All time Britsh top ten

Like the all time great list just post your top ten british fighters of all time, one rule in this though and that's the ineligibility of both Fitzsimmons and McLarnin.

1. Jimmy Wilde
2. Ted 'Kid' Lewis
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Freddie Welsh
5. Jim Driscoll
6. Ken Buchanan
7. Jack 'Kid' Berg
8. Joe Calzaghe
9. Prince Naseem Hamed
10. John Conteh

1. Wilde
2. Lewis (Lennox)
3. Lewis (Ted 'Kid')
4. Welsh
5. Driscoll
6. Calzaghe
7. Berg
8. Hamed
9. Buchanan
10. Moran

Another one that I'd change my mind on just about every day if you asked me, particularly the number one and two spots. Right now, I'll go with:

1. Jimmy Wilde
2. Ted 'Kid' Lewis
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Ken Buchanan
5. Freddie Welsh
6. Jack 'Kid' Berg
7. Joe Calzaghe
8. Jim Driscoll
9. Owen Moran
10. Benny Lynch

Ask me tomorrow, and I might give Honeyghan that last spot, switch Lewis and Wilde at the top and move one or two others around. Better take that list I've put there before I change my mind!

Cheers Ghosty.

1 Jimmy Wilde
2 Ted Kid Lewis
3 Lennox Lewis
4 Freddie Welsh
5 Joe Calzaghe
6 Jim Driscoll
7 Ken Buchanan
8 Owen Moran
9 Jack Berg
10 Naseem Hamed

1. Jimmy Wilde.
2. James Figg.
3. Ted 'Kid' Lewis.
4. Freddie Welsh.
5. Ken Buchanan.
6. Lennox Lewis.
7. Joe Calzaghe.
8. James 'Peerless Jim' Driscoll
9. Naseem Hamed.
10. Benny Lynch

A lot of contenders for the last few places. Putting them all in an order was pretty tough. It's not easy to compare somebody from a different era, who had 300 fights, to today's fighters.

Jesus, James Figg!! That's a name I haven't heard in a while!

I presume he would be ineligible for this list however, given that his time was way before that of the gloved era? Certainly a bit of a pioneer for the sport, though!

The number ten slot changes a bit, and the order between four and nine does too, but this is generally a fair approximation of my thoughts:

1) Ted 'Kid' Lewis
2) Jimmy Wilde
3) Lennox Lewis
4) Freddie Welsh
5) Ken Buchanan
6) Joe Calzaghe
7) Owen Moran
8) Jack 'Kid' Berg
9) Jim Driscoll
10) Naseem Hamed

In some ways, I prefer a top 15 for this exercise, simply because I can then emphasise that Lynch, Conteh, Turpin, Honeyghan and Froch, in that order, are not forgotten, but just knocking at the door, while Lynch is quite often in at 10 at the expense of Naz.

Pah Figg, Mace would stand him on his head. Now top ten bareknuckle guys is a debate for the ages.

Create the thread, Rowlers.

rowley wrote:Pah Figg, Mace would stand him on his head. Now top ten bareknuckle guys is a debate for the ages.

First hand testimony from Windy I think.

Everyone knows Windy is a Broughton nuthugger, you know what it's like you always favour the guys who were big names when you were a kid.

Bring on the Game Chicken, I say. Henry Pearce for Number One. Or maybe Tom Cribb. Perhaps Mendoza....

Don't get the old feller wound up about McLean, Shaw and Mad Gypsy though. He hates them modern bare knuckle guys.

Today :

1. Jimmy Wilde
2. Ted Lewis
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Ken Buchanan
5. Jim Driscoll
6. Joe Calzaghe
7. Freddie Welsh
8. Owen Moran
9. Jack Berg
10. Naseem Hamed

Ask me tomorrow and the order will probably be different, though I suspect that the names would be the same.

Not Cribb for me Captain, only beat Molyneux by some underhand tactics, now Mendoza is a fine shout.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Bring on the Game Chicken, I say. Henry Pearce for Number One. Or maybe Tom Cribb. Perhaps Mendoza....

I prefer the "Tipton Slasher" William Perry.

You dinosaurs really make me laugh, and if none of you are going to admit that truth, then I'll spell it out for you.

