Greatest Welterweights: All Time & Modern

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Leonard
4. Gavilán
5. Napoles
6. Griffith
7. Britton
8. Walcott
9. Burley
10. Hearns

Modern

1. Leonard
2. Napoles
3. Hearns
4. Trinidad
5. De la Hoya
6. Whitaker
7. Mayweather
8. Duran
9. Curry
10. Starling

Another Mayweather thread, just what we all wanted.

Even I'm bored.

Nice lists then. I guess!!

I don't mind taking the modern list down if that spares another pandemic of frothing at the mouth?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Another Mayweather thread, just what we all wanted.

Well, if it turns out that way, you've got the ball rolling.

Atila wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Another Mayweather thread, just what we all wanted.

Well, if it turns out that way, you've got the ball rolling.

Don't tell them. You spoil all the fun of waiting to see how long it will take to work these things out for themselves.

Haz you know what you were doing lol

I do? It's becoming like a Monty Python sketch on here.

"Is Joe Frazier overrated?"

"I see what you've done here. Nudge, nudge, wink wink. Mayweather thread innit?"

Napoles should be above Gavilan, for me, and I'd always have Ross inside the top ten, too. But it's an incredibly stacked division, arguably the deepest of the lot.

1) Robinson 2) Leonard 3) Armstrong 4) Napoles 5) Gavilan 6) Walcott 7) Griffith 8) Ross 9) Hearns 10) Britton

Not sure Armstrong as a pure fighter was inside the top three Welters (Lightweight was probably his best fit), but his record at the weight deserves a place on the medal podium, I'd say. Hearns is tricky. On record, he's nowhere near top ten; won the title (not the lineal one, either) from a very dangerous but not elite level fighter in Cuevas, made a small handful of defences against solid but unspectacular opposition and then lost inside-schedule in a unification bout to the best Welter he faced.

But - and it's a big but - the guy he lost to was perhaps one of only two, possibly three fighters in history who could have beaten Tommy at 147, and there's little doubt that Hearns at Welter is a terrifying specimen. So for the reverse reasons that I've got Armstrong so high, I have to find space for Hearns in there, too.

Frazier would of been a champ for years 20 or so years earlier

Or even 30 for that matter.

88Chris05 wrote:Napoles should be above Gavilan, for me, and I'd always have Ross inside the top ten, too. But it's an incredibly stacked division, arguably the deepest of the lot.

1) Robinson 2) Leonard 3) Armstrong 4) Napoles 5) Gavilan 6) Walcott 7) Griffith 8) Ross 9) Hearns 10) Britton

Not sure Armstrong as a pure fighter was inside the top three Welters (Lightweight was probably his best fit), but his record at the weight deserves a place on the medal podium, I'd say. Hearns is tricky. On record, he's nowhere near top ten; won the title (not the lineal one, either) from a very dangerous but not elite level fighter in Cuevas, made a small handful of defences against solid but unspectacular opposition and then lost inside-schedule in a unification bout to the best Welter he faced.

But - and it's a big but - the guy he lost to was perhaps one of only two, possibly three fighters in history who could have beaten Tommy at 147, and there's little doubt that Hearns at Welter is a terrifying specimen. So for the reverse reasons that I've got Armstrong so high, I have to find space for Hearns in there, too.

Leonard and Armstrong are so difficult to split and maybe Hearns belongs just outside of the top ten; though his losing effort to Leonard was a better effort than many pull off in victory.

Gets tough around number 10 with Hearns, Ryan, Walker, Ross and Basilio all in the argument.

AdamT wrote:Frazier would of been a champ for years 20 or so years earlier

He was a champ for years...

He was. But not for 17 years.

Back to the thread. Should Srl be number 2?

88Chris05 wrote:Napoles should be above Gavilan, for me, and I'd always have Ross inside the top ten, too. But it's an incredibly stacked division, arguably the deepest of the lot.

1) Robinson 2) Leonard 3) Armstrong 4) Napoles 5) Gavilan 6) Walcott 7) Griffith 8) Ross 9) Hearns 10) Britton

Not sure Armstrong as a pure fighter was inside the top three Welters (Lightweight was probably his best fit), but his record at the weight deserves a place on the medal podium, I'd say. Hearns is tricky. On record, he's nowhere near top ten; won the title (not the lineal one, either) from a very dangerous but not elite level fighter in Cuevas, made a small handful of defences against solid but unspectacular opposition and then lost inside-schedule in a unification bout to the best Welter he faced.

