Top 10 Lightweights of All Time

[Rumsfeld]

Would be interested in seeing some lists.

[Sweet Pea]

Not sure exactly my list or what order, but guys I'd have cemented in there include:

Duran
Leonard
Gans
Whitaker
Ortiz
Williams
Ross

Some other guys who deserve consideration for one reason or another include:

Laguna
Buchanan
Jack
Montgomery
Brown
Armstrong
Levigne
Canzoneri
Ambers
Angott
Nelson
Chavez
Arguello

[McGrain]

1 - Roberto Duran
2 - Pernell Whitaker
3 - Benny Leonard
4 - Joe Gans
5 - Ike Williams
6 - Carlos Ortiz
7 - Tony Canzoneri
8 - Alexis Arguello
9 - Ken Buchanan
10-Henry Armstrong

Something like that.

Others - Joe Brown, Freddie Welsh, Esteban DeJesus, Jack Maculiffe, Beau Jack, Julio Cesar Chavez.

[pmfan]

1 - Roberto Duran
2 - Pernell Whitaker
3 - Benny Leonard
4 - Joe Gans
5 - Ike Williams
6 - Carlos Ortiz
7 - Tony Canzoneri
8 - Alexis Arguello
9 - Ken Buchanan
10-Henry Armstrong

Something like that.

Others - Joe Brown, Freddie Welsh, Esteban DeJesus, Jack Maculiffe, Beau Jack, Julio Cesar Chavez.

Reasonable list. All great lightweights for sure. People sometimes forget how good Buchanan was because he had the misfortune of being around at the same time as Duran.

[TBooze]

10 Sammy Angott
9 Julio Cesar Chavez
8 Bob Montgomery
7 Ike Williams
6 Battling Nelson
5 Joe Gans
4 Pernell Whitaker
3 Henry Armstrong
2 Benny Leonard
1 Roberto Duran

Mentions: Jack McAuliffe, George Lavigne, Frank Erne, Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross, Lou Ambers, Beau Jack, Jimmy Carter, Carlos Ortiz, Ken Buchanan, Esteban DeJesus, Guts Ishimatsu (Ishimatsu Suzuki), Alexis Arguello, Edwin Rosario, Jose Luis Ramirez, Hector Camacho Snr, Oscar de la Hoya, Shane Mosley, Steve Johnson, Jose Luis Castillo and Floyd Mayweather Jr

[McGrain]

Reasonable list. All great lightweights for sure. People sometimes forget how good Buchanan was because he had the misfortune of being around at the same time as Duran.

Yeah, and if you look at the unbeaten run after he lost to Duran, he could have been a good champ. And Laguna isn't to far outside the 10 for me, and Buchanan beat him at home and on neutral ground. But Duran did come along, and those are the breaks.

[McGrain]

8 Bob Montgomery


I forgot about old Bob, I must admit...what's the thinking with Nelson above Williams? That don't float my boat at all.

[Robbi]

1 - Roberto Duran
2 - Pernell Whitaker
3 - Benny Leonard
4 - Joe Gans
5 - Ike Williams
6 - Carlos Ortiz
7 - Tony Canzoneri
8 - Alexis Arguello
9 - Ken Buchanan
10-Henry Armstrong

Something like that.

Others - Joe Brown, Freddie Welsh, Esteban DeJesus, Jack Maculiffe, Beau Jack, Julio Cesar Chavez.

McGrain. I feel accomplishments and longevity at the weight should account to being the main ingredients for placings. Whitaker was superb between 1989 and 1991 when he held titles. He unified the entire division, the first fighter to do so since Duran. But I'm not sure he should be rated above Gans or Leonard when rounding everything together. Ortiz also should be above Whitaker. I'm not saying these fighters were head and shoulders above Whitaker, certainly not on skill level, but they were slightly in front of him when looking at the broad scheme of things.

[McGrain]

Robbi, there is nothing unfair in that at all. But I consider skillsets too. More than that, Whitaker beats all the fighters you mention IMO. It is very, very hard for me to rate fighters who are otherwise close above a fighter I pick to beat him.

Gans, Whitaker and Leonard are close for me when considering them in an overall sense, resume, skillset etc., but Whitaker is out and out thebetter fighter IMO. Hence, #2. Hope this helps you understand how I got there.

[Sweet Pea]

I forgot about old Bob, I must admit...what's the thinking with Nelson above Williams? That don't float my boat at all.

It's a TBooze list, 'nuff said.

[Manassa]

10 Sammy Angott
9 Julio Cesar Chavez
8 Bob Montgomery
7 Ike Williams
6 Battling Nelson
5 Joe Gans
4 Pernell Whitaker
3 Henry Armstrong
2 Benny Leonard
1 Roberto Duran

Mentions: Jack McAuliffe, George Lavigne, Frank Erne, Tony Canzoneri, Barney Ross, Lou Ambers, Beau Jack, Jimmy Carter, Carlos Ortiz, Ken Buchanan, Esteban DeJesus, Guts Ishimatsu (Ishimatsu Suzuki), Alexis Arguello, Edwin Rosario, Jose Luis Ramirez, Hector Camacho Snr, Oscar de la Hoya, Shane Mosley, Steve Johnson, Jose Luis Castillo and Floyd Mayweather Jr

Ahh...

[Robbi]

Robbi, there is nothing unfair in that at all. But I consider skillsets too. More than that, Whitaker beats all the fighters you mention IMO. It is very, very hard for me to rate fighters who are otherwise close above a fighter I pick to beat him.

Gans, Whitaker and Leonard are close for me when considering them in an overall sense, resume, skillset etc., but Whitaker is out and out thebetter fighter IMO. Hence, #2. Hope this helps you understand how I got there.

I knew how you got there, well had my suspicions. I don't agree with it. Everyone is different with what are the strongest areas of the criteria should be. Whitaker beats them all IMO as well, even Duran. But I don't think thats the main ingredient of the recipe. Longevity and balancing out wins over fellows greats and good challengers comes first. I just can't rate Whitaker as the 2nd best lightweight ever when it comes to averaging things out.

[McGrain]

Again, nothing unfair, but Whitaker

Skillset - 1 or 2
Head to head - 1 or 2
Greatness - somewhere further down the list.

[Robbi]

Again, nothing unfair, but Whitaker

Skillset - 1 or 2
Head to head - 1 or 2
Greatness - somewhere further down the list.


:blood

[Minotauro]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Joe Gans
3. Benny Leonard
4. Ike Williams
5. Pernell Whitaker
6. Barney Ross
7. Tony Canzoneri
8. Carlos Ortiz
9. Packey McFarland
10. Jack Blackburn

[Robbi]

Again, nothing unfair, but Whitaker

Skillset - 1 or 2
Head to head - 1 or 2
Greatness - somewhere further down the list.

Another thing I noticed, you previously listed Liston #3 in a list of all-time great heavyweights. That is quite simply ridiculous. That really does show me how highly you take into account skill level and H2H, which is way over the top. IMO, his H2H ability doesn't make up for his lack of longevity anyway. He won the title against Patterson, then successfully defended it against him. Next fight he losses it against Ali, who came into the fight as a massive underdog. And the rematch could well have been the making of his greatness. He went out on his ass in the first round. Liston was at the peak of his powers when he destroyed Patterson twice. And suddenly some see him as past his prime when Ali beats him twice? Funny, huh.

Skill level gets taken into account here, no question. You can have all the skill in the world, but you need to do something with it to prove greatness. Being great for a very brief period of time isn't enough.

[teeto]

Ive retired from lists on the count of ESB's insight's are of so many aspects that any list can be wrong! (kiddin)

I believe the last 135 list i did was something like:

Duran
Leonard
Gans
Whittaker
Ortiz
Williams
Ambers
Buchanan
Jack
Armstrong

Mosley used to be in it somewhere im sure, but i dont want to irritate ESB so went for Armstrong and Jack type picks!

[McGrain]

Another thing I noticed, you previously listed Liston #3 in a list of all-time great heavyweights. That is quite simply ridiculous. That really does show me how highly you take into account skill level and H2H, which is way over the top. IMO, his H2H ability doesn't make up for his lack of longevity anyway.

Lack of longevity?! He's the definition of longevity! Matched with Johnny Summerlin in something his 6th pro fight, Summerlin was something like 20-1 at that time! And unprotected! There was an immediate rematch (because Liston's win was regarded as a bit of fluke) and he beat the man again. He fought NOBODY with a losing record, he fought only one suspect fighter between the loss and win over ranked Marty Marshall (8th and 10th fight respectively!) and then proceeded to clean out his division. Liston was arguably the best fighter in a stacked divsion for ten years!


Liston was thrown to the wolves, fucking killed them all, and still had to wait for his shot. Only the best fighter in the history of the division could lay him low, and then he went on another cracking run. He had his liscense suspended in the USA for losing a fight. Make no mistake, Liston would have got a third crack at the title in a different age.

[teeto]

Liston was thrown to the wolves, fucking killed them all, .

Man i luv your posts!

[McGrain]

Man i luv your posts!

:lol:

Thanks.

[Sweet Pea]

I have to agree with McGrain here Robbi, the majority of Liston's best work was done pre-title shot, when he was truly at his peak, and he was able to go on to further success even after the Ali fights. Not sure about #3 all time, but I rank him pretty highly.

[PowerPuncher]

BAsed on ability at the weight, achievements at the weight and below and above the weight. Also 130lbers careers are included as LWs as they would have been in the past.

