BoxRec

It seemed like you were. You mentioned Griffith's record vs Rodriguez and Leonard's record vs Duran in the same paragraph.

Griffith's loss to Paret is widely viewed as a poor decision. And yes the Rodriguez fights were close but so what? Rodriguez was an all-time great fighter who could've also beaten Leonard.

While a welterweight (and all welters back then fought non-title fights slightly above the 147 lb limit; you have to count his fights before vacating the title in '65) he beat Rodriguez, Gaspar Ortega, Jorge Fernandez, Florentino Fernandez, Willie Toweel, Yama Bahama, Isaac Logart, Holly Mims, Ralph Dupas, and Jose Stable. If one is ignorant of those fighters/that era, that's not an excuse. They were excellent excellent fighters and I could see several beating Leonard and Hearns. A MONSTER era at 147.

dempseyfire wrote:Griffith's loss to Paret is widely viewed as a poor decision. And yes the Rodriguez fights were close but so what? Rodriguez was an all-time great fighter who could've also beaten Leonard.

While a welterweight (and all welters back then fought non-title fights slightly above the 147 lb limit; you have to count his fights before vacating the title in '65) he beat Rodriguez, Gaspar Ortega, Jorge Fernandez, Florentino Fernandez, Willie Toweel, Yama Bahama, Isaac Logart, Holly Mims, Ralph Dupas, and Jose Stable. If one is ignorant of those fighters/that era, that's not an excuse. They were excellent excellent fighters and I could see several beating Leonard and Hearns. A MONSTER era at 147.

The post of the thread. It could not be said much better than that. Beautiful! Yes!

dempseyfire wrote:Griffith's loss to Paret is widely viewed as a poor decision. And yes the Rodriguez fights were close but so what? Rodriguez was an all-time great fighter who could've also beaten Leonard.

While a welterweight (and all welters back then fought non-title fights slightly above the 147 lb limit; you have to count his fights before vacating the title in '65) he beat Rodriguez, Gaspar Ortega, Jorge Fernandez, Florentino Fernandez, Willie Toweel, Yama Bahama, Isaac Logart, Holly Mims, Ralph Dupas, and Jose Stable. If one is ignorant of those fighters/that era, that's not an excuse. They were excellent excellent fighters and I could see several beating Leonard and Hearns. A MONSTER era at 147.

A monster era? Not sure if I have ever heard anyone even call it a good era.
Legends like Don Jordan and Benny Paret were champions. Those were the good old days.

What sport could you see Ortega,Fernandez,Toweel,Bhama, Logart, Mims, Dupas, and Stable beating Leonard in? Ping Pong, badminton?
No way in the world they are going to beat him in boxing.

Rodriguez was a great fighter no question about it. My point was why is Griffith rated several spots ahead of Rodriguez? They are about as even as can be. Griffith should down closer to Rodriguez.

Leonard beat several ranked fighters on his way up. Andy Price, Pete Ranzany, Randy Shields etc.
He paid his dues when he first got a title shot and had to beat a great fighter to do it.

Griffith should not have had that much trouble with Paret.

Can you imagine Griffith losing to Benitez, Duran, or Hearns? It would not take much imagination.

Hearns for that matter beat several good welterweights as well; Shields, Weston, Espada etc. Most of them easily. He about knocked Cuevas through the canvas when he won the title.

There is nothing that Griffith could do better than Leonard. Leonard had more power and was more consistent.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:Griffith's loss to Paret is widely viewed as a poor decision. And yes the Rodriguez fights were close but so what? Rodriguez was an all-time great fighter who could've also beaten Leonard.

While a welterweight (and all welters back then fought non-title fights slightly above the 147 lb limit; you have to count his fights before vacating the title in '65) he beat Rodriguez, Gaspar Ortega, Jorge Fernandez, Florentino Fernandez, Willie Toweel, Yama Bahama, Isaac Logart, Holly Mims, Ralph Dupas, and Jose Stable. If one is ignorant of those fighters/that era, that's not an excuse. They were excellent excellent fighters and I could see several beating Leonard and Hearns. A MONSTER era at 147.

A monster era? Not sure if I have ever heard anyone even call it a good era.
Legends like Don Jordan and Benny Paret were champions. Those were the good old days.