But - and it's a big but - the guy he lost to was perhaps one of only two, possibly three fighters in history who could have beaten Tommy at 147, and there's little doubt that Hearns at Welter is a terrifying specimen. So for the reverse reasons that I've got Armstrong so high, I have to find space for Hearns in there, too.

I think the way to rate Armstrong at welter is to separate the greatest champion at the weight, and the greatest fighter at the weight. Armstrong for me, is the greatest welterweight champion and Robinson most likely the greatest fighter. Just like heavyweight, Louis the greatest champion, Ali the greatest fighter.

Duran is a question mark for me on the modern fighters list. His record as welterweight champion was 1 and 1, with a 5 month reign.

Atila wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Napoles should be above Gavilan, for me, and I'd always have Ross inside the top ten, too. But it's an incredibly stacked division, arguably the deepest of the lot.

1) Robinson 2) Leonard 3) Armstrong 4) Napoles 5) Gavilan 6) Walcott 7) Griffith 8) Ross 9) Hearns 10) Britton

Not sure Armstrong as a pure fighter was inside the top three Welters (Lightweight was probably his best fit), but his record at the weight deserves a place on the medal podium, I'd say. Hearns is tricky. On record, he's nowhere near top ten; won the title (not the lineal one, either) from a very dangerous but not elite level fighter in Cuevas, made a small handful of defences against solid but unspectacular opposition and then lost inside-schedule in a unification bout to the best Welter he faced.

But - and it's a big but - the guy he lost to was perhaps one of only two, possibly three fighters in history who could have beaten Tommy at 147, and there's little doubt that Hearns at Welter is a terrifying specimen. So for the reverse reasons that I've got Armstrong so high, I have to find space for Hearns in there, too.

I think the way to rate Armstrong at welter is to separate the greatest champion at the weight, and the greatest fighter at the weight. Armstrong for me, is the greatest welterweight champion and Robinson most likely the greatest fighter. Just like heavyweight, Louis the greatest champion, Ali the greatest fighter.

Duran is a question mark for me on the modern fighters list. His record as welterweight champion was 1 and 1, with a 5 month reign.

Good point on Duran. The Leonard win is probably the greatest in divisional history (he also beat Palomino here but yeah, not much more - think he was 7-1 at 147).

Saying that, Oscar was never champ - maybe he's too high?

No place for Ted Kid Lewis?

Possibly the greatest boxer Britain has produced. Born Gershon Mendeloff, The Kid fought 238 times from  1909 to 1929- and in pretty much every weight division.

Lewis was successful in America where he and arch-rival Jack Britton took it in turns to take possession of the title belt.

They met an incredible 20 times, the pair even played cards together before contests.

hazharrison wrote:

Atila wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Napoles should be above Gavilan, for me, and I'd always have Ross inside the top ten, too. But it's an incredibly stacked division, arguably the deepest of the lot.

1) Robinson 2) Leonard 3) Armstrong 4) Napoles 5) Gavilan 6) Walcott 7) Griffith 8) Ross 9) Hearns 10) Britton

Not sure Armstrong as a pure fighter was inside the top three Welters (Lightweight was probably his best fit), but his record at the weight deserves a place on the medal podium, I'd say. Hearns is tricky. On record, he's nowhere near top ten; won the title (not the lineal one, either) from a very dangerous but not elite level fighter in Cuevas, made a small handful of defences against solid but unspectacular opposition and then lost inside-schedule in a unification bout to the best Welter he faced.

But - and it's a big but - the guy he lost to was perhaps one of only two, possibly three fighters in history who could have beaten Tommy at 147, and there's little doubt that Hearns at Welter is a terrifying specimen. So for the reverse reasons that I've got Armstrong so high, I have to find space for Hearns in there, too.

I think the way to rate Armstrong at welter is to separate the greatest champion at the weight, and the greatest fighter at the weight. Armstrong for me, is the greatest welterweight champion and Robinson most likely the greatest fighter. Just like heavyweight, Louis the greatest champion, Ali the greatest fighter.

