Lets talk Lightweights

[Ambling Alp]

Here are my Top 50 Lightweights of All-Time.
Please let me know who you think is way too high and who is way too low.
If someone isn't on the list at all and you think they should be, list someone else that shouldn't have made it.

1. Roberto Duran
2. Benny Leonard
3. Joe Gans
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Barney Ross
6. Pernell Whitaker
7. Freddie Welsh
8. Packy McFarland
9. Lou Ambers
10. Ike Williams
11. Carlos Ortiz
12. Joe Brown
13. Sammy Angott
14. Sammy Mandell
15. Tony Canzoneri
16. Beau Jack
17. Bob Montgomery
18. Alexis Arguello
19. Ad Wolgast
20. Oscar De La Hoya
21. Julio Cesar Chavez
22. Battling Nelson
23. Frank Erne
24. Kid Lavigne
25. Billy Petrolle
26. Dave Holly
27. Jack Blackburn
28. Hector Camacho
29. Shane Moseley
30. Al Singer
31. Esteban DeJesus
32. Ken Buchanan
33. Ismael Laguna
34. Jimmy Carter
35. Lew Jenkins
36. Willie Ritchie
37. Nicolino Locche
38. Floyd Mayweather
39. Duilio Loi
40. Juan Jurita
41. Rocky Kansas
42. Guts Ishimatsu
43. Jose Luis Ramirez
44. Edwin Rosario
45. Ray Mancini
46. Vinny Pazienza
47. Greg Haugen
48. Jose Luis Castillio
49. Carlos Teo Cruz
50. Jim Watt

[Jaclem]

..with just a quiick run through i don't see anyone you missed....but as far as putting them in order...that's just impossible when you are dealing with fighters of such quality and from different eras.

..although this statement should be accepted as revealed knowledge, there is no way it will keep a bunch of members here from jumping in and arguing about who belongs higher or lower. naturally the very top ones should obviously rate higher than the very lowest, but fine tuning beyond that is silly.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Benny Leonard
3. Joe Gans
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Barney Ross
6. Pernell Whitaker
7. Freddie Welsh
8. Packy McFarland
9. Lou Ambers
10. Ike Williams
11. Carlos Ortiz
12. Joe Brown
13. Sammy Angott
14. Sammy Mandell
15. Tony Canzoneri
16. Beau Jack
17. Bob Montgomery
18. Alexis Arguello
19. Ad Wolgast
20. Oscar De La Hoya
21. Julio Cesar Chavez
22. Battling Nelson
23. Frank Erne
24. Kid Lavigne
25. Billy Petrolle
26. Dave Holly
27. Jack Blackburn
28. Hector Camacho
29. Shane Moseley
30. Al Singer
31. Esteban DeJesus
32. Ken Buchanan
33. Ismael Laguna
34. Jimmy Carter
35. Lew Jenkins
36. Willie Ritchie
37. Nicolino Locche
38. Floyd Mayweather
39. Duilio Loi
40. Juan Jurita
41. Rocky Kansas
42. Guts Ishimatsu
43. Jose Luis Ramirez
44. Edwin Rosario
45. Ray Mancini
46. Vinny Pazienza
47. Greg Haugen
48. Jose Luis Castillio
49. Carlos Teo Cruz
50. Jim Watt

great effort solid list overall.




- jack blackburn is WAYYY to low. i have him at # 6. why is dave holly over jack blackburn when jack blackburn won his series with dave holly??? ur ranking of blackburn is defintley my biggest complaint. i think its a horrible ranking. blackburn was one of the most avoided fighters of that era and holds wins over many top fighters of that era. the only one to beat a prime jack blackburn was the MUCH HEAVIER jack o brien.



- i think ike williams is too low. i have him at # 3






you have jose luis castillo in ur top 50 but not deigo corrales?? why?

corrales beat joel casamayor, acelino freitas, and jose luis castillo at 135lb. corrales has yet to lose at 135lb. castillo did not beat corrales at 135lb so that does not count.



- estaben dejesus and ken buchanon are to low IMHO.


