Are there any "well accepted" legitimate ratings of British fighters on an ALL-TIME great level? By weight divisions and then p4p?
I know Kevin is working on this for his site BritishBoxing.net , but until it's complete are there any others?
Thanks, Jim.
British greats All-time and p4p...
-
Phenomenal-Nutrition
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5185
- Joined: 10 Feb 2005, 14:53
Let me have an attempt. ATG is subjective.
Without a doubt:
Lennox - best HW of the last 15years
Hamed - many may disagree but he ruled 126 from 1995-2001 including been linear champ, if Kostya Tyuzu and Hopkins are great for ruling 140 & 160 then why not Hamed?
Then theres:
McGuigan
Benn - great wins but notable defeats
Eubank - beat the best of British but didn't fight the Yanks
Hatton - beat Zoo - great win - the future should tell us how great of a win this is
Will have missed a few but its a start
Without a doubt:
Lennox - best HW of the last 15years
Hamed - many may disagree but he ruled 126 from 1995-2001 including been linear champ, if Kostya Tyuzu and Hopkins are great for ruling 140 & 160 then why not Hamed?
Then theres:
McGuigan
Benn - great wins but notable defeats
Eubank - beat the best of British but didn't fight the Yanks
Hatton - beat Zoo - great win - the future should tell us how great of a win this is
Will have missed a few but its a start
Thanks guys but I don't want "subjective" lists that are not complete and are influenced by personal opinion and bias, to say nothing of Nationalistic!
example Barry's list, though full of great fighters...
3 of the names present are fighters who were protected from Gilroy, yet Bert doesn't make the list at all(?).
and showing a 'nationalistic' point of view, "where is Benny Lynch?"
I am honestly looking for "documented" lists first!!!
"and then we can add to them or even take from them if need be."
Thanks, Jim.
example Barry's list, though full of great fighters...
3 of the names present are fighters who were protected from Gilroy, yet Bert doesn't make the list at all(?).
and showing a 'nationalistic' point of view, "where is Benny Lynch?"
I am honestly looking for "documented" lists first!!!
"and then we can add to them or even take from them if need be."
Thanks, Jim.
re
>>>example Barry's list, though full of great fighters...
3 of the names present are fighters who were protected from Gilroy, yet Bert doesn't make the list at all(?). <<<
and showing a 'nationalistic' point of view, "where is Benny Lynch?"<<<
Actually, It someone like me that you should listen to because I'm American, so their is no bias. Benny Lynch and Bert Gilroy are both Scottish, not British, which is also why I did not list Jackie Patterson...because he is Scottish as well. With the exception of McAvoy, the others I mentioned were champions. I was just giving you a list of some of the best "British" fighters, so I purposely left out Benny Lynch, Jackie Paterson and several fighters from Ireland, Scotland and other surrounding European area's.
3 of the names present are fighters who were protected from Gilroy, yet Bert doesn't make the list at all(?). <<<
and showing a 'nationalistic' point of view, "where is Benny Lynch?"<<<
Actually, It someone like me that you should listen to because I'm American, so their is no bias. Benny Lynch and Bert Gilroy are both Scottish, not British, which is also why I did not list Jackie Patterson...because he is Scottish as well. With the exception of McAvoy, the others I mentioned were champions. I was just giving you a list of some of the best "British" fighters, so I purposely left out Benny Lynch, Jackie Paterson and several fighters from Ireland, Scotland and other surrounding European area's.
-
kevin
- Heavyweight
Scot's are British Barry. If you were just meant to include English fighters that's fine.
A perfect system is hard to find, many say Wilde was the best ever, a lot say Benny Lynch was the best Scottish boxer, but do some research and Alex Lafferty is also classed as one of the best Scotland has ever produced. (And how many of you have ever heard of him?)
Look at some of the olden day boxers like Digger Stanley, Tancy Lee, Sid Smith they all have plenty of loses which you would see as much of these days because of the easier matchmaking these lads would fight anyone, anywhere, anytime.
Even with computerised ratings as we can see it will always be a contentious issue. Because if it was a close fight or a bad decision you can't program that it in, a loss is a loss.
(Ps. Jim can you get in touch, have a couple of questions to ask re the Rea's)
A perfect system is hard to find, many say Wilde was the best ever, a lot say Benny Lynch was the best Scottish boxer, but do some research and Alex Lafferty is also classed as one of the best Scotland has ever produced. (And how many of you have ever heard of him?)
Look at some of the olden day boxers like Digger Stanley, Tancy Lee, Sid Smith they all have plenty of loses which you would see as much of these days because of the easier matchmaking these lads would fight anyone, anywhere, anytime.