Duran is a question mark for me on the modern fighters list. His record as welterweight champion was 1 and 1, with a 5 month reign.

Good point on Duran. The Leonard win is probably the greatest in divisional history (he also beat Palomino here but yeah, not much more - think he was 7-1 at 147).

Saying that, Oscar was never champ - maybe he's too high?

Why do you say that Oscar was never champ? You mean lineal? If so, Hearns was never the lineal champ.

Atila wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Atila wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Napoles should be above Gavilan, for me, and I'd always have Ross inside the top ten, too. But it's an incredibly stacked division, arguably the deepest of the lot.

1) Robinson 2) Leonard 3) Armstrong 4) Napoles 5) Gavilan 6) Walcott 7) Griffith 8) Ross 9) Hearns 10) Britton

Not sure Armstrong as a pure fighter was inside the top three Welters (Lightweight was probably his best fit), but his record at the weight deserves a place on the medal podium, I'd say. Hearns is tricky. On record, he's nowhere near top ten; won the title (not the lineal one, either) from a very dangerous but not elite level fighter in Cuevas, made a small handful of defences against solid but unspectacular opposition and then lost inside-schedule in a unification bout to the best Welter he faced.

But - and it's a big but - the guy he lost to was perhaps one of only two, possibly three fighters in history who could have beaten Tommy at 147, and there's little doubt that Hearns at Welter is a terrifying specimen. So for the reverse reasons that I've got Armstrong so high, I have to find space for Hearns in there, too.

I think the way to rate Armstrong at welter is to separate the greatest champion at the weight, and the greatest fighter at the weight. Armstrong for me, is the greatest welterweight champion and Robinson most likely the greatest fighter. Just like heavyweight, Louis the greatest champion, Ali the greatest fighter.

Duran is a question mark for me on the modern fighters list. His record as welterweight champion was 1 and 1, with a 5 month reign.

Good point on Duran. The Leonard win is probably the greatest in divisional history (he also beat Palomino here but yeah, not much more - think he was 7-1 at 147).

Saying that, Oscar was never champ - maybe he's too high?

Why do you say that Oscar was never champ? You mean lineal? If so, Hearns was never the lineal champ.

Yeah, Oscar's situation was similar to Tommy's - both Oscar and Tito held a title and eventually, Tito eliminated Oscar for the full championship (in the same way Leonard eliminated Hearns).

Herman Jaeger wrote:No place for Ted Kid Lewis?

Possibly the greatest boxer Britain has produced. Born Gershon Mendeloff, The Kid fought 238 times from  1909 to 1929- and in pretty much every weight division.

Lewis was successful in America where he and arch-rival Jack Britton took it in turns to take possession of the title belt.

They met an incredible 20 times, the pair even played cards together before contests.

Yes, should have mentioned Lewis in that previous post. Wondering whether Burley and Hearns should take those last two spots?

I quite like seeing Burley's name on that list, Tommy there or thereabouts could even be just outside the top ten at eleven or twelve also just purely on record Tommy

gavilan obviously suffers from being in the robinson era... like de jesus suffers from being in the duran era. Who knows how we'd see him, otherwise, but he can't make the higher echelons of this list for me.

Armstrong is a weird one to quantify... record number of defences, but in a very short space of time fighting well above his optimum weight. Its a monumental achievement, but it comes down to what you want in these lists. The best fighters (how long did they have to be there for)... who'd win a super six type tournament... or who has the best record at the weight... and how much credence do you give to a championship reign.

It tends to be Napoles who gets short shrift, in the welter lists for me. He went a ridiculously long time, only losing 1 fight on cuts (interupting a 6 year title reign). He was getting towards the end of his career by the monzon loss, where he gave, size weight and reach to an ATG. Hell of a fighter and hell of a record, though lacking the 'great' wins, other than griffiths. Took him a long time to get his title shot. Good to see him featuring pretty high here.

Leonard? Well it's a very short run of great wins... and a loss

Robinson,
leonard/napoles depending on my mood
armstrong
gavilan/griffith
... the rest

might be flattering griffith a bit as a pure welter

http://www.ibroresearch.com/2006/09/welterweights/

Maybe that was unfair of me on Tommy, Burley perhaps looks a little low on this this list, I think his stock has risen though since the rise of the Internet, happily

What about the modern list? Had real issues splitting Tito, Oscar and Pea.

