Top 25 Welterweights of All-Time

[elmersalsa]

I have made a compilation of the top 25 welters in history. Debates are allowed and discussed in decent manner, without name calling, please. Once a person in this forum or debate calls someone else a name in derogatory fashion should be getting notifications from the moderators.

Here is my list:
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Emile Griffith
4. Kid Gavilan
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles
7. Barbados Joe Walcott
8. Carmen Basilio
9. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
10. Thomas Hearns
11. Luis Manuel Rodriguez
12. Ted "Kid" Lewis
13. Jack Britton
14. Charley Burley
15. Jimmy McLarnin
16. Fritzie Zivic
17. Felix "Tito" Trinidad
18. Young Corbett III
19. Donald Curry
20. Pernell Whitaker
21. Mickey Walker
22. Barney Ross
23. Curtis Cokes
24. Roberto Duran
25. Holman Williams

Let's start the debate.

[Scarecrow]

Robinson, Armstrong, Napoles,Leonard,Hearns,Benitez,Duran,Cuevas.
These guys I saw along with a few of the others.
Aside from the top 2 of your list,I think definitely Napoles,Hearns and Leonard.
I thought Palomino and Cuevas could have replaced a couple of guys.I also thought Starling was a real good unique styled fighter.

While Cuevas was limited, all it took was one punch.another good list.

[dr_devious]

Good list, I would have had Leonard at 2 and Hearns at 4 or 5 and Burley in top 10 and fitted Cuevas in the lower end of the list

[elmersalsa]

Good list, I would have had Leonard at 2 and Hearns at 4 or 5 and Burley in top 10 and fitted Cuevas in the lower end of the list

I agree that Pipino could have a spot in that list. Also Carlos Palomino.

Leonard at #2?..Not
Hearns at #4?...Not

[dr_devious]

Why not? They were both amazing at 147lbs. I think Griffiths may have been too tough for Hearns in a hypothetical match up but Hearns' physical advantages, speed and power may have got him past Gavilan maybe, and almost certainly against Mayweather and Napoles. Tommy was a freak at 147lbs. I don't think putting Leonard at 2 requires any explanation

[littlepug]

Why not? They were both amazing at 147lbs. I think Griffiths may have been too tough for Hearns in a hypothetical match up but Hearns' physical advantages, speed and power may have got him past Gavilan maybe, and almost certainly against Mayweather and Napoles. Tommy was a freak at 147lbs. I don't think putting Leonard at 2 requires any explanation

Agree, Leonard was something very special at welter and had he remained there a bit longer I suspect he would be challenging for the number 1 spot.

[elmersalsa]

Why not? They were both amazing at 147lbs. I think Griffiths may have been too tough for Hearns in a hypothetical match up but Hearns' physical advantages, speed and power may have got him past Gavilan maybe, and almost certainly against Mayweather and Napoles. Tommy was a freak at 147lbs. I don't think putting Leonard at 2 requires any explanation

They are top 10 at ww. Fair enough. Leonard's career at ww was outstanding, but to put him on top of greats like Kid Gavilan and Emile Griffith, which had more longevity as fighters and championships, and beat more quality opponents wouldn't be fair.

Check Gavilan and Griffith's records and we will see a great deal of accomplishments at welterweight for them

[elmersalsa]

What about Billy Graham? How could we forget about him? He could be in this list, too, but then again, too many fighters to mention

[nickcat0]

I'd have Trinidad higher .................... At Welterweight he was 36-0, with 30 stoppages; he used to destroy opponents. It was only in his last few fights, when he moved up to Middleweight, that he lost.

[elmersalsa]

I'd have Trinidad higher .................... At Welterweight he was 36-0, with 30 stoppages; he used to destroy opponents. It was only in his last few fights, when he moved up to Middleweight, that he lost.

Good view. My only problem with Tito was that he should've won more convincingly against Oscar De La Hoya in that so much hyped fight of the millenium. It gave a sour taste on our minds and a bad memory in our minds.

That performance alone exclude him in my view in the list of top 100 p4p all time greats. He or Oscar should've closed the show in a bigger and better fashion. I know if he would've beaten Oscar by KO or by a very convincing fashion, he would've probably be in the top 5 welters of all time, including his 15 title defenses in 6 years. That was remarkable what Tito did at 147

[nickcat0]

That's a tough call ................... One mediocre performance (against a more than useful opponent) drops him from Top 5 to 17th..................... But it's all about opinions, and provides great talking points

[elmersalsa]

Do you guys believe that Billy Graham deserves a spot in the top 25? If yes, in what spot?

[ImranSarwar]

I have made a compilation of the top 25 welters in history. Debates are allowed and discussed in decent manner, without name calling, please. Once a person in this forum or debate calls someone else a name in derogatory fashion should be getting notifications from the moderators.

Here is my list:
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Emile Griffith
4. Kid Gavilan
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles
7. Barbados Joe Walcott
8. Carmen Basilio
9. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
10. Thomas Hearns
11. Luis Manuel Rodriguez
12. Ted "Kid" Lewis
13. Jack Britton
14. Charley Burley
15. Jimmy McLarnin
16. Fritzie Zivic
17. Felix "Tito" Trinidad
18. Young Corbett III
19. Donald Curry
20. Pernell Whitaker
21. Mickey Walker
22. Barney Ross
23. Curtis Cokes
24. Roberto Duran
25. Holman Williams

Let's start the debate.