Even with computerised ratings as we can see it will always be a contentious issue. Because if it was a close fight or a bad decision you can't program that it in, a loss is a loss.
(Ps. Jim can you get in touch, have a couple of questions to ask re the Rea's)
re
>>>Scot's are British Barry.<<<
See, even more reason to listen to me because I did not know that, so nationalities certainly play no part in me choosing. I had always thought that British was just England and possibly Wales, so thanks for making that clear to me. In all seriousness though...any list is going to be opinionated unless it is computerized, but at the moment there just isn't enough info in any system for a computerized list to be used as a "bar" for the top fighters. Like Kevin said, many of the great fighters of pre-1920 and even pre-1940 had several losses, some cases a lot of loses. Sid Smith, Joe Symonds, Kid Socks, Bill Beynon, Gus Platts, Bandsman Blake and many more were not only main event fighters, but some of the top British fighters of their time. Both Smith and Symonds gave Jimmy Wilde pretty good fights, Symonds more so than Smith. I just recently got several 1913 and 1914 issues of Mirror of Life and I was amazed at the number of main event fighters that I had never heard of, but that it the main goal of a boxing historian...to learn everything that you can. I'd certainly like to have a lot more British sources than I do, but that will come in time...the main thing is to keep an open mind and never think that you know everything there is to know. I've been researching for 20+ years and if I live to be 90, I'll still be learning new info.
See, even more reason to listen to me because I did not know that, so nationalities certainly play no part in me choosing. I had always thought that British was just England and possibly Wales, so thanks for making that clear to me. In all seriousness though...any list is going to be opinionated unless it is computerized, but at the moment there just isn't enough info in any system for a computerized list to be used as a "bar" for the top fighters. Like Kevin said, many of the great fighters of pre-1920 and even pre-1940 had several losses, some cases a lot of loses. Sid Smith, Joe Symonds, Kid Socks, Bill Beynon, Gus Platts, Bandsman Blake and many more were not only main event fighters, but some of the top British fighters of their time. Both Smith and Symonds gave Jimmy Wilde pretty good fights, Symonds more so than Smith. I just recently got several 1913 and 1914 issues of Mirror of Life and I was amazed at the number of main event fighters that I had never heard of, but that it the main goal of a boxing historian...to learn everything that you can. I'd certainly like to have a lot more British sources than I do, but that will come in time...the main thing is to keep an open mind and never think that you know everything there is to know. I've been researching for 20+ years and if I live to be 90, I'll still be learning new info.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45229
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
There are a few guys who it is easy to see deserve to be in anyone's top 10, Wilde, Jack Berg, Lennox Lewis, to name but three.
There's of course going to be so many old timers who it is much harder to evaluate, few of them will have been seen by any of us, and their records are incomplete, and there are those who are avoided.
I think it reasonable to divide boxing into rough eras for this purpose. It's far easier to have say post 1900-1940 1940-1970 1980-present. The pre 1940's era is another world to me, and reading records and reports of the time is not a substitute for seeing the more obscure fighters.
The fact that Berg and Wilde both took on and beat the best available competition however, speaks volumes.
There's of course going to be so many old timers who it is much harder to evaluate, few of them will have been seen by any of us, and their records are incomplete, and there are those who are avoided.
I think it reasonable to divide boxing into rough eras for this purpose. It's far easier to have say post 1900-1940 1940-1970 1980-present. The pre 1940's era is another world to me, and reading records and reports of the time is not a substitute for seeing the more obscure fighters.
The fact that Berg and Wilde both took on and beat the best available competition however, speaks volumes.
There's a good way to do it then considering what we all know and understand about the "uncertainties" as jamesmcdonnell says; "There's of course going to be so many old timers who it is much harder to evaluate, few of them will have been seen by any of us, and their records are incomplete, and there are those who are avoided."
3 lists! -
the first being the obvious one based on ACHIEVEMENTS, world champions and the like (not necessarily the best).
2cd. "the oldtimes" pre-1940 or there about.
3rd. "most feared and avoided fighters!" (in many cases 'probably' the best).
And then from there a fourth and more fair list, an OVER-ALL list compiled from all 3, you could even use computer analysis and then of course imput the known facts that Kevin and James refer too!
3 lists! -
the first being the obvious one based on ACHIEVEMENTS, world champions and the like (not necessarily the best).
2cd. "the oldtimes" pre-1940 or there about.
3rd. "most feared and avoided fighters!" (in many cases 'probably' the best).
And then from there a fourth and more fair list, an OVER-ALL list compiled from all 3, you could even use computer analysis and then of course imput the known facts that Kevin and James refer too!
