir into oblivion.

The Judah win is not an A because he had lost to Baldomir and because Mayweather struggled against him for 5 rounds, looking mediocre at best in those rounds. Yes he stepped it up but the performance was not exactly a classic, jaw dropping crowning of a great champion.

Hatton was moving up in weight and again, Mayweather was given hell for 10 rounds, especially the first 5 or 6, before the referee and Mayweather's conditioning kicked in.

The bold part. A lil biased if you ask me. You put Whitaker A for ODH and B for Tito. ODH beat Whitaker in a controversial win. but then you put ODH B under Tito because it was a controversial win.

[BennyST]

All choices are ultimately subjective but mine are based in reality. No one in their right mind who understand this sport thought Mosley would be Mayweather, at 39 and inactive for almost a year and a half and had had 2 training camps, even a prime fighter would be burnt out after such a rigorous routine. It was general knowledge within the boxing community that Mosley was on his way out of the sport.

Wih regards to Oscar, no one and I mean no one in boxing thought he was shot before Pacquiao. These are just thoughts. Maybe you weren't around when these fights happened live or are too young but it's what the world saw at the time. It wasn't just casual fans who thought Pacquiao would lose, almost every boxing reporter I spoke to thought the same, some prominent names included.

As you can probably tell, I have rarely used official ranking as a basis for my list, why? Because they are all corrupted, with GBP owning The Ring etc and bias from various boxing organisations. I'm going by what learned people in boxing thought at the time. No one believed Baldomir was the number one welterweight on the planet, yes he had the official title but nothing more.

Don't know what you were doing but most I knew all thought he was clearly at the end of his career, and while people didn't realise how shot he actually was, they knew he done as a great fighter at the top. He looked awful against Steve Forbes, and a lot of people were saying he was done after seeing that fight. A lot.

That's why Roach and everyone was so confident with the fight. It was clear to a lot of people that he was done.

It is interesting though the way you spin each win. Oscar was more shot than Mosley, whatever people thought before. He also hadn't won a top fight in many years, while Mosley, despite coming off inactivity, was still coming off one of the greatest wins of his whole career and looked incredible in it.

Anyway, we all have our biases.

[BennyST]

top 20 is a bit hard. I based mine on A level competition beaten and faced. I didn't rank one win wonders too highly or guys who just beat around the bush fighting b level guys so that's why you will see guys like forrest and floyd so low. i didn't do some piece of sh-ite fantasy who would beat who either. i ranked them on what they did do and how guys performed in fights even if "officially" there's an L where i don't agree.

1. marlon starling
2. oscar de la hoya
3. donald curry

4. mosley
5. honeyghan
6. margarito
7. pac
8. cotto
9. whitaker
10. trinidad

11. mayweather
12. mayorga
13. breland
14. clottey
15. quartey
16. spinks
17. brown
18. forrest
19. williams
20. mcgirt

Daggum, you have Clottey above Brown, Forrest, McGirt, Spinks and Quartey? That is insane. Clottey's best win is a past it Judah. That's actually it. That's about all he did, apart from Corrales. You've got him above Simon Brown.....

Clottey literally did nothing in comparison to all of these guys. He should be 20, at the highest. Brown unified the division, made 8 defences over 3 years, beat champions like Blocker, Vaca, Trice, Santana....only lost to two of the very best champs. What the hell man?

Quartey lost once at the weight, to Oscar in a very close arguable SD, that most actually thought he snuck. He also got jobbed against Lopez, initially winning it which was obvious, then somehow it got changed to a MDraw. He actually beat a champion, and made numerous good defences.

It's unarguable that he's better than Clottey, by a long, long way.

Even McGirt. He beat Simon Brown for his 147 title. A unified champion. Not a vacant, paper title against a broken, faded fighter. That one win annihilates Clotteys whole career, and we don't even need to look at his others. As much as I love Clottey, he simply doesn't belong. He lost every single big fight he had, won a vacant title off a past it Judah....then lost it in his very next fight. A shot Diego Corrales and a past it Judah are his best wins, by a long way. Jesus man! What were you thinking! Get him off!

Forrest beat prime, undefeated Mosley x 2. That alone, better by lightyears. You say he's a one win wonder? Clottey has so much less than that. His best wins are literally, Judah, Corrales and then Jose Luis Cruz, a low rated contender. Vernon has P4P number one, undefeated, prime Mosley x 2, Phillips, Oliveira. Top heavy, but its better than being not even anything heavy. Clottey isn't even a one win wonder. He doesn't have a win that is even a vague local country hit.

You've even got Spinks below him? He beat a prime Judah. He also beat champions Picirillo, Pineda, Vaca, Gonzalez, he unified the division against Mayorga, became the Undisputed, lineal champion and made 4 or 5 defenses.

Man, my brain hurts. This is serious NSB madness at work. Why is Margarito above these guys too?

[MisterHardtop]

Don't know what you were doing but most I knew all thought he was clearly at the end of his career, and while people didn't realise how shot he actually was, they knew he done as a great fighter at the top. He looked awful against Steve Forbes, and a lot of people were saying he was done after seeing that fight. A lot.

That's why Roach and everyone was so confident with the fight. It was clear to a lot of people that he was done.

It is interesting though the way you spin each win. Oscar was more shot than Mosley, whatever people thought before. He also hadn't won a top fight in many years, while Mosley, despite coming off inactivity, was still coming off one of the greatest wins of his whole career and looked incredible in it.

Anyway, we all have our biases.

I explained my reasoning well enough I believe. Tell me how many people, involved in boxing, journalists and fighters, thought that Pacquiao could win. It was like a 70-30 divide in favour of Oscar, even after the weight issues which were being rumoured for a few weeks.

We all saw Mosley against Margarito and it was a great win but every great fighter has one last great performance. This was his, just before we'd seen him struggle for 12 rounds against an almost past it Mayorga. Then came the almost year and a half of inactivity, in which he went to 2 training camps and it was pretty obvious that this was no the same Mosley. In fact, there was criticism leveled at Mayweather for a long time during and after the build up with regards to facing Mosley at such a late stage in his career.

None of this is anything other than fact. I really have nothing more to say on this matter because there is nothing more to say.

Edit: It's not just that Pacquiao won, it's how he won. In fact, the few who thought Pacquiao would win, including friend Matthew Hurley, thought it would be via close decision. No one expected that utter annihilation.

[MisterHardtop]

The bold part. A lil biased if you ask me. You put Whitaker A for ODH and B for Tito. ODH beat Whitaker in a controversial win. but then you put ODH B under Tito because it was a controversial win.

Oscar did have a controversial win but it was by no means a robbery. Many writers at the time thought Whitaker had made the fight tough for Oscar, he'd made it ugly but Whitaker's activity was just too low and by this stage he was more concerned with clowning than winning rounds. Oscar won the fight but didn't look good doing it, a rarity at this point in his career and much like Marquez, Whitaker and a few fans screamed robbery when there was no such thing.

With the Tito fight, you just have to watch it to see that Oscar won a minimum of 7 rounds, that is a bare minimum, I'd have him winning 8 or 9. Yes he looked lackadaisical in the "championship" rounds and I gave Tito those rounds but winning scraps at the end of the battle does not make you the victor. It is quite possibly the worst decision I have ever seen, ranked nicely alongside Whitaker/Chavez and Pacquiao/Bradley. Even giving credit to Felix for that win is a massive step.