Welters

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 10 Mar 2006, 08:43

Welterweight division often egts overlooked in debates because Robinson is such a sure bet for the number 1 spot. There has been an awful lot of talent in this division though: Robinson, Armstrong, Gavilan, Napoles, Walker, Walcott, Zivic, Leonard, Hearns, Duran, Ross and a whole host of others.

Who are the top welters?

sockdolager · Post by **sockdolager** » 12 Mar 2006, 07:42

Robinson and Armstrong are the two best. Based solely on title achievment Id give the edge to SRR.

there are so many great fighters in the Welterweight class and that makes it difficult to give a 3-10 but Ill give it a shot.

1. Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Carmen Basilio
4. JCC
5. Kid Gavilan
6. Pernell Whitiker
7. Ray Leonard
8. Jose Angel Napoles
9. Barny Ross
10. Emile Griffith

theone · Post by **theone** » 12 Mar 2006, 10:10

Accomplishment

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3.Ray Leonard
4.Trinidad
5.Napoles
6.Gavilan
7.Griffith
8.Walker
9.Hearns
10.Basilio

Head to Head

1. Robinson
2.Armstrong
3.Ray Leonard
4.Hearns
5.Napoles
6.Walker
7.Gavilan
8.Basilio
9.Trinidad
10.Griffith

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 12 Mar 2006, 10:27

Robinson, Armstrong, Mickey Walker, Kid Gavilan, Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Jose Napoles, Barney Ross, Jimmy MCclarnin, Carmen Basilio.

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 12 Mar 2006, 13:12

You guys have got Emile Griffith way too low. In his prime he was breathtaking.

Emile is in my top 4.

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 12 Mar 2006, 19:11

I think that Leonard and Hearns are always rated much too highly in all-time polls. Tommy didn't have the ability to fight in close and he wasn't durable enough and against fighters like Basilio McClarnin etc that know how to slip jabs and avoid right hands Tommy would get beaten up. If I sat and compiled a list I doubt I'd have himin my top 25 and maybe not top 50. Lots and lots of very very good welters.
Leonard was much better and I would probably have him around #15.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 12 Mar 2006, 19:20

I guess I am alone in thinking Armstrong is rated way too highly at welterweight.

If we are rating great fighters who fought at welterweight then Henry Armstrong would be in contention for my top spot, but if we mean the best of the alltime welters only,then Armstrong doesn`t make my top ten, too many welters would have beaten him because welter was just Henry out of his best fighting weight.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 13 Mar 2006, 05:21

KO Artist wrote:You guys have got Emile Griffith way too low. In his prime he was breathtaking.

Emile is in my top 4.

I agree I see Leonard-Griffith as a 50-50 fight.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 13 Mar 2006, 06:15

1. Ray Robinson
2. Ray Leonard
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Tommy Hearns
5. Mickey Walker
6. Jose Napoles
7. Emile Griffiths
8. Barney Ross
9. Ted Kid Lewis
10 = Kid Gavilan
10 = Jimmy McLarnin

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 13 Mar 2006, 15:00

tiredoldngrey wrote:I think that Leonard and Hearns are always rated much too highly in all-time polls. Tommy didn't have the ability to fight in close and he wasn't durable enough and against fighters like Basilio McClarnin etc that know how to slip jabs and avoid right hands Tommy would get beaten up. If I sat and compiled a list I doubt I'd have himin my top 25 and maybe not top 50. Lots and lots of very very good welters.
Leonard was much better and I would probably have him around #15.

You think Basilio would've beaten Hearns?

That's like the worst matchup stylisticly ever.

theone · Post by **theone** » 13 Mar 2006, 18:47

I think that Leonard and Hearns are always rated much too highly in all-time polls. Tommy didn't have the ability to fight in close and he wasn't durable enough and against fighters like Basilio McClarnin etc that know how to slip jabs and avoid right hands Tommy would get beaten up. If I sat and compiled a list I doubt I'd have himin my top 25 and maybe not top 50. Lots and lots of very very good welters.
Leonard was much better and I would probably have him around #15.

First of all Hearns only lost one time at welter, and that was to a fighter just a little bit better than him. Basilio would be lucky to not get decapitated by Hearns with the way he fought. Nobody at welter, Mcclerin included, would have out boxed Hearns. For some one to beat prime Hearns they needed an almost perfect combination of speed, power, chin, and heart, like a sugar ray Robinson or Ray Leonard.

And 15 welterwieghts better than Leonard? No disrepect meant tireoldandgray, but that is one of the most unfathomable things Ive ever read on this site.

theone · Post by **theone** » 13 Mar 2006, 18:58

If we are rating great fighters who fought at welterweight then Henry Armstrong would be in contention for my top spot, but if we mean the best of the alltime welters only,then Armstrong doesn`t make my top ten, too many welters would have beaten him because welter was just Henry out of his best fighting weight.

