My top lightwts

[Dentsun4228]

Since I've never seen film of Joe Gans, Dave Holly, Jack Blackburn and some of the other legendary old-timers, this is my list of greatest lightwts that I can actually vouch for, active fighters not included.

1) Sweet Pea Whitaker
2) Sugar Shane Mosley
3) Floyd Mayweather jr
4) Henry Armstrong
5) Ike Williams
6) Roberto Duran
7) Julio Cesar Chavez
8) Alexis Arguello
9) Carlos Ortiz
10) Jimmy Carter

[Ezzard]

Well Mayweather and Moseley are talented guys but I can't see how they rate above Duran at this weight. To be honest I don't even think they come that close.

Armstrong didn't fight that often at the weight, but in many of his welterweight fights he fought barely above 135. Some will not count these some will see them as relevant.

Since this list is only about guys you've seen it's hard to point out the likes of Canzoneri, Ross, etc... without knowing if you've seen them.

[Dentsun4228]

I have seen tapes of canzoneri, leonard, ross, mclarnin etc...I just don't think that they were that good. For their time, maybe....but not by today's standards. And I think Shane and Floyd were better than Duran at lightweight...what makes me think that? Well, first of all, Duran was beaten handily by Esteban Dejesus (sure it was a non-title fight and Duran won the rematches), but Dejesus was nothing near the talent Shane and Floyd were...Dejesus beat Duran with lateral movement and quick counterpunching, but he lacked the power and skill of Floyd and Shane who also happen to be defensive and tactical masters. Dejesus dropped Duran tin the first round of both of the first two fights, but to me Dejesus was nowhere as fast, and technically sound as Shane and Floyd. While it's true that Duran did beat SRL in the first fight, I think he'd have beaten Floyd and Shane if they attempted to slug with him as well...If they elected to box, they'd have beaten him as easily as Leonard did in the rematch.

[Aldo Pravisani]

I would have thought Joe Brown would have had to be rated as a top ten lightweight in anyone's list.

Just because all of a sudden he became an old man once he fought Carlos Ortiz.....Crickey, he held the record for the most defences by a lightweight champion!

[Ezzard]

I have seen tapes of canzoneri, leonard, ross, mclarnin etc...I just don't think that they were that good. For their time, maybe....but not by today's standards. And I think Shane and Floyd were better than Duran at lightweight...what makes me think that? Well, first of all, Duran was beaten handily by Esteban Dejesus (sure it was a non-title fight and Duran won the rematches), but Dejesus was nothing near the talent Shane and Floyd were...Dejesus beat Duran with lateral movement and quick counterpunching, but he lacked the power and skill of Floyd and Shane who also happen to be defensive and tactical masters. Dejesus dropped Duran tin the first round of both of the first two fights, but to me Dejesus was nowhere as fast, and technically sound as Shane and Floyd. While it's true that Duran did beat SRL in the first fight, I think he'd have beaten Floyd and Shane if they attempted to slug with him as well...If they elected to box, they'd have beaten him as easily as Leonard did in the rematch.

Today's standards?

The guys you mention are talented but they are looking good, IMO, because their level of opposition is weak. Fight enough top fighters and you'll lose some fights.

I also think you have quite a simplistic view of the first 2 Duran-Leonard fights.

I take it that you also believe Moseley and Mayweather would beat Armstrong too?

[sockdolager]

Since I've never seen film of Joe Gans, Dave Holly, Jack Blackburn and some of the other legendary old-timers, this is my list of greatest lightwts that I can actually vouch for, active fighters not included.
1) Sweet Pea Whitaker
2) Sugar Shane Mosley
3) Floyd Mayweather jr
4) Henry Armstrong
5) Ike Williams
6) Roberto Duran
7) Julio Cesar Chavez
8) Alexis Arguello
9) Carlos Ortiz
10) Jimmy Carter

I assume you meant not active in the weightclass. Here are my top 10...

1. Roberto Duran
2. Benny Leonard
3. Joe Gans
4. Henry Armstrong <-- tough to rate him at LW, but he belongs in the discussion
5. Ike Williams
6. Jack Blackburn
7. Pernell Whitaker
8. Barney Ross
8. Julio Cesar Chavez <-- #1 in JWW (140)
9. Carlos Ortiz
10. Tony Canzoneri

tough to exclude a few guys here, but to make a top 10 you must I suppose. notable exclusions...Lou Ambers, Joe Brown, Bob Montgomery, Aaron Pryor, Alexis Aguello, Sammy Angott, Beau Jack, Nicolino Locche and even Floyd Mayweather jr. Christ, making an all-time LW list is freaking hard! I really dont even like my list.

