BoxRec

prewarboxing wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 07:21

stujones wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025, 12:11 Its Wilde and the two Lewis' ahead for me, but a legitimate case for Joe to be #1. There are a band of others also - like Buchannan - who you could put ahead of Joe.

I think Joe below top 5 might be on the harsh side. Definitely lower part of the 10 would be harsh.

Where Hatton is ranked would also been interesting - beat the undoubted #1 in the division - can't really argue with that, you possibly can with Joe - Hopkins had "retired" before he fought Joe - I do find it hard to rank "retired" fighters immediately back at number 1 without some kind warm up.

Shorter career than Calzaghe, possibly a similar (ish) line of wins in terms of quality opposition as Joe in title fights - although I would say Kessler does trump pretty much Hatton's resume (not including Tszyu) - but then at least had a go at fighting the best and possibly at weights most suiting his opponent (in Mayweather's case).

For differing reasons it might go down to who you feel was the most talented - which is where Cazalghe edges it.

As much as I think he was truly gifted - it would be hard press to rank someone like Naz ahead of Joe.

I completely agree with this Stu. Top five for me, in no particular order are Wilde, TK Lewis, Lennox Lewis, Calzaghe and John Conteh

Miles Templeton

Coco wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 09:31

prewarboxing wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 07:21

stujones wrote: ↑25 Sep 2025, 12:11 Its Wilde and the two Lewis' ahead for me, but a legitimate case for Joe to be #1. There are a band of others also - like Buchannan - who you could put ahead of Joe.

I think Joe below top 5 might be on the harsh side. Definitely lower part of the 10 would be harsh.

Where Hatton is ranked would also been interesting - beat the undoubted #1 in the division - can't really argue with that, you possibly can with Joe - Hopkins had "retired" before he fought Joe - I do find it hard to rank "retired" fighters immediately back at number 1 without some kind warm up.

Shorter career than Calzaghe, possibly a similar (ish) line of wins in terms of quality opposition as Joe in title fights - although I would say Kessler does trump pretty much Hatton's resume (not including Tszyu) - but then at least had a go at fighting the best and possibly at weights most suiting his opponent (in Mayweather's case).

For differing reasons it might go down to who you feel was the most talented - which is where Cazalghe edges it.

As much as I think he was truly gifted - it would be hard press to rank someone like Naz ahead of Joe.

I completely agree with this Stu. Top five for me, in no particular order are Wilde, TK Lewis, Lennox Lewis, Calzaghe and John Conteh

Miles Templeton

Naz more than Conteh

Coco wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 11:13 Naz would have never have lost to an Eddie Johnson of this world, he was well beat by Saad and Parlov was no ATG.

Obviously not trying to put Conteh down, he was certainly one of our top fighters.

I feel Naz was significantly past his peak by the time the MAB fight was made, at his peak he cleaned up the division in style.

Nightmare Roy wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 12:00 Joe is up there but in terms of his record I'd say overall Froch fought better opposition at SM, he seemed to be fighting killer after killer for a few years, Joe had plenty of Knock overs. In my life time I'd say Lennox is top.

Coco wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 19:02 You could easily say Lewis's biggest wins came against Holyfield and Tyson, who were both past their peak, and never fought Bowe.

Personally I believe Lewis and JC should be talked about in the same sentence, but it's easy to pick apart someone's record

Coco wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 11:13 Naz would have never have lost to an Eddie Johnson of this world, he was well beat by Saad and Parlov was no ATG.

Obviously not trying to put Conteh down, he was certainly one of our top fighters.

I feel Naz was significantly past his peak by the time the MAB fight was made, at his peak he cleaned up the division in style.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 23:20

Nightmare Roy wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 12:00 Joe is up there but in terms of his record I'd say overall Froch fought better opposition at SM, he seemed to be fighting killer after killer for a few years, Joe had plenty of Knock overs. In my life time I'd say Lennox is top.

Froch definitely faced stiffer competition. Personally though I think Calzaghe would beat him if they had ever met head to head. It's a shame we didn't get to see it. We were only a few years off from that being a Superfight in the U.K.

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑27 Sep 2025, 04:34 Calzaghe and Lennox proved themselves to be the absolute best of their respective weights, which is all anyone can do. Froch / Fury / Joshua etc certainly didn’t. Hamed potentially could have done, but agree he let himself down in the latter half of his career.