All have numerous ABC defences.

Trinidad has that win over Oscar and one over a faded Pea (the most comprehensive defeat of Pea's career). He also beat a 56-0 Yory Boy Campas.

Oscar had Quartey and Whitaker with the defeats to Trinidad and Mosley - you could make an argument for him winning or losing three of those (with the Mosley fight close but pretty clear). Tito and Oscar also beat Oba Carr - a very good fighter.

Whitaker has Chavez and a couple of very good wins over McGirt (despite McGirt's shoulder injury).

Oh these lists were actually your own??

I thought you found another biased idiot to back you up, so you were showing them off.

The modern list is rubbish, but I guess you already know that.

I won't give reasons, because then I would have to bite. Stop reading articles and other rubbish and actually watch the sport.

I'm far from knowledgeable Haz and judging by your recent posts, you certainly aren't either.

This might sound rude, but you reek of a failed desperate boxing writer.

AdamT wrote:Oh these lists were actually your own??

I thought you found another biased idiot to back you up, so you were showing them off.

The modern list is rubbish, but I guess you already know that.

I won't give reasons, because then I would have to bite. Stop reading articles and other rubbish and actually watch the sport.

I'm far from knowledgeable Haz and judging by your recent posts, you certainly aren't either.

This might sound rude, but you reek of a failed desperate boxing writer.

[Insert frothing mouth emoticon]

Great as he was, I'm not sure Ted Lewis was a top ten Welter, Herman.

It might have only been by the skin of his teeth, but Britton did edge him out in their contests which weren't 'No Decision' affairs, although the fact that Lewis was stipulated to come in under the Lightweight limit when he first took Britton's Welterweight title does carry a lot of sway, I guess.

Too much competition at 147 for a guy such as Lewis, who tended to be level-pegging with his greatest rivals rather than ahead of them, to be included here. Top twenty without a doubt, mind you.

Interesting that Armando Muniz, who shared a right with both Napoles and Ray Leonard, opined pretty unequivocally in 2010 that Napoles was the better fighter than Leonard and would have beaten him head-to-head, something I was quick to point out a couple of years back when I was trying to figure out why Gavilan almost always gets ranked ahead of his fellow Cuban in the Welter lists when he really shouldn't be!

As for who gets the nineties nod between Oscar, Trinidad and Pea. Well, on record I guess it would have to be Tito - he beat the other two guys, more or less fully unified the division and didn't ship a single loss as a 147 pounder. The downside is that Pea was over the hill when Trinidad beat him, and the verdict which got him past Oscar was questionable to say the least.

Still, Whitaker and De la Hoya weren't immune to the odd close shave at Welterweight, either (Rivera I in Whitaker's case, Quartey in Oscar's) even if those fights weren't as controversial as Trinidad-De la Hoya, and the way that Trinidad wrecked capable fighters such as Blocker and Campas (albeit not without tasting the canvas now and then) must be considered.

Not giving it too much thought and guess I'd change my mind if I did, but right now I'll go Trinidad just ahead, with De la Hoya and Whitaker tied behind him.

But - and I'm sorry about this, Haz - I think Mayweather's record as a Welterweight, despite it not being his best weight class, outstrips all of them.

88Chris05 wrote:Great as he was, I'm not sure Ted Lewis was a top ten Welter, Herman.

It might have only been by the skin of his teeth, but Britton did edge him out in their contests which weren't 'No Decision' affairs, although the fact that Lewis was stipulated to come in under the Lightweight limit when he first took Britton's Welterweight title does carry a lot of sway, I guess.

Too much competition at 147 for a guy such as Lewis, who tended to be level-pegging with his greatest rivals rather than ahead of them, to be included here. Top twenty without a doubt, mind you.

Interesting that Armando Muniz, who shared a right with both Napoles and Ray Leonard, opined pretty unequivocally in 2010 that Napoles was the better fighter than Leonard and would have beaten him head-to-head, something I was quick to point out a couple of years back when I was trying to figure out why Gavilan almost always gets ranked ahead of his fellow Cuban in the Welter lists when he really shouldn't be!

