BoxRec

$eif wrote:

MightyWarrior wrote:Lennox Lewis
Wilde
Buchanan
Ted Kid Lewis
Naz
Berg
Calzaghe
Honeyghan
Conteh
McGuigen

NAZ
NAZ
NAZ
NAZ
NAZ
NAZ
NAZ
NAZ
and NAZ

Yeah, he was far better than Ken Buchanan at Madison Square Garden.

Matchfixer wrote:

bennie wrote: Benn was a great British fighter, but the fact he failed to beat Eubank in two fights and lost to Watson doesn't make him the greatest post-war British boxer.

So you go by the judges decision is final then!!!

I'm referring to the second Eubank - Benn fight of course!

I thought Benn won the Eubank rematch, Eubank was fortunate to get the draw that night. Good fight though.

$eif wrote:

MightyWarrior wrote:Lennox Lewis
Wilde
Buchanan
Ted Kid Lewis
Naz
Berg
Calzaghe
Honeyghan
Conteh
McGuigen

NAZ
NAZ
NAZ
NAZ
NAZ
NAZ
NAZ
NAZ
and NAZ

I'm a Naz fan but 'The Mighty Atom' Jimmy Wilde was a better fighter.

To all the people who are putting names down such as jack "kid" berg, jimmy wilde and Ted "kid" lewis i think it is a joke that you could put these people in the top 10. They were good fighters for there day and achieved a lot but where and when did you see these guys fight. Did you watch them on video? cause ive seen these on video and you cant make out whether they are good or not because of the poor quality. BE REAL Naseem hamed would have knocked jimmy wilde out clean, he weighed about 2 stone heavier and the athletes of today are a different class to those of them days. People say that they were tougher in them days, that aint true, they could take a lot more shots and go on for longer cause the they wasnt as well conditioned as todays fighters and the punchers werent as hard. Please stop trying to ACT like boxing experts and be REALISTIC.

KOJOE90 wrote:

Matchfixer wrote:

bennie wrote: Benn was a great British fighter, but the fact he failed to beat Eubank in two fights and lost to Watson doesn't make him the greatest post-war British boxer.

So you go by the judges decision is final then!!!

I'm referring to the second Eubank - Benn fight of course!

I thought Benn won the Eubank rematch, Eubank was fortunate to get the draw that night. Good fight though.

Something was decidely dodgy with that fight (in my opinion), the last round was scored by McGuigan, Watt and just about everyone to Eubank but 2 of the judges gave it to Benn.

The fight was dead close - I actually thought Chris might have knicked it (on the point deduction) or a draw.

It was actually a very accurate decision.

ibbo wrote:To all the people who are putting names down such as jack "kid" berg, jimmy wilde and Ted "kid" lewis i think it is a joke that you could put these people in the top 10. They were good fighters for there day and achieved a lot but where and when did you see these guys fight. Did you watch them on video? cause ive seen these on video and you cant make out whether they are good or not because of the poor quality. BE REAL Naseem hamed would have knocked jimmy wilde out clean, he weighed about 2 stone heavier and the athletes of today are a different class to those of them days. People say that they were tougher in them days, that aint true, they could take a lot more shots and go on for longer cause the they wasnt as well conditioned as todays fighters and the punchers werent as hard. Please stop trying to ACT like boxing experts and be REALISTIC.

We don't need to see them on video. They were the best when boxing was one of the biggest sports in the world and where every second man was a fighter.
And why compare Jimmy Wilde to Naseem Hamed? Wilde was a flyweight; Naseem a featherweight.

ibbo dont believe all that conditioning is everything crap.
look at the frank bruno/ tim witherspoon fight. one looks like narcissus and one looks like an escapee from a fat farm. look who won.
those old time fighters fought so often they learnt their trade the hard way.

headhunter wrote:ibbo dont believe all that conditioning is everything crap.
look at the frank bruno/ tim witherspoon fight. one looks like narcissus and one looks like an escapee from a fat farm. look who won.
those old time fighters fought so often they learnt their trade the hard way.

Good example HH.

I'ts so difficult at times and maybe unfair to compaire fighters from the earlly gloved era with todays fighters so many things have changed that can effect a fighters makeup, lifestyle and ability.

Fighters today may be generaly bigger & stronger due to massive advances in diet and training principles but IMO fighters of yesteryear were hungrier and more skillfull. The main reason I believe they were generaly more skillfull was because they fought a lot more often, and as we all know practice makes perfect. Also a hungry fighter is always a tough fighter to beat.

Also what may be a slight factor is that todays fighters are under pressure by the moneymen eg, TV to entertain which means KO's so some fighters today may neglect their skills to look for spectacular KO's (Naz?). Just a thought.

Obviously this is a generalisation and there will always be exceptions.

James Toney has often been described as having 'Old School Skills' this is a man with questional dedication to training but has still acheived a great deal and as a 'big' Middlweight is now competeing at Heavyweight. I know there are other factors but I'm sure you get my drift.

I admire and am intersted in fighters from all era's if Jimmy Wilde was around these days I'm sure he would be whuppin ass from Straw weight to maybe Bantam. If Hamed was around in the 1910's he would be an absolute terror of the Super-Bantams ans Feathers.

Cream always rises to the top.

.