1. Roberto Duran
2. Pernell Whitaker
3. Floyd Mayweather
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Benny Leonard
6. Carlos Ortiz
7. Chavez
8. Dejesus
9. Buchanon
10. Laguna
11. Ike Williams
12. Mosley
13. Delahoya
14. Barney Ross
15. Loche
16. Joe Gans
17. Alexis Arguello
18. Castillo
19. Canzoneri
20. Ambers

[McGrain]

Glad to see Blackburn get a mention. He could arguably be top 12 actually! Why is Gans so low?

[Sweet Pea]

With Blackburn, are we taking into account his entire career, as he was generally a LW fighting bigger men, or just his fights with opponents at LW? He gets often overlooked, mainly because of the lack of substantial coverage of his career.

[Sweet Pea]

Glad to see Blackburn get a mention. He could arguably be top 12 actually! Why is Gans so low?
Because PowerPuncher doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about, once again. His entire list was horrible and unjustifiable, not just his ranking of Gans. He's entering that Senya13/Redrooster category.

[McGrain]

Because PowerPuncher doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about, once again. He's entering that Senya13/Redrooster category.

:lol:

Bit harsh!

It's odd seeing Blackburn so close to Gans and the list is still hard on the old-timers.

[PowerPuncher]

Lack of longevity?! He's the definition of longevity! Matched with Johnny Summerlin in something his 6th pro fight, Summerlin was something like 20-1 at that time! And unprotected! There was an immediate rematch (because Liston's win was regarded as a bit of fluke) and he beat the man again. He fought NOBODY with a losing record, he fought only one suspect fighter between the loss and win over ranked Marty Marshall (8th and 10th fight respectively!) and then proceeded to clean out his division. Liston was arguably the best fighter in a stacked divsion for ten years!

Liston was thrown to the wolves, fucking killed them all, and still had to wait for his shot. Only the best fighter in the history of the division could lay him low, and then he went on another cracking run. He had his liscense suspended in the USA for losing a fight. Make no mistake, Liston would have got a third crack at the title in a different age.

I used to have him at 3 myself but hes dropped quite a few places since then and my list changes every now and again.

Speaking of him getting another shot in another age. Imagine if he got a shot at Frazier after Frazier beat Ali (obviously Sonny had passed on by then) and was somehow able to 'Foreman' Frazier :nut

[McGrain]

He changed it! Where's Blackburn?!

[McGrain]

ISpeaking of him getting another shot in another age. Imagine if he got a shot at Frazier after Frazier beat Ali (obviously Sonny had passed on by then) and was somehow able to 'Foreman' Frazier :nut

I love Joe Frazier, but Liston (by then an 8 round fighter) has a live chance against Frazier. If Liston beats Frazier and then Frazier beats Liston and then Frazier beats Ali, try sorting that fucking mess out.

[janitor]

BAsed on ability at the weight, achievements at the weight and below and above the weight. Also 130lbers careers are included as LWs as they would have been in the past.

1. Roberto Duran
2. Pernell Whitaker
3. Floyd Mayweather
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Benny Leonard
6. Carlos Ortiz
7. Chavez
8. Dejesus
9. Buchanon
10. Laguna
11. Ike Williams
12. Mosley
13. Delahoya
14. Barney Ross
15. Loche
16. Joe Gans
17. Alexis Arguello
18. Castillo
19. Canzoneri
20. Ambers

In your excitment you forgott to put Joe Gans in the top 5.

[PowerPuncher]

:lol:

Bit harsh!

It's odd seeing Blackburn so close to Gans and the list is still hard on the old-timers.

I'll be honest I don't think that much to pre 1940s fighters, other than Leonard and think the technical aspects of the sport peaked at that time. I edited my list to include Loche and bump Ross up so Blackburn dropped out, bye bye Jack :hi:

[McGrain]

In your excitment you forgott to put Joe Gans in the top 5.

:lol:

I have to agree with Janitor and Sweet Pea, Powerpucnher - Gans is a top 5 lock.

[McGrain]

I edited my list to include Loche and bump Ross up so Blackburn dropped out, bye bye Jack :hi:

:twisted::lol:

[PowerPuncher]

I love Joe Frazier, but Liston (by then an 8 round fighter) has a live chance against Frazier. If Liston beats Frazier and then Frazier beats Liston and then Frazier beats Ali, try sorting that fucking mess out.

I doubt if he had lived he'd have a live chance in the 1970s (no pun intended), he wouldn't be able to pull the trigger but if Frazier's head and foot movement was off and Liston timed shots on him Frazier would probably go down. Foreman had to throw around a 90round to keep Frazier down (and he didnt keep down either)

[Minotauro]

BAsed on ability at the weight, achievements at the weight and below and above the weight. Also 130lbers are included.

1. Roberto Duran
2. Pernell Whitaker
3. Floyd Mayweather
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Benny Leonard
6. Carlos Ortiz
7. Chavez
8. Dejesus
9. Buchanon
10. Laguna
11. Ike Williams
12. Mosley
13. Delahoya
14. Barney Ross
15. Loche
16. Joe Gans
17. Alexis Arguello
18. Castillo
19. Canzoneri
20. Ambers

20. Blackburn

Canzoneri has one of best resume ever he is top ten for sure maybe top 5.
Gans should be like 13 places higher. Williams should be higher too.
Almost all of Locche big wins are at 140 why is he ranked at lightweight.
Mayweather sure he belongs their his resume at the weight is amazing :yep you are taking nuthugging to a whole new level. If 130 guys are included why isn't Arguello higher and this is a lightweight list not a p4p who fought there and what they achieve in other weights if so why aren't Armstrong and Ross higher? Your ranking makes little sense.

p.s if you really consider fighters who fought at lightweight and what they achieved at higher weights then SRR and Langford are top 3.

[McGrain]

I doubt if he had lived he'd have a live chance in the 1970s (no pun intended)

:lol::nono

[McGrain]

p.s if you really consider fighters who fought at lightweight and what they achieved at higher weights then SRR and Langford are top 3.

All kidding aside, that really fucks me up. I keep trying to put Langford in my 147 list :lol:

[PowerPuncher]

:lol:
I have to agree with Janitor and Sweet Pea, Powerpucnher - Gans is a top 5 lock.

He fought with his hands down and leaned back in straight lines. Plus he Ruiz'ed allot

[Robbi]

Lack of longevity?! He's the definition of longevity! Matched with Johnny Summerlin in something his 6th pro fight, Summerlin was something like 20-1 at that time! And unprotected! There was an immediate rematch (because Liston's win was regarded as a bit of fluke) and he beat the man again. He fought NOBODY with a losing record, he fought only one suspect fighter between the loss and win over ranked Marty Marshall (8th and 10th fight respectively!) and then proceeded to clean out his division. Liston was arguably the best fighter in a stacked divsion for ten years!

I'm talking about his longevity where it counts, as champion. He also beat a fresher Folley than Ali did, not bad. Valdez was a fellow puncher who he beat inside 3 rounds. Liston's superb record before he became champion counts for something, but outwith one defense of the heavyweight title it makes up for him being a #3 ATG heavyweight? The Ali defeats don't help him of course, they just make matters worse. The rematch was the chance to gain revenage, yet he failed.

He fought nobody with a losing record. Thats lies. I have just checked on boxrec and the vast majority of fighters he fought had losing records at the time he faced them. At least 70% of the fighters he fought had losing records. Anyway, losing records look good on paper and can be decieving. As can records with a large amount of defeats. Many of the greats from the 30's, 40's, and 50's had many loses but were considered great. Some that never even won world titles.

Liston was bashing through the divison to reach his goal. And it's when you get to the top of the mountain, It's what you do while your there that counts. And if you get knocked off the top off the mountain while you were on it briefly, make sure you climb back up again.

Liston lacked longevity and bounce-back-ability at the top. Many fighters have longeivty in general, but to be among the elite greats of any division you need the longevity where it matters. Liston knocking out opponents while moving through the 50's wasn't done out of boredom was it? Nope, as it was to get the heavyweight title.

[McGrain]

He fought nobody with a losing record. Thats lies. I have just checked on boxrec and the vast majority of fighters he fought had losing records at the time he faced them. At least 70% of the fighters he fought had losing records.

Who?!.

Liston was bashing through the divison to reach his goal. And it's when you get to the top of the mountain and what you do while your there that counts. And if you get knocked off the top off the mountain while you were on it briefly, make sure you climb back up again.

He ran into Muhammad Ali.

Liston lacked longevity and bounce-back-ability at the top.

No, he didn't, he boucned back just fine after those back to back loses. His big problem was being frozen out by New York. He beat a lot of good fighters after he lost to Ali.

[PowerPuncher]

Canzoneri has one of best resume ever he is top ten for sure maybe top 5.
Gans should be like 13 places higher. Williams should be higher too.
Almost all of Locche big wins are at 140 why is he ranked at lightweight.
Mayweather sure he belongs their his resume at the weight is amazing :yep you are taking nuthugging to a whole new level. If 130 guys are included why isn't Arguello higher and this is a lightweight list not a p4p who fought there and what they achieve in other weights if so why aren't Armstrong and Ross higher? Your ranking makes little sense.

p.s if you really consider fighters who fought at lightweight and what they achieved at higher weights then SRR and Langford are top 3.

I highly value Ability at the weight, and the fights won too rank highly, if I see certain eras as better I account for this, hence Gans/Blackburn arent rated as highly as I dont rate the eras

Hence because I don't rate the skills of Canzoneri, Gans, Arguello. Williams I think highly of on film and a very good resume albeit a tad inconsistant.