As for who gets the nineties nod between Oscar, Trinidad and Pea. Well, on record I guess it would have to be Tito - he beat the other two guys, more or less fully unified the division and didn't ship a single loss as a 147 pounder. The downside is that Pea was over the hill when Trinidad beat him, and the verdict which got him past Oscar was questionable to say the least.

Still, Whitaker and De la Hoya weren't immune to the odd close shave at Welterweight, either (Rivera I in Whitaker's case, Quartey in Oscar's) even if those fights weren't as controversial as Trinidad-De la Hoya, and the way that Trinidad wrecked capable fighters such as Blocker and Campas (albeit not without tasting the canvas now and then) must be considered.

Not giving it too much thought and guess I'd change my mind if I did, but right now I'll go Trinidad just ahead, with De la Hoya and Whitaker tied behind him.

But - and I'm sorry about this, Haz - I think Mayweather's record as a Welterweight, despite it not being his best weight class, outstrips all of them.

Oh, you had to go there...

I did have a look but couldn't agree. You've got faded versions of Pacquiao and Mosley and the rest ranged from Ok to average. Alvarez and Cotto (his two best wins in the Money era) were both at 154 (as was Oscar).

So around 11 fights (don't know what you'd class Marquez as) and only unified towards the end of his 10 year stint. Crucially (for me at least), Oscar, Trinidad and Pea all took on their biggest rival (Ok, Pea's was in a P4P sense rather than a 147 rival) at welter.

Oscar was 10-3 I think (and we can discount Pacquiao). The two defeats to Trinidad and Mosley were as close as you like and they were both in their absolute prime. Whitaker still had it (just) and Quartey was also in his prime (albeit Oscar made him wait a long time in between fights). I'll take that over a spotless record over lesser opponents. Trinidad and Quartey were absolute killers at 147.

Floyd

Mitchell
Judah
Baldomir
Hatton
Mosley
Ortiz
Guerrero
Maidana x 2
Pacquiao
Berto

Oscar

Whitaker
Kamau
Camacho
Rivera
Charpentier
Chavez
Quartey
Carr
Trinindad
Mosley
Coley
Gatti
Pacquiao

Yes I'd be quite happy to place Lewis at the 11-15 mark approx. Chris, such is the level of competition at welterweight  perhaps welterweight the most competitive division  of the lot when it comes to these all time lists:

http://www.peterharrington.co.uk/blog/the-greatest-fighter-ever-to-come-out-of-britain-original-photographs-of-ted-kid-lewis/

It sometimes comes down to more than just looking on Boxrec at a record and including De La Hoya's losses in there is a bit misleading to be honest but standard for you really.

De La Hoya is a marmite fighter, you either think he was unlucky or lucky and i'd go with the former, just about edged Whitaker and Quartey but was downright robbed against Trinidad, he won the first 8 rounds easily in that one.

I also think Armstrong gets rated a bit too highly at Welterweight, aside from the Barney Ross and Garcia win he was a lightweight masquerading as a Welterweight against fellow lightweights or crap. Some of his defences were shambolic to say the least, as truly great as he was he's a tad over rated at 147lbs but fully deserving of his top three p4p place.

I don't have too much beef with the modern list, if it's purely welter. Manny and cotto might be knocking on starling's shoulder?

I feel Oscar peaked early and looked a better fighter below 147. He had as has been discussed, a series of close fights he won that could have gone the other way, and vice versa. Whittaker was a great lightweight/light welter who was good enough to be a very good welter but he always looked a bit small and fleshy. Trinidad is the one who was a career welter and probably has the best cv of the 3 at the weight.

If you buy the weight drained argument you can make a good argument that curry could be higher, and that hearns best performance at welter was being ahead on points when Leonard stopped him! I think on records there's a clear top 2, and I wouldn't fight too hard over the order of the rest of them. Fine margins.

Very hard to judge as probably the best sequences of performances at this weight tend to come from boxers who eventually have to move up as making the weight becomes impossible.

You can almost split the contenders into two groups, those who were welterweights early in their careers and were often rather destructive before moving up weight division(s).

Then those who come later in life to the class, bringing experience and skill, but less power.

I would say that (Leonard excepted) Curry was possibly the best I saw fight at this weight, yet Honeyghans destruction of him was perhaps the best fight I have ever seen from a Brit. Sugar Ray Leonard was really a class apart from his peers - yet even he has a defeat at this weight.

