BoxRec

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/4107884.stm

Saw this while brousing quite a good list I think.

I don't think its a good list. Lennox should be without doubt no1.

Buchanans good but no1? It could be argued hattons already achieved more in 1 fight.

Hamed achieved more at feather than McGuigan and I think would have ko'd him

Eubank beats Benn but isnt on the list while Benn is (I suppose he beat a few good Yanks)

Lewis should be on a POST WAR list, pre war though entirely different matter.

Had an argument with my old man over this a couple of days ago. He was arguing against Lewis being rated so highly though. Saying, "okay he achieved alot, but he never performed in the ring like Benn, Eubank, Watson etc".

He is not a fan of the heavyweights and believes that such lists should be made of fighters from Welter to Middle. He argues that with the exception of a few.... no heavyweight has the actual pound for pound skills of a Middleweight. Ali, Louis, Holmes, and Tyson were the ones he named as the exceptions.

When you watch the likes of Benn vs Eubank, Benn vs McClellan, Eubank vs Collins, Eubank vs Thompson. He does have a point, Lewis did never have a performance that comes close to these.

I do disagree, but can see the argument point he was making.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:I don't think its a good list. Lennox should be without doubt no1.

Buchanans good but no1? It could be argued hattons already achieved more in 1 fight.

Hamed achieved more at feather than McGuigan and I think would have ko'd him

Eubank beats Benn but isnt on the list while Benn is (I suppose he beat a few good Yanks)

Where is Joe Calzaghe? As he will remind you, he has made 16 defences of his title

Seriously though I don't think Randy Turpin should be included. I know he beat SRR, but Robinson hadn't trained. No other wins really stand out as world class on his record.

I think Don Cockell and Charles Humez might disagree with you there, E.

As for this "he was untrained"..... He couldn't have been that badly out of shape cause he made weight easily enough and it was only 2 months when he fought him after. Didn't take him long to get from "untrained" to tip top peak shape.

Add to the fact his memorable close defeats against geniune elite fighters like Robinson in the rematch, Bobo Olsen. Then I think he is a certainty for a high place in the Post War P4P top 10.

Probably my number 2, infact.

stujones wrote:I think Don Cockell and Charles Humez might disagree with you there, E.

As for this "he was untrained"..... He couldn't have been that badly out of shape cause he made weight easily enough and it was only 2 months when he fought him after. Didn't take him long to get from "untrained" to tip top peak shape.

Add to the fact his memorable close defeats against geniune elite fighters like Robinson in the rematch, Bobo Olsen. Then I think he is a certainty for a high place in the Post War P4P top 10.

Probably my number 2, infact.

Robinson had been living it up on his world tour prior to that fight, and it's not much surprise he made weight as he was often under the weight limit for middleweight anyway. Robinson wasn't even a big welterweight in his prime, and rarely fought on the middleweight limit.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:I don't think its a good list. Lennox should be without doubt no1.

Buchanans good but no1? It could be argued hattons already achieved more in 1 fight.

Hamed achieved more at feather than McGuigan and I think would have ko'd him

Eubank beats Benn but isnt on the list while Benn is (I suppose he beat a few good Yanks)

All respect to you mate, but you are wrong.

Buchanan beat Laguna twice away from home and in the most hostile of places.

Buchanan was never knocked out, whilst Lewis was by journeymen.

I put Buchanan, Conteh and Hamed above Lewis and Hatton

Post war, Buchanan is the best, with Hamed 2nd and Conteh 3rd. Then i'd have Honeyghan, Lewis, Dave Charnley, Stracey, Herol Graham, Jim Watt and Michael Watson.

Cant put Hatton in on the strength of the Zoo fight, but after a couple more wins he is in.

KO Atrist wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:I don't think its a good list. Lennox should be without doubt no1.

Buchanans good but no1? It could be argued hattons already achieved more in 1 fight.

Hamed achieved more at feather than McGuigan and I think would have ko'd him

Eubank beats Benn but isnt on the list while Benn is (I suppose he beat a few good Yanks)

All respect to you mate, but you are wrong.

Buchanan beat Laguna twice away from home and in the most hostile of places.

Buchanan was never knocked out, whilst Lewis was by journeymen.

I put Buchanan, Conteh and Hamed above Lewis and Hatton

Didn't Ken also take a massive pay cut - down to around £20,000 (which Harry Carpenter called "silly money" or "a pathetic purse" or something like that), just for the prestige of winning the Lonsdale outright... against Jim Watt of all people!

Will Ricky do the same with Junior Witter? WILL RICKY EVER EVEN DEFEND/CHALLENGE A TITLE ABROAD? These are the questions that need to be asked before even thinking to rank him above Ken - and the fact he's the same nationality as me means fornicate all to me; I'd still rank Ken as high if I was Welsh, English, Northern Irish, etc.

Manos de Oro wrote:

KO Atrist wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:I don't think its a good list. Lennox should be without doubt no1.

Buchanans good but no1? It could be argued hattons already achieved more in 1 fight.

Hamed achieved more at feather than McGuigan and I think would have ko'd him

Eubank beats Benn but isnt on the list while Benn is (I suppose he beat a few good Yanks)

All respect to you mate, but you are wrong.

Buchanan beat Laguna twice away from home and in the most hostile of places.

Buchanan was never knocked out, whilst Lewis was by journeymen.

I put Buchanan, Conteh and Hamed above Lewis and Hatton

Didn't Ken also take a massive pay cut - down to around £20,000 (which Harry Carpenter called "silly money" or "a pathetic purse" or something like that), just for the prestige of winning the Lonsdale outright... against Jim Watt of all people!