I see the 60s-70s as a great era for LWs so thats factored in.

Loche fought Laguna and Ortiz at 135 pre-140.

Armstrong I see as great but overrated, I rate Duran, Mayweather and Whitaker as better LWs and see them all taking him.

SRR did fight around 17-19 fights at LW, he has some very good wins but wasnt there long and was a bit green. In terms of ability at the weight a Green-SRR is probably still top10, if not top5

Langford fought Gans above the LW limit, so was he a LW? I'm not sure. The fact that a 17yo got the better of Gans rates against Gans.

[Robbi]

"He fought NOBODY with a losing record"

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Start your way at the bottom and work your way up and you'll see for yourself. Liston faced many fighters with losing records. I'm not too high on losing or winning records anyway. A fighter can go on an unbeaten run while fighting bums or a losing streak fighting fellow contenders. Or vice versa. It's all to do with quality.

He ran into Muhammad Ali.

Ali also ran into Frazier and Norton.



No, he didn't, he boucned back just fine after those back to back loses. His big problem was being frozen out by New York. He beat a lot of good fighters after he lost to Ali.

Ok, fair enough. But many fighters do after losing their title.

[Minotauro]

I highly value Ability at the weight, and the fights won too rank highly, if I see certain eras as better I account for this, hence Gans/Blackburn arent rated as highly as I dont rate the eras

Hence because I don't rate the skills of Canzoneri, Gans, Arguello. Williams I think highly of on film and a very good resume albeit a tad inconsistant.

I see the 60s-70s as a great era for LWs so thats factored in.

Loche fought Laguna and Ortiz at 135 pre-140.

Armstrong I see as great but overrated, I rate Duran, Mayweather and Whitaker as better LWs and see them all taking him.

SRR did fight around 17-19 fights at LW, he has some very good wins but wasnt there long and was a bit green. In terms of ability at the weight a Green-SRR is probably still top10, if not top5

Langford fought Gans above the LW limit, so was he a LW? I'm not sure. The fact that a 17yo got the better of Gans rates against Gans.

Fine if you don't rate the pre 60's guys on ability but Blackburn probably has one of the best resumes at the weight and with Canzoneri that must count for something.

Locche fought Ortiz above 135 and most feel he should have lost that fight.

The reason that I bought up langford and SRR is because you talked about fighters who fought at 135 and what they achieved in other weight neither of these twos prime was at lightweight but they achieved great thing and according to your ranking they should be there.

You don't rate Arguello high on a skill level:yikes

Also Williams has a win over Gavilan while he was still a lightweight that could be the greatest win out of the listed fighters. (Duran over Leonard is probably better.)

[McGrain]

"He fought NOBODY with a losing record"

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Start your way at the bottom and work your way up

Post Summerlin:

Welch - 14-9
Brtko - 15-1
Butler - 4-2
Hunter - 11-4
Gray - 9-3
Watson - 37-26
Hunter 11-4
Wise - 9-7


Again, who?!


Ok, fair enough. But many fighters do after losing their title.


Yeah, but I raised it only because you claimed he failed to bounce back!

[PowerPuncher]

Fine if you don't rate the pre 60's guys on ability but Blackburn probably has one of the best resumes at the weight and with Canzoneri that must count for something.

Locche fought Ortiz above 135 and most feel he should have lost that fight.

The reason that I bought up langford and SRR is because you talked about fighters who fought at 135 and what they achieved in other weight neither of these twos prime was at lightweight but they achieved great thing and according to your ranking they should be there.

You don't rate Arguello high on a skill level:yikes

Also Williams has a win over Gavilan while he was still a lightweight that could be the greatest win out of the listed fighters. (Duran over Leonard is probably better.)

Its not just wins above the weight, but if they were at or near their best at the weight. Whitaker, Duran, Mayweather, Chavez, Mosley were near their very best at 135. Loche/Delahoya weren't too far from their best. Langford and Robinson were not near their best yet. Robinson was clearly nearer to his best though, you'd fancy a near prime great LW to 'Old Man' him

No I don't rate Arguello that highly in terms of skill set

[Robbi]

Post Marty Marshall:

Welch - 14-9
Brtko - 15-1
Butler - 4-2
Hunter - 11-4
Gray - 9-3
Watson - 37-26
Hunter 11-4
Wise - 9-7


Again, who?!



McGrain, you been drinking tonight? You said this "He fought NOBODY with a losing record, he fought only one suspect fighter between the loss and win over ranked Marty Marshall (8th and 10th fight respectively!) and then proceeded to clean out his division. Liston was arguably the best fighter in a stacked divsion for ten years!"

You then give me fighters he faced with losing records :lol: And where is this "nobody with a losing record" streak he went on. Point it out to me, please. You make it sound as if every opponent he faced, prior to getting beat by Ali, or after, or before he fought Marshall, he fought "nobody with a losing record"


Yeah, but I raised it only because you claimed he failed to bounce back!



McGrain. He never bounced back. Bouncing back to me is winning the title again. I count his winning streak after the Ali defeat as bouncing back somewhat. Different wave lengths we are on. I said he never got to the top of the mountain after his brief reign as heavyweight champion. He never had bounce-back-ability at the top, hence losing to Ali in the rematch.

[McGrain]

Liston fought no fighters with losing records post Summerlin until he met Bailey.

In total,according to boxrec, he fought 4 fighters with losing records when he fought them,post Ali. Between Summerlin and Bailey he fought 0.

This is nothing like 70%

[McGrain]

[You then give me fighters he faced with losing records :lol:

Robbi - when Liston fought Welch, Welch had 14 wins and 9 losses - the wins come first.

[Robbi]

[/i]

Robbi - when Liston fought Welch, Welch had 14 wins and 9 losses - the wins come first.

A fighter with no losing record is unbeaten was my initial interpretation. Ahhhh sorry, do you mean a fighter who has more losses than wins? Thats where how I might be on the moon and you might be on pluto. I thought you meant all the fighters he faced when he fought them were unbeaten. Now, before you laugh at me many others would have thought the same.

[McGrain]

A fighter with no losing record is unbeaten. Ahhhh sorry, do you mean a fighter who has more losses than wins? Thats where how I might be on the moon and you might be on pluto. I thought you meant all the fighters he faced when he fought them were unbeaten. Now, before you laugh at me many others would say think the same.


:rofl

Come on, I wasn't trying to claim he had beaten 20 unbeaten fighters!!!!

Hahahahaha Jesus Christ,I thought you had actually gone postal.

[Robbi]

:rofl

Come on, I wasn't trying to claim he had beaten 20 unbeaten fighters!!!!

Hahahahaha Jesus Christ,I thought you had actually gone postal.

McGrain, I thought the same about you. I was like "what the fuck is he talking about" Thats us safely back down to planet earth and on the same planet.

:lol::lol:

[McGrain]

:lol:

And the lightweight thread is destroyed!

[Robbi]

:lol:

And the lightweight thread is destroyed!

I can sometimes poke in and change a threads main content and talking point upside down. It has been known. :roll:

[PowerPuncher]

A fighter with no losing record is unbeaten was my initial interpretation. Ahhhh sorry, do you mean a fighter who has more losses than wins?.

I thought a losing record was a losses on the trott or last 5 coming in, so does DLH have a losing record coming into the Pacman fight :huhor Morales coming into the second/third Pacman fights :huh

[McGrain]

A winning record is 5-4

A losing record is 4-5.

OR

A winning record is 50-49

A losing record is 49-50.

[PowerPuncher]

A winning record is 5-4

A losing record is 4-5.

OR

A winning record is 50-49

A losing record is 49-50.

Are you trying to imply the well known secret that Marciano lost his first 50 before his 49winning streak?

[McGrain]

Are you trying to imply the well known secret that Marciano lost his first 50 before his 49winning streak?

:lol:

Plus, he ducked Harry Wills and Charley Burley.

[Robbi]

A winning record is 5-4

A losing record is 4-5.

OR

A winning record is 50-49

A losing record is 49-50.

A fighter with no losing record can also be seen as a fighter who's unbeaten. Nobody is right or wrong. The basic way of taking and abosrbing what you said would be how I done it.

[PowerPuncher]

:lol:

Plus, he ducked Harry Wills and Charley Burley.

The bastard, and he really lost to Walcott/Moore/Charles when they were prime and before his 49-0 streak, then he waited and waited, for them to get old

[McGrain]

A fighter with no losing record can also be seen as a fighter who's unbeaten. Nobody is right or wrong. The basic way of taking and abosrbing what you said would be how I done it.

Nah. Honestly, never heard it before tonight. In promotion, when a promoter talks about a winning figter he is talking strictly about one who has more wins than loses. When he talks about a losing fighter he is talking about an "opponent". Press is the same.

[McGrain]

Charley Burley KO8 Rocky Marciano.

[Manassa]

Ike Williams would batter Henry Armstrong I reckon. And I really like Armstrong.

[McGrain]

Ike Williams would batter Henry Armstrong I reckon. And I really like Armstrong.

I agree, though I feel you can't tell with Armstrong and punchers. He does smother beautifully in bringing his pressure.

[Bad_Intentions]

1. Roberto Duran
2. Joe Gans
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Pernell Whitaker
5. Ike Williams
6. Aaron Pryor
7. Benny Leonard
8. Carlos Ortiz
9. Julio Cesar Chavez
10. Tony Canzoneri

[PowerPuncher]

Charley Burley KO8 Rocky Marciano.