As we do now with Carl Froch, Nottingham is the city which rules the roost when it comes to the bare knucklers. William Thompson, alias Bendingo, was the supreme bare knuckler, the first great scientific boxer and the blueprint of the 'pound for pound' fighter. Anyone who has the gall to deny this is a WUM!

Dammit I should have stated that this list is for gloved fighters and in the case of britain that effectively starts with Pedlar Palmer.

But have no fear I will be doing lists for the 8 original divisions and if the interest is there will do one for the bareknuckle fighters.

Hope the threads for the original eight divisions will be upon us soon mate. It's old hat, but there is little else that generates so much debate!

Bareknuckle would be interesting, Ghosty. Look forward to that, along with the original 8 divisions.

Some of the fantasy fight threads that we used to do used to get debate going, remember me and Jimmy being described as ridiculous for our prediction on one of them, happy days

88Chris05 wrote:Hope the threads for the original eight divisions will be upon us soon mate. It's old hat, but there is little else that generates so much debate!

Well i'll get this british one out of the way then i'll do one of the divisions every few days.

rowley wrote:Some of the fantasy fight threads that we used to do used to get debate going, remember me and Jimmy being described as ridiculous for our prediction on one of them, happy days

Is that the famous one Jeff. I will use the divisional rankings to set up the rest of the knockout tournaments.

Fists of Fury wrote:Bareknuckle would be interesting, Ghosty.

Does anyone really know that much about them though. Be harder than assessing Jeffries, Greb, Langford etc etc without doing an enormous amount of reading.

I did read Lenny McCleans book once, but it was so bad I would never dream of reviewing it in jeff's thread.

It's the reading part that would make it interesting, to my mind. Always good to read up on those you know little about.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Bareknuckle would be interesting, Ghosty.

Does anyone really know that much about them though. Be harder than assessing Jeffries, Greb, Langford etc etc without doing an enormous amount of reading.

I did read Lenny McCleans book once, but it was so bad I would never dream of reviewing it in jeff's thread.

Feel free Tino, the thread could do with the help! To be honest, as I have reviewed on the thread Bob Mee's book Bare Fists is pretty excellent as an introduction to the bare knuckle era, covers all the major players and developments and if you're going in totally green on the subject is about perfect, although I'm sure you all already knew this as you will have obviously have read my review countless times.

Fists of Fury wrote:It's the reading part that would make it interesting, to my mind. Always good to read up on those you know little about.

That is very true, Fists, I just don't have the time to read about those guys as well as trying to keep up with the gloved era.

Might have to duck out of that thread!

Worse than Calzaghe, you are...

rowley wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Bareknuckle would be interesting, Ghosty.

Does anyone really know that much about them though. Be harder than assessing Jeffries, Greb, Langford etc etc without doing an enormous amount of reading.

I did read Lenny McCleans book once, but it was so bad I would never dream of reviewing it in jeff's thread.

Feel free Tino, the thread could do with the help! To be honest, as I have reviewed on the thread Bob Mee's book Bare Fists is pretty excellent as an introduction to the bare knuckle era, covers all the major players and developments and if you're going in totally green on the subject is about perfect, although I'm sure you all already knew this as you will have obviously have read my review countless times.

I did read it Jeff and it was a fine review indeed. I think the thread has been pretty successful really, I was worried it would die a death quickly but it has been ticking along nicely.

Fists, lay off big guy. I joined your football thread against my better judgement. You owe me one.

That's true, you can have a free pass on this one, then.

1. Jimmy Wilde
2. Ted Lewis
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Ken Buchanan
5. Jim Driscoll
6. Freddie Welsh
7. Owen Moran
8. Jack Berg
9. Joe Calzaghe
10. Benny Lynch

1. Ted "Kid" Lewis
2. Jimmy Wilde
3. Ken Buchanan
4. Benny Lynch
5. Lennox Lewis
6. Freddie Welsh
7. Jim Driscoll
8. Jack "Kid" Berg
9. Joe Calzaghe
10. Owen Moran

1. Jimmy Wilde
2. Ted "Kid" Lewis
3. Freddie Welsh
4. Jack "Kid" Berg
5. Benny Lynch
6. Jim Driscoll
7. Ken Buchanan
8.Lennox Lewis
9. Joe Calzaghe
10. Owen Moran

Not a fan of Lennox, Colonial?

