Greatest British Fighter Ever

First topic message reminder :

Nothing too serious this and a pretty simple poll but thought as it is a little quiet round here I'd get people's thoughts on the greatest British fighter ever. As tends to be the case I will almost certainly have forgotten someone so if this is the case and you pick other please specify. Also if anyone wants to explain their picks they are more than welcome

There's a difference between losing to the best fighter you faced and losing to the only world class fighter you faced. The second one gets spouted about Naz a lot, but it's a load of cobblers.

A highly underrated win over Vasquez, one of the most unjustly overlooked operators of the nineties. A pair of wins over the remarkably iron-chinned Soto and McCullough. Kelley, Johnson, Bungu etc all long-serving world champions, and he swatted many of them with contempt on the way to completing (boxing politics aside) what was effectively a clean sweep of all the 126 lb belts. A solid period of three years where he was, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the premier Featherweight in the world.

I think with Naz, people just can't look past their dislike for the man and allow it to cloud their judgement of the fighter. Haye, I suspect, will be a similar case in the future. But if someone was to offer up Hamed as Britain's greatest post-war boxer I wouldn't be too fussed, even though I would mildly disagree.

As for the Hatton comparison, well for me there is no comparison. Hamed comfortably ahead every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

I'd vote for Wilde regardless, but why no option to vote for Ruby Rob?

John Bloody Wayne wrote:I'd vote for Wilde regardless, but why no option to vote for Ruby Rob?

Just becomes a debate about whether he is English or not mate, which whilst interesting enough was not really the point of the thread, tend to find whenever you do these things leaving Fitz and Mclarnin well out of it is the path of least resistance.

Were they included, one and two ahead of Lewis and Wilde.

Understood.

Although a Canadian still leads the votes...

To be honest Ghosty that is another pretty good but less honest reason for excluding Fitz because if there was any justice he would spoil it by winning hands down

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Understood.

Although a Canadian still leads the votes...

Ha the spirit of Truss lives on.

rowley wrote:To be honest Ghosty that is another pretty good but less honest reason for excluding Fitz because if there was any justice he would spoil it by winning hands down

To me Mclarnin is the only fighter with british links who can come close to Fitzsimmons, who himself is criminally under rated, a borderline top 25 man alongside Wilde.

d260005p wrote:

Or could be the fact that Joe Calzaghe holds numerouse records within the SMW division, retire undefeated, 2 x World Champ etc etc. But yeh Toddler.

Whilst he may hold numerous records in the SMW division, he never the undisputed champ, and for my money he was only really the main man in div for the last two or three years of his reign. The idea that he could have held his own against the likes of RJJ may have gained popularity, but only for those with seriously rose tinted specs- the idea of the Calzaghe that fought Starry, Bika, Reid etc being able to trouble the RJJ of the same time is laughable.
Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Joe's, but the lenght of his title reign /number of defences masks the fact that he was a pretty average champ for considerable spells of the reign, and to put him in the same class as Ted Lewis or Jimmy Wilde is to disrespect to truly great boxers.

horizontalhero wrote:

d260005p wrote:

Or could be the fact that Joe Calzaghe holds numerouse records within the SMW division, retire undefeated, 2 x World Champ etc etc. But yeh Toddler.

Whilst he may hold numerous records in the SMW division, he never the undisputed champ, and for my money he was only really the main man in div for the last two or three years of his reign. The idea that he could have held his own against the likes of RJJ may have gained popularity, but only for those with seriously rose tinted specs- the idea of the Calzaghe that fought Starry, Bika, Reid etc being able to trouble the RJJ of the same time is laughable.
Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Joe's, but the lenght of his title reign /number of defences masks the fact that he was a pretty average champ for considerable spells of the reign, and to put him in the same class as Ted Lewis or Jimmy Wilde is to disrespect to truly great boxers.

Pretty average champ? Joe unified the SMW division after beating Kessler. It was belated, but pretty much confirmed what most knew. I would agree that Calzaghe probably would have lost to Jones but why should it be disrespectful to compare Calzaghe to Wilde or Lewis who both lost to fighters I would consider less talented to Jones? Hardly a disgrace to mention Calzaghe alongside the best Britain has produced and ironically Im not a huge fan of Calzaghe.