You just need to invent a time machine and inject Charlie with some GH, Test, EPO for a few months to turn him into a 190lb beast while also improving his speed and stamina. Roided Burley batters the Rock

[McGrain]

Making Burley faster would actually work against him, as it would become imposisble for judges to see his punches.

[Manassa]

Oh and by the way...

1. Roberto Duran
2. Benny Leonard
3. Ike Williams
4. Barney Ross
5. Carlos Ortiz
6. Joe Gans
7. Henry Armstrong
8. Pernell Whitaker
9. Tony Canzoneri
10. Ken Buchanan

[PowerPuncher]

Ike Williams would batter Henry Armstrong I reckon. And I really like Armstrong.

Maybe, they can't have been a million miles from squaring off either.

Common Opponents:

Joyce: Past Prime HA goes 1-1, IE loses the series
Angott: Past Prime HA get clear win, IW gets 2 disputed wins and a TKO loss
Beau Jack: past prime HA loses, IW gets 3 wins including a TKO

Theres not much in it and Armstrong is past prime, ofcourse styles make fights and it largely depends who backs up who, chin, defense and workrate

BASED ON THIS THOUGH ARMSTRONG SHOULD BE ABOVE WILLIAMS AT LW

[PowerPuncher]

Making Burley faster would actually work against him, as it would become imposisble for judges to see his punches.

You may make him so fast that they will be faster than time itself, his punches will actually be the time machine you so need

BTW his speed wasnt really his best attribute mate :lol:

[McGrain]

BTW his speed wasnt really his best attribute mate :lol:

All his attributes are equal.

[Manassa]

Maybe, they can't have been a million miles from squaring off either.

Common Opponents:

Joyce: Past Prime HA goes 1-1, IE loses the series
Angott: Past Prime HA get clear win, IW gets 2 disputed wins and a TKO loss
Beau Jack: past prime HA loses, IW gets 3 wins including a TKO

Theres not much in it and Armstrong is past prime, ofcourse styles make fights and it largely depends who backs up who, chin, defense and workrate

BASED ON THIS THOUGH ARMSTRONG SHOULD BE ABOVE WILLIAMS AT LW

A fight between the two at any stage of reality wouldn't have been too telling.

'38 Armstrong against '48 Williams would be great though. A lightweight equivalent of Louis-Frazier if ever there was one.

But why should Armstrong be above Williams?

[McGrain]

'38 Armstrong against '48 Williams would be great though.

Makes me make this noise - Pwaaarrhar!!

[Robbi]

Nah. Honestly, never heard it before tonight. In promotion, when a promoter talks about a winning figter he is talking strictly about one who has more wins than loses. When he talks about a losing fighter he is talking about an "opponent". Press is the same.

The basic way of taking and abosrbing what you said would be how I done it.

[Manassa]

Makes me make this noise - Pwaaarrhar!!

It makes me think about balancing a chicken kiev on a spoon, literally and uncontrollably.

[McGrain]

It makes me think about balancing a chicken kiev on a spoon, literally and uncontrollably.

Sports day at school would be a whole new experience with you in charge.

[Robbi]

I have to agree with McGrain here Robbi, the majority of Liston's best work was done pre-title shot, when he was truly at his peak, and he was able to go on to further success even after the Ali fights. Not sure about #3 all time, but I rank him pretty highly.

Yep, he done his best work at the wrong time. He was still arguably at his peak for the Patterson fights when he won and defended the title. Maybe physically he was at his best around the late 50's and very early 60's, but he wasn't champion at that point in his career, thus doesn't have longevity at the top. And the top was when he was heavyweight champion. Thats where any fighters best work counts the most.

[Adaptation]

No.1 spot should almost always come down to the first three listed under.

1)Duran
2)Benny Leonard
3)Joe Gans
4)Pernell
5)Ortiz
6)Buchanan
7)Ike Williams
8)Armstrong
9)Tony Canzoneri
10)(im gonna get some major hate here but...) Oscar de la whora. Golden boy was amazing at 135.

Of course the above list is stricly for 135

[fists of fury]

Having a laugh at the two crazy Scots. Nice argument gents, even if it completely derailed the thread.

[McGrain]

, but he wasn't champion at that point in his career, thus doesn't have longevity at the top. And the top was when he was heavyweight champion. Thats where any fighters best work counts the most.

So if a champion fights a worse class of fighter than a challanger he is still at the very top? Liston fought the best in the division when challanger. Patterson was more protected than that. In other words Liston was fighting better fighters.

I think you grossly overestimate titles. Titles have nothing to do with competition. Liston-Patterson is a case in point.

Wills never held a title but he fought better competition than Dempsey.

Holman Williams never held a title but he fought better competition than every incumbent champion his career ran parallel too.

The same can be be said of Langford.

Charles never held a title at 175, but nobody consideres his "lacking longevity at the top".

You need to look past the baubles and bangles at who the man actually fought. And Liston was matched with the best in the division over a course of many years, and he beat all of them until he hit the #1 of all time.

To be absolutley clear, he has more longevity at the top than many of the other names on any given top 10 HW list.

[Robbi]

So if a champion fights a worse class of fighter than a challanger he is still at the very top? Liston fought the best in the division when challanger. Patterson was more protected than that. In other words Liston was fighting better fighters.

I think you grossly overestimate titles. Titles have nothing to do with competition. Liston-Patterson is a case in point.

Wills never held a title but he fought better competition than Dempsey.

Holman Williams never held a title but he fought better competition than every incumbent champion his career ran parallel too.

The same can be be said of Langford.

Charles never held a title at 175, but nobody consideres his "lacking longevity at the top".

You need to look past the baubles and bangles at who the man actually fought. And Liston was matched with the best in the division over a course of many years, and he beat all of them until he hit the #1 of all time.

To be absolutley clear, he has more longevity at the top than most of the other names on any given top 10 HW list.

Charles is excused, simply because of the quality opponents he faced. His resume at the weight was outstanding. He beat fighters who held the title at LHW. Show me on Liston's record, excluding Patterson, what high calibre fighters he beat. Even better, show me on his record, again outwith Patterson, what world heavyweight champions he beat when he was on his road to the title or after the two Ali defeats. Thats fighters who held the title at some point before Liston faced them or they became champions after he faced them. Show me them.

I'll give you an example. And it shows my complete unbiased views. Roberto Duran happens to be my personal favourite fighter of all-time. He beat Davey Moore to win a world title at a third weight. It put him in with an exclusive bunch of fighters who had achieved the same feat. Duran also rised from the ashes of "no mas" with the title win. Davey Moore had a record of 12-0. He was a very inexperienced fighter. He did make three defenses and beat Kalule, credit for that win. But lets assume Duran's win over Moore wasn't for a title, how would you view Duran's win over Moore? I need to be perfectly honest and say it wouldn't have been anywhere near as significant.

[McGrain]

Charles is excused, simply because of the quality opponents he faced. His resume at the weight was outstanding. He beat fighters who held the title at LHW. Show me on Liston's record, excluding Patterson, what high calibre fighters he beat. Even better, show me on his record, again outwith Patterson, what world heavyweight champions he beat when he was on his road to the title or after the two Ali defeats. Thats fighters who held the title at some point before Liston faced them or they became champions after he faced them. Show me them.


I can't. He didn't fight any. So what? Nor did Jack Johnson.

Liston fought the best in the division. For many years. Beating them all. Showing outstanding longevity.

[McGrain]

Johnson beat Fitzsimmons.

True, true.

[jc]

Great thread, starts off as a greatest lightweights thread, ends as a greatest heavyweights thread... :D

As for Liston top 10 ATG heavyweight without doubt.

[Robbi]

I can't. He didn't fight any. So what? Nor did Jack Johnson.

Liston fought the best in the division. For many years. Beating them all. Showing outstanding longevity.

You'll notice I edited. Couple of spelling adjustments that needed corrected on the previous post.

Liston's fighting career had longevity, no question. 17 years in duration to be exact. But his longevity was in general, length of career, fighting fellow contenders, etc. His longevity at the top was brief, lasting one defense and around a year and a half in span. And outwith his short reign as champion, where is the distinction to be considered a #3 heavyweight of all-time?

My example on Duran backs up my arguement.

Quality of opponents, longevity as a fighter in general, eg; career span, and as a champion, eg; reign span, regaining titles, pulling off signifcant wins when a fighter is percieved to be past his prime. Thats what it's all about. Liston doesn't score high enough in the crucial areas.

[McGrain]

Liston beat his first contender in 1954 and his last contender in 1970. In beteween he lost three fights, including two to Ali. I think the fact that these were two of his four title fights is irrelevant. I think this type of consistent matching at the highest level is rare, never mind to be questioned.

That is my position and has been for many years. I see you are unshakeable in your belief that he lacks longevity at the highest level. I can't see for a moment how you have come to this conclusion, but I suppose you are similairly baffled by my taking the opposite position.

Agree to disagree, I guess!

[Minotauro]

No I don't rate Arguello that highly in terms of skill set

Why? The guy had great accuracy, timing, power, quality finisher and a great jab, body attack, footwork and chin. He didn't have very fast feet but his hand speed was decent and his power lasted the full 15 he was like a mini Joe Louis. How much have you seen of him? You’re the first person I know that has not regarded Arguello high on skill.