What sport could you see Ortega,Fernandez,Toweel,Bhama, Logart, Mims, Dupas, and Stable beating Leonard in? Ping Pong, badminton?
No way in the world they are going to beat him in boxing.

Rodriguez was a great fighter no question about it. My point was why is Griffith rated several spots ahead of Rodriguez? They are about as even as can be. Griffith should down closer to Rodriguez.

Leonard beat several ranked fighters on his way up. Andy Price, Pete Ranzany, Randy Shields etc.
He paid his dues when he first got a title shot and had to beat a great fighter to do it.

Griffith should not have had that much trouble with Paret.

Can you imagine Griffith losing to Benitez, Duran, or Hearns? It would not take much imagination.

Hearns for that matter beat several good welterweights as well; Shields, Weston, Espada etc. Most of them easily. He about knocked Cuevas through the canvas when he won the title.

There is nothing that Griffith could do better than Leonard. Leonard had more power and was more consistent.

Put Leonard in the 50s and 60s, and he all have as many losses as Griffith and Gavilan at 147lbs. The same would be for Hearns, Benitez and Duran.

Those eras were clouded with EXCEPTIONAL TALENTED BOXERS. Randy Shields, Pete Ranzany nor Andy Price make the top 10 in the 50s or even the 60s.

Leonard was a great fighter. But to dismiss that he would've had a field day with Griffith or Gavilan it would be hard for me to picture that in my mind. I could see Griffith and Gavilan, or the great Carmen Basilio, beating him, or anybody of his era. Especially when the 50s and 60s was THE TRUE GOLDEN ERA OF WELTERWEIGHTS & MIDDLEWEIGHTS.

Oh please.

elmersalsa wrote:Put Leonard in the 50s and 60s, and he all have as many losses as Griffith and Gavilan at 147lbs. The same would be for Hearns, Benitez and Duran.

Those eras were clouded with EXCEPTIONAL TALENTED BOXERS. Randy Shields, Pete Ranzany nor Andy Price make the top 10 in the 50s or even the 60s.

i think there is an element of nostalgia
in this. the good old days where guys
fought twice a day and drank a pine of
blood for breakfast.

I can't picture seeing Randy Shields, Pete Ranzany or Andy Price beating the likes of Billy Graham, Curtis Cokes, Gaspar Ortega, or any top welterweight or middleweight of the 50s or 60s era.

man wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Put Leonard in the 50s and 60s, and he all have as many losses as Griffith and Gavilan at 147lbs. The same would be for Hearns, Benitez and Duran.

Those eras were clouded with EXCEPTIONAL TALENTED BOXERS. Randy Shields, Pete Ranzany nor Andy Price make the top 10 in the 50s or even the 60s.

i think there is an element of nostalgia
in this. the good old days where guys
fought twice a day and drank a pine of
blood for breakfast.

It was a deeper era because you had more boxers and thus greater talent at the top. When Kid Gavilan was champion boxing was probably the second most popular sport in the world behind soccer and the second most popular sport in America behind baseball. Boxing was that era's basketball or American football.

The early 80s were better than today but there was already steep decline by that period.

elmersalsa wrote:I have made a compilation of the top 25 welters in history. Debates are allowed and discussed in decent manner, without name calling, please. Once a person in this forum or debate calls someone else a name in derogatory fashion should be getting notifications from the moderators.

Here is my list:
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Emile Griffith
4. Kid Gavilan
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles
7. Barbados Joe Walcott
8. Carmen Basilio
9. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
10. Thomas Hearns
11. Luis Manuel Rodriguez
12. Ted "Kid" Lewis
13. Jack Britton
14. Charley Burley
15. Jimmy McLarnin
16. Fritzie Zivic
17. Felix "Tito" Trinidad
18. Young Corbett III
19. Donald Curry
20. Pernell Whitaker
21. Mickey Walker
22. Barney Ross
23. Curtis Cokes
24. Roberto Duran
25. Holman Williams

Let's start the debate.

