What would be your top 10 welterweights of all time ?

[Dempsey19]

let's see the quote.

my brother's dentist's college roomate's gardener works with Ray's gardener. Apparently Ray rants daily about he whopped Tommy's ass worse the second time around.

But I don't put too much stock into it because I know fighters/trainers/promoters/journalists/fans misremember, misrepresent, forget, exaggerate and lie all the time. Usually they have a different story (about the same event) for each different venue they're the speaking to.

Take it from the most biased guy on this sub-forum: Rewatch the fight. With an open mind. Then we can talk.

Ok, first and foremost, neither man would have passed a field sobriety test after that.

Secondly, Judge Dalby Shirley gave Leonard 10-8 in a round in which he didn't score a knockdown, if he hadn't Tommy would have won the fight.

Thirdly, considering the second fight a win for Tommy, if we compare their records against the top welterweights of the era (each other, Duran and Benitez) Tommy is 3-1 and Leonard is 3-2.

Lastly, my scoring-

I was VERY generous to leonard but the absolute worst I could score the fight for Tommy was winning by 116-115, it could even be scored as high as 119-113 for Hearns. The most accurate score is probably about 117/118-114 for Hearns.

[them_apples]

Robinson
Leonard
Gavilian
Griffith
Duran....

In my opinion though the WW division is so deep you would have to do a serious analysis of resumes, as I think a lot of them could have beat eachother.

I think most agree that Robinson and Leonard are near the top though.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Ok, first and foremost, neither man would have passed a field sobriety test after that.

Secondly, Judge Dalby Shirley gave Leonard 10-8 in a round in which he didn't score a knockdown, if he hadn't Tommy would have won the fight.

Thirdly, considering the second fight a win for Tommy, if we compare their records against the top welterweights of the era (each other, Duran and Benitez) Tommy is 3-1 and Leonard is 3-2.

Lastly, my scoring-

I was VERY generous to leonard but the absolute worst I could score the fight for Tommy was winning by 116-115, it could even be scored as high as 119-113 for Hearns. The most accurate score is probably about 117/118-114 for Hearns.

So you have no issue with Hearns being awarded a 10-8 round on a slip, but you'll complain about rounds where Ray battled hearns into dementia. We've seen countless fights stopped where a fighter was receiving a beating, but remained standing.

It was close, but no way you could score it 117 for either man! That's ludicrous. I'm even more interested now in seeing your round-by-round scoring. Hearns, however you scored the rounds, was clearly the beneficiary of the 12 round limit that night.

[Dempsey19]

So you have no issue with Hearns being awarded a 10-8 round on a slip, but you'll complain about rounds where Ray battled hearns into dementia. We've seen countless fights stopped where a fighter was receiving a beating, but remained standing.

My dear friend, I did not consider the first knockdown because I too could clearly see that it was a slip. (I scored that round 10-9 for Hearns). What do you take me for ?

Also, every single round in which Ray gave Hearns a serious beatdown I scored it in favour of Ray.

[Rusty Tromboni]

My dear friend, I did not consider the first knockdown because I too could clearly see that it was a slip. (I scored that round 10-9 for Hearns). What do you take me for ?

Also, every single round in which Ray gave Hearns a serious beatdown I scored it in favour of Ray.

You're like the James Toney of Boxing Scene. Everytime I think I've caught you flat-footed, I walk into one of your traps. It's impressive. Probably a good learning opportunity for me, if I step back to access.


I will have to revisit that fight because I can't find my scorecard. But I had Ray winning a close one. I actually recall Hearns looking good. I think Ray is at peace with his career, and was willing to throw Hearns a bone. I recall Ray saying Hearns came to Ray's big birthday bash, while Marvin won't even give him a call.

It's too close of a fight to say that it really proved one man better than the other. But I do think Hearns was tremendously fortunate that it wasn't another 15-Rounder.

[headass]

1. Robinson
2. Napoles
3. Leonard
4. Hearns
5. Walker
6. Gavilan
7. Griffith
8. Rodriguez
9. Duran
10. Basilio

Only fighters with footage

[Dempsey19]

You're like the James Toney of Boxing Scene. Everytime I think I've caught you flat-footed, I walk into one of your traps. It's impressive. Probably a good learning opportunity for me, if I step back to access.