- floyd mayweather should be a little higher IMO.



a fighter you didnt include that you should defintley think about including is willy joyce, lightweight of the 1940s. very underated. i believe hes top 35.

[elmersalsa]

Here are my Top 50 Lightweights of All-Time.
Please let me know who you think is way too high and who is way too low.
If someone isn't on the list at all and you think they should be, list someone else that shouldn't have made it.

1. Roberto Duran
2. Benny Leonard
3. Joe Gans
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Barney Ross
6. Pernell Whitaker
7. Freddie Welsh
8. Packy McFarland
9. Lou Ambers
10. Ike Williams
11. Carlos Ortiz
12. Joe Brown
13. Sammy Angott
14. Sammy Mandell
15. Tony Canzoneri
16. Beau Jack
17. Bob Montgomery
18. Alexis Arguello
19. Ad Wolgast
20. Oscar De La Hoya
21. Julio Cesar Chavez
22. Battling Nelson
23. Frank Erne
24. Kid Lavigne
25. Billy Petrolle
26. Dave Holly
27. Jack Blackburn
28. Hector Camacho
29. Shane Moseley
30. Al Singer
31. Esteban DeJesus
32. Ken Buchanan
33. Ismael Laguna
34. Jimmy Carter
35. Lew Jenkins
36. Willie Ritchie
37. Nicolino Locche
38. Floyd Mayweather
39. Duilio Loi
40. Juan Jurita
41. Rocky Kansas
42. Guts Ishimatsu
43. Jose Luis Ramirez
44. Edwin Rosario
45. Ray Mancini
46. Vinny Pazienza
47. Greg Haugen
48. Jose Luis Castillio
49. Carlos Teo Cruz
50. Jim Watt

Henry Armstrong is too high.

Ike Williams and Joe Brown are definately top 5 lightweights.

Ken Buchanan, Ismael Laguna, Shane Mosley, Billy Petrolle and Esteban DeJesus should be in the top 20.

Carlos Ortiz should be in the top 7.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

im still very angry with your jack blackburn ranking.

[BoxBuzz]

Hey Alp....help me understand your Loi AND Locche rating. Seems a bit on the low side maybe.

[Jaclem]

..told ya so..

[BoxBuzz]

let's not be smug Jaclem, this is a list that begs to be refined.....and who if not we will answer the call?

[AndreWardFan2006]

Didn't Barney Ross peak between junior-welterweight and welterweight?

So that would mean he would go down as one of the greatest Welterweights of all-time. Sorry, I don't know much about him.

[Ezzard]

I updated my list for the first time in a year or so:

1. Roberto Duran
2. Benny Leonard
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Pernell Whitaker
5. Ike Williams
6. Barney Ross
7. Alexis Aguello
8. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
9. Julio Cesar Chavez
10. Joe Gans
11. Lou Ambers
12. Tony Canzoneri
13. Carlos Ortiz
14. Beau Jack
15. Bob Montgomery
16. Jack Blackburn
17. Shane Mosley
18. Dave Holly
19. Antonio Cervantes
20. Bob Montgomery
21. Esteban DeJesus
22. Nicolino Loche
23. Lew Jenkins
24. Oscar de la Hoya
25. Ken Buchanan

I'm sick of people sucking Holly's dick. I'm sick of people sucking Joe Gans's dick. I doubt either of them would beat the Shane Mosley who used modern nutrition and dehydration/rehydration to enter the ring at over 150 pounds.

Dec

What if they got to use the same methods. Or if Moseley's were taken away? I think we have to at least try to make sense of this and level the playing field when we consider these match ups.

[Ezzard]

Alp

It's nice to see Packy in your top 10. He's often forgotten today.

I won't quibble with the odd few palces but I feel you've ranked Chavez a little harshly. He did beat 4 of your top 50, got a draw with your number 6 (disputed I know but he ran prime Whittaker closer than anyone else) and beat Taylor twice who did campaign shortly at 135, and probably moved up because Whittaker was at 135 and they were both in the same stable.

I agree with BB that Blackburn could move up too. I would also consider Buchanan, DeJesus (I remember though that you think he's a little overrated) and Canzoneri for higher spots.