[barry]

>>>I have seen tapes of canzoneri, leonard, ross, mclarnin etc...I just don't think that they were that good. For their time, maybe....but not by today's standards.<<<

There is no way that a person can determine the worth of a fighter based on one, or two fights and in a lot of instances based only on a few rounds...especially when the fighters being debated had 150 and 200+ career fights!

Today's standard’s is weak! Fighters of today, even with all of the major advances in conditioning, diets and exercise, they are in worse physical condition for a fight compared to the guys of old.

The fighters of today go through a career of fighting stiffs building an undefeated record while focusing on one major fight. They do not learn the craft of boxing anywhere near what the old guys did!

Fighters of today are so pampered that the toughness of a boxer has greatly declined. There are a few fighters today who are blood and guts warriors, but nothing compared to the pre-1960 fighters.

I could go on and on about the differences in today’s fighters in comparison with the old timers. There is so much wrong with boxing today and with the fighters themselves…why the hell do you think that the sport is so unpopular and dying…it’s simple…boxing and most of it’s fighters are not like the boxers of old. There is no doubt some pluses of modern boxing, but honestly…the only thing that I can really think of which is superior today compared to fighters of yesteryear is that the fighters of today know how to make boxing look prettier stylistic…but that is about it!

Lightweight

1. Joe Gans
2. Benny Leonard
3. Roberto Duran

I haven’t any further than listing those three guys!

[silkov]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Joe Gans
3. Benny Leonard
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Battling Nelson
6. Ike Williams
7. Joe Brown
8. Barney Ross
9. Tony Canzoneri
10. Ad Wolgast

[JC]

Lightweight

1. Joe Gans
2. Benny Leonard
3. Roberto Duran

I haven’t any further than listing those three guys!

This is what I've got except I'd swap Leonard and Gans around, past those top three I find it hard to put them in order.

[Dentsun4228]

Lightweight

1. Joe Gans
2. Benny Leonard
3. Roberto Duran

I haven’t any further than listing those three guys!

This is what I've got except I'd swap Leonard and Gans around, past those top three I find it hard to put them in order.

This is a really telling post. I can't imagine how anyone can rank Gans and Leonard as the top LWs ever...have any of the posters on here ever even SEEN film of Gans? OK, some posters might have been around when Gans and Leonard fought, which would make those posters at least 80 years old. Others may have seen film of Leonard (which I have) and if you ask me, there's no way he'd rank as the top LW ever. In fact, If you really look at film of him, he probably wouldn't beat the average clubfighter of today. Like I said, fighters of the olden days were ranked as great because there was little frame of reference for what constituted "greatness." That's because modern boxing was still in it's infancy during the 1920's and 1930's. As boxing has evolved, the guys we thought were great according to old-time standards really don't stack up against more modern, better trained, better schooled fighters. One poster thinks that today's competition is weak and fighters are pampered. That's total bunk. Today's fighters have a tougher job because the stakes are higher and everyone has access to better facilities and more information about conditioning etc. Old timers may have outnumbered modern fighters but they were comparatively poorly trained and conditioned and often "toughmen" with no amateur or sound technical background..My thing is: I don't rank fighters I've never seen simply because I read somewhere about how great they were supposed to be, or else I'd be ranking Mickey Walker as a top 3 middleweight. I know from experience that you have to actually see the guy fight before you can determine if he was really that good.

[silkov]

Lightweight

1. Joe Gans
2. Benny Leonard
3. Roberto Duran

I haven’t any further than listing those three guys!

This is what I've got except I'd swap Leonard and Gans around, past those top three I find it hard to put them in order.

This is a really telling post. I can't imagine how anyone can rank Gans and Leonard as the top LWs ever...have any of the posters on here ever even SEEN film of Gans? OK, some posters might have been around when Gans and Leonard fought, which would make those posters at least 80 years old. Others may have seen film of Leonard (which I have) and if you ask me, there's no way he'd rank as the top LW ever. In fact, If you really look at film of him, he probably wouldn't beat the average clubfighter of today. Like I said, fighters of the olden days were ranked as great because there was little frame of reference for what constituted "greatness." That's because modern boxing was still in it's infancy during the 1920's and 1930's. As boxing has evolved, the guys we thought were great according to old-time standards really don't stack up against more modern, better trained, better schooled fighters. One poster thinks that today's competition is weak and fighters are pampered. That's total bunk. Today's fighters have a tougher job because the stakes are higher and everyone has access to better facilities and more information about conditioning etc. Old timers may have outnumbered modern fighters but they were comparatively poorly trained and conditioned and often "toughmen" with no amateur or sound technical background..My thing is: I don't rank fighters I've never seen simply because I read somewhere about how great they were supposed to be, or else I'd be ranking Mickey Walker as a top 3 middleweight. I know from experience that you have to actually see the guy fight before you can determine if he was really that good.