Just reading a book called Wales and it's boxers: A Fighting Tradition. Tempted to say one of the Great fighters featured in the book like Jimmy Wilde.

But my vote has gone for my all-time favourite fighter Lennox Lewis. I followed his career from the beginning religiously.

He won the belts, had top opposition, could adapt in a fight. First British Heavyweight Champion from these islands in the last century. He was the unified, universally recognized and lineal Heavyweight Champion.

Tremendous fighter born in West Ham who ruled the World.

It's difficult comparing across era boxers especially when one wasn't alive for many of them. Looking at Jimmy Wildes resume he outshines Lennox Lewis, so I went for Wilde.

d260005p wrote:

OasisBFC wrote:i voted for lewis, the names on his cv are brilliant.

Vitali Klitschko
Mike Tyson
Evander Holyfield (twice....come on, it was twice)

as well as good fighters like:
Donovan Ruddock
David Tua
Oliver McCall
Frank Bruno
Shannon Briggs

he seemed to get better with age and absolutely steamrolled his way through fighters like grant, botha and golota.

and his olympic gold (not for britain). olympic golds are always worth considering in someone's career, but who he beat made it more special.

the fact he beat everyone he faced by avenging both losses with stoppages (mccall is a weird one i know) is a plus too.

Evander Holyfield was a great name.

Mike Tyson? What? Are you serious? Danny Williams must be mint then.

Vital Klitschko? The guy who was beating Lewis up and ahead on the score cards? Lost to a cut, Lennox said he would give rematch, but instead retired??

HAHA!

i simply said lewis has great names on his cv, which he does.

I voted for T K Lewis but i really think he was number 2 behind Fitz, i guess you must have forgot to put Bob in the list and i think he is far too good to be voted for under the title Other.

Hogey the issue of Fitz has been mentioned, as I said earlier it just tends to become a debate over whether he is British or not and then a debate as to whether Mclarnin should be included and then it becomes a debate about Irish Nationalism etc, all fascinating enough I suppose but thought it was better for everyones sanity to give it a miss this time round.

Personally Mclarnin would be behind Lewis, Wilde and possibly Hamed for me. I don't think the poll loses that much without him although he'd probably get a few votes. Fitzsimmons is a notable absence but I understand the reasons for leaving him out as well.

Behind Ted Lewis, Lennox Lewis and Jimmy Wilde possibly but he's streets ahead of any other british boxer.

rowley wrote:Hogey the issue of Fitz has been mentioned, as I said earlier it just tends to become a debate over whether he is British or not and then a debate as to whether Mclarnin should be included and then it becomes a debate about Irish Nationalism etc, all fascinating enough I suppose but thought it was better for everyones sanity to give it a miss this time round.

Fair enough, but how someone can question the nationality of a bloke born in Cornwall just because he moved about through his life.

Do we regard Chisora as british or zimbabwean? To me he's british much like Fitzsimmons is a new zealander.

At the risk of getting sucked in Hogey, not sure too many on here describe Chisora as a Zimbabwean boxer, or as the captain once put it just because you're born in a stable doesn't make you a horse.

On the same token if i stick a cow in that stable it doesnt become a horse.

hogey wrote:On the same token if i stick a cow in that stable it doesnt become a horse.

I like that mate and it is a more than fair point.

rowley wrote:

hogey wrote:On the same token if i stick a cow in that stable it doesnt become a horse.

I like that mate and it is a more than fair point.

im sure the comment was innocent but that phrase is also often used with massively racist connotations.

Is there any record of Fitzsimmons' thoughts on the matter? Chisora fights plastered in union Jack attire so it's pretty clear what nationality he considers himself. I'd be inclined to go along with the fighter's preference in a situation like Fitzsimmons'.

manos de piedra wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:

d260005p wrote:

Or could be the fact that Joe Calzaghe holds numerouse records within the SMW division, retire undefeated, 2 x World Champ etc etc. But yeh Toddler.

