BoxRec

trying to think of any yanks over here better than this kid since g-man.

chad dawson boxed on the calzaghe-lacy undercard but who cared about that fight.

mike tyson perhaps.

although he was on the decline then.

this guy is a prime young talent on the rise.

Winky Wright

Tim Bradley?

Wright was the one that came to my mind

Not taking the piss but Dirrell is hardly more proven than Lacy was is he? Or even Sharmba Mitchell for that matter.

proven wise I'd go as far to say he sint more proven than Byron mitchell or Charles Brewer, both World Champions when they arrived on these shores.

Dirrell has beaten nobody worth mentioning, he's a totally unknown quantity at the top level much like Tim Bradley was when he came over here.

banjo wrote:Dirrell has beaten nobody worth mentioning, he's a totally unknown quantity at the top level much like Tim Bradley was when he came over here.

i think hanshaw is a decent name but thats it i think if hanshaw wernt american he deffo be around EU level hes not world class but hes of decent quality

There's too many holes in this argument even to bother listing them, but off the top of my head --

I think the OP might've confused "flashiest" -- i.e. nice trunks, tassles too! -- with "best" (as in, proven by beating a series of world-class fighters).

Ronald Wright not only blows McLellan's career achievements out of the water, for my money he would've beaten him at middleweight too. He fought twice in the UK after Gerald showed up.

Dirrell has not proven anything as a pro, other than that he could beat Anthony Hanshaw. Lacy was substantially more proven (in that he'd beaten better fighters). Sharmba Mitchell (by the time he appeared over here) had won the world title twice, & had beaten a large percentage of top-ten or fringe top-ten junior welter out there.

I am now too bored to continue poking holes. Someone else, please take up the slack.

It's not exactly fair to compare McClellan and Wright.

Yes, Wright is a very tricky boxer. McClellan got seriously injured so his career was cut short. KOs of Julian Jackson (twice) and John Mugabi are a bit nifty...Winky went on with losses to Vargas and Simon ("waaaah, waaah", "robbed, robbed"), wins over Mosley and then failed to win middleweight (Taylor) and light heavy (Hopkins) titles. Props to him for trying, though!

Compare them in the mid 90s. McClellan - see above plus fight with Benn he nearly won in round one. Wright - beat a couple of top Mancs for WBO title. (okay, okay, I'll give you Bronco McKart, whom Wright beat via split decision.)

hitman_hatton1 wrote:t
chad dawson boxed on the calzaghe-lacy undercard but who cared about that fight.

Was that with a view to a Calzaghe-Dawson match up at some point?

doctorboxing wrote:

hitman_hatton1 wrote:t
chad dawson boxed on the calzaghe-lacy undercard but who cared about that fight.

Was that with a view to a Calzaghe-Dawson match up at some point?

nah, Dawson used to fight on Jeff Lacy undercards and had same promoter as Lacy.

There havent been a lot I think Tim Bradley to come over here an beat the faviorite he fought a good fight that night

alexpaterson wrote:There havent been a lot I think Tim Bradley to come over here an beat the faviorite he fought a good fight that night

Still cannot believe that was a SD, Bradley clearly won it. After all the controversy over the Mallignaggi fight, the judge who scored it to Witter 115-112 was surely picking the home fighter deliberately? No-one else I know who watched it would have ever given the win to Witter.

doctorboxing wrote:

alexpaterson wrote:There havent been a lot I think Tim Bradley to come over here an beat the faviorite he fought a good fight that night

Still cannot believe that was a SD, Bradley clearly won it. After all the controversy over the Mallignaggi fight, the judge who scored it to Witter 115-112 was surely picking the home fighter deliberately? No-one else I know who watched it would have ever given the win to Witter.

Agreed Witter was never in with a chance of winning that fight I think I had it 3 rounds to Bradley it was clear

Malignaggi?

tom 'boom boom' johnson was a very seasoned world champion when he came here to fight naz, he had decent names on his record too.

doctorboxing wrote:

alexpaterson wrote:There havent been a lot I think Tim Bradley to come over here an beat the faviorite he fought a good fight that night

Still cannot believe that was a SD, Bradley clearly won it. After all the controversy over the Mallignaggi fight, the judge who scored it to Witter 115-112 was surely picking the home fighter deliberately? No-one else I know who watched it would have ever given the win to Witter.

agree.I know a lot of brits moan about the italians and the germans who are admitedly disgraceful at certain times but the judge who scored for witter that night should have been banned for life as should have the judge who had scott harrison beating medina in their first fight and nige benn beating sugarboy malinga.
i can see why some overseas fighters are reluctant to fight over here.

rhino222 wrote:tom 'boom boom' johnson was a very seasoned world champion when he came here to fight naz, he had decent names on his record too.

There's been some good "past prime" fighters since Gman. Tyson and Hearns stick out.

Lacy I would say is considered the THIRD best since Gman to fight AT THE TIME OF THE FIGHT - considered at his pomp and was 2nd in various fighter of 2005 polls. Winky Wright proved himself to be the best (by some way). but at the time was very much unproven. Lots of the Sky pundits tipped Bingham to beat him. Bradley the same.

Malignaggi is up there, but isn't in my top 3 - the top 2 were P4P ers at the time.

1) Virgill Hill

2) Tim Austin (he was awesome in his pomp).

omar shieka what a fighter he was when he fought joe calzaghe

stujones wrote:
2) Tim Austin (he was awesome in his pomp).

Jeez, yeah! Tim Austin was a bloody good fighter, until Marquez (the younger) ruined him. I had to look, I admit -- I forgot the Paul Lloyd fight was in Britain.

Austin was thought of as p4p material for a while there.

O/T I know, but Paul Lloyd fought some bloody good fighters, didn't he?

Datsue wrote:

stujones wrote:
2) Tim Austin (he was awesome in his pomp).

Jeez, yeah! Tim Austin was a bloody good fighter, until Marquez (the younger) ruined him. I had to look, I admit -- I forgot the Paul Lloyd fight was in Britain.

Austin was thought of as p4p material for a while there.

O/T I know, but Paul Lloyd fought some bloody good fighters, didn't he?

good call,i was there.that kid COULD fight

[quote="Datsue
O/T I know, but Paul Lloyd fought some bloody good fighters, didn't he?[/quote]

Wow, he did yes, that sounds like a thread all of its own. Win or lose who has fought the best fighters?

about the same era as austin fought lloyd, frankile liles came over and avenged his only defeat at that point against another american tim littles. Liles ended up 32-3. Not threatening austin and co career wise maybe - but the fight itself was certainly memorable

Winky wasn't really as good as people make him out to be, he was like a lesser version of Hopkins.

Bored everyone to tears, gave rounds away and then had the nerve to bitch and whine about robberies. Vargas deserved to beat him and so did Jermain Taylor.