Emile Griffith or Ray Leonard: Who was the best welter?

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 02 Dec 2007, 03:25

I asume that in this forum they got Sugar Ray Robinson as the #1 welterweight in history and Henry Armstrong a close behind at #2. Who shall be #3 in the welterweight rankings? Emile Griffith or Sugar Ray Leonard?

I pick Griffith as #3 all-time welterweight and Leonard at #4.

Diamond WEAPON · Post by **Diamond WEAPON** » 02 Dec 2007, 05:03

I'd go with Leonard... I really need to buy that new Ring mag, they have a list of who they think are the 20 greatest WW's of all time, I believe Griffith was 4th and Leonard was something like 8th. There was a lot of old-timers in it and Duran and Whitaker were 20th and 19th respectively. Hearns I think was around 14th.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 02 Dec 2007, 16:36

Hearns at 14......................is that a mistake? Surely far too low

Diamond WEAPON · Post by **Diamond WEAPON** » 02 Dec 2007, 18:37

dr_devious wrote:Hearns at 14......................is that a mistake? Surely far too low

I can't remember where he was exactly, but it was somewhere between 11-14 I think. I might go buy it today or tomorrow so as soon as I do I'll post the list. They did have a lot of old-timers on there though. Kid Gavilan, Jose Napoles, Jimmy McLarnin, etc.

Brich1930b · Post by **Brich1930b** » 02 Dec 2007, 19:01

LEONARD IS NUMBER ONE IN HIS PRIME. I FEEL HE COULD BEAT BOTH ROBINSON, AND ARMSTRON. IN THERE PRIME. BUT WHAT DO I REALLY KNOW. GOOD QUESTION.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 02 Dec 2007, 20:07

forget leonard ever beating Robinson. That's fantasy. He might last 15 with napoles if jose comes in with a flu.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 02 Dec 2007, 23:27

Elton John wrote:forget leonard ever beating Robinson. That's fantasy. He might last 15 with napoles if jose comes in with a flu.

I think Leonard would have whip Robinson

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 03 Dec 2007, 07:35

elmersalsa wrote:
Elton John wrote:forget leonard ever beating Robinson. That's fantasy. He might last 15 with napoles if jose comes in with a flu.
I think Leonard would have whip Robinson

Whipped?

Feck man, you just topped your funniest post ever.

You watch much boxing?

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 03 Dec 2007, 17:05

Cmon Collins, get real. Salsa is right, Leonard would have whipped Robinson, in 1981

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 04 Dec 2007, 00:43

Collins2000 wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:
Elton John wrote:forget leonard ever beating Robinson. That's fantasy. He might last 15 with napoles if jose comes in with a flu.
I think Leonard would have whip Robinson

Whipped?

Feck man, you just topped your funniest post ever.

You watch much boxing?

I do not see how Robinson would have beat an excellent and extraordinary fighter like Sugar Ray Leonard. To tell you the truth, I cannot see Robinson beating someone like Emile Griffith at welterweight.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 04 Dec 2007, 01:30

elmersalsa wrote:
Collins2000 wrote:
elmersalsa wrote: I think Leonard would have whip Robinson

Whipped?

Feck man, you just topped your funniest post ever.

You watch much boxing?

I do not see how Robinson would have beat an excellent and extraordinary fighter like Sugar Ray Leonard. To tell you the truth, I cannot see Robinson beating someone like Emile Griffith at welterweight.

Yeah, but your knowledge of boxing is rather shallow isn't it?

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 04 Dec 2007, 06:05

Hearns is a difficult one to rate. He didn't unify the titles. He obviously would be a formidable opponent for anyone...but he doesn't have a record that really stands out above many of the other greats (at 147).

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 04 Dec 2007, 09:09

dr_devious wrote:Cmon Collins, get real. Salsa is right, Leonard would have whipped Robinson, in 1981

Possibly, or SRL may have delayed offering the fight until 1982 and then demanded a catch weight of 152. Under those conditions, I would make SRL a slight favorite.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 04 Dec 2007, 09:34

Robinson, you have to remember, was a seriously tough negotiator himself. He made a habit of dishing out some pretty heavy-duty demands during his Middleweight days in particular.

Probably for the best these two didn't share an era --- they may never have found each other in the same ring.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 04 Dec 2007, 18:11

At welterweight, I pick Leonard or Griffith to beat Robinson...At middleweight, I pick Robinson any time. He was much stronger than Leonard and Griffith at 160lbs.

Marlin · Post by **Marlin** » 04 Dec 2007, 20:46

Griffith.

Diamond WEAPON · Post by **Diamond WEAPON** » 05 Dec 2007, 05:56

Aight, I finally copped the Feb. issue of The Ring, here's their list of the top 20 Greatest Welterweights of all time:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Kid Gavilan
4. Charlie Burley
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Carmen Basilio
7. Jose Napoles
8. Tommy Ryan
9. Joe Walcott
10. Emile Griffith
11. Tommy Hearns
12. Mickey Walker
13. Jack Britton
14. Ted "Kid" Lewis
15. Barney Ross
16. Jimmy McLarnin
17. Luis Rodriguez
18. Billy Graham
19. Pernell Whitaker
20. Roberto Duran

Future Candidates mentioned (in order of importance given in article):
Shane Mosley (Already In Contention)
Oscar De La Hoya (Already In Contention)
Felix Trinidad
Ike Quartey
Kassim Ouma
Floyd Mayweather
Miguel Cotto
Ricky Hatton
Paul Williams
Kermit Cintron
Andre Berto

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 05 Dec 2007, 06:16

Cotto & Mosley are candidates for an all-time placing at Welter!?

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 05 Dec 2007, 06:21

I'd rank SRL above Griffith.

Both were outstanding welterweights, both were tough as hell & had big hearts, but SRL's speed & skill give him the edge for me.

Diamond WEAPON · Post by **Diamond WEAPON** » 05 Dec 2007, 06:29

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Cotto & Mosley are candidates for an all-time placing at Welter!?

Mosley yes, but with Cotto and everybody else under Trinidad it was more tentative, they're not candidates yet but may very well be in the future.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 05 Dec 2007, 06:45

I wonder what they think of Vernon Forrest then.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 05 Dec 2007, 20:19

Robinson and Lewis was at the front with Napoles. You could probably throw in Norris and Whitaker.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 06 Dec 2007, 10:20

Apparently Norris' career total of zero wins at welterweight indicates to you that he should be considered one of the best welterweights of all time.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 06 Dec 2007, 19:27

^Really? He didn't seem to have any problem with your #1 choice.

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 06 Dec 2007, 19:34

elmersalsa wrote:I asume that in this forum they got Sugar Ray Robinson as the #1 welterweight in history and Henry Armstrong a close behind at #2. Who shall be #3 in the welterweight rankings? Emile Griffith or Sugar Ray Leonard?

I pick Griffith as #3 all-time welterweight and Leonard at #4.

Good debate. We had this a few years ago.

Purists fight it woul be for sure.

Ray was the heavier hitter, esp with the left hook.

But Emile would have given him a similar fight to Benitez, but Emile would have been in better condition.

I think it may have needed a trilogy to solve it.

Emile Griffith or Ray Leonard: Who was the best welter?

Emile Griffith or Ray Leonard: Who was the best welter?

Re: Emile Griffith or Ray Leonard: Who was the best welter?