Whilst he may hold numerous records in the SMW division, he never the undisputed champ, and for my money he was only really the main man in div for the last two or three years of his reign. The idea that he could have held his own against the likes of RJJ may have gained popularity, but only for those with seriously rose tinted specs- the idea of the Calzaghe that fought Starry, Bika, Reid etc being able to trouble the RJJ of the same time is laughable.
Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Joe's, but the lenght of his title reign /number of defences masks the fact that he was a pretty average champ for considerable spells of the reign, and to put him in the same class as Ted Lewis or Jimmy Wilde is to disrespect to truly great boxers.

Pretty average champ? Joe unified the SMW division after beating Kessler. It was belated, but pretty much confirmed what most knew. I would agree that Calzaghe probably would have lost to Jones but why should it be disrespectful to compare Calzaghe to Wilde or Lewis who both lost to fighters I would consider less talented to Jones? Hardly a disgrace to mention Calzaghe alongside the best Britain has produced and ironically Im not a huge fan of Calzaghe.

Pretty average champ for considerable spells of his reign, not a pretty av. champ full stop. In the same that Eubank had some great performances in his career-Benn, Watson , Wharton, that german fella, but also some of very poor outings against the likes of Sherry, and other tomato cans whose names I can't be bothered to look up, Joe also had some great performances, but also a considerable number of average ones- and though I rate Joe higher, theirs not much in between their records imo- ok, Joe was undefeated, but I don't put too much stock in that, and I stand by the statement that Ted Lewis and Wilde are in a different league than Calzaghe.

sittingringside wrote:Is there any record of Fitzsimmons' thoughts on the matter? .

Have got a biography on Fitz and it is pretty silent on the issue, mix who used to be on 606 always claimed Bob felt he was English but mix was from Cornwall way so can't be sure how much that was down to local pride, I do know he often wore the stars and stripes on his belt when he fought but as he was fighting in the states may not be wise to infer too much from that.

might have been doing an irishmicky ward goodnight from me.

horizontalhero wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

horizontalhero wrote:

d260005p wrote:

Or could be the fact that Joe Calzaghe holds numerouse records within the SMW division, retire undefeated, 2 x World Champ etc etc. But yeh Toddler.

Whilst he may hold numerous records in the SMW division, he never the undisputed champ, and for my money he was only really the main man in div for the last two or three years of his reign. The idea that he could have held his own against the likes of RJJ may have gained popularity, but only for those with seriously rose tinted specs- the idea of the Calzaghe that fought Starry, Bika, Reid etc being able to trouble the RJJ of the same time is laughable.
Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Joe's, but the lenght of his title reign /number of defences masks the fact that he was a pretty average champ for considerable spells of the reign, and to put him in the same class as Ted Lewis or Jimmy Wilde is to disrespect to truly great boxers.

Pretty average champ? Joe unified the SMW division after beating Kessler. It was belated, but pretty much confirmed what most knew. I would agree that Calzaghe probably would have lost to Jones but why should it be disrespectful to compare Calzaghe to Wilde or Lewis who both lost to fighters I would consider less talented to Jones? Hardly a disgrace to mention Calzaghe alongside the best Britain has produced and ironically Im not a huge fan of Calzaghe.

Pretty average champ for considerable spells of his reign, not a pretty av. champ full stop. In the same that Eubank had some great performances in his career-Benn, Watson , Wharton, that german fella, but also some of very poor outings against the likes of Sherry, and other tomato cans whose names I can't be bothered to look up, Joe also had some great performances, but also a considerable number of average ones- and though I rate Joe higher, theirs not much in between their records imo- ok, Joe was undefeated, but I don't put too much stock in that, and I stand by the statement that Ted Lewis and Wilde are in a different league than Calzaghe.

Calzaghes record and acheivements are considerably better than Eubanks for me. I would also stand by the belief that to mention Calzaghe in the same bracket as Wilde or Lewis in the context of the best fighters Britain has produced would not qualify as an insult to them. I would have Wilde and Lewis ahead myself but I dont see how Calzaghe being mentioned alongside them serves as disrespect.

While Fitzsimmons may not have been definitive in answering the question himself, I think it's worth noting that he did take out American citizenship and, perhaps more tellingly, never ventured back to these shores at any stage of his life after he left them. If he had any desire to be considered a Brit, he certainly kept it well hidden.

