BoxRec

Why is there Benn and no Eubank? That seems a strange one right away.

Crease wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Lennox for me.

I actually think Cooper had the tools to beat Lennox. But Lewis would probably cut him up.

He could potentially catch him, but he definitely wasn't a greater fighter.

Joe C. Yesterday I scored his fight with B-Hop and had him winning by 117-112. Not that that's the only reason mind you.

Crease wrote:Why is there Benn and no Eubank? That seems a strange one right away.

Surely Calzaghe trumps them both, and by a long way

Seamus wrote:Joe C. Yesterday I scored his fight with B-Hop and had him winning by 117-112. Not that that's the only reason mind you.

I had Hopkins winning by at least 3 points. Conservatively. For what it's worth.

I had it 116-111 for Joe C and I don't see a good case for Hopkins winning. He was outworked, outlanded by over 100 punches, and bossed around for most of the bout. I have heard many people say that Hopkins landed the cleaner punches, but aside from the first round KD and a good shot at the end of the sixth that slightly wobbeled JC, Hopkins didn't really land anything of note.

Calzaghe landed absolutely nothing of note from my recollection. I put no merit into punch-stats, as I think they're utter rubbish. Hopkins consistently landed the cleaner blows throughout the bout (including the later rounds where he was relying more on spoiling), and had Joe hurt on at least 3 different occasions with counters. I won't deny that it was an ugly fight, and that Hopkins played the larger part in making it so down the stretch, but based on the clear scoring criteria I couldn't give the fight to Joe.

116-111 Calzaghe

King Carlos wrote:Calzaghe landed absolutely nothing of note from my recollection. I put no merit into punch-stats, as I think they're utter rubbish. Hopkins consistently landed the cleaner blows throughout the bout (including the later rounds where he was relying more on spoiling), and had Joe hurt on at least 3 different occasions with counters. I won't deny that it was an ugly fight, and that Hopkins played the larger part in making it so down the stretch, but based on the clear scoring criteria I couldn't give the fight to Joe.

When neither guy lands many eye catching shots I tend to give the advantage to the guy who landed more punches, and I don't need compubox to tell me who was doing that in this case ( or who was throwing way more and pressing the fight). Calzaghe was the boss after the first few rounds and all Hopkins did was hold, cover up, and complain. Hopkin’s output dropped noticeably as the fight progressed, and the only thing he did worth mentioning after the first round was stun Calzaghe at the end of the sixth round (at least I think it was the sixth).

What is your definition of clean punching? I didn't think Hopkins was doing much clean work at all, and certainly not enough to win the fight by 3 points according to a conservative account. Whenever Hopkins did get the courage to launch an attack Calzaghe shrugged it off and came back to with 3/4 shots of his own, so even if I conceed that Hopkins did the cleanier work (which I'm not doing), it still wouldn't be enough to compensate for being completely outworked and bullied around all night. I suppose it's largely subjective, so each to his own, but in this case I really have trouble seeing the result you saw.

Btw---you say JC was hurt three times; when were these occasions? I'm assuming you mean the knockdown and the other round that I mentioned, but I'm not sure about the third instance you're talking about.

and who the hell are the 6 people that voted for Bugner? That means two more people voted for him after I mentioned that he was out to an early lead.

crusader wrote:and who the hell are the 6 people that voted for Bugner? That means two more people voted for him after I mentioned that he was out to an early lead.

Silent polls suck. This always happens.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

crusader wrote:and who the hell are the 6 people that voted for Bugner? That means two more people voted for him after I mentioned that he was out to an early lead.

Silent polls suck. This always happens.

The best are polls for fights before they happen and then afterwards people keep coming in and voting for the winner like it makes them intelligent to vote in a silent poll 2 days after the fight.

I remember a Mosley/margarito poll with like 3 people having Shane by stoppage fight time and 25 two days later.

crusader wrote:

King Carlos wrote:Calzaghe landed absolutely nothing of note from my recollection. I put no merit into punch-stats, as I think they're utter rubbish. Hopkins consistently landed the cleaner blows throughout the bout (including the later rounds where he was relying more on spoiling), and had Joe hurt on at least 3 different occasions with counters. I won't deny that it was an ugly fight, and that Hopkins played the larger part in making it so down the stretch, but based on the clear scoring criteria I couldn't give the fight to Joe.