To be blunt youre talking total rot my friend, and yes I have got footage of Gans and LEONARD... and for you to say that Benny was just a journeyman is simply laughable, if you have footage of him you dont know what you're looking at. As for fighters of today having it harder, that is the biggest joke... fighters today fight 4 to 5 times a year at the most while fighters of Gans and Bennys time often fought every week, and against top opposition!... todays fighters are babied and spoilt by comparison... you really need to study a bit more because you plainly know nothing about the times in which Gans and Leonard fought...

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Joe Gans
3. Benny Leonard
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Battling Nelson
6. Ike Williams
7. Joe Brown
8. Barney Ross
9. Tony Canzoneri
10. Ad Wolgast

silk,

u put battling nelson at # 5 yet not include jack blackburn in ur top 10???


nelson ducked blackburn for years because he was afraid of blackburn. blackburn was much more consistent in his prime, beat far better opposition than nelson, and blackburn was the more all around skilled fighter.



yet u rate nelson over blackburn

[elmersalsa]

This is what I've got except I'd swap Leonard and Gans around, past those top three I find it hard to put them in order.

This is a really telling post. I can't imagine how anyone can rank Gans and Leonard as the top LWs ever...have any of the posters on here ever even SEEN film of Gans? OK, some posters might have been around when Gans and Leonard fought, which would make those posters at least 80 years old. Others may have seen film of Leonard (which I have) and if you ask me, there's no way he'd rank as the top LW ever. In fact, If you really look at film of him, he probably wouldn't beat the average clubfighter of today. Like I said, fighters of the olden days were ranked as great because there was little frame of reference for what constituted "greatness." That's because modern boxing was still in it's infancy during the 1920's and 1930's. As boxing has evolved, the guys we thought were great according to old-time standards really don't stack up against more modern, better trained, better schooled fighters. One poster thinks that today's competition is weak and fighters are pampered. That's total bunk. Today's fighters have a tougher job because the stakes are higher and everyone has access to better facilities and more information about conditioning etc. Old timers may have outnumbered modern fighters but they were comparatively poorly trained and conditioned and often "toughmen" with no amateur or sound technical background..My thing is: I don't rank fighters I've never seen simply because I read somewhere about how great they were supposed to be, or else I'd be ranking Mickey Walker as a top 3 middleweight. I know from experience that you have to actually see the guy fight before you can determine if he was really that good.

To be blunt youre talking total rot my friend, and yes I have got footage of Gans and LEONARD... and for you to say that Benny was just a journeyman is simply laughable, if you have footage of him you dont know what you're looking at. As for fighters of today having it harder, that is the biggest joke... fighters today fight 4 to 5 times a year at the most while fighters of Gans and Bennys time often fought every week, and against top opposition!... todays fighters are babied and spoilt by comparison... you really need to study a bit more because you plainly know nothing about the times in which Gans and Leonard fought...

To say that today's fighters fight 4 or 5 times is LAUGHABLE. They ONLY fight 2 times a year maximum.

[Dentsun4228]

[
To be blunt youre talking total rot my friend, and yes I have got footage of Gans and LEONARD... and for you to say that Benny was just a journeyman is simply laughable, if you have footage of him you dont know what you're looking at. As for fighters of today having it harder, that is the biggest joke... fighters today fight 4 to 5 times a year at the most while fighters of Gans and Bennys time often fought every week, and against top opposition!... todays fighters are babied and spoilt by comparison... you really need to study a bit more because you plainly know nothing about the times in which Gans and Leonard fought...[/quote]

I didn't call Leonard a journeyman. I said that many fighters of that era simply lacked the fundamentals, the proper conditioning, coaching etc. You can go down the long list of nonentities on Leonard's record or that of many old-time stars as proof that although they fought more often, their competition for the most part was not up to par. It's easy to beat a different guy every week if you're facing journeymen who lack proper training, amateur experience and focus. It's a lot harder if your comp has the benefit of all those things and can actually do some serious damage to you in the ring. Today's fighters have it a lot tougher because everytime they step in the ring there's big bucks and the threat of a loss looming. Back then, if you lost, it was no big deal...you go back to the drawing board. Today, you lose and it could derail you for good...that means the competition today is fiercer and fought at a much higher level. As far as Leonard is concerned, we can agree to disagree. I've been watching boxing for about 30 years. I saw one tape of Leonard and I have to say he would not measure up by today's standards. He'd be hard pressed to beat a top lightweight AMATEUR boxer. Fighters back then didn't even have the punching technique, stance or defensive postures down correctly. Not their fault, it took decades to refine those things. But for that reason among others they wouldn't stand a chance against today's fighters.

