50 Greatest Welterweights of all Time

I'm no expert on Bell.
I know he beat a few contenders (California Jackie Wilson among them, who himself was highly regarded) , he gave prime Robinson and tough fight and, interestingly, around that time was only really losing to full blown middleweights for the most part.

No, he's placed about right. I completely missed his name somehow.

 

The fights they had could have pretty much all gone either way. So the title numbers are just a result of judges interpretation. Had they given LMR the nod during certain fights his title record and Emile's would be reversed with no tangible difference in the actual fighters themselves so the numbers don't mean that much to me.

They share the best victories at WW and during those 6 years or whatever they were both the top dogs, just that some judges saw it a different way to others and a handful of defences could have gone to LMR with just a different pair of eyes watching.

I'm not calling any fight a robbery because I don't see that, I'm doubting your view on Griffith having a wider resume though, I don't see it like that but I could be wrong.

I personally have them 9 and 10 I think, would have to double check my spreadsheet but I think it's that.

 

I'm of the same thinking.
To take it to its extreme, if a welterweight went and knocked out Wladimir Klitschko it would surely be reasonable to say that makes him a seriously great welterweight and would influence where he stands among other 147 men.

But I guess there is another way of looking at it.

 

my question relating to this exercise, is that 4 years ago there was a poll in classic rating the welterweights. In that poll Tommy Hearns was voted 7th, and now he's been relegated to a Tier 4 fighter, making him no better than 15th, I find this confusing.

It seems to me the ranking at that time was pretty solid and over the last 4 years, really only one fighter, Mayweather, has done anything in the division such that any changes to this ranking would be necessary that being the case what is the purpose of this exercise. (not that I mind it, because I learn a lot but that aside..)

 

I'd say it makes him a great HW

 

Yeah that's why I have him number 3 :good

 

But why not as a welter too? If he beats a full fledged middleweight whilst weighing 145lbs, to me that's an accomplishment as a welterweight. I don't see why he shouldn't get credit for it as a welter merely because the other guy was a lot bigger.

 

Would you say it means he should not get credit as a MW merely because he was a lot smaller?

 

Well, I don't think it's that difficult to separate his welterweight bouts from the rest. Two wins over Kid Gavilan stand out, but what else is left to make him so far ahead of everyone else in welterweight history? Unless, like I said, you are using head-to-head comparison very heavily.

 

Why can't he get credit in both divisions? He beat a great middleweight whilst weighing in as a welterweight.

 

For me, because it's a MW bout it bolsters his MW standing.

 

But the point is it really boosts his standing in both divisions. It doesn't have to be a choice. He beat a middleweight and he did it as a welterweight. If Pacquiao weighs 147lb he's a welterweight and if he knocks out Wlad Klitschko whilst weighing 147lb he's not only beaten a heavyweight but he's done it as a welterweight. He gets credit in both divisions for me.

 

Especially if he's not even counting the LaMotta fights. Seems like he must be using a whole different set of criteria in ranking Robinson.