My top 20 Welterweights, all time

Top 20 fine, I would kind of be a hypocrite to not be... But top 10? No, I am not in position to personally justify that, I do not know of anyone alive who is...

 

If you had held a poll on the general forum in 1930 to decide who the best welterweight of all time was people would have divided into a Walcott faction and a Ryan faction with a significant minority favouring Billy Smith.

You would get the odd Amsterdam or China Hand Joe types who favoured Ted Kid Lewis or Jack Britton but they would be dismised as cranks.

Personaly I have both Joe Walcott and Tommy Ryan in my top 5 based on their resumes. I would be interested to see you name 10 welterweights who should be ranked above them.

 

Referee and one of the judges saw it close. No doubt about the winner, but it was close nonetheless. Bigger, stronger, more durable and a lot more awkward version of Duran is what Leonard would be facing.

 

My contribution to the debate

1. Ray Robinson
2. Joe Walcott
3. Mickey Walker
4. Tommy Ryan
5. Ray Leonard
6. Henry Armstrong
7. Thomas Hearns
8. Barney Ross
9. Emille Griffith
10. Jose Napoles
11. Mysterious Billy Smith
12. Ted Kid Lewis
13. Kid Gavilan
14. Young Peter Jackson
15. Fritzie Zivic
16. Roberto Duran
17. Jack Britton
18. Carmen Basillo
19. Dixie Kid
20. Tommy West

This content is protected

 

I disagree - Gavilan couldn't be less like Duran if he tried. He was more like Leonard if anything - tall, rangy, quick, threw flurries, used 'bolo' punch...

 

But we do not live in 1930, it is 2007, few if any of us (on this forum) were alive in 1930, let alone old enough to rate a Walcott or Smith on personal perception.

But to answer your question I have already posted my top 20:

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

 

But there are intangables to their careers that I can use personally that I cannot do to Walcott.

All the fighters listed (by you in red) I have seen footage of, and can have a personal opinion of (to a point), that is not affected by anyone else's words; so as a personal opinion my list holds water.

To put Walcott any higher, would be not backed up by my personal judgement; but purely the opinions of others and a resume that I have no footage of.

 

Then why not leave him off the list altogether?

If you are giving a higher rating to fighters with less impresive resumes because they look good on film then any ranking of him that you form is likley to be conservative.

I do not includer John L Sullivan or Peter Jackson on my all time heavyweight list for a similar reason.

 

They get on the list because of their resume, which like you suggest is impressive, and opinions of others that I respect; they deserve recognition. But there needs to be bias against them because my knowledge of them is not what it is for others; thus you get a personal list.

 

Griffith fought some of the best comp ever.

Just fight after fight against quality opponent.He doesn't stand behind anyone as far as resume goes imo.