Most accounts I've seen / read seem to back this up to a certain extent, too, saying that Fitzsimmons winning the Heavyweight crown didn't really cause much of a stir in Britain at the time as the general consensus was that he wasn't one of our own. Of course, everyone has their own ideas about what does or doesn't constitute a Brit in these kind of cases, but I'm not sure that spending only your first nine years in Britain (years totally unrelated to boxing, no less), growing up in New Zealand, launching your career out of Australia and then winning two of your three world titles as an American citizen really qualifies 'Ruby Rob.'

Sorry, Jeff...What was that you were saying about not wanting this to crumble in to a 'Is Fitz British or not?' debate?

88Chris05 wrote:

Sorry, Jeff...What was that you were saying about not wanting this to crumble in to a 'Is Fitz British or not?' debate?

The Fitz debate I can cope with, its knowing it will lead to Mclarnin being next up that scares me because you spent enough time on 606 to know how fun the Irish nationalism debate can be

rowley wrote:or as the captain once put it just because you're born in a stable doesn't make you a horse.

I think you'll find it was me that said that, and I was only paraphrasing the Duke of Wellington. But, it is comforting to know I am still firmly lodged in your subconscious, jeffrey....

Mind the windows Tino. wrote: But, it is comforting to know I am still firmly lodged in your subconscious, jeffrey....

I would have thought by now that went without say tina

rowley wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote: But, it is comforting to know I am still firmly lodged in your subconscious, jeffrey....

I would have thought by now that went without say tina

Back on topic, I am surprised and unsurprised in equal measures that Lennox Lewis has almost double the votes of his nearest rival (Wilde). I am a fan of the big guy, but it is hard to justify him being the best ever. He is certainly up there, but I would have thought it is hard to make an argument for him being number 1. Too many question marks over his career, for me, but maybe the fact he is a 'modern' fighter and a heavyweight has skewed the voting in his favour a touch.

I am half surprised and half not Tina, Lewis has always been a guy I more admire than like and there was always something about him I struggled to truly warm to, also have said it a lot but think he gets way too much of a pass on the two losses which were pretty poor. However as I said if I was to go for a modern guy it would probably be him, as manos has rightly said there really is not a lot to choose between him and Calzaghe, you can make a case for either, but for me slightly prefer Lennox's ambition, however I gave Freddie Welsh one of his only two votes so what do I know

rowley wrote:as manos has rightly said there really is not a lot to choose between him and Calzaghe, you can make a case for either

If that is the case, then I guess it must purely be the 'heavyweight' factor as Lennox has 3 times as many votes as Joe.

To be fair Tina objectivity does tend to be in short supply when it comes to Joe, can pick apart his record as much as you choose and I have no more desire to do it than you but what is not going to change is towards the end of his supermiddle weight reign he was undoubtedly number one in that division and had proven it in the ring beyond any kind of reasonable level, something which is rarer than we appreciate, he then moved up and beat an all time great in a close but probably deserved win, can say all you want about BHop's age but his subsequent results have proven he was hardly a corpse at the time.

As I said previously I would have Lewis above him but he is certainly not three times the votes above him.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

rowley wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote: But, it is comforting to know I am still firmly lodged in your subconscious, jeffrey....

I would have thought by now that went without say tina

Back on topic, I am surprised and unsurprised in equal measures that Lennox Lewis has almost double the votes of his nearest rival (Wilde). I am a fan of the big guy, but it is hard to justify him being the best ever. He is certainly up there, but I would have thought it is hard to make an argument for him being number 1. Too many question marks over his career, for me, but maybe the fact he is a 'modern' fighter and a heavyweight has skewed the voting in his favour a touch.

First off I just want to say I'm not looking to spark an old vs new debate & that i fully respect each persons vote.