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Great as he was, I'm not sure Ted Lewis was a top ten Welter, Herman.

It might have only been by the skin of his teeth, but Britton did edge him out in their contests which weren't 'No Decision' affairs, although the fact that Lewis was stipulated to come in under the Lightweight limit when he first took Britton's Welterweight title does carry a lot of sway, I guess.

Too much competition at 147 for a guy such as Lewis, who tended to be level-pegging with his greatest rivals rather than ahead of them, to be included here. Top twenty without a doubt, mind you.

Interesting that Armando Muniz, who shared a right with both Napoles and Ray Leonard, opined pretty unequivocally in 2010 that Napoles was the better fighter than Leonard and would have beaten him head-to-head, something I was quick to point out a couple of years back when I was trying to figure out why Gavilan almost always gets ranked ahead of his fellow Cuban in the Welter lists when he really shouldn't be!

As for who gets the nineties nod between Oscar, Trinidad and Pea. Well, on record I guess it would have to be Tito - he beat the other two guys, more or less fully unified the division and didn't ship a single loss as a 147 pounder. The downside is that Pea was over the hill when Trinidad beat him, and the verdict which got him past Oscar was questionable to say the least.

Still, Whitaker and De la Hoya weren't immune to the odd close shave at Welterweight, either (Rivera I in Whitaker's case, Quartey in Oscar's) even if those fights weren't as controversial as Trinidad-De la Hoya, and the way that Trinidad wrecked capable fighters such as Blocker and Campas (albeit not without tasting the canvas now and then) must be considered.

Not giving it too much thought and guess I'd change my mind if I did, but right now I'll go Trinidad just ahead, with De la Hoya and Whitaker tied behind him.

But - and I'm sorry about this, Haz - I think Mayweather's record as a Welterweight, despite it not being his best weight class, outstrips all of them.

Oh, you had to go there...

I did have a look but couldn't agree. You've got faded versions of Pacquiao and Mosley and the rest ranged from Ok to average. Alvarez and Cotto (his two best wins in the Money era) were both at 154 (as was Oscar).

So around 11 fights (don't know what you'd class Marquez as) and only unified towards the end of his 10 year stint. Crucially (for me at least), Oscar, Trinidad and Pea all took on their biggest rival (Ok, Pea's was in a P4P sense rather than a 147 rival) at welter.

Oscar was 10-3 I think (and we can discount Pacquiao). The two defeats to Trinidad and Mosley were as close as you like and they were both in their absolute prime. Whitaker still had it (just) and Quartey was also in his prime (albeit Oscar made him wait a long time in between fights). I'll take that over a spotless record over lesser opponents. Trinidad and Quartey were absolute killers at 147.

Floyd              
             
Mitchell                  
Judah  
Baldomir                  
Hatton  
Mosley  
Ortiz  
Guerrero                  
Maidana x 2  
Pacquiao                  
Berto        

Oscar

Whitaker
Kamau
Camacho
Rivera
Charpentier
Chavez
Quartey
Carr
Trinindad
Mosley
Coley
Gatti
Pacquiao

Oscar has the better prime names on record, but do his losses not count against him??

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It sometimes comes down to more than just looking on Boxrec at a record and including De La Hoya's losses in there is a bit misleading to be honest but standard for you really.

De La Hoya is a marmite fighter, you either think he was unlucky or lucky and i'd go with the former, just about edged Whitaker and Quartey but was downright robbed against Trinidad, he won the first 8 rounds easily in that one.

I also think Armstrong gets rated a bit too highly at Welterweight, aside from the Barney Ross and Garcia win he was a lightweight masquerading as a Welterweight against fellow lightweights or crap. Some of his defences were shambolic to say the least, as truly great as he was he's a tad over rated at 147lbs but fully deserving of his top three p4p place.

As I've already explained, I don't hold De la Hoya's losses against him too harshly - he more or less went even up with Whitaker, Quartey, Tito and Mosley. That's a quality run (though I scored the latter three for the other guy - but we're only talking a round or two here and there and I was in the minority ref: Quartey). I value the fact he fought them (especially Tito and Quartey) far more than a string of fights against lower level opponents.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It sometimes comes down to more than just looking on Boxrec at a record and including De La Hoya's losses in there is a bit misleading to be honest but standard for you really.

