Top 10 Lightweights of All Time

I'll be honest I don't think that much to pre 1940s fighters, other than Leonard and think the technical aspects of the sport peaked at that time. I edited my list to include Loche and bump Ross up so Blackburn dropped out, bye bye Jack :hi:

 

I doubt if he had lived he'd have a live chance in the 1970s (no pun intended), he wouldn't be able to pull the trigger but if Frazier's head and foot movement was off and Liston timed shots on him Frazier would probably go down. Foreman had to throw around a 90round to keep Frazier down (and he didnt keep down either)

 

Canzoneri has one of best resume ever he is top ten for sure maybe top 5.
Gans should be like 13 places higher. Williams should be higher too.
Almost all of Locche big wins are at 140 why is he ranked at lightweight.
Mayweather sure he belongs their his resume at the weight is amazing :yep you are taking nuthugging to a whole new level. If 130 guys are included why isn't Arguello higher and this is a lightweight list not a p4p who fought there and what they achieve in other weights if so why aren't Armstrong and Ross higher? Your ranking makes little sense.

p.s if you really consider fighters who fought at lightweight and what they achieved at higher weights then SRR and Langford are top 3.

 

He fought with his hands down and leaned back in straight lines. Plus he Ruiz'ed allot

 

I'm talking about his longevity where it counts, as champion. He also beat a fresher Folley than Ali did, not bad. Valdez was a fellow puncher who he beat inside 3 rounds. Liston's superb record before he became champion counts for something, but outwith one defense of the heavyweight title it makes up for him being a #3 ATG heavyweight? The Ali defeats don't help him of course, they just make matters worse. The rematch was the chance to gain revenage, yet he failed.

He fought nobody with a losing record. Thats lies. I have just checked on boxrec and the vast majority of fighters he fought had losing records at the time he faced them. At least 70% of the fighters he fought had losing records. Anyway, losing records look good on paper and can be decieving. As can records with a large amount of defeats. Many of the greats from the 30's, 40's, and 50's had many loses but were considered great. Some that never even won world titles.

Liston was bashing through the divison to reach his goal. And it's when you get to the top of the mountain, It's what you do while your there that counts. And if you get knocked off the top off the mountain while you were on it briefly, make sure you climb back up again.

Liston lacked longevity and bounce-back-ability at the top. Many fighters have longeivty in general, but to be among the elite greats of any division you need the longevity where it matters. Liston knocking out opponents while moving through the 50's wasn't done out of boredom was it? Nope, as it was to get the heavyweight title.

 

I highly value Ability at the weight, and the fights won too rank highly, if I see certain eras as better I account for this, hence Gans/Blackburn arent rated as highly as I dont rate the eras

Hence because I don't rate the skills of Canzoneri, Gans, Arguello. Williams I think highly of on film and a very good resume albeit a tad inconsistant.

I see the 60s-70s as a great era for LWs so thats factored in.

Loche fought Laguna and Ortiz at 135 pre-140.

Armstrong I see as great but overrated, I rate Duran, Mayweather and Whitaker as better LWs and see them all taking him.

SRR did fight around 17-19 fights at LW, he has some very good wins but wasnt there long and was a bit green. In terms of ability at the weight a Green-SRR is probably still top10, if not top5

Langford fought Gans above the LW limit, so was he a LW? I'm not sure. The fact that a 17yo got the better of Gans rates against Gans.

 

"He fought NOBODY with a losing record"

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=009031&cat=boxer

Start your way at the bottom and work your way up and you'll see for yourself. Liston faced many fighters with losing records. I'm not too high on losing or winning records anyway. A fighter can go on an unbeaten run while fighting bums or a losing streak fighting fellow contenders. Or vice versa. It's all to do with quality.

Ali also ran into Frazier and Norton.

Ok, fair enough. But many fighters do after losing their title.

 

Fine if you don't rate the pre 60's guys on ability but Blackburn probably has one of the best resumes at the weight and with Canzoneri that must count for something.

Locche fought Ortiz above 135 and most feel he should have lost that fight.

The reason that I bought up langford and SRR is because you talked about fighters who fought at 135 and what they achieved in other weight

This content is protected

of these twos prime was at lightweight but they achieved great thing and according to your ranking they should be there.

You don't rate Arguello high on a skill level:yikes

Also Williams has a win over Gavilan while he was still a lightweight that could be the greatest win out of the listed fighters. (Duran over Leonard is probably better.)

 

Its not just wins above the weight, but if they were at or near their best at the weight. Whitaker, Duran, Mayweather, Chavez, Mosley were near their very best at 135. Loche/Delahoya weren't too far from their best. Langford and Robinson were not near their best yet. Robinson was clearly nearer to his best though, you'd fancy a near prime great LW to 'Old Man' him

No I don't rate Arguello that highly in terms of skill set