Actually, Armstrong did better at welter, than any of the other weights he fought in.
Armstrong defended his belt 19 times at welterwieght against tough competition, even holding the middleweight champ to a draw he really won. All this in little more than two year span.

barry · Post by **barry** » 14 Mar 2006, 02:16

Hearns decapitating Basilio...don't see it happening! Robinson hit just about as hard as Hearns, if not harder at 147 and Basilio took everything Robinson could throw at him at 160, but it would have been the same thing at 147.

I don't see much change in the outcome against Hearns either, unless Hearns just caught Basilio with a blind bomb that he did not see, which could knockout anyone, but other than that there is a good possibility that Basilio would just rough up Hearns and possibly even stop Hearns!

As to no middleweight out-boxing Hearns at 147, well Sugar Ray Robinson would not only have out-boxed Herans, but he would have knocked him out at 147! I also think Barney Ross would have out-pointed Hearns by out-boxing him and the same case could be made for Kid Gavilan and Jose Napoles as well!

I think Hearns was one of the hardest hitting fighters ever P4P, but his resume at 147 was not sterling! Aside from Leonard and Cuevas, who he was 1-1 against, Hearns record at 147 is great in numbers, but nothing special in quality of opposition when compared to some other greats!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 14 Mar 2006, 03:48

my top 15 welterweights of all time

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Sugar Ray Leonard
3. Emile Griffith
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Joe Walcott
6. Tommy Hearns
7. Jose Napoles
8. Kid Gavilan
9. Barney Ross
10. Roberto Duran- horribly underated at 147
11. Carmen Basillio
12. Luis Rodriguez
13. Charley Burley
14. Mickey Walker
15. Pernell Whitaker

IMO mickey walker was a much better middleweight than welterweight

poor joe walcott is getting horribly underated here!

theone, having tito in ur top 10 is a joke. he never took on ike quartey or sugar shane mosely at 147.

also tito was schooled and lost to oscar de la hoya. how is tito above oscar?

barry · Post by **barry** » 14 Mar 2006, 07:04

>>>You can't compare Robinson at age 37/38 to Tommy Hearns in his prime.<<

Why sure you can! Even though Robinson was still at that advanced age he was still fighting and beating better competition than Hearns and if Hearns could not knock out the likes of Ernie Singletary, Alfonso Hayman or several others who never came close to stacking up to Basilio in terms of toughness and chin then Hearns sure as hell isn't going to be knocking out Basilio either; who was one of the toughest fighters ever. Like I said, the only way Hearns knocks Basilio out is if he catches him with a shot that Basilio does not see, but the main question would be this...could Hearns withstand 15 rounds of the kind of pressure that Basilio would put on him? Being that Hearns was not the most durable of fighters, I kind of doubt it, though I would still pick Hearns to win, but he certainly does not knock Basilio out...no one ever did!

theone · Post by **theone** » 14 Mar 2006, 18:24

Hearns decapitating Basilio...don't see it happening! Robinson hit just about as hard as Hearns, if not harder at 147 and Basilio took everything Robinson could throw at him at 160, but it would have been the same thing at 147.

In his prime, Robinson didnt hit as hard as Hearns. Much better fighter sure, but not the same power. Most of Robinsons ko's came from an accumilation of hard fast punches. The reason Basillio was able to compete so well with Robinson was because ray was well past his prime.

theone, having tito in ur top 10 is a joke. he never took on ike quartey or sugar shane mosely at 147.

A joke? Tito reigned for for a very long time, longer than most, and beat very good compitition. No one starting talking down about Tito until after he lost to Winky wright when he was just about done.

also tito was schooled and lost to oscar de la hoya. how is tito above oscar?

Tito accomplished alot more than Delahoya at welter. Whether Oscar could beat him head to head we'll never know. Oscar gave away the fight after feeling a few right hands and decieding to play it safe the rest of the fight. He wasnt boxing safely the last third of the fight, he was RUNNING and avoiding any exchanges.

As to no middleweight out-boxing Hearns at 147, well Sugar Ray Robinson would not only have out-boxed Herans,

Actually I said welter not middleweight.

but he would have knocked him out at 147!

I agree.

Barney Ross would have out-pointed Hearns by out-boxing him and the same case could be made for Kid Gavilan and Jose Napoles as well!

Respectable opinions Barry, but i disagree. I believe Hearns would have ko'd all three.

I think Hearns was one of the hardest hitting fighters ever P4P, but his resume at 147 was not sterling! Aside from Leonard and Cuevas, who he was 1-1 against, Hearns record at 147 is great in numbers, but nothing special in quality of opposition when compared to some other greats!

Hearns resume at welter was stellar. Now as stellar as others, that why I put him at number 9 in accomplishments.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 14 Mar 2006, 18:30

Tito accomplished alot more than Delahoya at welter. Whether Oscar could beat him head to head we'll never know

actually we do know because they did fight and oscar clearly won.

