1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Len Harvey
3. Jock Mcavoy
4. Randolph Turpin
5. Chris Eubank
6. Nigel Benn
7. Herol Graham
8. Micheal Watson
9. Joe Calzaghe
10. Alan Minter
................any comments opinions and insults very welcome!.... 8)
It is very hard, especially with Turpin as his peak was very short, we only saw him really at his best in the first Robinson fight, would any of the others have been able to beat even the below par Robinson that Turpin beat?..... and Turpin wasnt actually doing that bad in their rematch till he was caught....jimglen wrote:it's IMMPOSSIBLE to say with All Certainty, there are just too many factors both considered and Not considered.
Over at the CBZ there was an argument about SRR being the best p4p fighter ever...good candidate but IMMPOSSIBLE to say.
here are Gilbert Odds top 10 British MW's
1 Randolph Turpin; 2. Jock McAvoy; 3. Len Harvey; 4. Ted 'Kid' Lewis; 5. Terry Downes; 6. Tommy Milligan; 7. Ernie Roderick; 8. Roland Todd; 9. Pat McAteer;10. Johnny Sullivan..
Considerations... Len Harvey was a L-HW and Britains best at that weight, Ted 'Kid' Lewis was a Welterweight and Britains best at the weight, likewise Ernie Roderick was a Welterweight and probably in the top 3 at that weight. Randolph Turpin was NOT better than Jock McAvoy - "No Way" and you have to include such fighters like Jack Casey, Len Johnson (some would say Tops), Bert Gilroy, Ginger Sadd, Dick Turpin and tough guy Harry Scot... then there's the modern bunch Benn, Watson and company.
I've always said Don't single achievements, look at 'head to head' battles (which you are doing here silkov), with the Best Champions & Contenders who remained at the Top for extended periods and proved their worth, jumping in & out of weight divisions successfully...these are the best.
But to say with All Certainty, very, very Hard!
Interesting list Silkov and it's been one of our stronger divisions but Minter is way too low and what about Terry Downes or Tony Sibson? And I take it you've lumped Super Middles into the mix hence Calzaghe?silkov wrote:Here is my top ten of Britains greatest middles.... measured by ability and overall careers...
1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Len Harvey
3. Jock Mcavoy
4. Randolph Turpin
5. Chris Eubank
6. Nigel Benn
7. Herol Graham
8. Micheal Watson
9. Joe Calzaghe
10. Alan Minter
................any comments opinions and insults very welcome!.... 8)![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Silkov, congratulations on a superb list. I think these are the top 10 MWs,of all time from Britain.silkov wrote:Here is my top ten of Britains greatest middles.... measured by ability and overall careers...
1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Len Harvey
3. Jock Mcavoy
4. Randolph Turpin
5. Chris Eubank
6. Nigel Benn
7. Herol Graham
8. Micheal Watson
9. Joe Calzaghe
10. Alan Minter
................any comments opinions and insults very welcome!.... 8)![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I put Calzaghe in as I think he would have been a middleweight had there been no super middle division... Downes, Sibbo and Finnegan all just missed out on the top ten though theyre amongst my favourites.... theres not really that much to choose between a lot of these guys....dr_devious wrote:Silkov, congratulations on a superb list. I think these are the top 10 MWs,of all time from Britain.silkov wrote:Here is my top ten of Britains greatest middles.... measured by ability and overall careers...
1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Len Harvey
3. Jock Mcavoy
4. Randolph Turpin
5. Chris Eubank
6. Nigel Benn
7. Herol Graham
8. Micheal Watson
9. Joe Calzaghe
10. Alan Minter
................any comments opinions and insults very welcome!.... 8)![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The only points I'd make are that Eubank is a bit high for me, I would have him at 8 or 9. Also, I'm not sure if Calzaghe should be rated at MW as all his best work was done at SM.
Terry Downes, Howard Eastman, Tony Sibson and Kevin Finnegan are all worth honourable mentions as well in the pantheon of British middleweights
Why do you have Watson rated above Calzaghe? Yes Watson was a good fighter but the only fighter of note that he beat was Nigel Benn. He was stopped by McCallum, lost a close decision to Eubank and was tragically stopped in the rematch. Plus he only ever won the Commonwealth title.silkov wrote:Here is my top ten of Britains greatest middles.... measured by ability and overall careers...