I think the fact he is modern fighter makes a huge difference, many people on here grew up with lennox & he was our 1st HW champ in a century (?). I personally when rating my atg fighters only put in those that are from my era & that I have/had watched. It's much easier imo to rate a fighter who is/was current that you saw rather than relying on reading old reports & articles by other boxing writers based on these reports. Many of these old greats are rated by the writers of the day as often they had not previously seen such techniques from previous fighters. Now I take nothing from these fighters from yesteryear & am sure many had they been born in other eras with the new techniques etc they would have had the same success, hence why they are considered greats today but at the same time understand why guys rate a modern fighter higher. Must say the fighter that went from LW to HW, Wilde maybe? on that achievement is gonna be hard to top.

sohotnot wrote:

First off I just want to say I'm not looking to spark an old vs new debate & that i fully respect each persons vote.

I think the fact he is modern fighter makes a huge difference, many people on here grew up with lennox & he was our 1st HW champ in a century (?). I personally when rating my atg fighters only put in those that are from my era & that I have/had watched. It's much easier imo to rate a fighter who is/was current that you saw rather than relying on reading old reports & articles by other boxing writers based on these reports. Many of these old greats are rated by the writers of the day as often they had not previously seen such techniques from previous fighters. Now I take nothing from these fighters from yesteryear & am sure many had they been born in other eras with the new techniques etc they would have had the same success, hence why they are considered greats today but at the same time understand why guys rate a modern fighter higher. Must say the fighter that went from LW to HW, Wilde maybe? on that achievement is gonna be hard to top.

That is fair enough, buddy. I wasn't trying to denigrate anyones opinion, I was just trying to work out why the vote was so heavily loaded in Lennox's favour. People get very hung up on the 'old v new' debate, but for my mind, so long as you have a genuine and heartfelt reason for voting for someone, then it is all fair game.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

sohotnot wrote:

First off I just want to say I'm not looking to spark an old vs new debate & that i fully respect each persons vote.

I think the fact he is modern fighter makes a huge difference, many people on here grew up with lennox & he was our 1st HW champ in a century (?). I personally when rating my atg fighters only put in those that are from my era & that I have/had watched. It's much easier imo to rate a fighter who is/was current that you saw rather than relying on reading old reports & articles by other boxing writers based on these reports. Many of these old greats are rated by the writers of the day as often they had not previously seen such techniques from previous fighters. Now I take nothing from these fighters from yesteryear & am sure many had they been born in other eras with the new techniques etc they would have had the same success, hence why they are considered greats today but at the same time understand why guys rate a modern fighter higher. Must say the fighter that went from LW to HW, Wilde maybe? on that achievement is gonna be hard to top.

That is fair enough, buddy. I wasn't trying to denigrate anyones opinion, I was just trying to work out why the vote was so heavily loaded in Lennox's favour. People get very hung up on the 'old v new' debate, but for my mind, so long as you have a genuine and heartfelt reason for voting for someone, then it is all fair game.

I think as you mentioned before the fact he was HW probably added to it. Personally never been a fan of HW always prefered MW & below. What does surprise me with Lennox popularity here is that he never seemed to be that popular with the Brit fight fan in the same way Hatton was & I remember many people saying they didn't rate him & that he'd lose to Holyfield & Tyson. With regards to Calzaghe on this forum he seems to have far more people undecided on him when comparing him to other MW/SMW?LHW's & his record compared to Lennox, but I think Rowley makes a fair point about him at the end of his career Jones jr aside.

Jimmy Wilde all the way for me. Was a supporter of Lennox but when compared to Wilde -a great record, nearly impossible to hit,a wallop way over his punching weight,tactically brilliant verging on genius....Lennox was taught by Steward, remember, after his first loss(he did have the excruiating habit of crossing his legs in his early fights,too!).Wilde on the other hand picked things up from all those tough fights from being a kid onwards. Lennox was trained in Canada.now I class him a Brit but there is a case for this mattering when considering the best fighter from these shores. Anyhow, I only mention Lennox because he is leading the poll, I would put him half way through the list of the above fighters.

Don't agree with Lennox Lewis being top but fully understand why he's above some of the old timers, if I was talking about Golf it would only be those whom i've watched, not a criticism at all but an understandable reason. Much like I rate Fitzsimmons far higher than Langford for instance for the sole reason I know a lot more about him and have no interest in learning about Langford.