[Robbi]

Liston beat his first contender in 1954 and his last contender in 1970. In beteween he lost three fights, including two to Ali. I think the fact that these were two of his four title fights is irrelevant. I think this type of consistent matching at the highest level is rare, never mind to be questioned.

That is my position and has been for many years. I see you are unshakeable in your belief that he lacks longevity at the highest level. I can't see for a moment how you have come to this conclusion, but I suppose you are similairly baffled by my taking the opposite position.

Agree to disagree, I guess!

Yes, and my previous posts support this IMO. I invite anyone else to have a read back at them and analyse. I think my arguement has been put forward very well indeed. I'm not saying Liston was a bum or one of the most overrated heavyweights of all-time when it comes to how most observers view his standing regarding his placing in history.

You can clearly see how I have came to this conclusion. You just happen to disagree with it.

A young fighter walks into McGrain's gym and says "I want to be a world champion, and hold onto my title for as long as possible and beat the best during my reign. Trust me McGrain, if I lose the title I will win it back and prove I can climb the mountain again. I have been studying boxing history. It's all about beating greats and holding onto the title for as long as you can"

McGrain slaps the young fighter and says "Forget about becoming a world champion son. We shall fight for as long as we can, as long as you put in the effort. If a title shot comes along, we shall consider it. But If I'm honest, it counts as nothing really. I'd actually view you to be truely great if you just fought contenders with decent records over 95% of your career. See the poster up there, thats Sonny Liston. Won the heavyweight title, made one defense. He lost the title and challenged for it again, but lost. I rank him as the third greatest heavyweight in history"

[McGrain]

A young fighter walks into McGrain's gym and says "I want to be a world champion, and hold onto my title for as long as possible and beat the best during my reign. Trust me McGrain, if I lose the title I will win it back and prove I can climb the mountain again. I have been studying boxing history. It's all about beating greats and holding onto the title for as long as you can"

McGrain slaps the young fighter and says "Forget about becoming a world champion son. We shall fight for as long as we can, as long as you put in the effort. If a title shot comes along, we shall consider it. But If I'm honest, it counts as nothing really. I'd actually view you to be truely great if you just fought contenders with decent records over 95% of your career. See the poster up there, thats Sonny Liston. Won the heavyweight title, made one defense. He lost the title and challenged for it again, but lost. I rank him as the third greatest heavyweight in history"


:blood

[Robbi]

:blood


:good

[Robbi]

Why? The guy had great accuracy, timing, power, quality finisher and a great jab, body attack, footwork and chin. He didn't have very fast feet but his hand speed was decent and his power lasted the full 15 he was like a mini Joe Louis. How much have you seen of him? You’re the first person I know that has not regarded Arguello high on skill.

He took Sanchez to beat Arguello comfortably on another thread. He said Arguello wasn't in the same skill class. I replied with "Arguello was in the same skill class. It was just a different style of skill class".

[Flea Man]

Not sure in what order (though I'd tip towards Duran H2H and would have Ortiz right up there) but from what I know (admittedly a little uneducated on some boxers being mentioned here)

Duran
Ortiz
Whitaker
Buchanan
Armstrong
Chavez
Arguello
Ross
Gans
Leonard

Admittedly haven't seen anything of Gans, Ross or Leonard (I think, I'm certain there's little or no footage of Leonard, am I correct) so those guys are there only from what I've read. As I say, after Sweet Pea, it's any order of those guys. But from what I've seen, the top 3 are in the right order, though I'd rate Pea higher all-time over Ortiz (who I still rate very highly myself, top 30/20 of all time IMO)

[PowerPuncher]

Why? The guy had great accuracy, timing, power, quality finisher and a great jab, body attack, footwork and chin. He didn't have very fast feet but his hand speed was decent and his power lasted the full 15 he was like a mini Joe Louis. How much have you seen of him? You’re the first person I know that has not regarded Arguello high on skill.

In terms of elite skills, best of the best he just isn't up there. His defense is lacking, he doesn't have the snap/recoil/speed in his shots (meaning hes there to be countered and slipped/parryed), his feet as you said are slow but I'd add the footwork is a little mechanical. These were often exploited and he was outboxed at times.

Louis has superior punch technique, hand speed and defense to Arguello, not to mention hes a HW

[Flea Man]

Arguello clearly one of the most skilled boxers of all time, so have no clue what PowerPuncher is talking about. If you judge him by his avatar, his preferences in boxers might be as good as his preferences of women.

Admittedly Arguello struggled with 'pure' boxers, but in terms of being a Matador (dealing with aggressive smotherers and brawlers) he was second-to-none.

Did forget Beau Jack and Ike Williams from my list! Mainly because I'm tired. Again, wouldn't quite know where to put them as I haven't seen too much of either guy (except rfom one of their fights together which if I'm correct ended in a stunning stoppage Williams way)

[Flea Man]

In terms of elite skills, best of the best he just isn't up there. His defense is lacking, he doesn't have the snap/recoil/speed in his shots (meaning hes there to be countered and slipped/parryed

No snap/recoil/speed in his punches?!?!?! Are you sure you've ever seen Arguello fight?????

[PowerPuncher]

Admittedly Arguello struggled with 'pure' boxers, but in terms of being a Matador (dealing with aggressive smotherers and brawlers) he was second-to-none. way)

Exactly he couldn't box :good

[Flea Man]

To the above post, unbelievable.

He's literally one of the GOAT. What the Hell have you been smoking?!?!?

[Flea Man]

And he struggled with them, didn;t mean he was out of his depth. Couldn\t have been with his size advantages, boxing I.Q, actually I'll stop there.....Arguello is famous for fighting in a 'Chess' style (a lot of other posters/writers have said this, not my term) in terms of taking his time and putting combinations together in order to do maximum damage.

How could someone with such a high boxing I.Q not be able to box? He had an awesome jab, powerful hooks, great inside fighting ability (great uppercuts too) and possibly the second greatest P4P straight right of all time (behind Hearns)

You must have beef with Arguello? Olivares fan? Or was he rubbish as well?

[Robbi]

Exactly he couldn't box :good

Arguello was a superb boxer/puncher. His overall style wasn't flamboyant and fluid though, unlike Mayweather and Sanchez. Maybe it's his style that doesn't do it for you, rather than him being in your words "he couldn't box"

He wasn't a reckless fighter who soley relied on his punching power. He had a very orthodox technique, like Louis and Lopez. He used his height and reach, jab, and solid pressuring style to box while waiting for opportunities to land his body punches, uppercuts, hooks, etc.

[PowerPuncher]

He isn't 1 of the GOAT though, hes great at what he does but hes LIMITED, hes slow of foot and hand with an average defense. 1 of the true GOAT's beats him down, thats why he's lucky Duran didn't stay around to give him a sustained beating and ofcourse Sanchez, Mayweather, Whitaker, Ortiz, Loche, would take him to school, potentially winning shut outs against him.

[Flea Man]

No. All of the above is debatable, but at FW/SFW Arguello was a beast. At LW he was still very good and whilst I'd give Pea a GREAT chance of beating him, Floyd would get sparked.

LIMITED? Boxer. Puncher. Inside. Outside. Great chin. Power carried up in weight. Fearless. Ring generalship.

Sounds like Ricky Hatton to me!

[Robbi]

He isn't 1 of the GOAT though, hes great at what he does but hes LIMITED, hes slow of foot and hand with an average defense. 1 of the true GOAT's beats him down, thats why he's lucky Duran didn't stay around to give him a sustained beating and ofcourse Sanchez, Mayweather, Whitaker, Ortiz, Loche, would take him to school, potentially winning shut outs against him.

I'm actually laughing. Sorry mate, I can't help it.

:lol:

[Flea Man]

Me too Robbi. Must have some serious beef with Arguello as he's usually a decent poster.

[PowerPuncher]

Arguello was a superb boxer/puncher. His overall style wasn't flamboyant and fluid though, unlike Mayweather and Sanchez. Maybe it's his style that doesn't do it for you, rather than him being in your words "he couldn't box"

He wasn't a reckless fighter who soley relied on his punching power. He had a very orthodox technique, like Louis and Lopez. And he used his height and reach, jab, and solid pressuring style to box while waiting for opportunities to land his body punches, uppercuts, hooks, etc.

I was winding up Fleaman, Arguello is a great fighter who can box but he isnt near the best of the best in that respect.

I do have stylistic preferences though and I do expect great boxers to have EVERYTHING in a skillset. So no he doesn't do it for me but thats because he has stylistic flaws that great boxers would expose.

In terms of being exposed I think he would be exposed to a far higher degree by Mayweather/Whitaker than Pryor because Pryor fought Arguello's fight and Arguello matched up stylistically better against Pryor.

Now would Arguello have become a LW champ in the era of Duran? Ortiz? Whitaker? Mayweather. I think not.

So I see him as incomplete and the criticisms I made of him hold true.

[Flea Man]

I was winding up Fleaman, Arguello is a great fighter who can box but he isnt near the best of the best in that respect.

Phew. Wondered what was wrong with you then!

I do have stylistic preferences though and I do expect great boxers to have EVERYTHING in a skillset. So no he doesn't do it for me but thats because he has stylistic flaws that great boxers would expose.

Mayweather isn't a GREAT inside fighter, not as god as Arguello anyways. His insistence on getting on his boke against Castillo (good tactics IMO) showed that he didn't want a repeat of the 1st fight.

