Napoles, Gavilan and Leonard

Thanks. I'll look into that further. :good

 

I agree.
Many of the fighters pre-WW2 would have to be in the running for being the greatest welterweight. If anything, those eras produced tougher fighters who perfected their crafts more than the later fighters of the TV-era.
The days when fights learned the pro game with hundreds of fights in competitive environments, and pro fighters, gyms and venues were all over the place.

 

Thanks for your answer guys....I am an oldtimer, who loves boxing's glorious history,and willing to learn...But , I am perplexed about human psychology...Such as, If you agree, that the pre World War two ,and before fighters,fought much more often, against a deep pool of opponents, and improving at their craft, my question is this.....By choosing a Leonard, Gavilan, {who I saw often],and Napoles, over a Jack Britton,are you not implying that each boxer , would have equaled or improved on Britton's record of 344 bouts ,with one ko against him?. I might add against the very best fighters,of that agreed upon tough unpampered generation...As of course we have never seen Jack Britton on film, and his record is superior than the modern three, how do you come to your conclusions, rating,Leonard,Gavilan,Napoles, in front of a Jack Britton?..Curious.....

 

All locks for top 10 Leonard maybe no2 ,Napoles around 4 ,Gavilan 7/8?

 

Personally I wouldn't rate them above him.

To be honest, as talented as Sugar Ray Leonard was, I dont think he'd make my top 10 welterweights of all-time. His record isn't deep enough. I guess TV-ratings and superstar status figures in to lots of people's lists. Or just speculation concerning the talent and potential of the fighter. There are some here who have not only SRLeonard, but Thomas Hearns too, among their top 5 welterweights of all-time.
I guess it's a different outlook.

I'm of the generation who grew up watching Hearns and Leonard, and I definitely recognize their greatness, but not enough to overlook men like Jack Britton and others who have longer reigns and many many more victories at the weight.

 

I have Robinson at the top. Leonard next. In the next tier, I have Napoles, Gavilan, Luis Manuel Rodriguez, and maybe Griffith (pre-Paret tragedy) barking at the door. To be honest, Napoles, Gavilan, Rodriguez is so close that I'd probably flip flop often ranking these guys. I'm high on Napoles right now because I've watched him most recently. All great, difficult to seperate.

 

Napoles, Gavilan, Leonard, in that order.

 

Quite simply three of the best fighters we've ever seen. Napoles is arguably the best pure boxing technician of the bunch, i don't know what kind of game PowerPuncher is playing with his comments. Leonard would have to go down as the best, he's too proven and the film shows his roundedness, the attributes he posesses make him one effective killer. Gavilan was an exciting guy to watch, he has a chance to beat nearly anyone, he could outwork guys, plus his combos were so accurate, and his chin was plain iron.

They're all complete fighters, in terms of adaptability, though some trump others in certain areas ever so slightly.

 

Napoles for me has the consistency and LONGEVITY at the weight which Leonard lacks despite Ray having the best wins of the bunch and his wins over Cokes, Griffifth and Muniz came as a smaller guy who was prone to cuts.



You mentioned Gavilan getting robbed but he was also a draw and got decisions go in his favour from time to time. Bobo Olson was a weak beltholder IMO and Gavilan should have won; the busted hand excuses this though and it was at middleweight not Welter.

Leonard got beaten by Duran and beat a legend in Hearns ( i had Hearns winning handily though ) and got a great win against Benitez. But that is it for him at welter. He doesnt have the depth that both Gavilan and Napoled have.

Gavilan beat Williams, Basilio and Graham but if he had got the nod against Robby he would be top. A great fighter nonetheless but just a little too inconsistent for me to rate him top like you do.

 

Leonard also has the win over Duran at Welter, another very impressive Welterweight win, especially in the way he won (gave Duran two rounds up to the finish, Leonard was quality in evasive counter punch mode, proving his mettle by outfighting Duran in the short inside periods that occured)

I go for Gavilan. I rank him high at Welter, no.2, and feel he has the widest field of quality Welters on his resume.

Leonard has the most eye catching wins. They all look superb on film, but Napoles was THE master out of the three in terms of all-round ability IMO. But how close is that also? Really, by trying to pick te 'best' out of these three I'm unecessarily nit picking. They are all fantastic in their own way, and all possesing solid chins.

If they all fought each other 3 times you wouldn't be able to tell who was the best. I have Leonard highest in my p4p list though, at no.21.

 

There is an arguement that Welter is the best division of all time and yet you have the number 2 welter below 21? I know your big on the old timers so i guess they make up alot of your top 20? More and more i'm beginning to favour the kind of list Stoney made. Fighters before 1920 are just too hard to compare IMO

 

So smooth it's ridiculous.

 

He's probably going on resume and longevity amongst other factors. You can't knock someone who has went out on a limb and put his list out there. It's ridiculously difficult. Believe it or not, other fighters fought and beat a lot of great fighters as well, because they had **** loads of fights. It's not fair that today's fighters don't get the opportunity to build up a resume that the old fighters did, because the game and it's politics have evolved, but still, i can't make an atg list on sympathy. Resume, longevity, ability, etc etc, they're the **** you can rank.

 

I agree. I'm thinking about changing my criterias but haven't worked exactly out how.