-
Manos de Oro
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 12:10
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45229
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
-
Manos de Oro
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1630
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 12:10
That's a good way of looking at it Jim. The hardest part would be amalgamating the three lists to create the fourth - the 'super list'. Going to take an awful lot of thought, though...jimglen wrote:There's a good way to do it then considering what we all know and understand about the "uncertainties" as jamesmcdonnell says; "There's of course going to be so many old timers who it is much harder to evaluate, few of them will have been seen by any of us, and their records are incomplete, and there are those who are avoided."
3 lists! -
the first being the obvious one based on ACHIEVEMENTS, world champions and the like (not necessarily the best).
2cd. "the oldtimes" pre-1940 or there about.
3rd. "most feared and avoided fighters!" (in many cases 'probably' the best).
And then from there a fourth and more fair list, an OVER-ALL list compiled from all 3, you could even use computer analysis and then of course imput the known facts that Kevin and James refer too!
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45229
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Re: re
I'm trying to find reasons NOT to listen to you.barry wrote:>>>Scot's are British Barry.<<<
See, even more reason to listen to me because I did not know that, so nationalities certainly play no part in me choosing. I had always thought that British was just England and possibly Wales, so thanks for making that clear to me. In all seriousness though...any list is going to be opinionated unless it is computerized, but at the moment there just isn't enough info in any system for a computerized list to be used as a "bar" for the top fighters. Like Kevin said, many of the great fighters of pre-1920 and even pre-1940 had several losses, some cases a lot of loses. Sid Smith, Joe Symonds, Kid Socks, Bill Beynon, Gus Platts, Bandsman Blake and many more were not only main event fighters, but some of the top British fighters of their time. Both Smith and Symonds gave Jimmy Wilde pretty good fights, Symonds more so than Smith. I just recently got several 1913 and 1914 issues of Mirror of Life and I was amazed at the number of main event fighters that I had never heard of, but that it the main goal of a boxing historian...to learn everything that you can. I'd certainly like to have a lot more British sources than I do, but that will come in time...the main thing is to keep an open mind and never think that you know everything there is to know. I've been researching for 20+ years and if I live to be 90, I'll still be learning new info.
1. Ted Kid Lewis
2. Jimmy Wilde
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Jack kid Berg
5. Bob Fitzimmons
6. Ken Buchanon
7. Lloyd Honeygun (the ost underated fighter of the past 20 years unified welterweight beaitng curry nto many can say they were unified champ)
8. John H stracey
9. Barry Mcguigan
10. Nigel Benn (cos he is my fave fighter)
so yes jim there's a lis thwere, though I know you are gonna hate it but there you go, you asked.
2. Jimmy Wilde
3. Lennox Lewis
4. Jack kid Berg
5. Bob Fitzimmons
6. Ken Buchanon
7. Lloyd Honeygun (the ost underated fighter of the past 20 years unified welterweight beaitng curry nto many can say they were unified champ)
8. John H stracey
9. Barry Mcguigan
10. Nigel Benn (cos he is my fave fighter)
so yes jim there's a lis thwere, though I know you are gonna hate it but there you go, you asked.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45229
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
-
BubiScholz
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1879
- Joined: 02 Feb 2004, 13:02
-
dandantheweatherman
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 337
- Joined: 23 Apr 2004, 20:10
The problem with British fighters with regards to all time great lists is that there have been some sensational wins over all time greats, eg Turpin v Robinson, Stracey v Napoles, Honeyghan v Curry, McGuigan v Pedroza, but they weren't followed up by dominant reigns which is a pisser really.
Anyway, if there's going to be an all-time great list there needs to be some objective criteria, like, say, taking into account how many genuine contenders a given fighter beat and such like. I mean, you get some dominant champions who are dominant through being in a weak division or not fighting the best (eg Calzaghe IMO) and you get some fighters who are arguably all time greats but due to being champion at the wrong time (eg Ken Norton).
However, assuming some objective criteria I suspect it would be a struggle for the best British fighters to make all time great lists with the exception, and I'n guessing with the old timers here because I'm not familiar with their records, Jimmy Wilde, Jack Kid Berg maybe, Lennox Lewis and Naz.
Anyway, if there's going to be an all-time great list there needs to be some objective criteria, like, say, taking into account how many genuine contenders a given fighter beat and such like. I mean, you get some dominant champions who are dominant through being in a weak division or not fighting the best (eg Calzaghe IMO) and you get some fighters who are arguably all time greats but due to being champion at the wrong time (eg Ken Norton).
However, assuming some objective criteria I suspect it would be a struggle for the best British fighters to make all time great lists with the exception, and I'n guessing with the old timers here because I'm not familiar with their records, Jimmy Wilde, Jack Kid Berg maybe, Lennox Lewis and Naz.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 45229
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11