Top 25 Welterweights of All-Time

[Ezzard]

All three of these welters proved themselves to be among the greatest fighters who ever lived.

I can't speak of Gavilan other than to quote his record. I haven't seen enough or know enough.

Leonard and Griffith? They achieved a level of greatness that gets them to the party. After that it's personal choice and circumstance.

[Davidreed]

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

List seems to be very good. Nice work but Floyd at #5 looks more good in my opinion.

[Ambling Alp II]

All three of these welters proved themselves to be among the greatest fighters who ever lived.

I can't speak of Gavilan other than to quote his record. I haven't seen enough or know enough.

Leonard and Griffith? They achieved a level of greatness that gets them to the party. After that it's personal choice and circumstance.

Of course Gavilan and Griffith were great fighters.
Sure you can say it's personal preference. You can do that with anybody.
If you want to see whose better, then you have to look at what counts.
Sometimes two guys have similar resumes and it's hard to say.
However, if one fighter beat better competition and his losses aren't as bad, he is better. Everything else (amount of times he won the title, # of title defenses etc.) is just spin.

Leonard beat better competition and his losses weren't as bad. This is about as cut and dry as you can get. Gavilan and Griffith were great. Leonard was better.

[elmersalsa]

All three of these welters proved themselves to be among the greatest fighters who ever lived.

I can't speak of Gavilan other than to quote his record. I haven't seen enough or know enough.

Leonard and Griffith? They achieved a level of greatness that gets them to the party. After that it's personal choice and circumstance.

Of course Gavilan and Griffith were great fighters.
Sure you can say it's personal preference. You can do that with anybody.
If you want to see whose better, then you have to look at what counts.
Sometimes two guys have similar resumes and it's hard to say.
However, if one fighter beat better competition and his losses aren't as bad, he is better. Everything else (amount of times he won the title, # of title defenses etc.) is just spin.

Leonard beat better competition and his losses weren't as bad. This is about as cut and dry as you can get. Gavilan and Griffith were great. Leonard was better.

Better at p4p rankings? yes. Not at welterweight

[Ezzard]

Kind of see it the other way around...

Ray has a better argument at 147 than p4p.

[Ambling Alp II]

He's got a rock solid argument at both.

[keithmoonhangover]

Better at p4p rankings? yes. Not at welterweight

But Leonard beat Benitez, Duran and Hearns at welterweight.

[elmersalsa]

Better at p4p rankings? yes. Not at welterweight

But Leonard beat Benitez, Duran and Hearns at welterweight.

And Gavilan beat the greats Carmen Basilio, Ike Williams and Beau Jack. And beat terrific fighters like Billy Graham, Gil Turner, Bobby Dykes, Gaspar Ortega, Eugene Hairston, Tommy Bell and Tony Janiro.

Griffith beat the great Luis Manuel Rodriguez, Ralph Dupas, Denny Moyer, Benny Paret, Gaspar Ortega, Isaac Logart, Jorge Jose Fernandez and Florentino Fernandez.

More quality fighters by far. More longevity by far. And more time at the top by far.

Leonard is OK at #5. Leonard beat 3 HOFs and 3 world champions at welterweight. Gavilan beat 5 and Griffith beat 4 HOFs. Gavilan beat 4 world champions at welterweight. Griffith beat 4 world champions at welterweight. How about that?

Gavilan and Griffith had more wins and more fights at welterweight, too. How about that folks?

[elmersalsa]

He's got a rock solid argument at both.

It could be interchangeable between Leonard and Griffith in p4p rankings. Both in my view, are in the 20th to 25th slots ATG rankings. They are not top 15 in my view. The maximum they reach could be 20th spot p4p. Too many great boxers are ahead of them.

I agree that p4p, both, Griffith and Leonard are above Gavilan in the p4p rankings. Gavilan fell short of winning the middleweight crown. But, at 147? Gavilan is above Leonard by one spot. It's a fair call. Three top 5 WW greats. Griffith was better than Leonard and Gavilan at 147

[keithmoonhangover]

Better at p4p rankings? yes. Not at welterweight

But Leonard beat Benitez, Duran and Hearns at welterweight.

And Gavilan beat the greats Carmen Basilio, Ike Williams and Beau Jack. And beat terrific fighters like Billy Graham, Gil Turner, Bobby Dykes, Gaspar Ortega, Eugene Hairston, Tommy Bell and Tony Janiro.

Griffith beat the great Luis Manuel Rodriguez, Ralph Dupas, Denny Moyer, Benny Paret, Gaspar Ortega, Isaac Logart, Jorge Jose Fernandez and Florentino Fernandez.

More quality fighters by far. More longevity by far. And more time at the top by far.

Leonard is OK at #5. Leonard beat 3 HOFs and 3 world champions at welterweight. Gavilan beat 5 and Griffith beat 4 HOFs. Gavilan beat 4 world champions at welterweight. Griffith beat 4 world champions at welterweight. How about that?

