AT greatest Welsh fighter

[bennie]

You could choose anyone between Wilde, Driscoll or Welsh ...... but my vote goes to Freddie Welsh.

In my opinion he faced and beat the greater opposition. Also, he was likely past his best when he won the title ....... he was well into his 29th year when he became champion, pretty old for those times.

Although a great fighter, I don't quite buy into the legend of Jimmy Wilde totally. We get shown those skeletal pictures of him with the musculature of a stick insect but they were taken very early in his career. He may have been a physical freak but I can't accept he weighed in fully clothed and soaking wet on the scales at barely 7 stone then proceeds to knock-out Lightweights, Welterweights, Middleweights, etc

And much like it used to be with Holyfield ....... it seems that every one of his defeats had an explanation to dismiss it.

I own the complete run of Boxing/Boxing News through Wilde's career, in which he receives extensive coverage, and have read the greater majority of ringside reports of his fights. Once he had arrived at national level ...... I just don't know who these "Goliath's" are who greatly out-sized him.

He was undoubtedly a great fighter ...... but there is one hell of a lot of bollocks spoken about him.

Great post, Lamphey.

[pundit]

You could choose anyone between Wilde, Driscoll or Welsh ...... but my vote goes to Freddie Welsh.

Thanks, mate. I voted for Welsh too, and was hoping to get some suport from a local....

[Les Kendal]

Definitely Jimmy Wilde, one of the greatest flyweights of all time, and pound for pound one of hardest punchers of all time.

[yiddo14]

Jimmy Wilde,without the slightest hesitation

One of the true p4p all time greats.Arguably Britains second greatest ever fighter.

Behind who? Not knocking you, just curious as to your choice.

As for the poll, it's Wilde all the way. No-one will ever usurp him, not with boxing the way it is today.

Lennox Lewis was Britains greatest ever fighter,in my opinion of course.

[bennie]

I'm of the opinion, a heavyweight should never rate as the greatest fighter in anything. The division is - and always has been - massively overrated in terms of all-round fighting talent.
Thankfully, most people hail Sugar Ray Robinson as the greatest fighter of all time.

[Phenomenal-Nutrition]

I'm of the opinion, a heavyweight should never rate as the greatest fighter in anything. The division is - and always has been - massively overrated in terms of all-round fighting talent.
Thankfully, most people hail Sugar Ray Robinson as the greatest fighter of all time.

Disagree, as a HW you have to fight fighters that can weigh from 200-300lbs+. You have a huge pool of contenders. You can't just rule an average division and hide from a man 4-8lbs larger or smaller because of a weight class.

If the HWs division was so poor it would be easier for LHWs and MWs to step up a division and become the linear champ. This has happened very few times in history. Lower divisions are far easier to jump up 2-4weight divisions and become champ.

Now technically a HW can't throw as many punches a round as a lower weight fighter and can't be as athletic but those abilities are always lost with bigger men

Lennox LEwis for me is Britains No1 boxer of all time, whether you consider him British is another argument

[stujones]

I think you have just got to take every fighter as an individual and not really take into account his weight strictly.

Lewis was around in a decent era of the Heavyweights. Surely know one can doubt Holyfield's amateur and proffesional pedigree. Similarly a prime Mike Tyson, he was not in his prime when he fought Lewis, was a practically the perfect fighter. Now sure, Tyson opposition during the 80's wasn't the best and when he continued past his prime he display bad characteristic (bully boy antics) that he didn't get examined for during his prime. Did Tyson only have the characteristics when he began to lose interest in the game, or where they always there - we will never know. As a result, Tyson shouldn't be ranked very highly when it comes to these all time great lists.

However, with Ali - he had the standard of opposition that is comparable to any geniune contender for these mythical lists. Ali's record is like a whose who of Heavyweight boxing and the fighters he faced were very comparable to SRR. No I agree, that Sugar Ray Robinson should be ranked above Ali because he was the more complete fighter and had a better record. However, to dismiss Ali just because of his weight is wrong IMO. Had Ali never lost to Frazier, Norton and Spinks and also go on to give Holmes a real close run thing then I would have put Ali above Sugar Ray Robinson. He is naturally up there and I don't think Ali should be dismissed cause of his weight alone. Every weight experience peaks and troughs - thats part of the reason why Bernard Hopkins is never really considered in the top ten of such lists. Same it would be if Chris John goes on to dominate all the top ten Featherweights now.

I think Wilde should be the #1 in the UK, my theory is that if half the urban myths about Wilde are true then he his achievements will never be surpassed by a domestic fighter in my lifetime. I would have Lewis easily at #2 though.

[yiddo14]

The ring done a top 50 British fighters of all time article a couple of months back.
Was a pretty good list considering these lists are very hard to compile.
They had Lewis at 1,and I think they had Wilde at 2 or 3,can't really remember.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I think you have just got to take every fighter as an individual and not really take into account his weight strictly.

Lewis was around in a decent era of the Heavyweights. Surely know one can doubt Holyfield's amateur and proffesional pedigree. Similarly a prime Mike Tyson, he was not in his prime when he fought Lewis, was a practically the perfect fighter. Now sure, Tyson opposition during the 80's wasn't the best and when he continued past his prime he display bad characteristic (bully boy antics) that he didn't get examined for during his prime. Did Tyson only have the characteristics when he began to lose interest in the game, or where they always there - we will never know. As a result, Tyson shouldn't be ranked very highly when it comes to these all time great lists.

