BoxRec

Seamus wrote:Have to disagree with a Saddler-Pep analogy. In both bouts Hearns outboxed Leonard and Leonard outslugged Hearns. Tommy scored some very impressive ko's above but WW, but also had his share of bouts where he was unable to utilize his power, i,e Singletary, Sutherland, Minchillo.

In both cases you have a naturally gifted, more talented fighter(Leonard and Pep) vs. a battler with superior physical features and power(Hearns and Saddler).

The superior talents of the former two were offset by the physical advantages and power of the latter two. But SRL played it smart and steered clear of Hearns until he looked shot. The Hearns that fought Duran or Shuler would beat Leonard. Ray seemed to know it, too.

Yes, Tommy had a brief, post-Leonard power shortage but resumed his devastating ways from Roberto Duran on....

Decagon wrote:Basilio would have to go through hell just to get inside against Hearns, where Tommy would more than hold his own. Throwing straight punches and having a reach advantage just give you a chance to throw two or three more punches than your opponent in each exchange. When the size difference is this extreme, those few punches can make the difference.

Hearns's chin at 147? Solid. His only KO loss under 160 was in the 14th round, against Ray Leonard. Hearns didn't win the lineal title at 147, but he proved his worth, beating Cuevas, Duran and Benitez.

Sure, but what stiff tests to his chin did Tommy have to endure at 147 besides vs. SRL? Did he have to take 3 rounds of bombs from a Hagler? Or endure and fight through several rounds from a Roldan-esque puncher to score a KO?

BoxBuzz wrote:Basilio at 15? Does that seem right to this group?

Ive been wondering that myself, although I am unabnle to give a list of 50 that I could be sure of, Id put him in the top 10.

1. Ray Robinson
2. Ray Leonard
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Emile Griffith
5. Thomas Hearns
6. Mickey Walker
7. Kid Gavilan
8. Carmen Basillio
9. Charley Burley
10. Pernell Whitaker

sockdollanger wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Basilio at 15? Does that seem right to this group?

Ive been wondering that myself, although I am unabnle to give a list of 50 that I could be sure of, Id put him in the top 10.

1. Ray Robinson
2. Ray Leonard
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Emile Griffith
5. Thomas Hearns
6. Mickey Walker
7. Kid Gavilan
8. Carmen Basillio
9. Charley Burley
10. Pernell Whitaker

Napoles deserves to be on any top ten welterweights list. It's shameful how underrated he is by some fans today. He was a complete fighter and had it all. I'd pick Napoles over the likes of Hearns, and he has a good chance of beating Robinson and Leonard.

Roberto Duran is another underrated welterweight. I think sometimes people forget how he easily whacked Carlos Palomino and convincingly outfought the naturally bigger, prime Ray Leonard.

.naming the top fifty welters ..or any other weight..is going to see most of the same names on any list. i just don't think it's possible to rank them in order, so i can't get into any debate about who rated over whom....after sugar ray, that is. (not the candy ass sugar ray who stole the name but couldn't snag the talent.) okay, i can't squawk with him at number 2, for the reason i listed...although I wouldn't have him in my own top ten.

the only real objection i have to the original list is mark breland even being on it.

DoubleM wrote:Roberto Duran is another underrated welterweight. I think sometimes people forget how he easily whacked Carlos Palomino and convincingly outfought the naturally bigger, prime Ray Leonard.

tough to leave him off my uninspired top 10 list, but he really didnt fight at welter for many fights...I rate him as top 3 LW so I really was torn. As for Napoles, I really dont know enough about him to rate him... I will do some research and re-post another list.

DoubleM wrote:

sockdollanger wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Basilio at 15? Does that seem right to this group?

Ive been wondering that myself, although I am unabnle to give a list of 50 that I could be sure of, Id put him in the top 10.

1. Ray Robinson
2. Ray Leonard
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Emile Griffith
5. Thomas Hearns
6. Mickey Walker
7. Kid Gavilan
8. Carmen Basillio
9. Charley Burley
10. Pernell Whitaker

Napoles deserves to be on any top ten welterweights list. It's shameful how underrated he is by some fans today. He was a complete fighter and had it all. I'd pick Napoles over the likes of Hearns, and he has a good chance of beating Robinson and Leonard.

I agree with MM. Napoles is doesn't seem to be getting his due. The two Rays are put as 1 and 2 and nobody wants to challenge these rankings. I know it's almost blasphemy not to have Robinson as number 1 but there is usually someone with a different take.

Jaclem's comments on Leonard are interesting. He's been the only one to suiggest he isn't number 2. I'd like to hear a little more debate on these top positions.

Has anyone seen the first Jose Napoles v Hedgemon Lewis fight ? I saw the second, but Lewis said he couldn't believe Napoles got the decision in there first fight. Supposedly, the decision was booed, and a number of journalists ringside thought Lewis had won.