Gavilan and Griffith had more wins and more fights at welterweight, too. How about that folks?

It isn't about how many world champions or HOFers. It's about the quality.

Benitez, Duran and Hearns are better than the sum total of world champions and HOFers that Griffith and Gavilan beat.

[elmersalsa]

It isn't about how many world champions or HOFers. It's about the quality.

Benitez, Duran and Hearns are better than the sum total of world champions and HOFers that Griffith and Gavilan beat.

And I am saying, it's not about who you beat. Every boxer has to fight what's really in front of them. Different factors come into play. Gavilan and Griffith beat some exceptional competition. They had QUALITY AND QUANTITY.

It makes me laugh like some people in this forum say that Leonard and Hearns cakewalk the 50s and 60s era. Like if they were some kind of invincible extraterrestrial beings or something. Put Duran, Leonard, Hearns and Benitez in that era, and they will have more losses and as many losses in their records just like the greats like Carmen Basilio, Kid Gavilan, Emile Griffith and Luis Manuel Rodriguez lost. They were exceptional fighters, too. Why? Those guys were fighting sometimes twice a month. Sometimes 10 fights a year or more. There is chance that you will lose some fights if you fight often like Gavilan and Griffith did. They were the best welterweights of their decades.

Gavilan and Griffith had more longevity at welterweight than Leonard.
Gavilan and Griffith had more time at the top at welterweight than Leonard.
Gavilan and Griffith had more title defenses at welterweight than Leonard.
They had more quality and quantity of exceptional opponents than Leonard.
And they also beat more TRUE WELTERWEIGHTS than Leonard. The ONLY TRUE WELTERWEIGHT that Leonard beat was Hearns. That's it!

[keithmoonhangover]

It isn't about how many world champions or HOFers. It's about the quality.

Benitez, Duran and Hearns are better than the sum total of world champions and HOFers that Griffith and Gavilan beat.

And I am saying, it's not about who you beat. Every boxer has to fight what's really in front of them. Different factors come into play. Gavilan and Griffith beat some exceptional competition. They had QUALITY AND QUANTITY.

It makes me laugh like some people in this forum say that Leonard and Hearns cakewalk the 50s and 60s era. Like if they were some kind of invincible extraterrestrial beings or something. Put Duran, Leonard, Hearns and Benitez in that era, and they will have more losses and as many losses in their records just like the greats like Carmen Basilio, Kid Gavilan, Emile Griffith and Luis Manuel Rodriguez lost. They were exceptional fighters, too. Why? Those guys were fighting sometimes twice a month. Sometimes 10 fights a year or more. There is chance that you will lose some fights if you fight often like Gavilan and Griffith did. They were the best welterweights of their decades.

Gavilan and Griffith had more longevity at welterweight than Leonard.
Gavilan and Griffith had more time at the top at welterweight than Leonard.
Gavilan and Griffith had more title defenses at welterweight than Leonard.
They had more quality and quantity of exceptional opponents than Leonard.
And they also beat more TRUE WELTERWEIGHTS than Leonard. The ONLY TRUE WELTERWEIGHT that Leonard beat was Hearns. That's it!

[keithmoonhangover]

It isn't about how many world champions or HOFers. It's about the quality.

Benitez, Duran and Hearns are better than the sum total of world champions and HOFers that Griffith and Gavilan beat.

And I am saying, it's not about who you beat. Every boxer has to fight what's really in front of them. Different factors come into play. Gavilan and Griffith beat some exceptional competition. They had QUALITY AND QUANTITY.

It makes me laugh like some people in this forum say that Leonard and Hearns cakewalk the 50s and 60s era. Like if they were some kind of invincible extraterrestrial beings or something. Put Duran, Leonard, Hearns and Benitez in that era, and they will have more losses and as many losses in their records just like the greats like Carmen Basilio, Kid Gavilan, Emile Griffith and Luis Manuel Rodriguez lost. They were exceptional fighters, too. Why? Those guys were fighting sometimes twice a month. Sometimes 10 fights a year or more. There is chance that you will lose some fights if you fight often like Gavilan and Griffith did. They were the best welterweights of their decades.

Gavilan and Griffith had more longevity at welterweight than Leonard.
Gavilan and Griffith had more time at the top at welterweight than Leonard.
Gavilan and Griffith had more title defenses at welterweight than Leonard.
They had more quality and quantity of exceptional opponents than Leonard.
And they also beat more TRUE WELTERWEIGHTS than Leonard. The ONLY TRUE WELTERWEIGHT that Leonard beat was Hearns. That's it!

The main problem with your true welterweights assumption, is that it's wrong. Historically, most fighters move up in weight as they get older, just like most humans move up in weight as they get older. The nail in the coffin of your daft and massively biased ramblings is this. Once Duran moved up in weight, he never moved back down. True weight, my arse.

[elmersalsa]

Well, take it or leave it.