De La Hoya is a marmite fighter, you either think he was unlucky or lucky and i'd go with the former, just about edged Whitaker and Quartey but was downright robbed against Trinidad, he won the first 8 rounds easily in that one.

I also think Armstrong gets rated a bit too highly at Welterweight, aside from the Barney Ross and Garcia win he was a lightweight masquerading as a Welterweight against fellow lightweights or crap. Some of his defences were shambolic to say the least, as truly great as he was he's a tad over rated at 147lbs but fully deserving of his top three p4p place.

As I've already explained, I don't hold De la Hoya's losses against him too harshly - he more or less went even up with Whitaker, Quartey, Tito and Mosley. That's a quality run (though I scored the latter three for the other guy - but we're only talking a round or two here and there). I value the fact he fought them (especially Tito and Quartey) far more than a string of fights against lower level opponents.

So if Floyd fought Pacquaio sooner who else should he fought?

Surely Haz, you would put Floyd over Cotto at 147. It would be no different than 154.

I do think he should of fought Williams. Though F..k Margarito, he's a cheating c**t!!

milkyboy wrote:I don't have too much beef with the modern list, if it's purely welter. Manny and cotto might be knocking on starling's shoulder?

I feel Oscar peaked early and looked a better fighter below 147. He had as has been discussed, a series of close fights he won that could have gone the other way, and vice versa. Whittaker was a great lightweight/light welter who was good enough to be a very good welter but he always looked a bit small and fleshy. Trinidad is the one who was a career welter and probably has the best cv of the 3 at the weight.

If you buy the weight drained argument you can make a good argument that curry could be higher, and that hearns best performance at welter was being ahead on points when Leonard stopped him! I think on records there's a clear top 2, and I wouldn't fight too hard over the order of the rest of them. Fine margins.

Good call on Cotto - the win over Mosley was quality (Mosley wasn't over the hill at that point, though he'd been whupped by Forrest and Wright).

I agree on Oscar - thought he looked a far better fighter against Hernandez than he ever became at 147. I blame the constant merry-go-round of trainers. From Jesse Reid, to Steward, Mayweather, Roach etc. he went away from the style that marked him out as special.

AdamT wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Great as he was, I'm not sure Ted Lewis was a top ten Welter, Herman.

It might have only been by the skin of his teeth, but Britton did edge him out in their contests which weren't 'No Decision' affairs, although the fact that Lewis was stipulated to come in under the Lightweight limit when he first took Britton's Welterweight title does carry a lot of sway, I guess.

Too much competition at 147 for a guy such as Lewis, who tended to be level-pegging with his greatest rivals rather than ahead of them, to be included here. Top twenty without a doubt, mind you.

Interesting that Armando Muniz, who shared a right with both Napoles and Ray Leonard, opined pretty unequivocally in 2010 that Napoles was the better fighter than Leonard and would have beaten him head-to-head, something I was quick to point out a couple of years back when I was trying to figure out why Gavilan almost always gets ranked ahead of his fellow Cuban in the Welter lists when he really shouldn't be!

As for who gets the nineties nod between Oscar, Trinidad and Pea. Well, on record I guess it would have to be Tito - he beat the other two guys, more or less fully unified the division and didn't ship a single loss as a 147 pounder. The downside is that Pea was over the hill when Trinidad beat him, and the verdict which got him past Oscar was questionable to say the least.

Still, Whitaker and De la Hoya weren't immune to the odd close shave at Welterweight, either (Rivera I in Whitaker's case, Quartey in Oscar's) even if those fights weren't as controversial as Trinidad-De la Hoya, and the way that Trinidad wrecked capable fighters such as Blocker and Campas (albeit not without tasting the canvas now and then) must be considered.

Not giving it too much thought and guess I'd change my mind if I did, but right now I'll go Trinidad just ahead, with De la Hoya and Whitaker tied behind him.

But - and I'm sorry about this, Haz - I think Mayweather's record as a Welterweight, despite it not being his best weight class, outstrips all of them.

Oh, you had to go there...