Btw---you say JC was hurt three times; when were these occasions? I'm assuming you mean the knockdown and the other round that I mentioned, but I'm not sure about the third instance you're talking about.

I'm not entirely sure when the other took place. Haven't seen the fight in a while. I just remember it happening. My memory is often hazy as to exact details (I drink a lot) unless I've seen the fight multiple times, which I have no intentions of doing with this one. I have seen it twice, to be clear, but have no plans on going further. I agreed with your point of view almost to a tee the first time I watched it live. Upon reviewing the fight I came away with a very different outlook.

Lewis/calzaghe at 1 cant split em. Them Buchanan

IMHO, Calzaghe is the best 168 pounder so far in history. Benn never lived up to his potential in my eyes. Cooper and Bugner were great European caliber fighters, but were not exactly on the same rung as Norton, Chuvalo, Bonavena, as world contenders. Lewis is a top ten heavyweight, the best big heavyweight ever, and fought most everyone from his era. HOWEVER, wheres BOB FITZSIMMONS on this list? He's my favorite fighter from the British Empire: first triple crown champion, was a contender up until his retirement, was a natural super middleweight with super heavyweight power, etc. Buchanan is very much over-looked in boxing history, which is quite sad, however that seems to be the consequence of being vanquished by a legendary fighter like Duran. Some men never can recooperate from such losses.

HomicideHenry wrote:HOWEVER, wheres BOB FITZSIMMONS on this list?

It's the last 50 years.

J-C wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:HOWEVER, wheres BOB FITZSIMMONS on this list?

It's the last 50 years.

Lmao, sorry I misread. Calzaghe and Lewis are tied then, for me.

I voted Lewis he might have the personality of a rock but he his a great fighter

Of the boxers on the list, Lennox Lewis was the best by a considerable margin.

- Chuck Johnston

who was Britains favorite Boxer prior to Henry Cooper ?
Because I remember he was a household name back in the mid-1960's and 1970's
without the 24-7 media saturation like today.
( you even needed a license to have a television back then )

elmersalsa wrote:Who is the greatest British boxer since 1960?

It's easily Lennox Lewis from all the guys you have listed... But Calzaghe and Haye were clearly better than many of the names you listed... However I think Chris Eubank will win several world titles before he's done with Boxing -- and eventually he'll be much better than Lewis... Chris already is much faster, much better technically, has a much higher work rate, and takes a much better punch P4P than Lewis did.

Lennox then for me a toss up between Calzaghe and Buchanan

some of the names on that list ahead of Calzaghe are ridiculous, it's arguable whether Benn is the best british middleweight of the 90s

Calzaghe by a mile. The guy never lost, beat a great fighter in eubank and beat kessler when he was undefeated. The hopkins win is impressive in light of post that fight results. Lacey was a career defining fight and can argue Lacey never the same after. JC was undisputed super middle and ly heavy champ, he won away from home, went the states. Really can't be blamed for not having big fights earlier. also had to put up with a lot of hand problems. He;s the greatest british fighter since 1960. All time he's up there but you have to bring in ted kid lewis, fitzimmons, wilde, jackie kid berg etc then.

There's a load of brilliant British fighters not on this list.

Johnny Nelson
John Conteh
Chris Eubank
Joe Calzaghe
Carl Froch
Ricky Hatton
Amir Khan
Ricky Burns
Prince Naseem

Calzaghe and Lewis a clear #1 and #2 in my opinion, but guys like Eubank, Haye and Hamed should be definitely on this list.

I think Calzaghe and Hamed are very underrated now.

Calzaghe had a great career, he won all his 46 fights, beat 10 world champion (11 if you include Mario Veit who was interim champion), and I'll probably make a detailed thread about his resume when I'll have the time.

Hamed was also VERY underrated fighter. He is considered as a some joke now by many boxing fans, as a fighter, who failed his first big test. But in reality he beat tons of good/very good fighters and retired with only one loss to an ATG fighter.