A fanatstic effort though.

[Ambling Alp]

im still very angry with your jack blackburn ranking.

Are you still angry?

[Ambling Alp]

..told ya so..

This is fine Jaclem. I don't expect people to agree with all my ratings. It would be boring if they did!

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

im still very angry with your jack blackburn ranking.

Are you still angry?

im waiting for ur reasoning as to why blackburn is so low and also why dave holly was over jack blackburn when blackburn won his series with dave holly and was considered the better lightweight by contemporaries?

blackburn never lost in his prime other than to the MUCH HEAVIER philadelphia jack o brien. even a green 19 year old blackburn was beating the likes of sam langford and joe gans(1st time, 2nd time gans whupped blackburn). gans avoided blackburn, never gave blackburn a shot at his lightweight title. gans did beat blackburn, but that was a young blackburn who had not yet reached his peak(though jack was very dangerous even then). a matchup between joe gans and jack blackburn prime for prime boy would that be something. even battling nelson avoided jack blackburn.


the only thing that kept jack blackburn from being lightweight champion in 1909 was him commiting manslaughter and going to jail for 4 years.



blackburns lightweight win resume matches up there as one of the best in lightweight history.

[harrygreb]

what a great list. obviously a few tweeks or boxing wouldnt be boxing, but one thing we all agree on, it seems, is that duran was the greatest lightweight ever.

[Ambling Alp]

Thought that I would address some of your comments.

First, it was a mistake to include Jose Castillio, who I had #48. As Brocton pointed out, his biggest win over Corrales wasn't at lightweight. So he should be replaced., possibly by Corrales. Willi Joyce is another possibility. Surely you guys have some other possiblities?

The reason I didn't have Blackburn higher is that there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to warrant him being ranked much higher.
More than half his fights were no contests/nodecisions. Many of his fights were just 6 rounds.
His series with Holly was pretty much a wash; all ended with no winner. The reason I had Holly a spot higher is that Holly did have the win over Langford, which I thought was enough to give him the edge over Blackburn.

It's hard to justify rating Blackburn over guys who have won clearcut wins over great fighters or atleast several really good fighters. Blackburn didn't have a win over anyone in the Top 50.

As for Loi and Locche, it was hard knowing where to rate them as well. Loi didn't fight any other great fighter at lightweight. However, he was Ring Magazine's # 1 contender for 3 years, #2 in another year, #3 in another year, so I felt that he has to be rated somewhere.
There isn't much more to go on with Locche. However he did have a draw with Laguna and was the # 1 contender in 1966 and #2 in 1965.
Perhaps they were better than some of the guys rated higher than them, but it's hard to say.

I didn't have Mayweather higher becasue he wasn't a lightweight for long and I thought he got an undeserved decision against Castillo in their first fight.

As for Chavez, I didn't have higher because he didn't have a lot of fights at lightweight. However he did beat Rosario and Ramirez at that weight. (Haugen and Camacho were Jr Welter fights), so I thought # 21 was pretty fair.

As for Barney Ross, he beat Petroille once at lightweight, and still weighed within the lightweight limit both times that he beat Canzoneri (even though the Jr Welterweight title was at stake).

Anyway, I don't expect everyone to agree with all my ratings, but I thought I would explain some of the reasoning.

[Ambling Alp]

Here are my Top 50 Lightweights of All-Time.
Please let me know who you think is way too high and who is way too low.
If someone isn't on the list at all and you think they should be, list someone else that shouldn't have made it.