Good list. I think Sugar Ray Leonard should be higher. His resume of wins is the best in the past 30 years of boxing! Speed, skills, power, durability, and smarts, combined with the showmanship to discourage his opponents. I think he's better than Griffith or Gavilan by a noticible margin.

pound per pound wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:I have made a compilation of the top 25 welters in history. Debates are allowed and discussed in decent manner, without name calling, please. Once a person in this forum or debate calls someone else a name in derogatory fashion should be getting notifications from the moderators.

Here is my list:
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Emile Griffith
4. Kid Gavilan
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles
7. Barbados Joe Walcott
8. Carmen Basilio
9. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
10. Thomas Hearns
11. Luis Manuel Rodriguez
12. Ted "Kid" Lewis
13. Jack Britton
14. Charley Burley
15. Jimmy McLarnin
16. Fritzie Zivic
17. Felix "Tito" Trinidad
18. Young Corbett III
19. Donald Curry
20. Pernell Whitaker
21. Mickey Walker
22. Barney Ross
23. Curtis Cokes
24. Roberto Duran
25. Holman Williams

Let's start the debate.

Good list. I think Sugar Ray Leonard should be higher. His resume of wins is the best in the past 30 years of boxing! Speed, skills, power, durability, and smarts, combined with the showmanship to discourage his opponents. I think he's better than Griffith or Gavilan by a noticible margin.

Great observation.

It is a good observation about Leonard.

dempseyfire wrote:

man wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Put Leonard in the 50s and 60s, and he all have as many losses as Griffith and Gavilan at 147lbs. The same would be for Hearns, Benitez and Duran.

Those eras were clouded with EXCEPTIONAL TALENTED BOXERS. Randy Shields, Pete Ranzany nor Andy Price make the top 10 in the 50s or even the 60s.

i think there is an element of nostalgia
in this. the good old days where guys
fought twice a day and drank a pine of
blood for breakfast.

It was a deeper era because you had more boxers and thus greater talent at the top. When Kid Gavilan was champion boxing was probably the second most popular sport in the world behind soccer and the second most popular sport in America behind baseball. Boxing was that era's basketball or American football.

The early 80s were better than today but there was already steep decline by that period.

Boxing did used to be much more popular; it though it was already starting a very slow decline in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It was still one of the most popular sports in the world by the late 1970s and early 1980s. It was still a solid number 4 in the United States. This really had more to do with football and basketball getting more popular than not as many people liking boxing.

You can certainly argue that across the board it would make sense that the sport would be overall better when the sport is popular than when it's not.
However, there are certainly individual cases that vary. The welterweight division was never considered that strong in the late 1950s. Don Jordan and Benny Paret are two of the least regarded welterweight champions in the history of the division.

Griffith and Rodriguez were of course really good. They just simply were not as good as Ray Leonard. This isn't a borderline case. It is a clear case.

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Boxing did used to be much more popular; it though it was already starting a very slow decline in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It was still one of the most popular sports in the world by the late 1970s and early 1980s. It was still a solid number 4 in the United States. This really had more to do with football and basketball getting more popular than not as many people liking boxing.

You can certainly argue that across the board it would make sense that the sport would be overall better when the sport is popular than when it's not.
However, there are certainly individual cases that vary. The welterweight division was never considered that strong in the late 1950s. Don Jordan and Benny Paret are two of the least regarded welterweight champions in the history of the division.

Griffith and Rodriguez were of course really good. They just simply were not as good as Ray Leonard. This isn't a borderline case. It is a clear case.

I don't know about that. Emile Griffith has credentials to be on top of Sugar Ray Leonard by anyone's standards. Beat more quality fighters and had a longer career in the eyes of many

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Boxing did used to be much more popular; it though it was already starting a very slow decline in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It was still one of the most popular sports in the world by the late 1970s and early 1980s. It was still a solid number 4 in the United States. This really had more to do with football and basketball getting more popular than not as many people liking boxing.

You can certainly argue that across the board it would make sense that the sport would be overall better when the sport is popular than when it's not.
However, there are certainly individual cases that vary. The welterweight division was never considered that strong in the late 1950s. Don Jordan and Benny Paret are two of the least regarded welterweight champions in the history of the division.

Griffith and Rodriguez were of course really good. They just simply were not as good as Ray Leonard. This isn't a borderline case. It is a clear case.