Seamus wrote:Has anyone seen the first Jose Napoles v Hedgemon Lewis fight ? I saw the second, but Lewis said he couldn't believe Napoles got the decision in there first fight. Supposedly, the decision was booed, and a number of journalists ringside thought Lewis had won.

I haven't seen it either. But by this point, Napoles was past his best and an alcoholic.

I've seen Napoles on film and was unimpressed (considering the praise I've heard some give him) He was very relaxed and comfortable in the ring and a good technician but he also was the benefactor of a few questionable decisions and I just don't see him being a top 8 welterweight. Maybe 9 or 10.

Past his prime vs Lewis? That fight was in 1971 at the apex of Napoles's career!!! His rematch vs Lewis is considered one of his career performances.

dempseyfire wrote:I've seen Napoles on film and was unimpressed (considering the praise I've heard some give him) He was very relaxed and comfortable in the ring and a good technician but he also was the benefactor of a few questionable decisions and I just don't see him being a top 8 welterweight. Maybe 9 or 10.

Past his prime vs Lewis? That fight was in 1971 at the apex of Napoles's career!!! His rematch vs Lewis is considered one of his career performances.

Napoles was at his best during the sixties.

Thought I would respond to some of the comments regarding the Top 50 List I made.
It was obvious that the big mistake I made was having Mark Breland. I was never that impressed with him myself. In a moment of weakness I took the most positive spin on his career as a welterweight: He only lost two fights at this weight and one was to Marlon Starling, which isn't embarrassing. He also stopped Lloyd Honeyghan in 3 rounds, who I have on the list. However, if I would have thought this more thoroughly I would have realized that he really didn't have other noteworthy wins.
So I also agree that Breland shouldn't have made the list.

There were several guys that were suggested that should have made it.
Packy McFarland- Was really a lightweight and didn't do much noteworthy at welterweight.

Tommy Bell- Had a couple of nice wins, but his overall record is very unimpressive. He is nowhere near a top 50 welterweight.

Izzy Jannazzo- Also have a few nice wins, but his record is worse than Bell's.He barely won half his fights.

Harry Lewis - his record was better than Bell and Jannazzo, but he simply isn't one of the top 50 either.

Johnny Bratton, Young Jack Thompson, Benny Paret, John Stracey could all have made it. They all just missed the cut. You certainly could make a case for them.

Gypsey Joe Harris was an interesting suggestion. He was 23-1 with his only loss against Emile Griffith. He also beat Curtis Cokes. However, his career was really too short to deserve making the top 50.

Was Cuevas too low at # 50?
He never beat anyone ranked higher than him, or anyone remotely close to the top 50 for that matter. He got crushed by Hearns in 2 rounds. He lost to Andy Price right before he won the title, and lost to Roger Stafford about year after. Price and Stafford were good fighters, but a great fighter shouldn't lose to them. However he was the WBA champion for 4 years and beat some decent fighters. That has to count for something, so #50 seemed about where he belonged.

Were Zivic was too low at #24. He is a hard guy to rate. He had some huge wins, including Armstrong twice and he also beat Burley. However, he had so many losses that I don't he deserves to be much higher than #24.

Was Walker too low at # 25? Well, if you really look at hwat he did at welterweight,it's not nearly as impressive as what he did at middleweight.
(He is probably a top 5 middleweight.)

Basilio too low at # 15? Wellhe had some nice wins, but he lost more fights at this weight that I think people realize. Also, it was pointed out that he beat Robinson, but that was at middleweight, so I didn't factor that in for this list.

Was Walcott too low at # 14? Well, he had some nice wins, once again it's surprising how many looses he had.

Was De La Hoya too high at # 17? It was pointed out that he was "only 10-2" at this weight. However, one loss was to Trinidad in a fight that I feel De La Hoya should have gotten the decison even though he gave away the last 3 rounds. Trinidad simply didn't do much the entire fight.
De La Hoya other loss was to Mosely. In that fight De La Hoya fought a great fight, but Mosely was even greater.

Was Mosely too high at #38? Well he did look bad against Forrest (especially in the first fight). However, he did beat De La Hoya in a great fight which has to count for something. So I don't feel that #38 is too high.

Hearns seemed to be the guy that had the most widely diverse opinon. One factor I always consider when thinking about how good a fighter was is how good was the best fighter that he beat. This is where Hearns falls short. (His wins against Duran and Benitez were at Jr Middleweight). Cuevas was his biggest win at this weight and I only have him at #50. So I don't think he should be rated much higher than # 8.

On the plus side for Hearns, he did crush Cuevas, he easliy beat some good contenders. The fight he fought when lost to Leonard would have been good enough to have beaten almost any other welterweight in history. #8 for Hearns seems about right.

This was a lot of fun. I will certainly tweak a few things as well as kick out Breland. Of course now who is the most deserving to be added?