I don't rate any fighter "strictly per a weight division". ALL/ALL "greatness".. This is hard list to make butDuran top 10 a.t. All-weights. & personally, since boxers are dis-allowed HOF 1St 5 years out....should that carry over to "ratings"? I mean, wouldn't you RATE MANNY? Floyd retired only a minute! But I respect your boxing acume. What would be a really good "take" would be something laying out THE -VARIOUS- points one might USE in any rating. & you know what is funny...the ERAS.. because you take a era like that of Joe Louis, "they" covered boxing then like they cover every trip the president takes these days. Boxing then was like Football now. So..one of the criteria may be the "social impact".
You ever look at BoxRec top at 147? They are "whacked" having Marlon Starling 35 or more back of Billy Backus! "Extremely FUNNY"!
Yoo, giving you my cell # 860-515-7680 text me boxing talk, elmersalsa

[ClivePatrickLyons]

Why not? They were both amazing at 147lbs. I think Griffiths may have been too tough for Hearns in a hypothetical match up but Hearns' physical advantages, speed and power may have got him past Gavilan maybe, and almost certainly against Mayweather and Napoles. Tommy was a freak at 147lbs. I don't think putting Leonard at 2 requires any explanation

They are top 10 at ww. Fair enough. Leonard's career at ww was outstanding, but to put him on top of greats like Kid Gavilan and Emile Griffith, which had more longevity as fighters and championships, and beat more quality opponents wouldn't be fair.

Check Gavilan and Griffith's records and we will see a great deal of accomplishments at welterweight for them

So SRL couldn't beat Gavilan and Griffith at Welterweight this was SRL Best weight what about Jr Middle/Middle in your opinion was he [SRL]any chance at those weight's in my view SRL beats both at any weight you choose

[Ezzard]

Robinson is out there…

After that there is

Griffith
Gavilan
Leonard
Armstrong
Britton
Walcott
Kid Lewis
Napoles

All with a shout at the number 2 spot.

[Deadendgeneration]

Why not? They were both amazing at 147lbs. I think Griffiths may have been too tough for Hearns in a hypothetical match up but Hearns' physical advantages, speed and power may have got him past Gavilan maybe, and almost certainly against Mayweather and Napoles. Tommy was a freak at 147lbs. I don't think putting Leonard at 2 requires any explanation

They are top 10 at ww. Fair enough. Leonard's career at ww was outstanding, but to put him on top of greats like Kid Gavilan and Emile Griffith, which had more longevity as fighters and championships, and beat more quality opponents wouldn't be fair.

Check Gavilan and Griffith's records and we will see a great deal of accomplishments at welterweight for them

So SRL couldn't beat Gavilan and Griffith at Welterweight this was SRL Best weight what about Jr Middle/Middle in your opinion was he [SRL]any chance at those weight's in my view SRL beats both at any weight you choose

No offence to elmersalsa, who's historical boxing knowledge far outweighs my own, but these kinds of lists need to show the criteria used in putting them together in order to give them real value.

[elmersalsa]

I used certain criteria's like:
1. Quality of opposition
2. Division dominance
3. Longevity in the division
4. Historical impact in the division
5. Unbeaten streaks and performance in the division.

That's according to my view.

[elmersalsa]

How about Mysterious Billy Smith? He won the world welterweight title 3 times. He is in consideration in this weight class.

[Ambling Alp II]

Obviously Leonard was going to get screwed over, that was a given.
What surprises me the most is Barney Ross at #22? huh? He is certainly top 10.

[elmersalsa]

Obviously Leonard was going to get screwed over, that was a given.
What surprises me the most is Barney Ross at #22? huh? He is certainly top 10.

Not too many fights there.

[elmersalsa]

As a matter of fact, it would've been much fair to put Mysterious Billy Smith on this list than Roberto Duran and Barney Ross

[Ambling Alp II]

Barney Ross had 22 fights at welterweight. (Including 2 wins over McLarnin who you have at 16)
Mayweather had 12.
McLarnin had 9.

Ross should be in the top 10.

[elmersalsa]

Barney Ross had 22 fights at welterweight. (Including 2 wins over McLarnin who you have at 16)
Mayweather had 12.
McLarnin had 9.

Ross should be in the top 10.

The great Barney Ross was more of a Jr welterweight great.

The great Pretty Boy Floyd was a better champion. He never lost the crown.

The great Jimmy McLarnin beat more and better opponents at WW. McLarnin at WW, beat 7 HOFs while Ross only beat McLarnin.

[Ambling Alp II]

So you are changing the rules again?
Before you said that Ross had not fought enough at welterweight. (Once again you didn't do your research)

However after after I showed that he had many more fights at welterweight than McLarnin and Mayweather combined, do you just say that you made a mistake and rate Ross higher?
Nope. You come up with something else.

You come back with "The great Jimmy McLarnin beat more and better opponents at WW. McLarnin at WW, beat 7 HOFs while Ross only beat McLarnin."

Well you are wrong yet again.
McLarnin did not beat 7 HOFs at welterweight.
He only beat two at welterweight. ( Ross and Young Corbett.) The rest were not welterweights.

Ross needs to be in the top 10. Maybe moved someone who never beat a really good welterweight (at the time of the fight) out. Gee, who could that be?

Are you going to admit that you are wrong again or are you going to continue to BS?

[davie]

Pacquiao?

I know some of his best stuff was at lighter weights but he had a fair few at WW, against top names and at times he looked indestructible.

Has to sneak into a top 25 for me