I don't know about that. Emile Griffith has credentials to be on top of Sugar Ray Leonard by anyone's standards. Beat more quality fighters and had a longer career in the eyes of many

Griffith, beat more quality fighters? Who might those be?

Leonard beat prime Duran, Benitez, Hearns, and a past his best but still really good Hagler (even though I score that fight for Hagler really close, but still not a robbery, it was a fight that could have gone either way and I'm ok with the decision.) Leonard in his prime never came close to losing to any mediocre fighter and Griffith did.

Emile best wins are Rodriguez (could easily be 4-0 against him), Fullmer, Archer, Tiger, and Benvenuti. Those are solid wins but not better than Leonard's wins.

Unless you want to argue that Duran was a bum and that is not a solid win and that Benitez and Hearns were average.

P4p or at welter Leonard should rate higher than Emile no matter how you want to look at it.

Idisagree wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Boxing did used to be much more popular; it though it was already starting a very slow decline in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It was still one of the most popular sports in the world by the late 1970s and early 1980s. It was still a solid number 4 in the United States. This really had more to do with football and basketball getting more popular than not as many people liking boxing.

You can certainly argue that across the board it would make sense that the sport would be overall better when the sport is popular than when it's not.
However, there are certainly individual cases that vary. The welterweight division was never considered that strong in the late 1950s. Don Jordan and Benny Paret are two of the least regarded welterweight champions in the history of the division.

Griffith and Rodriguez were of course really good. They just simply were not as good as Ray Leonard. This isn't a borderline case. It is a clear case.

I don't know about that. Emile Griffith has credentials to be on top of Sugar Ray Leonard by anyone's standards. Beat more quality fighters and had a longer career in the eyes of many

Griffith, beat more quality fighters? Who might those be?

Leonard beat prime Duran, Benitez, Hearns, and a past his best but still really good Hagler (even though I score that fight for Hagler really close, but still not a robbery, it was a fight that could have gone either way and I'm ok with the decision.) Leonard in his prime never came close to losing to any mediocre fighter and Griffith did.

Emile best wins are Rodriguez (could easily be 4-0 against him), Fullmer, Archer, Tiger, and Benvenuti. Those are solid wins but not better than Leonard's wins.

Unless you want to argue that Duran was a bum and that is not a solid win and that Benitez and Hearns were average.

P4p or at welter Leonard should rate higher than Emile no matter how you want to look at it.

And I am saying, that Griffith beat more quality boxers. If we go by champions, Griffith beat more. If we go by HOFs, Griffith beat more also. Beat more top notch welterweight and middleweight contenders than Leonard. All Leonard has is Duran, Benitez, Hearns and Hagler. Anybody else? were not very good.

Griffith and Gavilan beat some serious competition, were stayed longer as champions and had more longevity at welterweight alone.

Pound per pound, I definitely put Sugar Ray over them two. But, at welterweight? Gavilan and Griffith accomplishments were off the chain. They were better welterweights than Leonard. He is OK at #5. At least let's give him that

The further you go down the ladder how good the competition someone beat, the less important it is.

When you are comparing great fighters, it doesn't really matter if the 15th best fighter A beat is better than the 15 best fighter that Fighter B beat.
If you want to argue that Moyer, Paret, Ortega etc were better than Ranzany, Shields, Price etc. fine. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. Doesn't really matter. It's irrelevant.

I know elmer never gets analogies, but I will try again.
It would silly to to use as evidence that Mike Tyson was better than Joe Louis because Bonecrusher Smith was better than Lou Nova. Who cares? Louis would have beaten Smith and Tyson would have beaten Nova.

If the 3rd best opponent that Fighter A beat (lets call him Ray Leonard) beat is clearly better than the 2nd best fighter that Fighter B beat (lets call him Emile Griffith) beat, than fighter A beat better competition.

This isn't exactly rocket science here. Leonard beat better competition.
He never lost to inferior competition. Griffith did. (Gavilan btw did several times.)
Leonard was better.

Leonard didn't beat more quality boxers than Griffith. He might beat Duran, Benitez and Hearns at welterweight, but, the rest of the welterweight class has much to be desired.

