Five best welterweights ever, head to head?

Well Done.

 

How do you ascertain the quality of his wins without seeing his opponents on film? I'm sure you can "get a sense", but can you get a precise enough one?

Just out of interest.

 

A lot of this is a matter of opinion though Suzie, and you know it is. Many people think Quartey won that fight, i'm not isolated in that being my stance. I fully agree that Oscar is greater than Shane, i'm just highlighting that at welterweight, Oscar is very beatable by good welters, let alone great ones, and never mind the best of the best, which is what this thread is about. I don't think providing stats is a very objective way to determine a winner between Whittaker and Oscar either. My method is watching the rounds and judging a winner of them. A lot of people had Oscar not winning that one, as you know. So your word is not law on that one either, it's a close fight, i'll accept that.

So we agree then. He doesn't beat any of the best of all time, who are being discussed here. If we were in a thread considering the next level below the best welters of all time, then i'd have Oscar in there no doubt.:good

 

But he didn't cut all the time...not against everybody..otherwise his record would have more tko losses than Holyfield has children.

 

I think he is a reasonable pick, defintily one of the most skilled welterweights ever and is a big puncher.

I know next to nothign on Walker, explain why he is in, please.

My list would be:

Ray Robinson
Kid Gavilan
Charley Burley
Ray Leonard
Thomas Hearns

 

I think that prime or near prime Napoles would have had less done to him than the damage he was more than capable of inflictin g on others...and yes McGrain, I do acknowledge his tendency to cut..but the loss to Backus was the fluke of all flukes...and his blood loss and swelling vs Muniz and subsequent title loss to Stracey happened at the end of his career..he was 1/4 the fighter he was in his prime.

 

Napoles' great punch accuracy and one punch power combined with his slickness puts him in the driver's seat in most h to h situations with the elite. Andthe fact that he was a smallish welte on top of that amplifies his quality p4p.

 

In fairness teeto, who would go 5-0 against Quatey, Mayweather, Tito, Whitaker, Pacquaio? I dont think there would be many, many have losses against their contemparies that arent necessarily better than the men Oscar fought. Burley/Walker/Galivan/Napoles/Duran they all have losses and close fights at or around the weight against men who arent necessarily better than the men Oscar had close fights or lost to and perhaps they are worse.

I'm not an Oscar fan though and certainly wouldnt have him in a top5 H2H list

 

I think his cutting ability gets too much made out of it, most of it was past his prime and he didnt spurt buckets against Monzon, which was also past prime

Lets imagine Napoles gets the surgery Hatton had to make him less susceptable

 

That's right, of course fighters incurr losses and it doesn't write them off as a great. But i don't see that putting anything towards Oscar being a good addition in this kind of company. Come on PP, you know he isn't. I'm of the opinion that Mayweather would always have beaten him, but that seems to attract heat around here for some reason.