In terms of being exposed I think he would be exposed to a far higher degree by Mayweather/Whitaker than Pryor because Pryor fought Arguello's fight and Arguello matched up stylistically better against Pryor.

Pryor fought his fight which is to throw punches in bunches from every possible angle whilst slipping on the inside to great effect. The fact that Arguello kept him on the end of his punches throughout the fight and lasted so long against, at the time, a complete animal at his first shot at the weight is nothing short of amazing.

Now would Arguello have become a LW champ in the era of Duran? Ortiz? Whitaker? Mayweather. I think not.

No doubt. Would've given Duran a very hard fight at LW, Ortiz also. I'd say Whitaker would be too much for him, but that's only because he was so elusive, wheras Duran and Ortiz weren't. I'd pick both of those guys to beat him, but not by a whitewash.

In Mayweather's time? Arguello would've destroyed Castillo and Corrales IMO, and probably would've beaten the Mayweather that showed up against Castillo the 1st time. PBF makes it harder if he does what he did in the 2nd Castillo fight, but then again, Arguello can fight at range too. PBF has a great chin, but so did other fighters who fought Arguello.

If people always pick Hearns over PBF at WW I'd have no trouble picking Arguelo over PBF at LW. However, I'd lean towards PBF.

At FW, SFW there aren't many I'd pick against Arguello, Sanchez included. Though I think out of all of the guys mentioned, Sanchez would've given him the hardest fight (even at the mooted 135 lbs weight limit for their early 80's clash) out of the fights that 'could've happened'.

I'd be interested in how you;d think Pryor-PBF would go down PowerPuncher. Even at LW, where Pryor really only fought overmatched opponents, he was the same animal.

For the record I don't believe Pryor belongs in this discussion. Didn't stick around at the weight long enough or beat enough decent opponents, even if H2H he's a nightmare for all the ATG LW's.

But now we've gone off topic somewhat.....

[Flea Man]

He is a Mayweather nuthugger and since Arguello has as much claim as PBF dor the number one spot at sfw he talks him down. Easy to see actually.


I'd say Arguello IS the great SFW of all time. PBF was more aggressive then, and if he tried that against Arguello he'd get KTFO, regardless of his decent chin.

[PowerPuncher]

Phew. Wondered what was wrong with you then!

1. Mayweather isn't a GREAT inside fighter, not as god as Arguello anyways. His insistence on getting on his boke against Castillo (good tactics IMO) showed that he didn't want a repeat of the 1st fight.

2. Pryor fought his fight which is to throw punches in bunches from every possible angle whilst slipping on the inside to great effect. The fact that Arguello kept him on the end of his punches throughout the fight and lasted so long against, at the time, a complete animal at his first shot at the weight is nothing short of amazing.

3. No doubt. Would've given Duran a very hard fight at LW, Ortiz also. I'd say Whitaker would be too much for him, but that's only because he was so elusive, wheras Duran and Ortiz weren't. I'd pick both of those guys to beat him, but not by a whitewash.

4. In Mayweather's time? Arguello would've destroyed Castillo and Corrales IMO, and probably would've beaten the Mayweather that showed up against Castillo the 1st time. PBF makes it harder if he does what he did in the 2nd Castillo fight, but then again, Arguello can fight at range too. PBF has a great chin, but so did other fighters who fought Arguello.

5. If people always pick Hearns over PBF at WW I'd have no trouble picking Arguelo over PBF at LW. However, I'd lean towards PBF.

6. At FW, SFW there aren't many I'd pick against Arguello, Sanchez included. Though I think out of all of the guys mentioned, Sanchez would've given him the hardest fight (even at the mooted 135 lbs weight limit for their early 80's clash) out of the fights that 'could've happened'.

7. I'd be interested in how you;d think Pryor-PBF would go down PowerPuncher. Even at LW, where Pryor really only fought overmatched opponents, he was the same animal. For the record I don't believe Pryor belongs in this discussion. Didn't stick around at the weight long enough or beat enough decent opponents, even if H2H he's a nightmare for all the ATG LW's.

But now we've gone off topic somewhat.....

1. Mayweather in terms of skills is a better inside fighter than Arguello. Look at how on the inside he is rarely hit and counters cleanly.

2. Exactly Pryor is a small swarmer, stylistically small swarmers aren't supposed to beat taller swarmers who can bomb. Pryor took Arguello's best shots too. Aaron won though because he was more skilled, faster, better defense and generally just more refined than Arguello.

3. Whitaker and Mayweather wouldn't stay in range long enough for Arguello to get his shots off. They would pot shot or throw combinations and back out of range. When Arguello attempts to get his shots off they slip, side step and counter. The movement and angles they use would be too much for. Thats why I see it a as shutout.

Sometimes very good fighters get shut out or dominated and the similar Tito Trinidad, Pavlik, Corrales have all been dominated in recent years. As have Barrera, Hamed, Tyson and even Duran.

I see Arguello making a stiffer argument against Duran and Ortiz but losing widish UDs and maybe getting taken out late by Duran

4. Yep Arguello beats Castillo and Corrales, although they may win a few rounds and make it tough

5. I'm not sure HEarns-Mayweather is as easy a fight as some make out, I see it panning out like the Benitez match up. Arguello isnt as fast or skilled as Hearns though.

6. At FW Arguello lost to Marcel, I see Pepp and Sanchez beating him. Too much skill and movement

Armstrong would be an intriguing war he has a shot in imo. Styles suit him but Armstrong probably slips inside and swarms all over him

He's probably too much for Barrera although MAB may outbox him. He beats up Morales.

Pacquaio I'm unsure on, Pacman has the speed, Arguello the timing.

Marquez should outbox him but may get stopped. Marquez is a little too stationary

Hamed would be intriguing, both brutal punchers, hame hands down but better footwork, natural boxer and timing. Arguello better technically. Hamed is only 5'4, Arguello 5'11 so it favours Arguello. Although Hamed really used to batter some taller boxers in sparring.

7. I can't actually find any bouts were Pryor was actually at the LW limit. I actually think Mayweather peaked at 140. Interestingly most don't look at this but Mayweather uses allot of Pryor's moves and he's said Pryor is 1 of the fighters he rates highest. I pick Mayweather in a tough close contest 8-4 or 7-5, hes faster, more compact puncher, better defense, better footwork. Stamina is equal, Pryor is more aggressive and the most skilled pressure fighter FMJ would have faced but this pressure would leave countering opportunities. FMJ would just have the better connect percentage and cleaner work imo.

[Flea Man]

Pryor is all wrong for Mayweather. He would seriously beat him up and stop him.

Just seeing what you'd say!

Don;t agree with a lot of what you say but glad you've included hamed in amongst the best H2H FW's.

For the record;

I agree with your analysis of Morales Arguello. Would be a good fight styles wise for Arguello.

Barrera was stopped by Pacman at FW. Would be knocked unconscious by Alexis IMO.

Pacman too open when attacking at FW, not as well-rounded as he appears to be now. If he was rocked at SFW by Marquez (which he was) he would be stopped by Arguello IMO.

I'd say Arguello beats Hamed on PTS in a very exciting back-and-forth battle.

In 15 round fights I'd favour Arguello over all of these modern guys, the final three rounds were usually his.

Arguello was not a TALL SWARMER as you put it. Pyor's style is kryptonite to many; Great chin, non-stop offence, great skills as well, and very hurtful puncher.

Like a decent version of Margarito!

[Manassa]

Jimmy Carter beats Lou Ambers yeah?

[PowerPuncher]

1. Pryor is all wrong for Mayweather. He would seriously beat him up and stop him.

Just seeing what you'd say!

2. Don;t agree with a lot of what you say but glad you've included hamed in amongst the best H2H FW's.

For the record;

3. I agree with your analysis of Morales Arguello. Would be a good fight styles wise for Arguello.

4. Barrera was stopped by Pacman at FW. Would be knocked unconscious by Alexis IMO.

5. Pacman too open when attacking at FW, not as well-rounded as he appears to be now. If he was rocked at SFW by Marquez (which he was) he would be stopped by Arguello IMO.

6. I'd say Arguello beats Hamed on PTS in a very exciting back-and-forth battle.

In 15 round fights I'd favour Arguello over all of these modern guys, the final three rounds were usually his.

7. Arguello was not a TALL SWARMER as you put it. Pyor's style is kryptonite to many; Great chin, non-stop offence, great skills as well, and very hurtful puncher.

Like a decent version of Margarito!

1. Disagree, a tough fight I see going FMJ's way, but maybe I'm biased, I just think FMJ was that good

2. 1 of my faves, met him a few times, could have been 1 of the greatest ever FWs, already is 1 of the best but could have been so much more

3. Yes although Morales may win a few early rounds before being broke down

4. Barrera was past prime and couldnt handle Pacman's speed and relentlessness. Against Arguello he would be the faster fighter, better boxer, better defense. Actually the match up is similar to Morales in some ways and Barrera owned Morales in all 3 fights for me. Arguello is the tougher prospect however. Barrera would need to fight the way he fought Morales 1 or Hamed. I'm split on this 1

5. Pacman and Arguello are both open to each other's shots and it really depends whether speed and athleticism or timing and reach win. Both are monumental beasts at the weight

6. Hamed is going to get tagged and so is Arguello, can see a few KDs. A 1995 Hamed would need to show up to have the best shot. He may well time some huge shots and befuddle Arguello. I'd lean 60-40 to Arguello on this 1 though, just too big for Hamed

7. Arguello had an element of boxer puncher combined with a high workrate, accuracy. I would say Pryor has underrated boxing skills, his pressure is relentless ofcourse none the less

[Flea Man]

Pryor indeed has underrated boxing skills. Actually, people in the know recognise this, not sure if they're 'underrated' per se but I see what you're getting at.