Griffith had more longevity than Leonard at welterweight
Beat more quality fighters at welterweight alone.
Had more time on top than Leonard.
He is the only fighter to win the welter crown 3 times...Remarkable feat considering he was fighting in an era full of fantastic top notch talent with only one champion at the time.

Put anybody in Griffith's era to fight often like he did on the 60s and they will lose lots of fights also

The 50s and 60s, was the best era of welterweight and middleweight boxers ever. Ask any boxing historian folks, and they will make that assertion

Ambling Alp II wrote:The further you go down the ladder how good the competition someone beat, the less important it is.

When you are comparing great fighters, it doesn't really matter if the 15th best fighter A beat is better than the 15 best fighter that Fighter B beat.
If you want to argue that Moyer, Paret, Ortega etc were better than Ranzany, Shields, Price etc. fine. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. Doesn't really matter. It's irrelevant.

I know elmer never gets analogies, but I will try again.
It would silly to to use as evidence that Mike Tyson was better than Joe Louis because Bonecrusher Smith was better than Lou Nova. Who cares? Louis would have beaten Smith and Tyson would have beaten Nova.

If the 3rd best opponent that Fighter A beat (lets call him Ray Leonard) beat is clearly better than the 2nd best fighter that Fighter B beat (lets call him Emile Griffith) beat, than fighter A beat better competition.

This isn't exactly rocket science here. Leonard beat better competition.
He never lost to inferior competition. Griffith did. (Gavilan btw did several times.)
Leonard was better.

This makes perfect sense to me. Leonard was better by all accounts and beat better competition.

Well, at welterweight, the greats like Kid Gavilan and Emile Griffith had a better career, had more longevity, and reign longer as champions than Sugar Ray Leonard, who was a great welterweight himself. Nobody is denying that. He is OK at #5. The right place in this ranking.

But some people want to ignore the fact that Griffith and Gavilan were FANTASTIC AND EXCEPTIONAL FIGHTERS that could beat any welterweight of any era. They fought the sluggers, the cuties, the technicians, the hard punchers, the southpaws, you name them!

Griffith beat 4 hall of fame boxers at welterweight, and 4 world champions and a great variety of top notch contenders like Gaspar Ortega, Isaac Logart, Jorge Jose Fernandez, and Florentino Fernandez. These ain't just simple contenders, folks. These were fantastic top notch contenders. Plus HOFs like Luis Manuel Rodriguez, Denny Moyer, and Ralph Dupas and a solid two-time welterweight champ in Benny Paret.
And that's just at welterweight!

If we include the middleweight wins, we got Bennie Briscoe, Nino Benvenutti, Dick Tiger, Art Hernandez, Stanley Hayward, Tom Bogs and Gypsy Joe Harris. A total of 6 hall of famers if the IBHOF would've been right. I know some of those guys above will be inducted, so I don't worry. They had fantastic careers.

If we go pound per pound, if someone says Leonard was better, I would not disagree. If someone says Griffith was better, I would not disagree, either. They are interchangeable in the 20th to 25th slots range p4p. But, at welterweight? welterweight? I rank Griffith above Leonard and is DESERVEDLY SO IN MY VIEW.

And let's not talk about the great Kid Gavilan, lawd! What a great fighter. I only give Leonard THE EDGE in the p4p rankings because Gavilan didn't win the middleweight crown. But, we are talking 147lbs, here. Gavilan beat a serious ton of talent that cannot be match: Billy Graham, Carmen Basilio, Ike Williams, Beau Jack, Gaspar Ortega, Gil Turner, Bobby Dykes, Tommy Bell, Johnny Bratton, Rocky Castellani, Eugene Hairston, Tony Janiro, Tony Pellone and Ralph Zannelli. That's too much talent to bear. Way too much talent. Beat more TRUE WELTERWEIGHTS than Leonard and some old folks believed that he beat the great Sugar Ray Robinson in the first meeting.

Leonard ONLY TRUE WELTERWEIGHT that he beat was the great Thomas Hearns. The only one. He had the luxury that the greats like Roberto Duran and Wilfred Benitez, a lightweight and a Jr welter came up to fight him. Take Duran and Benitez, and he only has Hearns. To put him ahead of Gavilan and Griffith is a COMPLETE TRAVESTY.

elmersalsa wrote:I have made a compilation of the top 25 welters in history. Debates are allowed and discussed in decent manner, without name calling, please. Once a person in this forum or debate calls someone else a name in derogatory fashion should be getting notifications from the moderators.

