Top 5 Welterweights of all time?

[Deno1986]

The Welterweight division is considered by many to be the best division at the moment and has been much publicised recently due to the Pac-Mayweather exploits. But looking back over history how do the current welterweights rate with those of the past and would any of them fit into your top 5?

List your top 5 Welterweights..I'll go first

1. Ray Robinson
2. Jose Napoles
3. Ray Leonard
4. Roberto Duran
5. Tommy Hearns

[Deno1986]

Irene,

My argument for having Duran. He didn't have a long welterweight career but an impressive one beating Palomino and the previously undefeated Ray Leonard which was arguably the best 147 performance given over the past half a century. Of course he ruined it all in the rematch. He left the division too early and I think he would have been a match for anyone in the division. It's the first Leonard fight that stands out the most and thats why I included him in my top 5.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Robinson
Armstrong
Gavilan
Griffith
Leonard

[Ezzard]

Robinson
Armstrong
Griffith
Napoles
Leonard

[Goodnight, Irene]

Irene,

My argument for having Duran. He didn't have a long welterweight career but an impressive one beating Palomino and the previously undefeated Ray Leonard which was arguably the best 147 performance given over the past half a century. Of course he ruined it all in the rematch. He left the division too early and I think he would have been a match for anyone in the division. It's the first Leonard fight that stands out the most and thats why I included him in my top 5.

Is it really a fair evaluation, then, if you don't feel you know the other names well?

Gavilan, Basilio, Walker all have resumes at 147lbs. which positively tower over Duran's. Sure, he'd give them all hell at this weight (& they him, I might add), but where the outcome head-to-head is debatable, surely the guys who've done way more at Welter deserve the nod.

[Deno1986]

Irene,

My argument for having Duran. He didn't have a long welterweight career but an impressive one beating Palomino and the previously undefeated Ray Leonard which was arguably the best 147 performance given over the past half a century. Of course he ruined it all in the rematch. He left the division too early and I think he would have been a match for anyone in the division. It's the first Leonard fight that stands out the most and thats why I included him in my top 5.

Is it really a fair evaluation, then, if you don't feel you know the other names well?

Gavilan, Basilio, Walker all have resumes at 147lbs. which positively tower over Duran's. Sure, he'd give them all hell at this weight (& they him, I might add), but where the outcome head-to-head is debatable, surely the guys who've done way more at Welter deserve the nod.

Honestly, that would be fair assumption. I'm still trying to learn about fighters from the first half of the 20th century. I havn't read about or watched enough of the above mentioned fighters YET to consider them in my top 5 Welterweights, maybe in a year or two Kid Gavilan or Basillio will be in there. Thats why I created the thread to try and gauge between current fighters and the older fighters thus me learning more about the fighters of days gone by. I picked my 5 on who I have seen fighting at Welter and who have impressed me.

Of course it's an entirely opininated thread and not everyone is going to have the same 5, ye older heads will have more knowledge obviously so shoot with your five.

[dr_devious]

Robinson
Leonard
Griffiths
Hearns
Gavilan

[Goodnight, Irene]

I'm not an old-head (I'm 25), but I do have an extensive fight library, & have always gravitated heavily to Boxing's history.

I won't list them in an order --- at least, for the moment --- but these would be my top-five men for 147lbs.

Robinson
Napoles
Armstrong
Gavilan
Griffith

There have been some really brilliant names at this weight. Leonard, Walcott, Walker, Cokes, Duran, Hearns, Basilio, Lewis --- all were spectacular ringmen, for a variety of reasons. Even when you get as deep as the top 20-25 of all-time in this division, it's so competitive in terms of greatness, you see very impressive contemporary names below the absolute elite --- Mayweather, Trinidad, De La Hoya, Mosley & company.

If ever I were to recommend a division for learning its history, I would class Welter as among the most worthwhile, along with Heavy & Middle. A lot of happy reading (& viewing) awaits you!

[BoxBuzz]

I would submit that this is this weight class where I beleive the most energy and power has been demonstrated pound for pound. Possibly the weight where the human body demonstrates the most efficiency?

Be interesting to get a biophyiscs expert take on the subject in general.

[banjo]

Armstrong
Robinson
Gavilan
Napoles
Leonard

[Deno1986]

If ever I were to recommend a division for learning its history, I would class Welter as among the most worthwhile, along with Heavy & Middle. A lot of happy reading (& viewing) awaits you!

Definitely, early and mid 20th century boxing is next on my to-do list. i know a bit about the obvious guys like Robinson, Johnson etc and I'm fairly clued in from the 70's up but my knowledge before this era needs to be improved. I am going to start by watching Basilio-DeMarco 1

Sorry if I offended you for callin you a 'old head' by the way

[Mr E]

1-Sugar Ray Robinson
2-Sugar Ray Leonard
3-Mickey Walker
4-Charley Burley
5-Jose Napoles

[Grimm]

Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Ray Leonard
Kid Gavilan
Pernell Whitaker

My list anyway

[dempseyfire]

How are people leaving out Barney Ross? Definitely a superior fighter to Napoles IMO:

In no particular order:

Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Barney Ross, Emile Griffith, Joe Walcott

Walker is another great one but I always rank him at middle as opposed to 147. I also always consider Armstrong a lightweight more than a welterweight.

