My top 20 Welterweights, all time

Whatever.

 

Very profound.:good

 

What i want to know is who the hell is Charley Burley?

 

Burley looks like another Benitez. Actually, WIlfred is a step above that awkward bum.

 

Who the hell is Barbados Joe Walcott?

 

I don't think Ray Leonard could outpoint Gavilan that lost a close decision to SRR twice. Not even with hand-picked judges.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Interesting list, and not much to quarrel about, except I would put Jose Napoles (circa '69-'74) at #2 right after Sugar Ray Robinson.

 

Everybody who has left Tommy Ryan off their list should hang their head in shame.

Having Joe Walcott outside the top 10 is also verry bad.

 

To be fair, the second fight was only close to the Cubans. It was a comfortable victory for Robinson, though not without its difficulties.

 

Walcott's resume is fine, but not top 10 Welterweight IMO. Plus you need to pick up other people's opinions to access him. I know people in the past have lost control of thier sexual organs when Fleischer gave someone the thumbs up, but Fleischer is not god; sorry Nat you are not.

Unless you were born in the 1890's or early, you simply cannot justify having Walcott in your top 10 147lbers without defending your case by using other people's opinions.

 

Yes, of course I am. They're all great fighters, amongst the best of that or any other era in the WW division. Oh and none got whupped by a fighter like Starling either, unlike your cohort Brown.

 

In suport of my motion to horsewhip those who do not rank Billy
Smith, Tommy Ryan and Joe Wacott let me say that they presided over the golden age of the welterweight divisions history.

Their records vs each other alone would justify top 20 or 10 positions before you get into the depth of the era.

 

As much as i like Napoles he's just too slow and physically weak at the weight to be among the top 3 or 4.

Someone like Basilio would have maneuvered him around the ring with ease and overwhelmed him.

 

Then why did you rank people like Mclarnin and Ross so low. Don't you know what going on with those guys? And Why is leonard ranked over Armstrong and Napoles when he's got a total of four defenses to his credit??? :huh Is less actually mean more to you?