Fists of Fury wrote:Not a fan of Lennox, Colonial?

Nothing against Lewis, but feel he is somewhat overrated here in Britain and benefitted from good timing with regards to his key rivals, the fact he was in the heavyweight division and the fact his rivals were big mainstream names. The nature of the heavyweight division means its fighters tend to benefit from a value added factor.

Fair points but would still have to have him inside top 5 Brits for me... Think reigning a division for a while and the Holyfield wins have him ahead of guys like Buchanan personally but can see your reasoning.

AlexHuckerby wrote:Fair points but would still have to have him inside top 5 Brits for me... Think reigning a division for a while and the Holyfield wins have him ahead of guys like Buchanan personally but can see your reasoning.

I wouldnt argue too heavily with people placing him a bit higher. Personally I dont think there is much separating his career with that of Calzaghe for example, other than I think the fact he was a heavyweight and one of the few world heavyweight champions we have had tends to push him above in many peoples eyes. He existed at a time when heavyweight boxing was big news and was surrounded by hugely famous American heavyweights so interest in the division was very high. This kind of thing tends to push fighters up the ratings with the public.

But career wise I think they are similar. The two biggest "names" on each record are Tyson/Holyfield and Hopkins/Jones. Little seperating them there. Tyson and Jones were badly faded and Hopkins/Holyfield past their best. Outside of that Lewis might edge it in overall competition perhaps by a small margin but Calzaghe doesnt have the poor losses to weak opponents blemishing his record. Both missed out on facing possibly their biggest rival early on in Ottke/Bowe for whatever reasons. Not a great deal in it for me.

Don't blame Calzaghe for not wanting to go to Germany and get scrwed over by the judges though tbh.
And it seems clear to me that Bowe wanted nothing to do with Lewis. The reason he vacated his title because Lewis was mandatory challenger I believe, so he fought for Bowe's old belt whilst it was vacant, Bowe avoided him. Calzaghe should have probably still fought Ottke and would have won imo, still don't rate Ottke at all, wouldn't come out of his own back garden.

I don't think that the lack of an Ottke fight is much of a blemish on Calzaghe's record or anything he's ever lost sleep over. The lack of a Bowe fight in Lewis' case is a lot more costly to his legacy, however as others have alluded to I'm not sure any blame can be left at Lennox's door for that one.

You make a compelling argument, Colonial, but I'd have Lewis a few places higher than Calzaghe, personally. One thing you can never accuse Lewis of is shying away from the biggest challenges available to him or not wanting to test himself to his absolute limits. As highly as I rate Calzaghe, such question marks will always hang over his career to a certain degree. Although I'd add that Calzaghe's win over Hopkins keeps looking better and better with time, and is probably a greater triumph than Lewis' over Holyfield in retrospect and everything considered.

I would also have Lewis slightly ahead of Calzaghe overall for similar reasons, namely being more proactive with his career in general. Id be confident that Calzaghe would beat Ottke and I dont see the name being a massive hole in this record but still think the lack of unification fight with him was a blemish, as was taking so long to unify a division he was clearly the best in.

But on paper I dont think theres any major differences. If someone placed Calzaghe higher I wouldnt argue too heavily its undeserved. They have similar level big wins in Kessler/Jones/Hopkins vs Klitschko/Tyson/Holyfield and outside of that I think its reasonably similar with Calzaghe getting the credit for no losses and Lewis getting the credit for more ambition.

I jst think the marquee nature of the heavyweight division of the time and Britains lack of success in it has made Lewis much more celebrated as a fighter and consequently rated as higher. Looking at their respective careers without the kind of glamour Lewis beneffited from I think the margin is alot closer.

Sorry, Colonial. Looks like I'm having trouble reading! Thought you had Calzaghe ahead of Lewis origianlly, hence my post. Have just seen that my peepers were playing tricks on me.

I think you also have to take into account how they would fare against other greats of previous eras when compiling these lists though, in order to help differentiate between placings when you're stuck.

In that case, I really don't see many Heavyweight's of the past having the beating of Lewis, maybe 4 or 5 of them, if that, and that always assists me in happily rating him very highly.