1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Len Harvey
3. Jock Mcavoy
4. Randolph Turpin
5. Chris Eubank
6. Nigel Benn
7. Herol Graham
8. Micheal Watson
9. Joe Calzaghe
10. Alan Minter
................any comments opinions and insults very welcome!.... 8)![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Judging by your comments you have absolutely no idea how I rate fighters and I'm afraid I havent really the time or inclination to enlighten you... as for Lewis winning every fight he was in I think you're leaving out the two times he was koed by mediocre fighters!....Decagon wrote:Like pretty much everyone in this forum, I'm addicted to Youtube. It's the Boxrec of the last half of this decade. Of course I've seen Bugner fight, but you have inspired me to watch more, and I thank you for that. Ranking him based on his record and a couple of fights with Ali might not have been the best, but after watching all the other footage I could find, I still can see NO REASON to rank him above Lewis, even though I've gained a greater appreciation for Bugner.silkov wrote:Yep, and you've probably never even seen Bugner fight either!....![]()
![]()
I will concede that our difference in opinion comes from the way we rank fighters. To you, the outcome or even the deserved outcome of a fight bears little or no weight in how you rank fighters, and I simply cannot agree with that. Here is the conclusion I've made:I simply can't understand how you can ignore this.
- Bugner lost to most of the top heavyweights he fought.
- Lewis beat every fighter he fought.
You do realise this post was about the middleweight division not the heavyweights?silkov wrote:Judging by your comments you have absolutely no idea how I rate fighters and I'm afraid I havent really the time or inclination to enlighten you... as for Lewis winning every fight he was in I think you're leaving out the two times he was koed by mediocre fighters!....Decagon wrote:Like pretty much everyone in this forum, I'm addicted to Youtube. It's the Boxrec of the last half of this decade. Of course I've seen Bugner fight, but you have inspired me to watch more, and I thank you for that. Ranking him based on his record and a couple of fights with Ali might not have been the best, but after watching all the other footage I could find, I still can see NO REASON to rank him above Lewis, even though I've gained a greater appreciation for Bugner.silkov wrote:Yep, and you've probably never even seen Bugner fight either!....![]()
![]()
I will concede that our difference in opinion comes from the way we rank fighters. To you, the outcome or even the deserved outcome of a fight bears little or no weight in how you rank fighters, and I simply cannot agree with that. Here is the conclusion I've made:I simply can't understand how you can ignore this.
- Bugner lost to most of the top heavyweights he fought.
- Lewis beat every fighter he fought.
Henry Armstrong was koed in his debut also, I suppose he sucked as well!!. If you cant see the difference between someone being koed when theyre just a kid of 18 and someone being koed twice when theyre supposedly at their peak, then I dont think theres much hope for you I'm afraid!!.....Controversial wrote:You do realise this post was about the middleweight division not the heavyweights?silkov wrote:Judging by your comments you have absolutely no idea how I rate fighters and I'm afraid I havent really the time or inclination to enlighten you... as for Lewis winning every fight he was in I think you're leaving out the two times he was koed by mediocre fighters!....Decagon wrote:Like pretty much everyone in this forum, I'm addicted to Youtube. It's the Boxrec of the last half of this decade. Of course I've seen Bugner fight, but you have inspired me to watch more, and I thank you for that. Ranking him based on his record and a couple of fights with Ali might not have been the best, but after watching all the other footage I could find, I still can see NO REASON to rank him above Lewis, even though I've gained a greater appreciation for Bugner.
I will concede that our difference in opinion comes from the way we rank fighters. To you, the outcome or even the deserved outcome of a fight bears little or no weight in how you rank fighters, and I simply cannot agree with that. Here is the conclusion I've made:I simply can't understand how you can ignore this.
- Bugner lost to most of the top heavyweights he fought.
- Lewis beat every fighter he fought.
Anyhow Lewis was a world champion with 15 title defences (only Louis and Holmes above him). He avenged both defeats by stoppage and beat every fighter there was to beat (apart from Bowe who wanted no part of him).
Bugner, was a good fighter but just doesn't compare to Lewis's achievements. You say Lewis was ko'ed by medioce fighters, what about Bugner being ko'ed in his pro debut by a fighter with a 1-3 record who went on to lose every other fight he ever had?
If I asked you to name the top 10 or 20 heavyweights of all time you can't honestly say you would have Bugner ahead of Lewis, that just doesn't make sense !!