Will Ricky do the same with Junior Witter? WILL RICKY EVER EVEN DEFEND/CHALLENGE A TITLE ABROAD? These are the questions that need to be asked before even thinking to rank him above Ken - and the fact he's the same nationality as me means fornicate all to me; I'd still rank Ken as high if I was Welsh, English, Northern Irish, etc.

I'm London born and bred, and i'm not keen on most people ive met from Edinburgh, but Buchanan is the best.

I have him on a par with Pernell Whitaker for christs sake.

I think Scott Harrison should be above all of them

stujones wrote:He is not a fan of the heavyweights and believes that such lists should be made of fighters from Welter to Middle. He argues that with the exception of a few.... no heavyweight has the actual pound for pound skills of a Middleweight. Ali, Louis, Holmes, and Tyson were the ones he named as the exceptions.

I have to disagree somewhat with your fathers view on this one, with respect. What about the likes of Gene Tunney, Ezzard Charles, Joe Wallcott, Flloyd Patterson even Jimmy Young etc? they were all highly skilled fighters regardless of the weight they boxed at.

KO Atrist wrote:

Manos de Oro wrote:

KO Atrist wrote: All respect to you mate, but you are wrong.

Buchanan beat Laguna twice away from home and in the most hostile of places.

Buchanan was never knocked out, whilst Lewis was by journeymen.

I put Buchanan, Conteh and Hamed above Lewis and Hatton

Didn't Ken also take a massive pay cut - down to around £20,000 (which Harry Carpenter called "silly money" or "a pathetic purse" or something like that), just for the prestige of winning the Lonsdale outright... against Jim Watt of all people!

Will Ricky do the same with Junior Witter? WILL RICKY EVER EVEN DEFEND/CHALLENGE A TITLE ABROAD? These are the questions that need to be asked before even thinking to rank him above Ken - and the fact he's the same nationality as me means fornicate all to me; I'd still rank Ken as high if I was Welsh, English, Northern Irish, etc.

I'm London born and bred, and i'm not keen on most people ive met from Edinburgh, but Buchanan is the best.

I have him on a par with Pernell Whitaker for christs sake.

I'll admit I'm a younger fan (25) so its before my time and I may not have the same depth of knowledge as yourselves. But I have seen Buchanan fights and he just didn't seem to have the abilities of an A class fighter. Maybe I need to rewatch them but was Laguna the same class as Zoo (even an old Zoo).

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

KO Atrist wrote:

Manos de Oro wrote: Didn't Ken also take a massive pay cut - down to around £20,000 (which Harry Carpenter called "silly money" or "a pathetic purse" or something like that), just for the prestige of winning the Lonsdale outright... against Jim Watt of all people!

Will Ricky do the same with Junior Witter? WILL RICKY EVER EVEN DEFEND/CHALLENGE A TITLE ABROAD? These are the questions that need to be asked before even thinking to rank him above Ken - and the fact he's the same nationality as me means fornicate all to me; I'd still rank Ken as high if I was Welsh, English, Northern Irish, etc.

I'm London born and bred, and i'm not keen on most people ive met from Edinburgh, but Buchanan is the best.

I have him on a par with Pernell Whitaker for christs sake.

I'll admit I'm a younger fan (25) so its before my time and I may not have the same depth of knowledge as yourselves. But I have seen Buchanan fights and he just didn't seem to have the abilities of an A class fighter. Maybe I need to rewatch them but was Laguna the same class as Zoo (even an old Zoo).

I'd say Laguna was as good as Zoo, maybe a little better technically.

KOJOE90 wrote:

stujones wrote:He is not a fan of the heavyweights and believes that such lists should be made of fighters from Welter to Middle. He argues that with the exception of a few.... no heavyweight has the actual pound for pound skills of a Middleweight. Ali, Louis, Holmes, and Tyson were the ones he named as the exceptions.

I have to disagree somewhat with your fathers view on this one, with respect. What about the likes of Gene Tunney, Ezzard Charles, Joe Wallcott, Flloyd Patterson even Jimmy Young etc? they were all highly skilled fighters regardless of the weight they boxed at.

I'm sure he knows that aswell. I know he is a fan of Tunney and respects Patterson's offensive skills. However, the debate was comparing with the likes of Leonard, Robinson, Hagler, Benitez, Monzon, Jones Jnr, etc and was saying that only the 4 mentioned had comparable skills to these. Doesn't dismiss the rest as poor fighters (no does he say Lewis is poor) but not comparable to the elite Middle/Welterweights.

Holyfield was another fighter he mentioned with very admirable skills, different type of skills, but skills nevertheless. But he did say that Tunney and Holyfield (and Patterson and Charles) were no natural heavyweights.

He said a fair few have comparable skills to the British Middleweights (Benn/Eubank).... Including the likes of Holyfield, Patterson and Tunney. However, didn't see Lewis in that bracket. Arguing that "look at Holyfield when he fought Bowe - that was like Benn vs McCllelan". Lewis has never come close to doing what Holyfield did against Bowe, or what Benn did to McCllelan.

I think his arguement point was the Lewis had such a size advantage over his opponents that he should have been alot more exciting than he was. He enjoys the craft of boxing, he introduced me to getting into Howard Windstone, but when asked me "do you think Lewis could fight at the level of Eubank vs Benn?" my answer was no.

I brought in Bowe then, saying he did beat Holyfield twice in three wars, showing he had the bottle to go toe-to-toe. But he argued, "if he had comparable skills P4P with Holyfield, he should have whacked him out of sight". A valid point I thought.