I agree that a fit, focused and motivated Lewis is a tough night's work for any Heavyweight in history, Fists. The problem is, I'd say that there would be even fewer Super-Middleweights who could have beaten Calzaghe at his best, although obviously we're talking about a division which has been around for a lot less time in this case. I see Calzaghe giving nightmares to many-a great Light-Heavyweight too, mind you. I don't buy this idea that Jones, for example, would have done away with him easily had they met at the turn of the century. Jones may well have won, but I see Calzaghe testing him more than anyone else did at 175 lb until he ran in to that Tarver left hand.

I think Lewis is a nightmare for nearly every HW, people always elude to Rahman and McCall, whilst yes he most certainly did get sparkoed by them you have to take into account the actual persons mental state and how he fared against tougher opposition.
With Lewis he always boxed his best against someone who was more dangerous and especially in the case of Rahman he swas outboxing him with simplistic ease then just switched off and grinned at him like an idiot then got sparked. This doesn't happen if he's fighting a genuine high-level threat. (Imo)
Also have to say stylistically he's so annoyingly difficult to fight, the way he can easily box off the back foot and use his long 84" reach to jab his opponents to death and ground down his feet to then finish with his big right. People say he was a bit too safety first in his boxing, I just think he was smart...
Don't think you can put Lewis in with anyone and write him off...
Prime Ali and Foreman would start as favourites against him for me... But not too many more...

88Chris05 wrote:I agree that a fit, focused and motivated Lewis is a tough night's work for any Heavyweight in history, Fists. The problem is, I'd say that there would be even fewer Super-Middleweights who could have beaten Calzaghe at his best, although obviously we're talking about a division which has been around for a lot less time in this case. I see Calzaghe giving nightmares to many-a great Light-Heavyweight too, mind you. I don't buy this idea that Jones, for example, would have done away with him easily had they met at the turn of the century. Jones may well have won, but I see Calzaghe testing him more than anyone else did at 175 lb until he ran in to that Tarver left hand.

You mean until he ruined his body gaining 25 pounds and then droppping it THEN taking Tarvers left hook.

Though I dislike Tarver always loved it when the ref goes any question? Tarver goes "Yeah, got any excuses tonight Roy?" BANG

My take on it has always been that Joe pushes Roy very, very close, and a points decision could have gone either way, had they met in their primes. Whilst Jones was very fast and flashy with great reflexes, I do wonder how he would have won rounds against someone as relentless as Calzaghe, and I don't see him stopping Joe, either.

Should have made it more clear, that wasn't meant to be the reason why I rated Lennox above Joe, as you rightly said Joe is more than a match for almost all of the super middles in years gone by. However, the volume of world class heavyweights is vastly greater than the volume of genuinely world class super middles, which helps to show just how good Lewis was, in my opinion.

Fists of Fury wrote:Joe is more than a match for almost all of the super middles in years gone by. However, the volume of world class heavyweights is vastly greater than the volume of genuinely world class super middles, which helps to show just how good Lewis was, in my opinion.

As I said, I'd agree with that one hundred percent, and it's a big feather in Lewis' cap. I rank Lewis higher, so we're pretty much on the same page I think. But Colonial has done a good job of showing that the two of them may not be separated by as much as some first seem to think.

For me it's always been a bit of a toss up between Roy and Super Joe...

Whereas I could see Joe outworking Roy I could also see Roy being the one moving and landing the sharper more eyecatching quality punches...
Though for Roy to win, I think he has to dig a bit deep and go a little dirty for me, nothing illegal but I think he has to hold and slow down Joe a bit and frustrate. Don't know whether Roy would be able to do that to Joe.
Can't see a stoppage in it, though if there is I would think Joe gets stopped as I struggle to see Calzaghe mounting lots of successful flurries, mainly just outworking type of flurries, similar to that of De La Hoya''s against Mayweather nothing real hard landing.

Yeah we are singing from the same hymn sheet on this one, Chris, but as you say, Colonial does put across an interesting viewpoint on the issue.

With regards to Lewis not really too sure what the likes of Driscoll, Berg or Buchanan did to rate higher than him because as far as beating the best of their eras goes it's a clear advantage to Lewis, can see reasoning for Welsh being above him but the others rely too much on singular wins to propel themselves. Lewis is as far as I can see a genuinely great Heavyweight regardless of nationality but not sure we'd hold the rest in such high esteem if they were American or Mexican.