[Goodnight, Irene]

You didn't offend me in the least, Deno --- just pointing it out, as a lot of people sometimes mistake me for being older on this Forum.

[Ambling Alp]

1. Ray Robinson
2. Ray Leonard
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Barney Ross
5. Kid Gavilan

I can see why some people don't consider Armstrong in the top 5 at this weight, but I think he did enough.
Jose Naploes, Emile Griffith,Thomas Hearns, Jimmy McLarnin, Jack Britton, and Ted Kid Lewis aren't too far off.
If you look just at what Walker did at welterweight, he isn't close. He was a much better fighter at middleweight.

[Mr E]

How are people leaving out Barney Ross? Definitely a superior fighter to Napoles IMO:

In no particular order:

Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Barney Ross, Emile Griffith, Joe Walcott

Walker is another great one but I always rank him at middle as opposed to 147. I also always consider Armstrong a lightweight more than a welterweight.

Ross was a great fighter, no question, but IMO Napoles would have taken him APART. Recall his near shutout of Emile Griffith, whom you put in the top 5.

[dempseyfire]

How are people leaving out Barney Ross? Definitely a superior fighter to Napoles IMO:

In no particular order:

Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Barney Ross, Emile Griffith, Joe Walcott

Walker is another great one but I always rank him at middle as opposed to 147. I also always consider Armstrong a lightweight more than a welterweight.

Ross was a great fighter, no question, but IMO Napoles would have taken him APART. Recall his near shutout of Emile Griffith, whom you put in the top 5.

Disagree. Griffith was past it by the time Napoles and BADLY drained at 144 lbs, the lowest he'd weighed in 7 years and much lower than the 154-157 he'd been regularly weighing in at time, as he was regularly fighting as a middleweight.

Ross was an excellent technician with inhuman stamina and durability. Re-watching him a few weeks back vs McClarnin, I'd really forgotten how great a fighter Ross was. And he was excelling in a TOUGH tough era vs other great fighters. The one caveat would be that Ross was really more of a light welterweight rather than a welterweight . . .which is why ranking a lot of these weight jumping fighters can be tough.

[MEISINGER]

i do not doubt ray leonards boxing ability
i am so blown away by people rating him so high
as an all time great.

great ability fantastic boxer but really a short career

[Mr E]

How are people leaving out Barney Ross? Definitely a superior fighter to Napoles IMO:

In no particular order:

Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Barney Ross, Emile Griffith, Joe Walcott

Walker is another great one but I always rank him at middle as opposed to 147. I also always consider Armstrong a lightweight more than a welterweight.

Ross was a great fighter, no question, but IMO Napoles would have taken him APART. Recall his near shutout of Emile Griffith, whom you put in the top 5.

Disagree. Griffith was past it by the time Napoles and BADLY drained at 144 lbs, the lowest he'd weighed in 7 years and much lower than the 154-157 he'd been regularly weighing in at time, as he was regularly fighting as a middleweight.

Ross was an excellent technician with inhuman stamina and durability. Re-watching him a few weeks back vs McClarnin, I'd really forgotten how great a fighter Ross was. And he was excelling in a TOUGH tough era vs other great fighters. The one caveat would be that Ross was really more of a light welterweight rather than a welterweight . . .which is why ranking a lot of these weight jumping fighters can be tough.

I know Griffith's management team said he came in too light after the fact but it didn't look to me like he was weak. And he was a natural welterweight who was still fighting, successfully, in the low 150s a decade later. And Napoles really spanked him.

Ross was a great one but Napoles had everything on him, I think.

[Goodnight, Irene]

How are people leaving out Barney Ross? Definitely a superior fighter to Napoles IMO:

In no particular order:

Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Barney Ross, Emile Griffith, Joe Walcott

Walker is another great one but I always rank him at middle as opposed to 147. I also always consider Armstrong a lightweight more than a welterweight.

Ross is ranked as my #7, all-time, at the weight. Don't think he wasn't in my calculations for Deno's question

[Mr E]

One question to the forum. You guys who aren't rating Charley Burley -- i.e., everyone but me -- is that because you don't consider him to have been a "welterweight" or because you don't think he was top 5 material? Or both?

[BoxBuzz]

I for one considered Burley a bit heavier at his best. What's your take?

[Mr E]

I sort of view him as being in the same boat as Robinson, weight-wise -- able to make welter during most of his career. Many of his best fights were fought at slightly over the welter limit but I think he was a natural 147-pounder. Am I wrong?

[Goodnight, Irene]

One question to the forum. You guys who aren't rating Charley Burley -- i.e., everyone but me -- is that because you don't consider him to have been a "welterweight" or because you don't think he was top 5 material? Or both?

I don't truly consider him among the 147lbers, no.