However, with Ali - he had the standard of opposition that is comparable to any geniune contender for these mythical lists. Ali's record is like a whose who of Heavyweight boxing and the fighters he faced were very comparable to SRR. No I agree, that Sugar Ray Robinson should be ranked above Ali because he was the more complete fighter and had a better record. However, to dismiss Ali just because of his weight is wrong IMO. Had Ali never lost to Frazier, Norton and Spinks and also go on to give Holmes a real close run thing then I would have put Ali above Sugar Ray Robinson. He is naturally up there and I don't think Ali should be dismissed cause of his weight alone. Every weight experience peaks and troughs - thats part of the reason why Bernard Hopkins is never really considered in the top ten of such lists. Same it would be if Chris John goes on to dominate all the top ten Featherweights now.

I think Wilde should be the #1 in the UK, my theory is that if half the urban myths about Wilde are true then he his achievements will never be surpassed by a domestic fighter in my lifetime. I would have Lewis easily at #2 though.

You could also argue in Ali's favour, that the skill level he displayed for a big man was incredible. The speed of hand and foot was comparable to Robinson's and Robinson was a middleweight. Tactically, I would argue that Ali had some edges on Robinson too, he was able to bamboozle and absolute monster in Foreman at an age where he should have been there for the taking, and was in truth already some way past his physical prime.

The trouble with old timers like Wilde, is that time and distance mythologise their achievement to an extent it is hard to verify. I've never seen Wilde fight, and even if I had, a few grainy black and white clips are not the same as seeing entire collections of modern fighter.

Incidentally, I just bought Burt Sugar's 100 Greatest Boxers, and have to say, it's pretty shit. Sugar's writing is awful, he uses the same tired cliches and metaphors again and again, the information in there is pretty standard stuff, and some of his picks are very bizzare, like having Roberto Duran at #5, yet Ray Leonard I think makes only #22. Far too many old timers dominating the rankings, like having Jim Jeffries in the top 10, WTF! I've no doubt that Jeffries was an awesome heavyweight, but top 10 all time, based on what, the accounts of a few gnarled old timers who read reports their fathers had in their collections.

[JC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD9A_n-MmfQ

Here's some footage of an aging Wilde fighting Pancho Villa for anyone who's not seen it.

[stujones]

I think you have just got to take every fighter as an individual and not really take into account his weight strictly.

Lewis was around in a decent era of the Heavyweights. Surely know one can doubt Holyfield's amateur and proffesional pedigree. Similarly a prime Mike Tyson, he was not in his prime when he fought Lewis, was a practically the perfect fighter. Now sure, Tyson opposition during the 80's wasn't the best and when he continued past his prime he display bad characteristic (bully boy antics) that he didn't get examined for during his prime. Did Tyson only have the characteristics when he began to lose interest in the game, or where they always there - we will never know. As a result, Tyson shouldn't be ranked very highly when it comes to these all time great lists.

However, with Ali - he had the standard of opposition that is comparable to any geniune contender for these mythical lists. Ali's record is like a whose who of Heavyweight boxing and the fighters he faced were very comparable to SRR. No I agree, that Sugar Ray Robinson should be ranked above Ali because he was the more complete fighter and had a better record. However, to dismiss Ali just because of his weight is wrong IMO. Had Ali never lost to Frazier, Norton and Spinks and also go on to give Holmes a real close run thing then I would have put Ali above Sugar Ray Robinson. He is naturally up there and I don't think Ali should be dismissed cause of his weight alone. Every weight experience peaks and troughs - thats part of the reason why Bernard Hopkins is never really considered in the top ten of such lists. Same it would be if Chris John goes on to dominate all the top ten Featherweights now.

I think Wilde should be the #1 in the UK, my theory is that if half the urban myths about Wilde are true then he his achievements will never be surpassed by a domestic fighter in my lifetime. I would have Lewis easily at #2 though.

You could also argue in Ali's favour, that the skill level he displayed for a big man was incredible. The speed of hand and foot was comparable to Robinson's and Robinson was a middleweight. Tactically, I would argue that Ali had some edges on Robinson too, he was able to bamboozle and absolute monster in Foreman at an age where he should have been there for the taking, and was in truth already some way past his physical prime.

The trouble with old timers like Wilde, is that time and distance mythologise their achievement to an extent it is hard to verify. I've never seen Wilde fight, and even if I had, a few grainy black and white clips are not the same as seeing entire collections of modern fighter.

Incidentally, I just bought Burt Sugar's 100 Greatest Boxers, and have to say, it's pretty shit. Sugar's writing is awful, he uses the same tired cliches and metaphors again and again, the information in there is pretty standard stuff, and some of his picks are very bizzare, like having Roberto Duran at #5, yet Ray Leonard I think makes only #22. Far too many old timers dominating the rankings, like having Jim Jeffries in the top 10, WTF! I've no doubt that Jeffries was an awesome heavyweight, but top 10 all time, based on what, the accounts of a few gnarled old timers who read reports their fathers had in their collections.

I bought Henry Cooper's top 100 boxers as a kid (it was out in 1991). Some of the stories where intresting, but the list was very bizzare - so biased towards the British fighters. It did have his top 100 in alphabetical order alone although he did state that Ali would be #1.