Between Pacman-Arguello I see it as who's got the better chin/power. Arguello in both cases IMO.

Barrera was not a better boxer than Alexis. Honestly, Alexis is an AWESOME boxer.

You're also underrating Arguello's defense, he had great head-upper body movement, caught shots well and was a terrific counter puncher. You don't be a great counter puncher unless you're a decent defensive boxer. He's no Pea (in terms of movement) or PBF (in terms of parrying/deflecting blows) but you don't seem to realise that anyone trying to tag Alexis was then setting themselves up for a counter shot; PBF in particular would be getting far more back in terms of power.

In a 12-round fight at LW I'd lean towards Floyd. At 130 I've already made my point clear. In a 15 round fight at LW I see it in kinda' similar way to Chavez-Taylor (not in styles but in outcome) with Floyd doing very well, seemingly winning the fight clearly and outpunching Arguello something like 3-to-1. However, any punches he is getting back are much more powerful, and by the end of the fight, although looking like a clear winner, he would look far worse than Alexis. That is when Arguello would start putting his combinations together and would beat Floyd IMO. But that is in a 15 ROUND fight. I'd favour Mayweather in 12.

Also, with Mayweather it is fine to put him in a 15 round contest IMO. It is clear he has the stamina and conditioning to go that far.

I've liked this little debate, I'd like to see what other people think of it now!

or indeed what they think of the original topic!

[Minotauro]

In terms of elite skills, best of the best he just isn't up there. His defense is lacking, he doesn't have the snap/recoil/speed in his shots (meaning hes there to be countered and slipped/parryed), his feet as you said are slow but I'd add the footwork is a little mechanical. These were often exploited and he was outboxed at times.

Louis has superior punch technique, hand speed and defense to Arguello, not to mention hes a HW

:desk You need to watch more Arguello fights your seriously underrating him the guy is a top 25 p4p.

[Flea Man]

Minotauro, he won't listen. I honestly think he might be getting him mixed up with someone else. There's no way anyone can think that about Arguello, out of all the people to say that about, he's chosen one of the best technical fighters of all time, a genuine all-rounder who, admittedly had problems with slick boxers but on his day might just be unbeatable at 126/130, and a very hard fight for any ATG LW.

[Minotauro]

Minotauro, he won't listen. I honestly think he might be getting him mixed up with someone else. There's no way anyone can think that about Arguello, out of all the people to say that about, he's chosen one of the best technical fighters of all time, a genuine all-rounder who, admittedly had problems with slick boxers but on his day might just be unbeatable at 126/130, and a very hard fight for any ATG LW.

Trust, I never met anyone who didn't rate Arguello highly the guy was a beast one of the greatest I rate him no 1 at 130. I remember Powerpuncher was convinced that Mayweather would be able to knock out Basilio (who has one of the greatest p4p chins ever.)

[Flea Man]

hahahaha probably Gavilan as well.

[TBooze]

I forgot about old Bob, I must admit...what's the thinking with Nelson above Williams? That don't float my boat at all.


There were interviews with Don Dunphy, Beau Jack and Ike mainly talking about the brutal Williams/Jack KO from 1948, from a video I had in the 80s, but in conversation both Dunphy and Ike were real, real high on Nelson and Gans.

[TBooze]

It's a TBooze list, 'nuff said.
...;)

[Robbi]

Hamed would be intriguing, both brutal punchers, hame hands down but better footwork, natural boxer and timing. Arguello better technically. Hamed is only 5'4, Arguello 5'11 so it favours Arguello. Although Hamed really used to batter some taller boxers in sparring.

Hamed never sparred at all until he hooked up with Saurez and Steward. Under Brendan Ingle it was strictly pad work and body sparring he done. Strange, but true.

[Minotauro]

There were interviews with Don Dunphy, Beau Jack and Ike mainly talking about the brutal Williams/Jack KO from 1948, from a video I had in the 80s, but in conversation both Dunphy and Ike were real, real high on Nelson and Gans.

Is there anyway you could post that vid? It would be much appreciated.

[My2Sense]

1. Leonard
2. Duran (would be #1 if he hadn't quit to SRL)
3. Armstrong
4. Williams
5. Ross
6. Whitaker (could be higher)
7. Gans
8. Chavez (could be higher)
9. Arguello (could be higher)
10. Ortiz
Runners up: Canzoneri & McLarnin

In general, I could see just about any of these being moved up or down a notch. Very little to choose between a lot of these fighters.

[Sweet Pea]

2. Duran (would be #1 if he hadn't quit to SRL)

How does the Leonard fight effect his Lightweight standing?

[TBooze]

Is there anyway you could post that vid? It would be much appreciated.

I woud not have a clue where it is; it comes from Boxings greatest knockouts, Merchant and Tyson fronting the video.

[My2Sense]

How does the Leonard fight effect his Lightweight standing?

Because it makes him a fighter who embarrassingly/inexcusably quit in one of his most important fights.

[Sweet Pea]

Because it makes him a fighter who embarrassingly/inexcusably quit in one of his most important fights.

At Welterweight.

[TBooze]

Because it makes him a fighter who embarrassingly/inexcusably quit in one of his most important fights.


But that was as a 147lber, Duran would of had to of cut of a leg to make 135 by then.

[teeto]

Come on my2sense.

[Minotauro]

Because it makes him a fighter who embarrassingly/inexcusably quit in one of his most important fights.

Come to your senses My2Sense.:yep

[teeto]

Come to your senses My2Sense.:yep
Cheapshot!!!!!!

Mick Foley would have been proud of that!

[My2Sense]

At Welterweight.

At any weight.

[My2Sense]

But that was as a 147lber, Duran would of had to of cut of a leg to make 135 by then.

It has nothing to do with whether he could still make 135. That was one of the most disgraceful/inexcusable quit jobs I've ever seen by a world class fighter. That has to affect his assessment as a fighter at any weight.

[JohnThomas1]

A fighter with no losing record can also be seen as a fighter who's unbeaten. Nobody is right or wrong. The basic way of taking and abosrbing what you said would be how I done it.

I've never known a losing record to be the way you thought it to be nor have known anyone else to.

[JohnThomas1]

Robbi, there is nothing unfair in that at all. But I consider skillsets too. More than that, Whitaker beats all the fighters you mention IMO. It is very, very hard for me to rate fighters who are otherwise close above a fighter I pick to beat him.

Gans, Whitaker and Leonard are close for me when considering them in an overall sense, resume, skillset etc., but Whitaker is out and out thebetter fighter IMO. Hence, #2. Hope this helps you understand how I got there.

And that's all fair and well as you have completely explained your stance and reasoning. MANY will disagree, but your criteria is there for all to see.

Of course i knew this all along given your smitten rankings of Burley in various capacities

:D

Cheers mate

[Robbi]

I've never known a losing record to be the way you thought it to be nor have known anyone else to.

Just a misunderstanding.

[Robbi]

And that's all fair and well as you have completely explained your stance and reasoning. MANY will disagree, but your criteria is there for all to see.

Of course i knew this all along given your smitten rankings of Burley in various capacities

:D

Cheers mate

You're probably right. It's a free world and if someone decides that the amount of titles won in different weights is one of the strongest areas for rating greatness, so be it.

[PowerPuncher]

Trust, I never met anyone who didn't rate Arguello highly the guy was a beast one of the greatest I rate him no 1 at 130. I remember Powerpuncher was convinced that Mayweather would be able to knock out Basilio (who has one of the greatest p4p chins ever.)

Don't put words in my mouth, I said widish UD or maybe late TKO

[PowerPuncher]

Hamed never sparred at all until he hooked up with Saurez and Steward. Under Brendan Ingle it was strictly pad work and body sparring he done. Strange, but true.

Calling BS, Herol Graham from Ingle's used to spar hard. Its well known Hamed spared with Jonny Nelson, Junior Witter etc etc, sometimes it was only bodysparring however

[Sonny Carson]

1 - Roberto Duran
2 - Pernell Whitaker
3 - Benny Leonard
4 - Ike Williams
5 - Joe Gans
6 - Henry Armstrong
7 - Tony Canzoneri
8 - Alexis Arguello
9 - Shane Mosley
10-Carlos Ortiz

[PowerPuncher]

BAsed on ability at the weight, achievements at the weight and below and above the weight. Also 130lbers careers are included as LWs as they would have been in the past.

1. Roberto Duran
2. Pernell Whitaker
3. Floyd Mayweather
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Benny Leonard
6. Carlos Ortiz
7. Chavez
8. Dejesus
9. Buchanon
10. Laguna
11. Ike Williams
12. Mosley
13. Delahoya
14. Barney Ross
15. Loche
16. Joe Gans
17. Alexis Arguello
18. Castillo
19. Canzoneri
20. Ambers

I forgot Napoles, might have been near his best weight, drop him in from 3-5

[janitor]

He fought with his hands down and leaned back in straight lines. Plus he Ruiz'ed allot

What has that got to do with anything?

Based on acomplishments it would be hard to put Joe Gans outside the top 3.

[Robbi]

Calling BS, Herol Graham from Ingle's used to spar hard. Its well known Hamed spared with Jonny Nelson, Junior Witter etc etc, sometimes it was only bodysparring however

Wrong. Yes, only body sparring. Not full contact sparring.

