View Full Version : Are these guys really considered a welterweight?
Benny the kid
02-16-2006, 03:10 PM
I,ve been doing through research on the welterweights.
of these guys (could anyone please name...those who you wouldn't consider a welterweight).
Oscar De La Hoya..
It seems all these guys were at welter, for a while..some longer than others, yet i'm young and having a hard time judging how long...is long enough. Especially Considering you'd be ranking them as an all-time great, while others spent a long time there(in that weight class).
Just spit out anyone you guys think shouldn't be considered a welterweight..
(Like me i never thought Tommy Ryan was one, really but maybe..)
Benny the kid
02-17-2006, 12:15 AM
Thanks gordoom, i just was wondering how long, was long enough. If a fighter only had 1 really big fight at welterweight, if many would really consider him a true welter?
I guess many people are great in 2 or more weight classes.
I'm going to check out WAIL, i was wondering what that was.
Also Gordoom, theres some lingo, i need some help with..
what does IBRO AND IMO, mean i see it often and have no clue what it means. :)
Theres so much lingo on here, its like a Jim Rhome show!
I'm a bit lost at times...:rolleyes
02-17-2006, 12:16 AM
To answer your question about how long is long enough ... It depends. For instance, while Duran was a lightweight, welter, jr. middle & middleweight. He was either a champion or title belt holder in all those divisions. BUT ... Almost everyone thinks of him as a lightweight because he was arguably the greatest one ever.
BUT ... at one time for about 4 fights he was a welterweight & a title belt holder who won that belt from all-time welter champ SR Leonard. Btw: I forgot to mention that Burley also fought at welter for some time but historically he's more commonly viewed as a middleweight.
As to the lingo: IBRO stands for the International Boxing Research Org. IBRO & the CBZ are tied at the hip. Many of the CBZ members are members of IBRO & many of the IBRO historians write for Wail, our magazine. As a budding historian yourself you might want to consider joining IBRO as there are many benefits to it. If you want to join I'll let you know how.
IMO stands for In My Opinion. It's just faster to write the acronym IMO.
If you have any more questions, ask away & I'll be happy to answer the ones I know the answers to.
02-17-2006, 01:29 AM
I'm not sure abourt Cocoa Kid, Gibbons or Holman Williams but all the other fighters except for Burley were welterweight champions. Your confusion probably stems from the fact that Walker, Basilio, Griffith & Duran were all also either middleweight champions or belt holders.
If you go to the top of the page you'll see a link that says Encyclopedia. Click on it & there you will find lists of every world champion in every division & their career records. Many of them also have short bios with their records.
I really like the fact that a young kid like you is really trying to absorb as much boxing history as possible. It gives me hope for the future of the sport.
Oh yeah, also at the top of the page is a link that says Wail click on that & you will find 11 years of issues of the CBZ magazine. Every issue has quite a few historical pieces on past champions & boxers. You can learn a lot of stuff just going through the issues.
02-17-2006, 03:50 AM
think about what gordoom said about joining IBRO. they are a no frills organization that enlists some of the best boxing historians you will ever find.
if it sounds good to you e-mail me at email@example.com
it takes a few bucks to get started. i'd like to do you the same favor that gordoom did me. let me know , kid.
02-17-2006, 12:51 PM
When considering if a fighter is truly a welterweight or not, here is how I tend to look at it:
When compiling a list of the greatest fighters All Time Pound for Pound, I select a fighter at his optimum weight class. Some on Benny's list, I would considerd welterweight being their optimum weight. Others such as the aforementioned Duran, I would not.
That said, if I Then were to compile a list of the greatest Welterweights, and I was including ALL fighters who fought successfully AND notably at that weight, I would include fighters who's optimum weight might be elsewhere. Again, see Duran.
When I make divisional lists, I tend to impose my own personal rule of not ranking a fighter in more than one weight class.
* Duran would NOT make my Welterweight list and would only appear at lightweight.
*Walker and Burley appear in my Middleweight list.
* Robinson would not appear at Middle and would be my #1 at Welterweight.
*Griffith and Basilo who you have on your list, would make my top 10.
Agian, listing fighters in ONE class only, here is my Elite Welter list:
Champion: Sugar Ray Robinson
1- Sugar Ray Leonard
2- Thomas Hearns
3- Emile Griffith
4- Jose Napoles
5- Kid Gavilan
6- Wilfred Benitez
7- Carmen Basilio
8- Luis Rodriguez
9- Donald Curry
10- Felix Trinidad
11- Joe Walcott
12- Jimmy McLarnin
Just one man's opinion.
02-17-2006, 04:12 PM
Your list is good. My biggest quibble is McLarnin. A great fighter but I don't see how you can rate him over Ross who beat him twice.
02-17-2006, 05:20 PM
And in my TOTAL rankings of Welterweights, Ross is indeed ahead of Jimmy (Ross at #12 and Jimmy at #20).
But sticking to my OWN rule of ranking a fighter in ONLY one weight class, I have Ross listed at Lightweight vs. Welterweight. Same With Armstrong.
