BoxRec

yessir

Yes

Benny Leonard.

Somedays
1.Henry Armstrong
2.Benny Leonard

Otherdays
1.Benny Leonard
2.Henry Armstrong

Seamus wrote:Somedays
1.Henry Armstrong
2.Benny Leonard

Otherdays
1.Benny Leonard
2.Henry Armstrong

I think style wise they both beat Duran.

I could make a case for Carlos Ortiz and possibly even Lou Ambers being above Duran as well. They simply beat better opposition.

Seamus wrote:I could make a case for Carlos Ortiz and possibly even Lou Ambers being above Duran as well. They simply beat better opposition.

Roberto Duran was he the best Lightweight ever! not ?

Seamus wrote:I could make a case for Carlos Ortiz and possibly even Lou Ambers being above Duran as well. They simply beat better opposition.

Ortiz duid have some nice win-Brown (albiet an old Brown) Elorde, Ramos,Lane, 2-1 vs Laguna. He has to be up there.
Ambers was 2-1 vs Canzoneri, 1-1 vs Armstrong. what really hurts his case were the two losses to Jenkins. Someone esle offered an explanation a while back, but it's just hard to think that the other top guys would lose badly and badly to a fighter like that.

Going over some of the other greats:

Gans beat Erne, Holly, Blackburn, Britt, and Nelson. Lost to Erne. Lost to Nelson when he was past it.
Leonard beat Welsh,Kansas,Kilbane,and Tendler.
Armstrong was probably best at welter but was 1-1 vs Ambers, beat Jenkins.
Duran beat Buchanan and was 2-1 vs DeJesus.

No one seems to standout but I am starting to lean towards Leonard.

But Armstrong was dominating top Welters while weighing within the LW range. I think that definitely counts for his LW legacy as well.

That brings up something interesting. According to "The Boxing Register" Hall of Fame Book, Armstrong weighed 147 for the fight where he beat Ross for the welterweight title. According to the Boxrec Records, he only weighed 133 and 1/2. That is quite a discrepancy. Also several of his welterweight title defenses he weighs far less than the welterweight limit according to Boxrec. Often he would still make the lightweight limit. However those same fights he is listed as weighing 147 by the Boxing Register.
This includes fights with Cerfino Garcia and Baby Arizmendi. My guess is that Boxrec is right and the Boxing Register is wrong.
If that is the case, I agree that really helps Armstrong's case as being the best lightweight.

Holding Lou Amber's two knockout losses to Lew Jenkins against him, brings up some interesting points. Should they be held against him on the basis that he was still only 27 when he retired, and if so shouldn't we apply the same criteria for rating, say Wilfred Benitez or Meldrick Taylor ? Neither of whom had any where near the number of bouts Ambers did ? Ambers by the way was KO'd in the 104th and 106th fights of a 106 fight career.

I think there is some gray area here. For Benitez, I would rate him higher if he had been a top fighter for a longer period of time. I still have a high regard for him, but he would have been even higher had he been able to keep it up for a few more years. Taylor is a little diffferent because he had physical problems, but his career was even shorter thanTrue, age isn't the only factor to consider as for a why a fighter should be past it. The punishment from an extremely large amount of fights will wear down even a great fighter down.
Ambers did have many more fights than either of them and that should be considered. So I don't hold it against him as much as Benitez and Taylor.

However, Gans, Leonard, and Armstrong had more fights than that and kept on as top fighters for a bit longer. They didn't have comparable defeats to a ordinary figher like Ambers did. Maybe it seems like I am nitpicking but you really have to consider this when you are talking about the very best of all-time.

The top 5 lightweights ever:
Roberto Duran
Joe Gans
Benny Leonard
Ike Williams
Joe Brown

After Buchanan and DeJesus, the level of Duran's opposition drops a good deal. Not bad, but certainly nothing that compares with that of Leonard, Armstrong, Ortiz, Ambers, etc.

Seamus wrote:After Buchanan and DeJesus, the level of Duran's opposition drops a good deal. Not bad, but certainly nothing that compares with that of Leonard, Armstrong, Ortiz, Ambers, etc.

There is no denying that. I'm in the minority in thinking the Duran that beat Palomino & Leonard was the finished product, greater than he was during his Lightweight reign.

Lampkin was a good fighter? I remember my uncle who followed the fights back then thinking he was good fighter.

Ezzard wrote:Lampkin was a good fighter? I remember my uncle who followed the fights back then thinking he was good fighter.

Ez, for those of us alive and active back then, Ray Lampkin was considered a very good fighter.

Ezzard wrote:What you can be 100% of is that Duran is in the debate. After that it's all about personal preference.

If someone tells me it's Duran then they are either right or not far off.

Yep, right up there.
Benny Leonard, Joe Gans, Tony Canzoneri, Arguello had a good run at the weight... Duran for me is deffo top 5.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Seamus wrote:I could make a case for Carlos Ortiz and possibly even Lou Ambers being above Duran as well. They simply beat better opposition.

Ortiz duid have some nice win-Brown (albiet an old Brown) Elorde, Ramos,Lane, 2-1 vs Laguna. He has to be up there.
Ambers was 2-1 vs Canzoneri, 1-1 vs Armstrong. what really hurts his case were the two losses to Jenkins. Someone esle offered an explanation a while back, but it's just hard to think that the other top guys would lose badly and badly to a fighter like that.

Going over some of the other greats:

Gans beat Erne, Holly, Blackburn, Britt, and Nelson. Lost to Erne. Lost to Nelson when he was past it.
Leonard beat Welsh,Kansas,Kilbane,and Tendler.
Armstrong was probably best at welter but was 1-1 vs Ambers, beat Jenkins.
Duran beat Buchanan and was 2-1 vs DeJesus.

No one seems to standout but I am starting to lean towards Leonard.

I think we are giving Ambers too much credit for his results over Armstrong. Armstrong lost 4 and 5 rounds for low blows in each fight. Other than that he would have won both fights clearly.

I hear what you are saying, but I still give credit to Ambers. Getting hit low several times takes something out of you and changes the fight. It would not be fair to Ambers to just assume that Armstrong would have won the fight had their been no low blows.

Armstrong sure gave him credit in those fights. He said Ambers was tougher than Barney Ross and remarked how he made him hurt everywhere.

Today, I am going with the following:
1. Armstrong
2. Leonard
3. Duran
4. Gans
5. Ortiz
6. Ambers

Boy is it tight though. Maybe the closest division at the top.

raylawpc wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Lampkin was a good fighter? I remember my uncle who followed the fights back then thinking he was good fighter.

Ez, for those of us alive and active back then, Ray Lampkin was considered a very good fighter.

Thanks, because I have wanted to discuss him before as a very good fighter but he sort of gets overlooked when people talk about Duran's reign so I thought perhaps most didn't consider him that good.

Ezzard wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Lampkin was a good fighter? I remember my uncle who followed the fights back then thinking he was good fighter.

Ez, for those of us alive and active back then, Ray Lampkin was considered a very good fighter.

Thanks, because I have wanted to discuss him before as a very good fighter but he sort of gets overlooked when people talk about Duran's reign so I thought perhaps most didn't consider him that good.

No, I think most people considered him a good fighter even before the Duran fight. As I recall, though, a lot of people were surprised that he extended Duran the way that he did.