I did have a look but couldn't agree. You've got faded versions of Pacquiao and Mosley and the rest ranged from Ok to average. Alvarez and Cotto (his two best wins in the Money era) were both at 154 (as was Oscar).

So around 11 fights (don't know what you'd class Marquez as) and only unified towards the end of his 10 year stint. Crucially (for me at least), Oscar, Trinidad and Pea all took on their biggest rival (Ok, Pea's was in a P4P sense rather than a 147 rival) at welter.

Oscar was 10-3 I think (and we can discount Pacquiao). The two defeats to Trinidad and Mosley were as close as you like and they were both in their absolute prime. Whitaker still had it (just) and Quartey was also in his prime (albeit Oscar made him wait a long time in between fights). I'll take that over a spotless record over lesser opponents. Trinidad and Quartey were absolute killers at 147.

Floyd              
             
Mitchell                  
Judah  
Baldomir                  
Hatton  
Mosley  
Ortiz  
Guerrero                  
Maidana x 2  
Pacquiao                  
Berto        

Oscar

Whitaker
Kamau
Camacho
Rivera
Charpentier
Chavez
Quartey
Carr
Trinindad
Mosley
Coley
Gatti
Pacquiao

Oscar has the better prime names on record, but do his losses not count against him??

Pacquiao was irrelevant (he was shot).

A lot (if not a majority) of folk believe he won the Tito fight and so I'm not sure how that can be held against him.

He was beaten clearly against Mosley in a very close fight but Mosley's subsequent drugs bust does cast aspersions over what looked a wonderful performance (one where he came on strong down the stretch - as he would in their 154 pound rematch).

I too picked him over Trinidad, but if we are to ignore official results, then a huge can of worms gets opened Haz.

I'm not being a c..t. If you think Oscar has a more worthy record at WW, that's fine. He definitely has some good names.

AdamT wrote:I too picked him over Trinidad, but if we are to ignore official results, then a huge can of worms gets opened Haz.

I'm not being a c..t. If you think Oscar has a more worthy record at WW, that's fine. He definitely has some good names.

I'm not suggesting we ignore official results but it was a defeat you can't hold too harshly against him (no-one would have complained about a draw).

To be honest, neither fighter covered themselves in glory that night. They proved they probably belonged a level or so below the likes of Leonard and Hearns (as welterweights) as neither truly grasped the nettle. But they both took one another on, in their primes, both unbeaten and at their best weight - there's a lot to admire in that.

I have no problem admitting they were below Hearns or Leonard standard.

Both them guys beat any modern Welter. Duran too.

Here's another list which looks quite good:

http://www.boxingscene.com/-top-25-welterweights-all-time-top-ten--23544


Manny and Floyd not considered yet for me as neither retired for five years

Here's a list that does include Manny and Floyd but no Kid Gavilan which is a big omission no doubt. Scroll down and click next:

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/the-10-greatest-welterweights-of-all-time/

And another list, Ray looking relaxed in a nice bit of tweed:

http://www.thesweetscience.com/feature-articles/22132-the-50-greatest-welterweights-of-all-time-part-five-10-1

Aside from Britton and Lewis being too high it's a decent list.

Robinson, Leonard, Napoles, Armstrong and Griffiths are shoe-ins for the top five, in that order too. It's good to see Griffith and Napoles getting the recognition they deserve, two often overlooked greats who on their day could beat absolutely anybody.

Herman Jaeger wrote:And another list, Ray looking relaxed in a nice bit of tweed:

http://www.thesweetscience.com/feature-articles/22132-the-50-greatest-welterweights-of-all-time-part-five-10-1

He really puts the graft in McGrain.

He's just done a lightweight list which is worth a read.

He goes for a controversial 1,2,3 as well!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Aside from Britton and Lewis being too high it's a decent list.

Robinson, Leonard, Napoles, Armstrong and Griffiths are shoe-ins for the top five, in that order too. It's good to see Griffith and Napoles getting the recognition they deserve, two often overlooked greats who on their day could beat absolutely anybody.

Everything is fact with you nothing is opinion..

Show a bit of balance 'mun

Shame you're an alias though, that means there's even less of us than we thought...

What are you going on about this time you freak?

You're a joker mate not worth arguing with you

Bore someone else then Herman, you have nothing to offer, I doubt you've even heard of half the fighters on those lists.