Top 20 Welterweights...... 1970 - present!!

Fancied a list and here is my current welter one.....My lack of knowledge is limited before the 60's so I started out in a more comfort zone..

1. Ray Leonard
2. Jose Napoles
3. Tommy Hearns
4. Felix Trinidad
5. Pernell Whittaker
6. Pipino Cuevas
7. Floyd Mayweather
8. Donald Curry
9. Oscar de la Hoya
9. Wilfred Benitez
10.Marlon Starling
11. Roberto Duran
12. Simon Brown
13. Carlos Palomino
14..Ike Quartey
15. Miguel Cotto
16. Milton Mccrory
17. Lloyd Honeyghan
18. Buddy Mcgirt
19. Mark Breland
20. Antonio Margherito

swap number 7 with 16

You don't like Duran, do you, Truss?! Floyd and Oscar above Curry, for me, and there have to be places for both Duran and Pacquiao. Apart from that....looks OK.

Good list Truss, but I think Trinidad is a bit high. Don't think there can be more than a single spot between him and Oscar and I'd probably be tempted to put De la Hoya above him.

Where would you put Duran...His reign lasted one fight..

Floyd should be higher than Curry on review....

One fight - he beat three of your top 11, for God's sake. Cuevas has no business at 6 - I'd probably stick Duran around 9 or 10 and slot Cuevas and Palomino in below him.

Woah woah woah, only just realised you had Cuevas in the top half-dozen, Truss. Really? Great puncher but second in his own reign to Palomino for me, and Hearns demonstrated that Pipino was no elite 147 pounder.

Not sure I could have Brown half a dozen spots higher than McGirt either, seeing as Buddy gave him a lesson (great, great performance) to take his titles and then forced Whitaker to give one of his career-best showings to nick the titles off him.

I think most of the right names are there, mind you.

Cuevas was spent after Hearns wasn't he??....Palomino beaten later too wasn't he??..Must admit Palomino is only there because of his length of reign...never more than ordinary in my eyes..

No offence but most of Warren's fighters would be alltimers the amount of faded greats they've destroyed..

But i catch your drift..and he is in the list..

Brown was champ for four years and half unified....it's exploits at welter rather than one match.....otherwise Breland's humiliation of Honey would put him higher.

Wouldn't necessarily disagree with Brown being higher than Buddy, Truss. Just not by six spaces, that's all.

Is okay......I'd happy to take the Captain and your criticisms of the list..

If we agreed on everything life would be boring..

Dont see too much wrong with the list but agree with the consensus that Cuevas is too high and Tito is perhaps a little high also

One quarrel, is that Andre Berto at 18th? Can't think of anything that puts him anywhere close to the top 20. I'd struggle to put him that high of welterweights since 2000 thinking about it

Berto is a tough one.....I agree I may have him too high..

No offence I don't feel its a tough one

Lost to the 2 best fighters he fought who weren't even real wet lets at the time and struggled against the other 2 better wins on his resume (Collarzo and Quintana)

See what you mean Mate but Breland lost to Starling and Aaron Davis......Only real highlight was a Starling-stuffed Honeyghan...

I think you can take Berto out and replace him with any of Judah, Mosley or Margarito.

Obviously, Mosely and Margarito have certain, erm, 'issues' which cast doubt over the validity of their 147 lb exploits....So Judah it is. In fairness, his revenge win over Spinks was a cracking one and a really top class performance.

Mosley's time at welter was a consideration..Marg's talent also..

But I wouldn't argue..

Berto doesn't belong.

Antonio Margarito could possibly replace him. He had a fine run at welterweight, however, like Berto, that's been tainted (so I'd be happy to see him excluded).

Shane Mosley is worth a shout (same deal as the previous two, though).

Think I put margy in he's been put forward three times now..

Mosley topped Oscar and Margarito (and was pound-for-pound number one during his reign for what that's worth) at 147.

Good list, though.

With Drugs and Margo shouldn't count either.

Thank you Haz......Must say it's certainly improved round here with your and the captain's continuous presence...

"With Drugs and Margo"...Sounds like one of your retro British movie titles!!

it really does

I always tend to think it's a wee bit tricky ranking Hearns the Welterweight. I guess it depends on what criterion is more important to you; how good they physically were at the weight, or rather what they achieved at it.