1. Roberto Duran
2. Benny Leonard
3. Joe Gans
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Barney Ross
6. Pernell Whitaker
7. Freddie Welsh
8. Packy McFarland
9. Lou Ambers
10. Ike Williams
11. Carlos Ortiz
12. Joe Brown
13. Sammy Angott
14. Sammy Mandell
15. Tony Canzoneri
16. Beau Jack
17. Bob Montgomery
18. Alexis Arguello
19. Ad Wolgast
20. Oscar De La Hoya
21. Julio Cesar Chavez
22. Battling Nelson
23. Frank Erne
24. Kid Lavigne
25. Billy Petrolle
26. Dave Holly
27. Jack Blackburn
28. Hector Camacho
29. Shane Moseley
30. Al Singer
31. Esteban DeJesus
32. Ken Buchanan
33. Ismael Laguna
34. Jimmy Carter
35. Lew Jenkins
36. Willie Ritchie
37. Nicolino Locche
38. Floyd Mayweather
39. Duilio Loi
40. Juan Jurita
41. Rocky Kansas
42. Guts Ishimatsu
43. Jose Luis Ramirez
44. Edwin Rosario
45. Ray Mancini
46. Vinny Pazienza
47. Greg Haugen
48. Jose Luis Castillio
49. Carlos Teo Cruz
50. Jim Watt

Henry Armstrong is too high.

Ike Williams and Joe Brown are definately top 5 lightweights.

Ken Buchanan, Ismael Laguna, Shane Mosley, Billy Petrolle and Esteban DeJesus should be in the top 20.

Carlos Ortiz should be in the top 7.

Elmer, If Buchanan,Laguna,Moseley,Petrolle,and DeJesus should be in the top 20, what 5 guys should be taken out?

If Williams and Brown are top 5, what 2 should get taken out of the top 5?

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

His series with Holly was pretty much a wash; all ended with no winner. The reason I had Holly a spot higher is that Holly did have the win over Langford, which I thought was enough to give him the edge over Blackburn.

a wash? what are u talking about. i have newspaper clips that show blackburn getting the newspaper decisions over dave holly, and though all were good fights...blackburn got the better of the series. blackburn won his series with holly. therefore THIS COUNTS!!!


give blackburn credit for winning his series with dave holly. by no means was it a wash!


also blackburn beat sam langford too, so i dont know where your going with that one.



finally, ur # 3 joe gans avoided blackburn and never gave him a title shot.

[Ezzard]

Good question. It's always a matter of how far you take it. Do Gans and Holly also get the benefit of facing off against fighters who weren't unskilled brawlers? Gans and Holly stood out from their era simply because they were modern fighters competing in an era when few fighters had the wherewithall to train full time, and too many of their opponents were unschooled brawlers. You can't ignore who a fighter was by judging him based on the single greatest effort of his career, or by going into supposition. How do we know that Gans and Holly could even rehydrate up to 150 or 155? Isn't it more likely that they would have fought at lower weight classes, suchas 130 or 126?

I think you're probably right in terms of them fighting at a lower weight class if they decided to go for the rehydration. Is this method better suited to 12 rounders? Would the practice have serious drawbacks over 45 rounds?

My problem with this line of thinking is that I can't rate Moseley (just as an example) the greatest LW of all-time based on the fact that he probably weighed 15 pounds more by the time he got in the ring. This just seems absurd when we're discussing the merits of a fighter and who is the best. Of course weight has an impact on all fights but we're talking boxing, not who had the best protein pills.

Gans, Blackburn, Holly, etc... may well have fought undertrained, under nourished fioghters, as you suggest, I can't say for sure. There are 100s of variables to consider.

[Ambling Alp]

His series with Holly was pretty much a wash; all ended with no winner. The reason I had Holly a spot higher is that Holly did have the win over Langford, which I thought was enough to give him the edge over Blackburn.

a wash? what are u talking about. i have newspaper clips that show blackburn getting the newspaper decisions over dave holly, and though all were good fights...blackburn got the better of the series. blackburn won his series with holly. therefore THIS COUNTS!!!


give blackburn credit for winning his series with dave holly. by no means was it a wash!

also blackburn beat sam langford too, so i dont know where your going with that one.



finally, ur # 3 joe gans avoided blackburn and never gave him a title shot.

If you want to give Langford the edge in his fights with Holly, fine. It just doesn't seem that convincing to me. They fought only 6 round fights and technically neither ever came away with a win.

Blackburn also beat Langford? Neither boxrec or the record book I checked have any record of this.
Your right Blackburn didn't fight Gans for the title, although they did fight before Gans won the title and Gans won.

