BoxRec

Obviously Ray Robinson.. I would also include Napoles, Billy Graham, and Luis Rodriguez. Who else would be included?

Kid Gavilan. Never knocked out in over 143 fights. Could beat anyone in his prime IMO (except maybe Robinson).

Defintely Henry Armstrong needs a mention.

Explain to me why Armstrong at welter.

I feel this was his weakest weight he held the title in, and the defences were not the best about back then, and that goes for the guy that eventualy took the title off him.

No need to belittle my countryman Zivic He did give Robinson two very difficult fights; Robinson, Conn, Beau Jack all said he was the smartest boxer they ever faced. Has any one else marked what seems to be a relative dearth of welters in the HoF? Heavies and middles seem to carry the largest part of the inductees. Oh and how about Basilio at 147, and unless I've missed him I haven't seen Leonard come up; I don't think he could beat Napoles or Basilio or Gavilan or Robinson or Graham.

tonyevs wrote:Explain to me why Armstrong at welter.

I feel this was his weakest weight he held the title in, and the defences were not the best about back then, and that goes for the guy that eventualy took the title off him.

20 defences in two years certainly deserves a mention.

One of those defences was against our' own Ernie Roderick, a beautiful boxer and what a record! If you look at Armstrong's record Roderick was one of only a handfull of fighters that took Henry the "distance" in that 2 - 3 year period!

Roderick said he would beat him in the rematch that never happened and that he had or was 'still' suffering the Flu during the fight, I can't remember exactly!

Ernie Roderick was great and one of Britain and Europe's greatest ever fighters, he was British welterweight King for years!

Armstrong is something of an enigma at welterweight. He really seems to have been suited for the modern junior lightweight and juniorwelterweight classes. From the record, he doesn't seem to have grown beyond the 140-lb class. His title defense record certainly places him in the discussion for top welterweight, but he does have inconsistencies. I'd say he ranks higher in the pound-for-pound category than he does in any single weight class. A real oddity.

I would have to place Basilio in my top five along with Robinson, Graham, and Gavilan. Ray Leonard might have been over-hyped in my time, and he certainly didn't have the quantity of wins over name opponents as the guys listed above, but he was very very good. I'd have to put him in at number 5. The next five would have Napoles, Rodriguez, McLarnin, Ross, Armstrong or possibly Hearns. And Zivic should be near the top ten, I'd say. If any of the top fighters were slightly off their game against him, Zivic would pull it out. There's a lot of old timers, such as Tommy Ryan or Packey McFarland, who are difficult to judge but who might be near the very top if I had seen them fight. Certainly an entertaining weight class to study.

19 defenses in just two years, a hammering of Barney Ross to win the title, defenses over Baby Arizmendi, Ceferino Garcia, Lew Feldman, Ernie Roderick, Pedro Montanez. Not all are the best known, but were the best of his era and he dominated them. And Zivic was no bum, look at his record and his opponents. After his title reign, Armstrong had victories over Tippy Larkin, Willie Joyce, Bummy Davis, and Juan Zurita. In his prime (1937-1940), Armstrong is in my opinion the greatest fighter of all time, the only man who could defeat him was himself (the low blows from his continual attack in the Ambers rematch, with the 4 points taken away he wins a commanding decision).

He flamed out early, probably from his alcholism, maybe his busy fight schedule factored in. I agree with you that he was a natural lightweight, but you can't agrue with 19 defenses (welterweight record) in two years against the best of his day.

jimglen wrote:One of those defences was against our' own Ernie Roderick, a beautiful boxer and what a record! If you look at Armstrong's record Roderick was one of only a handfull of fighters that took Henry the "distance" in that 2 - 3 year period!

Roderick said he would beat him in the rematch that never happened and that he had or was 'still' suffering the Flu during the fight, I can't remember exactly!

Ernie Roderick was great and one of Britain and Europe's greatest ever fighters, he was British welterweight King for years!

Nice one Jim...this part of the article on him I placed on our Merseyside and Wirral site


His next fight was against Henry Armstrong for the Americans World Title but lost on points after 15 rounds at Harringay. He was promised a quick return but delayed it for a week as he was married on 26 Aug and when the 2nd World War broke out it squashed his hopes.

He was convinced he would win in a return bout and said of Armstrong “ He was a slapper really and a good referee wouldn’t have given him any points. In addition when I boxed him I was suffering from a thyroid complaint “ …”If I had been properly fit I could have beaten him”.
http://www.lmu.livjm.ac.uk/inmylife/Cha ... 6.htm[url]

Jukejar wrote: I'd say he ranks higher in the pound-for-pound category than he does in any single weight class. A real oddity.

Sums up what I too think of the great man.

There were many, many very good welters about at that time, who at best could only fight for state recognised world titles or the coloured version of the welterweight title.