In the latter, Hearns isn't top three material from 1970 onwards, realistically. Absolutely thrashed Cuevas, but then disposed of two or three challengers you'd roundly expect him to beat with ease anyway before losing inside-schedule to the best fighter he faced, meaning he was never the top dog at 147.

On the other hand, while Whitaker, De la Hoya and Trinidad all had that top spot sewn up at one stage or another, reigned for longer and generally had more highs at the weight than Hearns did, none of them could beat him barring a huge shock, for my money; Whitaker's too good to be disgraced but would be stuck on the outside all night and doesn't have the power to wear Tommy down, De la Hoya's far too open and Trinidad, as well as being leaky defensively, would be way too brave for his own good as well.

On balance, I might have Tommy behind Pea in fourth place. So for me it'd go Leonard, Napoles, Whitaker, Hearns, De la Hoya, Trinidad, Mayweather, Curry, Duran and Starling, more or less in order, as a top ten.

Just noticed that Benitez isn't here, which is pretty unforgivable. Must be ahead of the Margaritos and Brelands of this world.

Dear me, how did everyone forget Benitez for so long!? We're all slipping, it seems....

Probably somewhere around twelfth would be about right for him, I reckon?

Good list, would personally have Duran higher about 6, Benitez at about 9 other than than pretty spot on.

hogey wrote:Good list, would personally have Duran higher about 6, Benitez at about 9 other than than pretty spot on.

Can't have Duran higher than Benitez imo. For me he is top 5.

How long did Benitez reign at welter...to be top 5.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:How long did Benitez reign at welter...to be top 5.

Neither did Duran and Willie did beat him also.

He beat him at 154lbs.

I'd still have him above Duran at WW.

Not for me, Duran split two fights with Leonard and beat Palomino at 147lbs compared to Benitez beating Palomino and losing to Leonard. Durans win over Leonard by itself is enough to warrant him a higher placing.

Get ODLH off that list please!

I could fight elite level boxers and lose. Does that mean I should go on the list too?

Other than that, an acceptable list. Duran would be higher and Tito lower IMO. But still.

Could you beat Chavez, Camacho, Whitaker, Carr and Quartey at welterweight?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Could you beat Chavez, Camacho, Whitaker, Carr and Quartey at welterweight?

We could let him try?

One could only hope, don't think he'd see the final bell against lethal punchers like say Trinidad or Mosley as De La Hoya did. Both contentious decisions so if you were so inclined could suggest he should have been unbeaten at the weight (Pacquiao aside), I would disagree but its food for fought.

He lost for goodness sake! AND, he beat up some prime fighters, AFTER their prime. Long after in Chavez's case.

A prime PW spanks ODLH.

Never really liked Trinidad.

He's just a big, more powerful, much better, more skilled, proven and tested, ATG version of Briedas Prescot.

So not like Prescott at all then Mackem, you may not like his style but there's no denying he had ability.

Silly appraisal of De la Hoya's Welterweight career there, Davide!

There is not a single name missing from his ledger at that weight, no viable or highly demanded fights that Oscar swerved, and he acquitted himself well in all of them (I'm not including Pacquiao beating his charred remains, as I'm sure you can understand).

To me, the only fight that totally got away from him was Mosley I; although I don't like the fact that Mosley's subsequent juicing revelations casts doubt over the decision, Shane did clearly beat Oscar that night, for me.

Quartey was a cracking win, and I'm still at a loss as to how the Trinidad fight was ruled against him. Carr and Rivera were mightily impressive performances against two of the better fighters in recent times to have not won world titles.

As for the Whitaker fight, well I don't deduct Oscar any points for that, and this is coming from someone who thinks that Pea should have held on to his title that night. That fight was just about as close to a 'could have gone either way' affair as you can get, given the slight difference of opinion we all have when it comes to scoring. Of the twenty-six in the press row, fourteen had it for Whitaker, eleven to Oscar, while one had it a draw, which just goes to show how nip 'n' tuck it was.

Remember, this was De la Hoya, in his first fight at 147 lb, taking on the guy who'd been the most recognised champion in the weight class for four years and who'd spent basically the whole decade beforehand ranked as one of the very best fighters in the world, pound for pound. No shame in looking less than spectacular against Whitaker, even if it was a faded version.

We were lucky to have Oscar in boxing and I still don't think he gets his just due sometimes. Not only does he automatically belong on this list, he should also command a place in the top half dozen or so of it in my eyes, based on accomplishments as a 147 pounder.

Fancy spending all those words rebutting davide..