Here is my list:
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Emile Griffith
4. Kid Gavilan
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles
7. Barbados Joe Walcott
8. Carmen Basilio
9. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
10. Thomas Hearns
11. Luis Manuel Rodriguez
12. Ted "Kid" Lewis
13. Jack Britton
14. Charley Burley
15. Jimmy McLarnin
16. Fritzie Zivic
17. Felix "Tito" Trinidad
18. Young Corbett III
19. Donald Curry
20. Pernell Whitaker
21. Mickey Walker
22. Barney Ross
23. Curtis Cokes
24. Roberto Duran
25. Holman Williams

Let's start the debate.

You trying to be funny number 3.Griffith and number 4.Gavilan............... it didn't work..................that silly joke

campfire wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:I have made a compilation of the top 25 welters in history. Debates are allowed and discussed in decent manner, without name calling, please. Once a person in this forum or debate calls someone else a name in derogatory fashion should be getting notifications from the moderators.

Here is my list:
1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Emile Griffith
4. Kid Gavilan
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles
7. Barbados Joe Walcott
8. Carmen Basilio
9. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
10. Thomas Hearns
11. Luis Manuel Rodriguez
12. Ted "Kid" Lewis
13. Jack Britton
14. Charley Burley
15. Jimmy McLarnin
16. Fritzie Zivic
17. Felix "Tito" Trinidad
18. Young Corbett III
19. Donald Curry
20. Pernell Whitaker
21. Mickey Walker
22. Barney Ross
23. Curtis Cokes
24. Roberto Duran
25. Holman Williams

Let's start the debate.

You trying to be funny number 3.Griffith and number 4.Gavilan............... it didn't work..................that silly joke

All I know of what I have seen on video tape, that Emile Griffith and Kid Gavilan were EXCEPTIONAL FIGHTERS!

Idisagree wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:The further you go down the ladder how good the competition someone beat, the less important it is.

When you are comparing great fighters, it doesn't really matter if the 15th best fighter A beat is better than the 15 best fighter that Fighter B beat.
If you want to argue that Moyer, Paret, Ortega etc were better than Ranzany, Shields, Price etc. fine. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. Doesn't really matter. It's irrelevant.

I know elmer never gets analogies, but I will try again.
It would silly to to use as evidence that Mike Tyson was better than Joe Louis because Bonecrusher Smith was better than Lou Nova. Who cares? Louis would have beaten Smith and Tyson would have beaten Nova.

If the 3rd best opponent that Fighter A beat (lets call him Ray Leonard) beat is clearly better than the 2nd best fighter that Fighter B beat (lets call him Emile Griffith) beat, than fighter A beat better competition.

This isn't exactly rocket science here. Leonard beat better competition.
He never lost to inferior competition. Griffith did. (Gavilan btw did several times.)
Leonard was better.

This makes perfect sense to me. Leonard was better by all accounts and beat better competition.

Yep. It is cut and dry. Leonard beat better competition. He never lost to inferior competiton, Griffith did.
elmer ignores these basic facts. They aren't convenient for him.
As usual, he goes into spin mode and uses random things that are supposed to help his case. He brings up Griffith winning the title three times. Robinson won the middleweight title five times but he doesn't like Robinson so he won't rank him that high at middleweight.

He brings up fighter like Ortega who lost many times and acts like it's a big deal that Griffith beat him. He may or not be better than fighters like Ranzany, Price, etc. Doesn't matter. He wasn't as good a Duran, Benitez, or Hearns. That is what matters.

Griffith and Gavilan fought in a tougher era and very often. Of course they had to lose some fights, no matter who it is. But, they were THE TOP DOGS of their eras. If Leonard was the best welterweight of the 80s, Griffith and Gavilan were the best welterweights of their generation in the 60s and 50s respectively.

All three, Griffith, Gavilan and Leonard were exceptional welterweight greats. I don't see them talent wise one way better than the other. To me, they were AT THE SAME LEVEL. A series of fights between the 3 would be very difficult to score each time they fight. No doubt.