Admitedly this rule of mine only ADDs to the confusion. Imagine taking a peak at my Middleweight list and not seeing Robinson anywhere!
02-17-2006, 09:12 PM
When making up the best top twenty in any division how any one can leave a guy like Robinson or others who spent some time in other divisions and proved themselves there is beyond me. Its like i never take to much notice of all the belts fighter win today. They hand them out like its a superstores promotion offer. On paper it looks good, but how many of these would hold more then one belt if we went back to having only eight real champions.
02-17-2006, 09:13 PM
I definitely think a fighter can be an all-timer in more than one division.
Let's take the great Harry Greb for example. IBRO has over the last year had everbody submit their list of the top 20 fighters in every division. Greb obviously ranked 1 to 3 at middle on all ballots, but he was also on the list at light heavy. He never won the L. heavy titile but he had wins over quite a few all time ranked L. heavies most notably against Gene Tunney.
So yeah, you can be rated in more than one division. I'd have to check but off the top of my head no fighter qualifies for more than two divisions with the possible exception of Ruby Bob Fitzsimmons & Barney Ross.
Ross definitely qualifies for 3 divisions, lightweight, jr. welter & welter. & it as just occured to me that Henry Armstrong & Tony Canzoneri also qualify for 3 divisions.
Anyway, do write to Greg Beyer about IBRO he has a nice surprise for you.
Keep punchin' Kid!
Benny the kid
02-17-2006, 11:36 PM
That was awesome Hawk.
I really wanted that kind of an angle, that was what i was looking for...Successfully and Notably..Well pout.
You know i shared that very idea, that a fighter should be ranked only in one weight class, as an all time great.
I'm not sure which side of the coin, i'm on now.
Should a fighter be ranked in two weight classes?
I almost tend to think yes now.
Robinson is an good example.
Although i had favored Hawks', point of view.
i had robinson, ranked as a middleweight though..
I thought his reigh at welter was great but a little less unspectacular, compared to his middleweight run.
I Never considered Tommy Ryan or Charley Burley a Welterweight.
It makes it even harder if they didn't win a belt, in their life.
It amazes me how any list excludes the Cocoa Kid, i'd say he's a welter. Yet i don't know which weight class, they are ranking him in? I'd never put a guy like Donald Curry ahead of him(Cocoa), his compition level was hall of fame.What about Burley?
Hard to tell where to put him. I mean Archie Moore fought forever at middleweight yet, i bet almost everyone considers him a LightHeavy.
I Think some exception's have to be made.
Which begs the question.. how long is long enough.
I really liked Hawks defintion..Sucessfully and Noteably.
Thats well put, I Think that would buy a flyer for some people to be ranked in to categorys.
Could you Hawk or Gordoom answer me..If any of these guys
REALLY fit that describtion. I mean aside for holding the belt, which many have been abandoned fast, is it Just 1 or 2 impactfull fights that matters or is it a few years of activity which many guys like sugar Ray/cocoa kid and others would Qualify for. How many big fights is NOTEABLY TO YOU? HAWK/GORDOOM.
Whats your opinion Gordoom?
Do you think Fighters should be in 1 category/weight class or 2? I really am undecided, I hope a couple of people Could shed light on this subject.
Perhaps that the real Question i was looking for when i posted this...
I Think i'm of the belief a few guys get flyers in two Weight classes...but not very many, like Hawk, really stated in his pound per pound analysis..afighters optimun weight class, just might be Two classes if his near the top in pound per pound.
Catch my drift..
02-18-2006, 12:54 AM
I also believe a fighter CAN be ranked in more than one division. Armstrong, Ross, Duran and Arguello are but a few examples of this.
The reason for MY RULE of ranking a fighter in ONLY one division is becuase I have my divisional lists tie directly into my Pound for Pound list. They feed off form each other.
In my Pound list, a fighter is ranked where he is based on what I feel his peak, prime and optimum weight was. Historical significance has a part in this, but it is weighted at a much smaller level.
So for example, Roberto Duran, I have #2, All Time Pound for Pound. He also is listed as my #1 Lightweight of all time. It is the Duran from Lightweight, who makes my Pound list at #2.
Agian, if I include All Significant fighters at a particular weight, they may very well have mutliple representation. But when I think of my divisional list, I think of the list that is tied to my Pound list and as such, a fighter is ranked ONLY once and at the weight I personally feel was thier optimum weight.
Heck, it makes sense for ME. Odd as it may sound to anyone else.
02-18-2006, 02:53 AM
I readily admit that there is a certain, inherent, logic to your premise. BUT ...I'm gonna have to cogitate on this one. There's something that doesn't feel quite right about it to me at first thought ...
Not saying you're wrong, just gotta chew on it for a while ...
02-18-2006, 03:28 AM
am i reading that right? duran alltime ppp at #2? of all the fighters that ever lived duran at #2? i am not certain who you would consider #1 but it has to put him over one of these guys right? louis, robinson,jofre,dempsey , johnson...i mean.... the list goes on.
you leave room for debate amigo. like gordoom i may need to chew on this awhile.