As I said before, the info on Blackburn record is sketchy. He had many 6 round fights, (which I don't consider as legitimate as 10 round fights) and more than half of his fights were no contests. He has no wins over over anyone else in the Top 50. Sure you could make a case to rate him over Holly and a few more guys. I just am unwilling to rate him over fighters that have won fights over great fighters or atleast several over very good ones.

[DoubleM]

The lightweights are my favourite. Richest division, absolutely stocked with talent.

[ringsider]

Pernell Whitataker's slapsy patsy ass doesn't belong in any top 25 list of lightweights. Maybe top 25 all time southpaws who could not punch.....he could be on that list.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

His series with Holly was pretty much a wash; all ended with no winner. The reason I had Holly a spot higher is that Holly did have the win over Langford, which I thought was enough to give him the edge over Blackburn.

a wash? what are u talking about. i have newspaper clips that show blackburn getting the newspaper decisions over dave holly, and though all were good fights...blackburn got the better of the series. blackburn won his series with holly. therefore THIS COUNTS!!!


give blackburn credit for winning his series with dave holly. by no means was it a wash!

also blackburn beat sam langford too, so i dont know where your going with that one.



finally, ur # 3 joe gans avoided blackburn and never gave him a title shot.

If you want to give Langford the edge in his fights with Holly, fine. It just doesn't seem that convincing to me. They fought only 6 round fights and technically neither ever came away with a win.

Blackburn also beat Langford? Neither boxrec or the record book I checked have any record of this.
Your right Blackburn didn't fight Gans for the title, although they did fight before Gans won the title and Gans won.

As I said before, the info on Blackburn record is sketchy. He had many 6 round fights, (which I don't consider as legitimate as 10 round fights) and more than half of his fights were no contests. He has no wins over over anyone else in the Top 50. Sure you could make a case to rate him over Holly and a few more guys. I just am unwilling to rate him over fighters that have won fights over great fighters or atleast several over very good ones.

alp rankings arnt based all of boxrec. u put way too much empasis on boxrec.

[Ambling Alp]

Brocton, no boxrec isn't the only source that should be used and it isn't the only that I use. Record books, books, newspaper, magazines, film etc are also sources. I just use boxrec (and record books) as a way of finding out some important basic facts. Of course there is often much more to the story than these basic facts.

Books, magazines, newspaper articles are great too. However they also have their limitations. Obviously you are relying on the author's person bias (and accuracy).

Film is also great as well. However it has its problems as well. There is often no or little film available of a certain fighter. Even more modern fighters, there is often only a few fights available. You can't see see a guy fight a handful of fights and know enough. Sure a guy might score a few knockouts in fights that you see (often against the right opponent), but what about several fights he when he got whipped? That shouldn't be ignored because you didn't see it.

As for Blackburn and Langford, you said that Blackburn beat Langford, well I have simply said that neither boxrec or the record book that I checked didn't list it.

Decagon- What I am trying to say about Holly and Blackburn is first of all they only fought six round fights. To me that isn't enough to judge who was the better fighter. The rest of Holly's career seems slightly more impressive than Blackburn's. As I said before, you could rate Blackburn higher than Holly, but how much higher does he really deserve, and why?

The major point that I have trying to make is who was the best fighter than Blackburn (as a lightweight) beat? I just don't understand why he should be rated much higher than where I had him (#26, which isn't too shabby). The guys ahead of him beat better fighters.

[Ambling Alp]

Decagon -I don't completely dismiss newspaper decisons, but I don't give them as much weight as an official decison. And neither of us don't give as much weight to 6 round fights as longer fights.

With Holly and Gans (and Holly and Blackburn) you have both problems; you only have newspaper decisons and you only have 6 round fights.
Not to mention with the Holly-Gans fights all 3 6 round fights were in Philadelphia whcih was pretty much Holly's hometown.

Also, boxrec lists the 2nd Holly-Gans 6 round fight as a newspaper win for Gans.
It's also worth noting that Gans won won a 10 round Newspaper Decison over Holly in 1902, before there three 6 round fights.

Lastly, but probably most important, Gans and Holly did fight for the title, Gans did win an offical 20 round decison (on neutral turf). That is much more important than their other fights.