[Minotauro]

Don't put words in my mouth, I said widish UD or maybe late TKO

You said Floyd could stop him late and score a knockdown or two, which is why I brought up the fact Basilio stood up to Robinsons power and you talked about how Ray was past his best. I'm not putting words in your mouth you claimed Floyd could knockdown Basilio.

[Sonny Carson]

Why is Mosley on there? I just can´t see it. His run at lw is similar to Moorer´s at lhw. Looks good at first glance but lacks the depth to back it up.
He's there because he's a head to head monster against most of the top lightweights except for Duran and Whitaker. It' not his fought the fight against Stevie Johnson didn't get done.

[TBooze]

It has nothing to do with whether he could still make 135. That was one of the most disgraceful/inexcusable quit jobs I've ever seen by a world class fighter. That has to affect his assessment as a fighter at any weight.


Duran would not fight at 135 again post 1980, indeed he never fought at 135 post 78, so what has a fight at 147, in 1980 got to do with Duran at 135 pre 79?

[Robbi]

He's there because he's a head to head monster against most of the top lightweights except for Duran and Whitaker. It' not his fought the fight against Stevie Johnson didn't get done.

He was at his best during his early welterweight reign, until he ran into Forrest. His skills peaked during that time as did his speed.

[Robbi]

Mosley´s far to unproven at lw to consider him a threat for most top lws. Sorry, I strongly disagree.

He was better during these fights; Wise, Rivera, De La Hoya I, Diaz, Taylor, Stone.

[My2Sense]

Duran would not fight at 135 again post 1980, indeed he never fought at 135 post 78, so what has a fight at 147, in 1980 got to do with Duran at 135 pre 79?

As I already said, because it makes him a fighter that is willing to disgracefully and inexcusably quit. He's that fighter whether we talk about him at lightweight, welterweight, or any other weight.

[TBooze]

As I already said, because it makes him a fighter that is willing to disgracefully and inexcusably quit. He's that fighter whether we talk about him at lightweight, welterweight, or any other weight.

The fighter who lost to Leonard in 1980 was not the fighter who destroyed Lampkin, that was Duran at his best at 135.

You would not hold Arguello up for coming back perhaps 20 years and 15lbs past his best to lose to one Scott Walker, would you?

[My2Sense]

The fighter who lost to Leonard in 1980 was not the fighter who destroyed Lampkin, that was Duran at his best at 135.

You would not hold Arguello up for coming back perhaps 20 years and 15lbs past his best to lose to one Scott Walker, would you?

What's disgraceful or inexcusable about losing a decision?

Besides, I don't have Arguello rated as #1 either, so what's the difference?

[PowerPuncher]

There was a thread about ingle´s gym on the general board not too long ago where some guys who train/trained there said the same as Robbie. Only body sparring is done there.

Herol Graham and Chris Eubank sparred all out at Wincobank

[PowerPuncher]

He was at his best during his early welterweight reign, until he ran into Forrest. His skills peaked during that time as did his speed.

I think he was every bit as good at LW if not better, he looked much more fluid back then. Plus he had that massive size advantage at LW

[TBooze]

What's disgraceful or inexcusable about losing a decision?




Nothing; same as losing to one of the three best Welters of all-time as well as a top 20 all-time fighter, having his premier performance against you, despite you being 12lbs over your best fighting weight.

It also has nothing to do with your career at a different weight.

[Robbi]

I think he was every bit as good at LW if not better, he looked much more fluid back then. Plus he had that massive size advantage at LW

Nope.

[My2Sense]

Nothing; same as losing to one of the three best Welters of all-time as well as a top 20 all-time fighter, having his premier performance against you, despite you being 12lbs over your best fighting weight.


Not if you lose by quitting the way Duran did.

[TBooze]

Not if you lose by quitting the way Duran did.


But without New Orleans, Duran would not of had the gretest redemption the sport has known; redemption that now makes him the greatest living fighter on the planet.

But that redemption has nothing to do with 135lbs Duran; with or without LeonardII Duran is still the finest 135lber ever.

[My2Sense]

But without New Orleans, Duran would not of had the gretest redemption the sport has known; redemption that now makes him the greatest living fighter on the planet.

Better than Ali? Than Chavez? Than Whitaker? Than even Arguello? That's all open to debate. Some of those fighters didn't need to redeem themselves from a disgraceful mid-career quit job.


But that redemption has nothing to do with 135lbs Duran; with or without LeonardII Duran is still the finest 135lber ever.Not necessarily, his competition at that weight wasn't as good as some of the other candidates for the top 10.

[Flea Man]

Even Ingle said naz stood Johnny Nelson on his head in sparring. Don't believe me, check out Boxing Techniques, British magazine. If anyone can scan/post the article (i.e a British fan who has it) it would be appreciated. Unless Naz did it with a body shot.

[TBooze]

Better than Ali? Than Chavez? Than Whitaker? Than even Arguello? That's all open to debate. Some of those fighters didn't need to redeem themselves from a disgraceful mid-career quit job.

Ali's redemption was mighty fine, to comeback from the demons that nearly killed in the late 60s, to becoming muvh more relaxed and more able to deal with fame in the 70s; but it was no quite up there with Duran.

Whitaker has yet to redeem himself, I may be wrong but is he still in prison for his demons?

Chavez lacked redemption in his career, hence is not an all time top 10 fighter.


Not necessarily, his competition at that weight wasn't as good as some of the other candidates for the top 10.

Duran compares comparison to anyone with opposition at Lightweight; DeJesus (times 3); Buchanan; Lampkin and Ishimatsu (Suzuki)....

[McGrain]

Of course i knew this all along given your smitten rankings of Burley in various capacities

:D

Cheers mate

:lol::twisted:

I'm trying to remember if I have him ranked higher or lower than Stonehands :think I think we have him at about the same spot.

I'm working on a theory that the quality of the poster and the positioning of Burley in their ATG list is linked. I can see you're going to give me trouble ;)

[JohnThomas1]

:lol::twisted:

I'm trying to remember if I have him ranked higher or lower than Stonehands :think I think we have him at about the same spot.

I'm working on a theory that the quality of the poster and the positioning of Burley in their ATG list is linked. I can see you're going to give me trouble ;)

Well there's always the exception to the theory i guess. Trouble is, is it me, or yourself and Stoney!!!

:D

[mcvey]

Would be interested in seeing some lists.

Leonard
Gans
Williams
Duran
Ross
Armstrong
Whitaker
Ortiz
Canzoneri
Brown

On the bench,Lavigne,Chavez,Arguello

[My2Sense]

Yep, he ranks far above Chavez and Arguello, clearly above Whitaker and still close but clear above Ali.

Not necessarily, in all cases.

[markedwardscott]

Of the lightweights who fough mainly at that weight:

1- Joe Gans
2- Roberto Duran
3- Pernell Whitaker
4- Benny Leonard
5- Carlos Ortiz
6- Alexis Arguello
7- Ike williams
8- Battling Nelson
9- Jack McAuliffe
10- Tony Canzoneri

On this topic, I would recommend the book "Lightning Strikes" in addition to Colleen's and my biography on Joe Gans.

[Sweet Pea]

Whitaker has yet to redeem himself, I may be wrong but is he still in prison for his demons?
:lol:WTF?

[Russell]

What, you guys didn't hear about Whitaker getting locked up?

[Manassa]

What, you guys didn't hear about Whitaker getting locked up?

I heard he stole a milk float for the bottle tops so he could make model aeroplanes out of them.

[TBooze]

:lol:WTF?

Was he not dealing drugs?

It would seem I am totally off, but I understood that Sweet Pea had real issues with drugs towards the end of his career and sadly afterwards....

[TAC602]

Lack of longevity?! He's the definition of longevity! Matched with Johnny Summerlin in something his 6th pro fight, Summerlin was something like 20-1 at that time! And unprotected! There was an immediate rematch (because Liston's win was regarded as a bit of fluke) and he beat the man again. He fought NOBODY with a losing record, he fought only one suspect fighter between the loss and win over ranked Marty Marshall (8th and 10th fight respectively!) and then proceeded to clean out his division. Liston was arguably the best fighter in a stacked divsion for ten years!


Liston was thrown to the wolves, fucking killed them all, and still had to wait for his shot. Only the best fighter in the history of the division could lay him low, and then he went on another cracking run. He had his liscense suspended in the USA for losing a fight. Make no mistake, Liston would have got a third crack at the title in a different age.

Dope Shit. :deal

[TAC602]

Another thing I noticed, you previously listed Liston #3 in a list of all-time great heavyweights. That is quite simply ridiculous. That really does show me how highly you take into account skill level and H2H, which is way over the top.IMO, his H2H ability doesn't make up for his lack of longevity anyway. He won the title against Patterson, then successfully defended it against him. Next fight he losses it against Ali, who came into the fight as a massive underdog. And the rematch could well have been the making of his greatness. He went out on his ass in the first round. Liston was at the peak of his powers when he destroyed Patterson twice. And suddenly some see him as past his prime when Ali beats him twice? Funny, huh.

Skill level gets taken into account here, no question. You can have all the skill in the world, but you need to do something with it to prove greatness. Being great for a very brief period of time isn't enough.

:nono

It absolutely is not, Robbi. Liston may be the baddest man to ever lace up gloves, and P4P can suck a fat one in this instance. There are certain times when that shit just isn't appropriate, and this is one of them. :deal :D