[silkov]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Joe Gans
3. Benny Leonard
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Battling Nelson
6. Ike Williams
7. Joe Brown
8. Barney Ross
9. Tony Canzoneri
10. Ad Wolgast

So sue me!... 8)



silk,

u put battling nelson at # 5 yet not include jack blackburn in ur top 10???


nelson ducked blackburn for years because he was afraid of blackburn. blackburn was much more consistent in his prime, beat far better opposition than nelson, and blackburn was the more all around skilled fighter.



yet u rate nelson over blackburn

[torodecayey]

1. whitaker 2. duran 3. armstrong 4. gans 5.b. leonard 6. mosley 7. chavez 8. mayweather jr 9. arguello 10. ortiz


ask me next week-- it'll be different

[Dentsun4228]

1. whitaker 2. duran 3. armstrong 4. gans 5.b. leonard 6. mosley 7. chavez 8. mayweather jr 9. arguello 10. ortiz


ask me next week-- it'll be different

Well, let me ask you now...what would duran do to Mosley? How would he beat armstrong or PBF? I can see a reasonable argument for Duran maybe beating PBF since Castillo gave Mayweather a tough first fight. Still, Mayweather was adjusting to the weight at the time and probably underestimated Castillo a little...I've seen several Duran fights when he was around in his prime and after. I can't see him handling a guy like Shane. Shane would be too fast, too much lateral movement and firepower. He'd make Duran look slow like Leonard did in the second fight. Duran also had problems with balance and a porous defense which allowed opponents to score effectively against him. People forget that Duran-Buchanan was actually a pretty close fight. Shane would frustrate and probably drop him. As far as Duran vs Armstrong, I guess since Hank was a natural featherweight, Duran would have an edge in strength and size. Their style matchup would favor Duran's greater strength at lightweight...but I think Hank's relentless work rate and his incredible toughness eventually carry him to victory in a tough brawl...JMO... BTW, lose Benny Leonard from your list...trust me, he may have been good for his time, but no all-timer.

[torodecayey]

1. whitaker 2. duran 3. armstrong 4. gans 5.b. leonard 6. mosley 7. chavez 8. mayweather jr 9. arguello 10. ortiz


ask me next week-- it'll be different

Well, let me ask you now...what would duran do to Mosley? How would he beat armstrong or PBF? I can see a reasonable argument for Duran maybe beating PBF since Castillo gave Mayweather a tough first fight. Still, Mayweather was adjusting to the weight at the time and probably underestimated Castillo a little...I've seen several Duran fights when he was around in his prime and after. I can't see him handling a guy like Shane. Shane would be too fast, too much lateral movement and firepower. He'd make Duran look slow like Leonard did in the second fight. Duran also had problems with balance and a porous defense which allowed opponents to score effectively against him. People forget that Duran-Buchanan was actually a pretty close fight. Shane would frustrate and probably drop him. As far as Duran vs Armstrong, I guess since Hank was a natural featherweight, Duran would have an edge in strength and size. Their style matchup would favor Duran's greater strength at lightweight...but I think Hank's relentless work rate and his incredible toughness eventually carry him to victory in a tough brawl...JMO... BTW, lose Benny Leonard from your list...trust me, he may have been good for his time, but no all-timer.

ALL good points-- Duran was very versatile and was an underrated boxer- I like Shane but using his fghts with Molina, Leija, and John Brown as a reference- I get the feeling Duran would've edged him. Benny Leonard was dominant for close to 200 fights- plus he was handling welterweight champion Jack Britton b4 fouling out-- that's gotta count for something. He was fast, could punch, good footwork and was clever

[Arbachakov]

I don't know how anyone that says Duran had a porous defence can be taken seriously.

Mosley is a one-dimensional hack compared to Roberto.

[pundit]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Benny Leonard
3. Joe Gans
4. Henry Armstrong <-- tough to rate him at LW, but he belongs in the discussion
5. Ike Williams
6. Jack Blackburn
7. Pernell Whitaker
8. Barney Ross
8. Julio Cesar Chavez <-- #1 in JWW (140)
9. Carlos Ortiz
10. Tony Canzoneri

I like this list, especially the top 4.

[Martin Sosa Cameron]

Since I've never seen film of Joe Gans, Dave Holly, Jack Blackburn and some of the other legendary old-timers, this is my list of greatest lightwts that I can actually vouch for, active fighters not included.

1) Sweet Pea Whitaker
2) Sugar Shane Mosley
3) Floyd Mayweather jr
4) Henry Armstrong
5) Ike Williams
6) Roberto Duran
7) Julio Cesar Chavez
8) Alexis Arguello
9) Carlos Ortiz
10) Jimmy Carter

What about Benny Leonard, Joe Gans, Freddy Welsh, Battling Nelson, Tony Canzoneri, Joe Brown, Barney Ross, and Nicolino Locche (when was a Lightweight)?