Controversial wrote:You do realise this post was about the middleweight division not the heavyweights?silkov wrote:Judging by your comments you have absolutely no idea how I rate fighters and I'm afraid I havent really the time or inclination to enlighten you... as for Lewis winning every fight he was in I think you're leaving out the two times he was koed by mediocre fighters!....Decagon wrote:Like pretty much everyone in this forum, I'm addicted to Youtube. It's the Boxrec of the last half of this decade. Of course I've seen Bugner fight, but you have inspired me to watch more, and I thank you for that. Ranking him based on his record and a couple of fights with Ali might not have been the best, but after watching all the other footage I could find, I still can see NO REASON to rank him above Lewis, even though I've gained a greater appreciation for Bugner.
I will concede that our difference in opinion comes from the way we rank fighters. To you, the outcome or even the deserved outcome of a fight bears little or no weight in how you rank fighters, and I simply cannot agree with that. Here is the conclusion I've made:I simply can't understand how you can ignore this.
- Bugner lost to most of the top heavyweights he fought.
- Lewis beat every fighter he fought.
Anyhow Lewis was a world champion with 15 title defences (only Louis and Holmes above him). He avenged both defeats by stoppage and beat every fighter there was to beat (apart from Bowe who wanted no part of him).
Bugner, was a good fighter but just doesn't compare to Lewis's achievements. You say Lewis was ko'ed by medioce fighters, what about Bugner being ko'ed in his pro debut by a fighter with a 1-3 record who went on to lose every other fight he ever had?
If I asked you to name the top 10 or 20 heavyweights of all time you can't honestly say you would have Bugner ahead of Lewis, that just doesn't make sense !!
I'd be interested to hear why you rank Watson over Calzaghe?Controversial wrote:Why do you have Watson rated above Calzaghe? Yes Watson was a good fighter but the only fighter of note that he beat was Nigel Benn. He was stopped by McCallum, lost a close decision to Eubank and was tragically stopped in the rematch. Plus he only ever won the Commonwealth title.silkov wrote:Here is my top ten of Britains greatest middles.... measured by ability and overall careers...
1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Len Harvey
3. Jock Mcavoy
4. Randolph Turpin
5. Chris Eubank
6. Nigel Benn
7. Herol Graham
8. Micheal Watson
9. Joe Calzaghe
10. Alan Minter
................any comments opinions and insults very welcome!.... 8)![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
His record doesn't come close to matching Calzaghe's ?
I'd be interested to hear why you rank Watson over Calzaghe?[/quoteControversial wrote:Controversial wrote:Why do you have Watson rated above Calzaghe? Yes Watson was a good fighter but the only fighter of note that he beat was Nigel Benn. He was stopped by McCallum, lost a close decision to Eubank and was tragically stopped in the rematch. Plus he only ever won the Commonwealth title.silkov wrote:Here is my top ten of Britains greatest middles.... measured by ability and overall careers...
1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Len Harvey
3. Jock Mcavoy
4. Randolph Turpin
5. Chris Eubank
6. Nigel Benn
7. Herol Graham
8. Micheal Watson
9. Joe Calzaghe
10. Alan Minter
................any comments opinions and insults very welcome!.... 8)![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
His record doesn't come close to matching Calzaghe's ?
I'm still confused. You said at the start of this thread you are rating fighters on their ability and overall careers. Watson was a good fighter but at the end of the day he was still stopped by McCallum after being behind on all cards. He was also outpointed then tragically stopped by Eubank. He was also outpointed by James Cook, who was on a 4 fight losing streak, early in Watsons career. Watson never won a British or European title, let alone a World title.silkov wrote:Controversial wrote:I'd be interested to hear why you rank Watson over Calzaghe?[/quoteControversial wrote: Why do you have Watson rated above Calzaghe? Yes Watson was a good fighter but the only fighter of note that he beat was Nigel Benn. He was stopped by McCallum, lost a close decision to Eubank and was tragically stopped in the rematch. Plus he only ever won the Commonwealth title.
His record doesn't come close to matching Calzaghe's ?
I think Watson was the better all round boxer, had they fought I think Watson would have won... as for holding Mccallums victory over Watson against him, Calzaghes never fought anyone as good as Mccallum.... I doubt very much that he would have beaten Mccallum...