02-18-2006, 06:25 AM
Robby at #1.
Lists always spark a debate don't they?
And I've yet to run into anyone who has seen eye to eye with me on these things! Lists will spell my doom one day.
The beauty of this sport though.
Also, re my Pound list, I also weigh head to head matchups VERY HEAVILY when considering positioning fighters. So given that, I focus intently on where a fighter was at his absolute best when considering him.
Agian, not saying My way or logic is the right or ONLY way, but it's how I have it scrambled together in my coconut.
02-18-2006, 04:02 PM
fair enough....many times i have sworn off the fantasy fight section here in the zone because its hard to get opinions into the ring and prove anything.
you know that ray arcel for many years thought benny leonard was a better lightweight than duran and didn't realy start to budge on that theory until duran beat SRL at welterweight. for whatever thats worth.....i'm still chewing.
02-18-2006, 04:37 PM
Yeah, I still be masticating also ... Though I grant you when you're talking about match ups or P4P we're talking about the fighter at his absolute peak. Just one for instance: Joe Frazier in the first fight with Ali. That WAS his supreme moment. & when speculating about Smokin'Joe it's from that touch stone night that I evaluate him.
One more example, Duran: for me his absolute peak was the 2nd & 3rd DeJesus fights. That's where I grade him from.
Leonard? The 1st Hearns fight.
So we do agree on that part ... Still trying to swallow what I'm chewing (g)
02-18-2006, 04:53 PM
be wildly and widly considered incorrect, but I assess fighters at every weight they actually fought at.
Robinson was to me the best welter ever. He was also among the best middles ever...as he fought above welter within the middle weight limit..and won some titles if I remember correctly.
I leave rankings and lists to others, but find it confusing to rank a fighter at only one weight. Certainly there can be only one BEST weight and best time for each fighter's career.
However, I will say that to rank the best in every weight class seems different than deciding where a particular fighter's best was.
Chewing and weighting to crap out my two cents.
02-18-2006, 05:19 PM
"Chewing and weighting to crap out my two cents".
Good one, Sharkster.
02-18-2006, 06:41 PM
"However, I will say that to rank the best in every weight class seems different than deciding where a particular fighter's best was."
I agree wholeheartedly. Which is why I essentially have two divisional lists. The one that I have spent to most energy on, and the one that I find more polished is the Divisional list that ties into my pound list. The one where a fighter is ranked in only one division (I hate contradictions in my lists and I pride myself on the two lists not having any. IE, "How can you have Pernell Whitaker higher pound for pound than Alexis Arguello, yet you have Arguello listed higher at Lightweight?" I make SURE, that doesn't exist).
My other divisional list, where all the stew meat(s) gets thrown in, I find is more awkward and I have myself doubting my selections and postionings too much. Plus it lends to cntradictions (IE "You have Lennox Lewis listed above Ezzard Charles at Heavyweight, but Charles is MUCH higher on your pound list". Yes this one is rather easy to explain, but when you get into the lower weight classes, it can get much cloudier.)
Maybe by limiting a fighter to only one division is my way of taking the easy way out. But hey, why work harder than you have to?
02-18-2006, 07:13 PM
"But hey, why work harder than you have to?"
Aah Hawk, you know the answer to that query ... Because WE have to. We are the guardians of the flickering flame that is, BOXING.
If we don't, who the hell else is gonna do it?
02-18-2006, 07:25 PM
It gets you everywhere.
Time to dust off the old spongy grey matter agian.
My Ear holes are too big. And once a wind kicks up, not only do you hear a piercing whistle, but the dust does tend to collect and settle in.
02-18-2006, 07:28 PM
Benny the kid
02-18-2006, 11:44 PM
Ahh.. this is healthy conversation, this was what i was looking for. I'm going to go through, the fighters I listed who breeched the welter/middleweight classes, and make a list if any of them merited two weight rankings, some i'm, not going to have an answer for..which i'll need a little helplin hand with.
But i had a question for you gordoom, i just got my first Ring magazine off E-BAY, got a tip about it on here.
I Think it started in feb 1922, is that correct?
What was Nat fleischer's life span?
Was there another rival magazine?
This edition may 33, is great it has a great article about James Corbett, I love the older boxers very much. Can't wait to find an issue about the original Joe Walcott..
02-19-2006, 12:55 AM
Rank fighters according to height. No clues from me what should be the standard. (5'9.5"..the .5 is important)
Unless you have my old list which is now certainly one I would not agree with, mine are consigned to Al Gore's harddrive.
GorDoom is right, this flame is a-flickerin'.
02-19-2006, 01:02 AM
Or Pilot light?
Fleischer died in 1972 and handed the mag over to his son in law Nat Loubet.
Boxing Illustrated was the cheif rival mag of the Ring, but it came out I believe in the 50's. It had a cross section with Wrestling (ugh).
There were others' but BI was the most prominent other than the RIng.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.