[keithmoonhangover]

Well, take it or leave it.

Is that you admitting you're wrong? Do you think Duran could have stayed at 135 for his whole career?

[elmersalsa]

Well, take it or leave it.

Is that you admitting you're wrong? Do you think Duran could have stayed at 135 for his whole career?

No. I am not wrong. You want to be?

[keithmoonhangover]

Well, take it or leave it.

Is that you admitting you're wrong? Do you think Duran could have stayed at 135 for his whole career?

No. I am not wrong. You want to be?

I don't need to be, because I'm correct.

Do you think Duran could have stayed at 135 for his whole career?

[elmersalsa]

Is that you admitting you're wrong? Do you think Duran could have stayed at 135 for his whole career?

No. I am not wrong. You want to be?

I don't need to be, because I'm correct.

Do you think Duran could have stayed at 135 for his whole career?

I am correct too, then!

[keithmoonhangover]

No. I am not wrong. You want to be?

I don't need to be, because I'm correct.

Do you think Duran could have stayed at 135 for his whole career?

I am correct too, then!

But you won't answer my question?

[elmersalsa]

I don't need to be, because I'm correct.

Do you think Duran could have stayed at 135 for his whole career?

I am correct too, then!

But you won't answer my question?

Yes or no. It depends. Some fighters stay and some don't and move up. Not every fighter metabolism is the same.

The great Roberto Duran left the lightweight class because:
1. He cleaned up the division
2. No noteworthy challengers were to fight.
3. The great Alexis Arguello didn't come up to challenge him.
4. He, his manager Carlos Eleta, and his promoter Don King saw big opportunities at welterweight for a big money fight with Champion Pipino Cuevas or a multi million dollar payday with the great Sugar Ray Leonard in the future.

Now, I ask you this: If Arguello would've come up, and Leonard would've been a lightweight, do you think Duran would've left the lightweight class, seeing he could make all this money?

[dempseyfire]

But Leonard beat Benitez, Duran and Hearns at welterweight.

And Gavilan beat the greats Carmen Basilio, Ike Williams and Beau Jack. And beat terrific fighters like Billy Graham, Gil Turner, Bobby Dykes, Gaspar Ortega, Eugene Hairston, Tommy Bell and Tony Janiro.

Griffith beat the great Luis Manuel Rodriguez, Ralph Dupas, Denny Moyer, Benny Paret, Gaspar Ortega, Isaac Logart, Jorge Jose Fernandez and Florentino Fernandez.

More quality fighters by far. More longevity by far. And more time at the top by far.

Leonard is OK at #5. Leonard beat 3 HOFs and 3 world champions at welterweight. Gavilan beat 5 and Griffith beat 4 HOFs. Gavilan beat 4 world champions at welterweight. Griffith beat 4 world champions at welterweight. How about that?

Gavilan and Griffith had more wins and more fights at welterweight, too. How about that folks?

It isn't about how many world champions or HOFers. It's about the quality.

Benitez, Duran and Hearns are better than the sum total of world champions and HOFers that Griffith and Gavilan beat.

That's literally a comment reeking of ignorance of the era Gavilan fought in. Benitez at 147 in the early 1950s would've been considered a solid fringe contender. Hearns would've gotten his china chin checked often. Duran was an all-time great lightweight and a great welter but not the cream of the crop he was below 147 and above.

[cfang]

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Sugar Ray Leonard
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Emile Griffith
5. Thomas Hearns
6. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
7. Barbados Joe Walcott
8. Kid Gavilan
9. Jack Britton
10. Ted "Kid" Lewis

[elmersalsa]

If beating Duran, Benitez and Hearns was so great then, why Leonard is not #1? The great Sugar Ray Robinson didn't beat a group like that.

[man]

sidetone:
i admit being an ignorant fool, but to me a real
shadow on benitez was his performance against
ray. i have never seen a top fighter so blatantly
being short with his punches. i felt like not with
a single one he tried to hurt leonard.

though i give him all the credit for the staredown.

[keithmoonhangover]

I am correct too, then!

But you won't answer my question?

Yes or no. It depends. Some fighters stay and some don't and move up. Not every fighter metabolism is the same.

The great Roberto Duran left the lightweight class because:
1. He cleaned up the division
2. No noteworthy challengers were to fight.
3. The great Alexis Arguello didn't come up to challenge him.
4. He, his manager Carlos Eleta, and his promoter Don King saw big opportunities at welterweight for a big money fight with Champion Pipino Cuevas or a multi million dollar payday with the great Sugar Ray Leonard in the future.

Now, I ask you this: If Arguello would've come up, and Leonard would've been a lightweight, do you think Duran would've left the lightweight class, seeing he could make all this money?

I'm just discussing Duran's weight at the moment. He moved up, he was a welterweight, that's it, simple. You're biased beyond belief. Was Hearns not at his true weight at 154?

Have you tried Alp's quiz? Should be easy for you, because only an idiot could get that wrong.