The idea that Armstrong would have beaten Ambers without the deductions is B.S. for two reasons: 1. The first fight was a close controversial decision. and 2. Anyone who has seen the second fight can tell you that Armstrong is lucky he was ONLY deducted 4 points. Its one of the dirtiest exhibitions of prizefighting Ive ever seen and I LOVE Armstrong! He didnt just hit low, he threw elbows, he butted, he used his shoulders, you name it, he fouled through the whole fight, every round, and multiple times each round. When I finally saw the fight I felt history had done a disservice to Ambers by saying Armstrong would have won blah blah blah. Armstrong is lucky he was allowed to finish the fight without a DQ loss on his record.

klompton wrote:The idea that Armstrong would have beaten Ambers without the deductions is B.S. for two reasons: 1. The first fight was a close controversial decision. and 2. Anyone who has seen the second fight can tell you that Armstrong is lucky he was ONLY deducted 4 points. Its one of the dirtiest exhibitions of prizefighting Ive ever seen and I LOVE Armstrong! He didnt just hit low, he threw elbows, he butted, he used his shoulders, you name it, he fouled through the whole fight, every round, and multiple times each round. When I finally saw the fight I felt history had done a disservice to Ambers by saying Armstrong would have won blah blah blah. Armstrong is lucky he was allowed to finish the fight without a DQ loss on his record.

I apoligize about that. I was really flustered and became superflous with my comments. Both Ambers fights were close and dirty tactics were rampant in both, but I really don't see either as controversial, just close decisions that went both ways and are both justified decisions.

I just got flustered because I believe I have had this debate with tonyevs before. I agree with some of points he mentioned, but just can't see why he doesn't feel Armstrong at least deserves a mention. I can realize why he may not place him at the top, but I just feel he should just be considered with the top guys.

Mickey Walker should be on the list somewhere, but how high?

Sherlock wrote:

klompton wrote:The idea that Armstrong would have beaten Ambers without the deductions is B.S. for two reasons: 1. The first fight was a close controversial decision. and 2. Anyone who has seen the second fight can tell you that Armstrong is lucky he was ONLY deducted 4 points. Its one of the dirtiest exhibitions of prizefighting Ive ever seen and I LOVE Armstrong! He didnt just hit low, he threw elbows, he butted, he used his shoulders, you name it, he fouled through the whole fight, every round, and multiple times each round. When I finally saw the fight I felt history had done a disservice to Ambers by saying Armstrong would have won blah blah blah. Armstrong is lucky he was allowed to finish the fight without a DQ loss on his record.

I apoligize about that. I was really flustered and became superflous with my comments. Both Ambers fights were close and dirty tactics were rampant in both, but I really don't see either as controversial, just close decisions that went both ways and are both justified decisions.

I just got flustered because I believe I have had this debate with tonyevs before. I agree with some of points he mentioned, but just can't see why he doesn't feel Armstrong at least deserves a mention. I can realize why he may not place him at the top, but I just feel he should just be considered with the top guys.

Yeah that goes without saying, Armstrong was amazing. Period. definately deserves mention with any great welter.

I am always hesitant to incude Hearns in any best of list because he didn't handle resistance from guys wanting to win well at all- and you see lots of that among guys on best of lists. Also he didn't take punches well at all. His legs could desert him without warning. How about Carlos Palomino? Very solid fighter all around, his one onvious flaw being a tendency to swing his right hand a little too often

.[/quote]

but just can't see why he doesn't feel Armstrong at least deserves a mention. I can realize why he may not place him at the top, but I just feel he should just be considered with the top guys.[/quote]

If I was to list the great fighters who had won the welterweight title then Henry Armstrong would without doubt be ranked near the very top of the list.

But I just don`t see him as one of the best welters ever, lets not forget he moved up to this weight whilst not a natural welter, Barney Ross was at the end of a hard career...hence why he retired, so the pummeling Ross took may have just been Armstrong getting to him at the right time.

The Zivic loss showed to me why he doesn`t make the top 10 welters, simply because Armstrong wash not washed up then or even for awhile after, I feel it was just because as great as he was, welter was just too much for him.
A rough house like Zivic makes me think the even rougher young Mickey Walker would have made it an easier night.
There have been many, many great welters, Armstrong to me is a great fighter who held the welter title...just not a great welter.

Ray Leonard...Felix Trinidad(welter)

Tommy Hearns is up there. He was robbed by ref Davey Pearl in his fight that Tommy was winning on all cards. Ray Leonard never did give "The Motor City Cobra" the deserved rematch until 8 years later. He did not want to get the beating he got the first time. Everyone else Hearns fought as a welterweight he destroyed.

I really like Tommy Hearns, but I think that he made a big mistake by fighting Leonard as a welterweight. I think that Hearns was much stronger as a junior middleweight, and should have insisted on fighting Leonard at 154 lbs. Hearns was devastating at 154 lbs. Hearns should have said that he could no longer make the 147 lb. limit. Both Leonard and Hearns held titles at 154 lbs. at that time, as well as at 147 lbs.

Neither Hearns nor Leonard held a light middleweight championship at the time of their fight. Hearns didnt win his until over a year after his fight with leonard when he faced Benitez. leonard had relinquished his WBA light middle belt before he ever fought hearns. therefore they couldnt have fought for a title at 154 and it wouldnt have been as big a fight as the welterweight unification.

I guess that you are right about Hearns not holding a title at 154 lbs. at the time of the Leonard fight or before. However, Leonard did by beating Ayub Kalule. Leonard may have given up his 154 lb. title before fighting Hearns, but I don't think that he had to.

Hearns still should have fought him at 154 lbs. for Leonard's title at that weight. I think that the fight still would have been big because there was a lot of interest in seeing a Hearns-Leonard fight at that time, regardless of weight class.