My top 20 Welterweights, all time

Don't forget Honeyghan too

 

Actually sports a 50% quit rate vs great fighters at Welterweight

 

I just can't see the justification in rating Griffith above Napoles. Superior Title reign(s): Napoles; Head-to-head contest: Napoles; Higher regard at time of peak quotient: Napoles; most likely to have sex with a woman: Napoles.

 

He sports a 50% quit rate vs mediocre fighters at 168 that use the prefix 'Irish' too.

 

Who would have thought wee Patty ave beaten Benitez and Duran back to back before his 17th fight. Granted Benitez stuck it out tho

 

Make a case for ranking Napoles ahead of Ryan.

I dare ya.

 

Yes, if that is true.

I just never considered Burley a Welterweight; in 95 fights did he have five at Welterweight? Looking at his numbers, no.

He was a better fighter than Zivic and if he had weighed 147 or less more often he would be on the list I suspect and probably top 10, but that is all hypothetical now...

 

The same reasons I rate him above Girrifth in a previous post, obviously head-to-head I couldn't say because you have every Ryan fight on DVD of course. Ryan's reputation as a great fighter came more as a middleweight than welter (what I've read of him anyway). I never said Ryan didn't deserve his place up there, it was you that said it about Napoles. While Napoles is Top 3 due to his title reign and his rating at the time as 'probably the best pound-for-pound fighter since Ray Robinson'. I'm not sure whether Ryan was ever regarded as #1 in the sport, but Jose was for five years- that's after being ignored when he was the best light-welter in the world and also the #1 challenger at lightweight (when Ortiz was champ).


You same to rate your fighters based chiefly on what Nat Fleischer says it seems, based on CV (not always a bad thing of course) but you penalise fighters when you've actually SEEN them fight it seems. Your earlier comment about '1930' was another one of your embarrassing moments (not quite on par with your middleweight KO'd Witherspoon of course) and your posts are full of bare-faced lies anyway, which you think you can get away with vs some posters. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

 

6. I rate him #3.

 

I actually think you get too much flak for rating Burley so high (in other instances). He does deserve his place but I just think #2 is a bit high. Of course, contemporary ratings mean a lot and do away with the rose-tinted version that appears years later. On the other hand, there's been so many years since Burley's best so one has to take that into account also.