I don’t honestly know enough about the careers of British boxers before the 90s to give a proper opinion; obviously know their records and have seen some of their fights but it’s never the same when purely looking back instead of actively following someone’s career closely in real time, where you have a much better sense of the scene and how the opponents fit in.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 23:21

Coco wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 19:02 You could easily say Lewis's biggest wins came against Holyfield and Tyson, who were both past their peak, and never fought Bowe.

Personally I believe Lewis and JC should be talked about in the same sentence, but it's easy to pick apart someone's record

Lewis' win over Vitali ultimately trumps the wins over Holyfield and Tyson because Holyfield and Tyson were arguably past their prime. Vitali was just entering his. He was the younger, bigger, stronger man than Lennox, and Lennox beat him.

Coco wrote: ↑27 Sep 2025, 13:02

gilgamesh wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 23:21

Coco wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 19:02 You could easily say Lewis's biggest wins came against Holyfield and Tyson, who were both past their peak, and never fought Bowe.

Personally I believe Lewis and JC should be talked about in the same sentence, but it's easy to pick apart someone's record

Lewis' win over Vitali ultimately trumps the wins over Holyfield and Tyson because Holyfield and Tyson were arguably past their prime. Vitali was just entering his. He was the younger, bigger, stronger man than Lennox, and Lennox beat him.

I agree, but folk could also say he was behind on points!

Coco wrote: ↑27 Sep 2025, 13:02

gilgamesh wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 23:21

Coco wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 19:02 You could easily say Lewis's biggest wins came against Holyfield and Tyson, who were both past their peak, and never fought Bowe.

Personally I believe Lewis and JC should be talked about in the same sentence, but it's easy to pick apart someone's record

Lewis' win over Vitali ultimately trumps the wins over Holyfield and Tyson because Holyfield and Tyson were arguably past their prime. Vitali was just entering his. He was the younger, bigger, stronger man than Lennox, and Lennox beat him.

I agree, but folk could also say he was behind on points!

gilgamesh wrote: ↑27 Sep 2025, 13:47

Coco wrote: ↑27 Sep 2025, 13:02

gilgamesh wrote: ↑26 Sep 2025, 23:21

Lewis' win over Vitali ultimately trumps the wins over Holyfield and Tyson because Holyfield and Tyson were arguably past their prime. Vitali was just entering his. He was the younger, bigger, stronger man than Lennox, and Lennox beat him.

I agree, but folk could also say he was behind on points!

He was behind on points, but that doesn't mean the win wasn't legit. Vitali's eye didn't get cut by accident, Lennox cut it open with his punches. So the win was legit.

And coming from behind to stop a dangerous opponent who's going to be a major Heavyweight threat for the next 10 years is a lot more impressive than beating up a shot former World Champion in a one sided contest.

mickey1975 wrote: ↑27 Sep 2025, 04:59

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑27 Sep 2025, 04:34 Calzaghe and Lennox proved themselves to be the absolute best of their respective weights, which is all anyone can do. Froch / Fury / Joshua etc certainly didn’t. Hamed potentially could have done, but agree he let himself down in the latter half of his career.

I don’t honestly know enough about the careers of British boxers before the 90s to give a proper opinion; obviously know their records and have seen some of their fights but it’s never the same when purely looking back instead of actively following someone’s career closely in real time, where you have a much better sense of the scene and how the opponents fit in.

I'd say Fury did after Wilder 2. Nowhere apart from Britain would that have even been questioned.

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑27 Sep 2025, 15:25

mickey1975 wrote: ↑27 Sep 2025, 04:59

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑27 Sep 2025, 04:34 Calzaghe and Lennox proved themselves to be the absolute best of their respective weights, which is all anyone can do. Froch / Fury / Joshua etc certainly didn’t. Hamed potentially could have done, but agree he let himself down in the latter half of his career.

I don’t honestly know enough about the careers of British boxers before the 90s to give a proper opinion; obviously know their records and have seen some of their fights but it’s never the same when purely looking back instead of actively following someone’s career closely in real time, where you have a much better sense of the scene and how the opponents fit in.

I'd say Fury did after Wilder 2. Nowhere apart from Britain would that have even been questioned.

Nah I disagree. Neither Fury nor Joshua ever proved they were the best in the division, a huge black mark against both of them. Thank god Usyk came along.