Oscar gave away the fight after feeling a few right hands and decieding to play it safe the rest of the fight. He wasnt boxing safely the last third of the fight, he was RUNNING and avoiding any exchanges

no he didnt, he simply lost the last 3 rounds. however, oscar still clearly won the fight. he was so far ahead after 9 rounds it didnt matter.

i scored the fight 10 times and everytime i gave de la hoya 7 or 8 rounds

oscar took tito to school and we all know who the better fighter is.

reason why tito reigned for so long was because he didnt fight the competition that oscar fought PLUS oscar started out as a lightweight!

tito was a very good welterweight, but oscar was better!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 14 Mar 2006, 18:32

theone, im suprised ur dismissing kid gavilan and jose napoles like that vs tommy. especially napoles.

i rate emile griffit 3rd greatest welter ever, he IMO is the most underated welter of all time. at his peak he was special.

how do u think griffith does vs tommy?

theone · Post by **theone** » 14 Mar 2006, 18:43

actually we do know because they did fight and oscar clearly won.
no he didnt, he simply lost the last 3 rounds. however, oscar still clearly won the fight. he was so far ahead after 9 rounds it didnt matter.
i scored the fight 10 times and everytime i gave de la hoya 7 or 8 rounds

You know what Brock...you're right. I scored it the same way. However I still believe Trinidad had an overall better career than Delahoya had at welter. Tito may have gotten a gift against Trinidad but he recieved two against Whitaker and Quartey.

theone, im suprised ur dismissing kid gavilan and jose napoles like that vs tommy. especially napoles.

Gavilan did not have the power or style to beat Hearns. His chin would probaly stop him from being ko'd but thats about it. Napoles had style and could box, but I think Hearns better. Plus Hearns size, power, and Napoles thin skin would make all the difference.

how do u think griffith does vs tommy?

Same as Napoles. Esxcept for the sensitive skin.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 15 Mar 2006, 05:25

Almost everyone here has Leonard at number 2. I have no probelm with that but it's a very stong majority. I think Leonard versus Griffith, Napoles, Armstrong, Duran and Walker are all 50-50 fights. I'm surprised there isn't more debate on Leonard and that nobody is championing anyone else. This is a very strong division.

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 15 Mar 2006, 06:10

tiredoldngrey wrote:I think that Leonard and Hearns are always rated much too highly in all-time polls. Tommy didn't have the ability to fight in close and he wasn't durable enough and against fighters like Basilio McClarnin etc that know how to slip jabs and avoid right hands Tommy would get beaten up. If I sat and compiled a list I doubt I'd have himin my top 25 and maybe not top 50. Lots and lots of very very good welters.
Leonard was much better and I would probably have him around #15.

I would have to disagree on this. Leonard fought a high caliber of opposition throughout his career when the welterweight division was very strong. The one fight he lost in his prime to Duran he came back and totally outboxed Duran before he quit. The only other close fight he had while near his prime was Hagler, and that was after a layoff. When at his peak he other than the fights I mentioned no one came close to him except Hearns who he knocked out. Benitez gave him a decent fight. I defintally don't think he is rated to high.

I would have Hearns rated just a notch below Leonard.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 15 Mar 2006, 07:36

kick asner wrote:
tiredoldngrey wrote:I think that Leonard and Hearns are always rated much too highly in all-time polls. Tommy didn't have the ability to fight in close and he wasn't durable enough and against fighters like Basilio McClarnin etc that know how to slip jabs and avoid right hands Tommy would get beaten up. If I sat and compiled a list I doubt I'd have himin my top 25 and maybe not top 50. Lots and lots of very very good welters.
Leonard was much better and I would probably have him around #15.
I would have to disagree on this. Leonard fought a high caliber of opposition throughout his career when the welterweight division was very strong. The one fight he lost in his prime to Duran he came back and totally outboxed Duran before he quit. The only other close fight he had while near his prime was Hagler, and that was after a layoff. When at his peak he other than the fights I mentioned no one came close to him except Hearns who he knocked out. Benitez gave him a decent fight. I defintally don't think he is rated to high.

I would have Hearns rated just a notch below Leonard.

Leonard-Hearns was a very very close fight as was their second fight. It's a shame we never saw them rematch at 154

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 15 Mar 2006, 19:07

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:theone, im suprised ur dismissing kid gavilan and jose napoles like that vs tommy. especially napoles.

i rate emile griffit 3rd greatest welter ever, he IMO is the most underated welter of all time. at his peak he was special.

how do u think griffith does vs tommy?

I feel Griffith would stop Hearns.

My top 10 are

1. Robinson
2. Armstrong
3. Griffith
4. Gavilan
5. Leonard
6. Walcott
7. Basilio
8. Napoles
9. Walker
10. Hearns

JC · Post by JC » 15 Mar 2006, 19:52

I think at this point Young Corbett III (Raffaele Capabianca Giordano) deserves a mention.

http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=36463

theone · Post by **theone** » 15 Mar 2006, 23:12

I feel Griffith would stop Hearns.

Griffith wasnt close to being a powerful puncher. Griffith never stopped any top level fighter except Paret who was probably already damaged from his fight with Fullmer. What makes you think he could stop a prime Hearns?