Wilde. has the helpful habit of beating bigger men - which is useful in a p4p sense, good wins over the likes of Moore, Lee - incidentally - Chris - did you suggest that Lee held the advantage over Wilde? From what I've read - he beat Jimmy fair and square in a tough, close fight first up - before Jimmy knocked seven bells out of him in the rematch. I don't hold the Lee loss against Wilde any more than I hold deJesus against Duran. Lee was a very good opponent lest we forget - who would have been world champion, of course under modern weight rules after the Jones fight.

Anyway - I appreciate that Azania will decry me for placing an old timer at the head of my list, rather than someone with the added benefit of creosote. Probably I'm just putting in someone I've read about on wikipedia to appear knowledgeable.

Course - at least it means that I've actually read something (anything) about boxing - and for some people - having read even a little bit of the history of our sport wouldn't seem the worst thing...

oxring wrote:Wilde. has the helpful habit of beating bigger men - which is useful in a p4p sense, good wins over the likes of Moore, Lee - incidentally - Chris - did you suggest that Lee held the advantage over Wilde? From what I've read - he beat Jimmy fair and square in a tough, close fight first up - before Jimmy knocked seven bells out of him in the rematch.

Slight bit of miswording from me more than anything, Oxy. Fully aware that Wilde and Lee shared the spoils, was just highlighting the point that, in general, the best men Wilde faced did tend to give him all that / more than he could handle when Herman and Villa are thrown in to the mix (slightly extenuating circumstances for those two, but you get my drift).

Likewise, I don't particularly hold the Lee loss against Wilde; Tancy was no pushover, and more importantly Wilde made amends by trouncing him in a rematch. Would add, too, that Wilde had gone through a strength-sapping bout of flu in training too, and reportedly wasn't himself that night as a result.

Overall, the case that they weren't at all dominant on a broad scale against the best men they faced can be thrown at both Wilde and Ted, but I'm happy backing Wilde in this case as, outside of that, he was consistent and generally superior in a way which Lewis didn't quite manage.

88Chris05 wrote:

oxring wrote:Wilde. has the helpful habit of beating bigger men - which is useful in a p4p sense, good wins over the likes of Moore, Lee - incidentally - Chris - did you suggest that Lee held the advantage over Wilde? From what I've read - he beat Jimmy fair and square in a tough, close fight first up - before Jimmy knocked seven bells out of him in the rematch.

Slight bit of miswording from me more than anything, Oxy. Fully aware that Wilde and Lee shared the spoils, was just highlighting the point that, in general, the best men Wilde faced did tend to give him all that / more than he could handle when Herman and Villa are thrown in to the mix (slightly extenuating circumstances for those two, but you get my drift).

Likewise, I don't particularly hold the Lee loss against Wilde; Tancy was no pushover, and more importantly Wilde made amends by trouncing him in a rematch. Would add, too, that Wilde had gone through a strength-sapping bout of flu in training too, and reportedly wasn't himself that night as a result.

Overall, the case that they weren't at all dominant on a broad scale against the best men they faced can be thrown at both Wilde and Ted, but I'm happy backing Wilde in this case as, outside of that, he was consistent and generally superior in a way which Lewis didn't quite manage.

Understand and agree.

I find it hard to assess both of them, today. Manos and I have done to death the "how good were Wilde's opponents" debate on a couple of occasions - and the consensus was that it becomes nigh on impossible to analyse them when not all their opponents fights are listed. In the end - both Lewis and Wilde are transparently great - and whilst it is fun to try and place them in an order - and I don't disagree at all with regards to Wilde ahead of Lewis - in the grand scheme of things there is no certainty at all to the order.

Ted 'Kid ' Lewis criminally underrated on this forum. I have it something like:-


(1) Ted 'Kid' Lewis
(2) Jimmy Wilde
(3) Lennox Lewis

Agreed on that, has a very difficult career to try and decipher because of the no contest era, being a british fighter fighting americans in america how accurate the appraisals of his fights are is anyones guess. Gave two greats in O'Dowd and Britton all they could handle, fought the majority of his career as a far smaller man, could quite easily have forged a career at lightweight or featherweight if he wished but seemed intent on concentrating on the bigger guys.