Give Me Your Ten Best Jr. Welterweight Champions Down Through History

As it's such a hot-ticket division right now, let's catch a glimpse of its history through the eyes of the FightBeat crew.

 

Hatton
Tszyu
ODLH
Pernell Whittaker
Meldrick Taylor
Chavez
Pryor
Locche
Carlos Ortiz
Barney Ross

Hard to get Pacman in there because of the omnipresent blood testing issues for one, but more significantly thanks to the fact that he fought Cotto at 145, and Oscar at 147, which were obviously not 140lb fights. Apart from beating Hatton in a fight tainted by Hattons shotness, his ill preparation and Pac's possible [though unproven] doping, it is hard to make a case for Pac at 140 proper.

Cotto doesn't make it either as he never had a defining fight at 140. WBO champ at 140, nearly losing to Torres...nah, not good enough.

 

You left out Cervantes!:nono:

 

barney ross was the best of the best. he'd have surely whipped them all

 

I find it a little odd you would preclude Pacquiao for possible cheating, but include Pryor, who seems to have a much more concrete case to answer for? I mean, do you not recognise Usain Bolt's records? Let's face it, he's no less likely to be doping than Pacquiao, & in all likelihood, is probably a lot more likely to.

As for Cotto, myself, I do not even consider him part of this equation. He held a belt, but was never the champion of the division. Likewise, Mayweather, Whitaker, etc...I guess some people will feel differently, but for both clarification & legitimacy, I tend to steer away from anything other than the lineage, for the most part. There are rare exceptions --- Jones at Light-Heavy, Holmes at Heavy, but they're rare indeed.

 

A very respectable case can be made. Ross wanted for very little, & on his best night, might be favoured to topple every other Jr. Welter champ there ever was.

 

Hatton was almost surely past his best against Pac, but certainly wasn't "shot". It was also at Hatton's best weight which is the subject of this thread. Same thing with Tszyu. He wasn't at all shot, but if you want to taint Pac's vicory over Hatton, you can't in the same breath look at Ricky's win over Kostya as the gold standard.

I don't think Pacquiao deserves a spot on the all time best @ 140 either but ...

A lot of the guys near the top on most people's lists had possibly their signature wins against smaller and/or past their prime opponents.

ODLH-Chavez
Hatton-Tszyu
Pryor-Arguello
Randall-Chavez
Chavez-Camacho

Whitaker? How many fights did he have @ 140?

 

Pac is excluded for possible cheating as a very secondary concern. The primary concern was the shotness of Hatton and the absence of any other noteworthy fights he took at 140. Furthermore, his cheating, if indeed established as such, would appear to be a far more extensive and prolonged session than that of Pryor, whose main guilt is to be associated with a man who removed padding from gloves of another fighter and may have given Pryor a drink.

I recognize Usain Bolts records. But at 140, drugs or not, Pacman doesn't have one worthy of the name.

 

I know.

It says 10.

 

It's a bit of a moot point for me, because Pacquiao wouldn't make my top-10 if accomplishments were at all a factor, for obvious reasons. I disagree Hatton was shot, though. I actually thought he looked pretty strong against Malignaggi. Pacquiao just made him look wasted.

 

Cervantes would have kicked the shit outta Hatton.

 

I have to admit, I do think Cervates deserves a spot above Hatton. That's the fun of making listings, though --- the spirit of debate.

 

I'm pretty high on Cervantes. I'd pick him to outpoint Chavez, and Ortiz as well.

 

I might agree with you on Cervantes' best day for Chavez, but, then, I'm pretty high in the same way on Ortiz, & would like his chances against Cervantes.

Cervantes' loss to the kid Benitez really leaves him a forgotten force by many, but a force he was, nonetheless.

What would you make of Cervantes & Tszyu at 140, or Cervantes & Arguello?

 

No question about it! Pambele beats both Tszyu & Arguello at 140.

 

I disagree completely.

Ross was a great fighter for his time in an era where technique had yet to fully evolve, but no way he stands up to the moderns like Benitez, Cervantes, Pryor, Chavez, Kostya, as he would have been murdered as Barney was not in their class as a fighter strength-wise or technique-wise.

 

For once I agree with Stinger.

 

What would you define as some of the techniques not yet existent in Ross' time which would cripple his chances against those men?

 

could juan diaz have defeated a prime barney ross, stinger?

 

It would have been a terrific fight to be sure, Barney had trouble with strong guys like McClarnin, Armstrong, Garcia, and Juan is a strong kid as well.

Diaz could punch holes through Ross' low guard (which was the norm them) and pile up a lot of points through the first half of the fight, but Ross was a 15 round fighter and Diaz is a twelve round fighter so Ross' stamina and toughness would have been the deciding factor.

Diaz hit him way more, but didn't have the power to finish him off, Ross comes back and wins a UD over a tired "El Torito" in a 15 round fight.

 

Balance, rhythm, combination & body-punching weren't invented until, when, the 40's? I don't understand that stance. I'm sure you can't have meant that the way it came out. You would really call Tszyu & Chavez more skilled & nuanced as fighters than Ross? You think they'd really lick him, hands down? No trainers ever got together &, "invented" a style, be it modern or otherwise.

Diaz (who I quite like, too) couldn't better Nate Campbell --- even an old Campbell --- but gives Ross all he can handle en route to a tight decision defeat? The same Diaz who couldn't beat Paulie Malignaggi on at least one, perhaps two, occasions?

Where does Ross fit in with regards to the likes of Campbell, Malignaggi, & Marquez, in your book?