I will have to revisit that fight because I can't find my scorecard. But I had Ray winning a close one. I actually recall Hearns looking good. I think Ray is at peace with his career, and was willing to throw Hearns a bone. I recall Ray saying Hearns came to Ray's big birthday bash, while Marvin won't even give him a call.

It's too close of a fight to say that it really proved one man better than the other. But I do think Hearns was tremendously fortunate that it wasn't another 15-Rounder.

Fair enough

Here is my best scorecard for Leonard in case you want to see it-

Hearns - Leonard

10-9

10-10

10-9

10-10

9-10

10-10

10-9

10-10

9-10

9-10

10-8

9-10

116-115 for Hearns


I agree that it is too even fight to prove that one is greater than the other, but it proves that they are equal. If you look at their performance against other top welterweights of the era and the fact that Ray did often wait for his opponents to become past it while Hearns fought anybody and everybody, Also H2H he would simply be too big for many small welterweights, all of these things slip Hearns ever so slightly above SRL for me. I do consider them to be near equals, adjacent on both my welterweight and P4P lists.

[Rusty Tromboni]

1. Robinson
2. Napoles
3. Leonard
4. Hearns
5. Walker
6. Gavilan
7. Griffith
8. Rodriguez
9. Duran
10. Basilio

Only fighters with footage

That's actually a really, really good list. Napoles is too high - he beat some great fighters, but would get beaten by everyone else in your top 5. It's tough w/ Walker and Hearns because of their short Ww tenure, and how much they improved at Mw.

I would slot Mayweather in at 8, bumping everone else down one. I really don't think Basilio was top 10.

I generally agree w/ only ranking fighters w/ available footage, but the absence of Britton is pretty harsh on the eyes. His consitency and the quality of his era speak greatly to his credit. Zivic and Burley could easily replace Duran, but again, no footage to back that up.

Yeah, outside of Napoles' excessively high rating and the omission of Britton, this list is perfect.



Overall, I think the division is hugely over-rated. Due to the two Sugar Rays, and all the fighters who matured into better Middleweights, it gets a lot of attention. But it really isn't the deepest division. It's just insanely top-heavy.

[Anthony342]

That's actually a really, really good list. Napoles is too high - he beat some great fighters, but would get beaten by everyone else in your top 5. It's tough w/ Walker and Hearns because of their short Ww tenure, and how much they improved at Mw.

I would slot Mayweather in at 8, bumping everone else down one. I really don't think Basilio was top 10.

I generally agree w/ only ranking fighters w/ available footage, but the absence of Britton is pretty harsh on the eyes. His consitency and the quality of his era speak greatly to his credit. Zivic and Burley could easily replace Duran, but again, no footage to back that up.

Yeah, outside of Napoles' excessively high rating and the omission of Britton, this list is perfect.



Overall, I think the division is hugely over-rated. Due to the two Sugar Rays, and all the fighters who matured into better Middleweights, it gets a lot of attention. But it really isn't the deepest division. It's just insanely top-heavy.

Insanely top heavy? You just described how I like my women.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Fair enough

Here is my best scorecard for Leonard in case you want to see it-

Hearns - Leonard

10-9

10-10

10-9

10-10

9-10

10-10

10-9

10-10

9-10

9-10

10-8

9-10

116-115 for Hearns


I agree that it is too even fight to prove that one is greater than the other, but it proves that they are equal. If you look at their performance against other top welterweights of the era and the fact that Ray did often wait for his opponents to become past it while Hearns fought anybody and everybody, Also H2H he would simply be too big for many small welterweights, all of these things slip Hearns ever so slightly above SRL for me. I do consider them to be near equals, adjacent on both my welterweight and P4P lists.

Yeah, that doesn't look like a terrible break-out. I'll have to rewatch it again soon a provide a fresh score card. I cannot find the last one I did.

For me, Hearns ranks plainly over Hagler, below Leonard and way below Duran. No discussion. Hearns made it competitive in the rematch, but I just don't know how he would have survived if it were a 15 Rounder... call it Boxing Karma biting Ray in the ass for the scheme he pulled on Hagler.

Hearns kinda had to keep fighting. Ray's career played out in spurts. He accomplished more in a shorter amount of time than Hearns. And while he might have cherry-picked the fights w/ Hagler and La Londe, he never really turned away from a challenge.

His two bouts w/ Duran speak to his greatness. I am actually at a lost to find a comparison except Tunney's series with Greb. It's beyond remarkable. Those fights alone justify his spot in my P4P top 10.