BoxRec

Here is my top ten of Britains greatest middles.... measured by ability and overall careers...

1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Len Harvey
3. Jock Mcavoy
4. Randolph Turpin
5. Chris Eubank
6. Nigel Benn
7. Herol Graham
8. Micheal Watson
9. Joe Calzaghe
10. Alan Minter

................any comments opinions and insults very welcome!.... 8)

it's IMMPOSSIBLE to say with All Certainty, there are just too many factors both considered and Not considered.

Over at the CBZ there was an argument about SRR being the best p4p fighter ever...good candidate but IMMPOSSIBLE to say.

here are Gilbert Odds top 10 British MW's
1 Randolph Turpin; 2. Jock McAvoy; 3. Len Harvey; 4. Ted 'Kid' Lewis; 5. Terry Downes; 6. Tommy Milligan; 7. Ernie Roderick; 8. Roland Todd; 9. Pat McAteer;10. Johnny Sullivan..

Considerations... Len Harvey was a L-HW and Britains best at that weight, Ted 'Kid' Lewis was a Welterweight and Britains best at the weight, likewise Ernie Roderick was a Welterweight and probably in the top 3 at that weight. Randolph Turpin was NOT better than Jock McAvoy - "No Way" and you have to include such fighters like Jack Casey, Len Johnson (some would say Tops), Bert Gilroy, Ginger Sadd, Dick Turpin and tough guy Harry Scot... then there's the modern bunch Benn, Watson and company.

I've always said Don't single achievements, look at 'head to head' battles (which you are doing here silkov), with the Best Champions & Contenders who remained at the Top for extended periods and proved their worth, jumping in & out of weight divisions successfully...these are the best.

But to say with All Certainty, very, very Hard!

read the post Bladder, this list is NOT based on achievements alone,
but considers 'head to head' meetings with the top men, and all these fighters were top!

Len Johnson is also a great consideration and though I know all the Truth re Gilroy, I still rate McAvoy above him. A look at all my posts here and elsewhere shows how I consider the value of many great fighters known & not so well known!

jimglen wrote:it's IMMPOSSIBLE to say with All Certainty, there are just too many factors both considered and Not considered.

Over at the CBZ there was an argument about SRR being the best p4p fighter ever...good candidate but IMMPOSSIBLE to say.

here are Gilbert Odds top 10 British MW's
1 Randolph Turpin; 2. Jock McAvoy; 3. Len Harvey; 4. Ted 'Kid' Lewis; 5. Terry Downes; 6. Tommy Milligan; 7. Ernie Roderick; 8. Roland Todd; 9. Pat McAteer;10. Johnny Sullivan..

Considerations... Len Harvey was a L-HW and Britains best at that weight, Ted 'Kid' Lewis was a Welterweight and Britains best at the weight, likewise Ernie Roderick was a Welterweight and probably in the top 3 at that weight. Randolph Turpin was NOT better than Jock McAvoy - "No Way" and you have to include such fighters like Jack Casey, Len Johnson (some would say Tops), Bert Gilroy, Ginger Sadd, Dick Turpin and tough guy Harry Scot... then there's the modern bunch Benn, Watson and company.

I've always said Don't single achievements, look at 'head to head' battles (which you are doing here silkov), with the Best Champions & Contenders who remained at the Top for extended periods and proved their worth, jumping in & out of weight divisions successfully...these are the best.

But to say with All Certainty, very, very Hard!

It is very hard, especially with Turpin as his peak was very short, we only saw him really at his best in the first Robinson fight, would any of the others have been able to beat even the below par Robinson that Turpin beat?..... and Turpin wasnt actually doing that bad in their rematch till he was caught....

Decagon wrote:These topics suck.

Why come on it then?.... how about doing a better topic yourself you dozy waste of space!.... 8)

silkov wrote:Here is my top ten of Britains greatest middles.... measured by ability and overall careers...

1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Len Harvey
3. Jock Mcavoy
4. Randolph Turpin
5. Chris Eubank
6. Nigel Benn
7. Herol Graham
8. Micheal Watson
9. Joe Calzaghe
10. Alan Minter

................any comments opinions and insults very welcome!.... 8)

Interesting list Silkov and it's been one of our stronger divisions but Minter is way too low and what about Terry Downes or Tony Sibson? And I take it you've lumped Super Middles into the mix hence Calzaghe?

silkov wrote:Here is my top ten of Britains greatest middles.... measured by ability and overall careers...

1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Len Harvey
3. Jock Mcavoy
4. Randolph Turpin
5. Chris Eubank
6. Nigel Benn
7. Herol Graham
8. Micheal Watson
9. Joe Calzaghe
10. Alan Minter

................any comments opinions and insults very welcome!.... 8)

Silkov, congratulations on a superb list. I think these are the top 10 MWs,of all time from Britain.
The only points I'd make are that Eubank is a bit high for me, I would have him at 8 or 9. Also, I'm not sure if Calzaghe should be rated at MW as all his best work was done at SM.
Terry Downes, Howard Eastman, Tony Sibson and Kevin Finnegan are all worth honourable mentions as well in the pantheon of British middleweights

Decagon wrote:These topics suck.

Only because you know jack sh1t about British boxing

dr_devious wrote:

Decagon wrote:These topics suck.

Only because you know jack sh1t about British boxing

He knows Jack about boxing period!....

dr_devious wrote:

silkov wrote:Here is my top ten of Britains greatest middles.... measured by ability and overall careers...

1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Len Harvey
3. Jock Mcavoy
4. Randolph Turpin
5. Chris Eubank
6. Nigel Benn
7. Herol Graham
8. Micheal Watson
9. Joe Calzaghe
10. Alan Minter

................any comments opinions and insults very welcome!.... 8)

Silkov, congratulations on a superb list. I think these are the top 10 MWs,of all time from Britain.
The only points I'd make are that Eubank is a bit high for me, I would have him at 8 or 9. Also, I'm not sure if Calzaghe should be rated at MW as all his best work was done at SM.
Terry Downes, Howard Eastman, Tony Sibson and Kevin Finnegan are all worth honourable mentions as well in the pantheon of British middleweights

I put Calzaghe in as I think he would have been a middleweight had there been no super middle division... Downes, Sibbo and Finnegan all just missed out on the top ten though theyre amongst my favourites.... theres not really that much to choose between a lot of these guys....

jimglen wrote:read the post Bladder, this list is NOT based on achievements alone,
but considers 'head to head' meetings with the top men, and all these fighters were top!

Yes Jimbo ..... but we know that if not for the conspiracy, Bert would be No.1

Bert was No.1 and for 10 yrs and as this post is about great MW fighters regardless of Title, then of course these men need consideration!

Len Johnson would have made an easy night of it with some of the latter fighters mentioned, yet people are too comfortable 'skipping' over some of these past greats simply because they know little or nothing about them...

Well I have tried to be a voice for some of these men and by the grace of God got one of them the recognition that was STOLEN from him and as I've said before 'conspiracy;' too strong a word, conspiracy in this game isn't required by the men who run the sport, just a very deliberate decision determining who gets to play or not.

These fighters were great and could compete with any fellow top MW's in history, sorry you would rather make light than learn about them...Who are you anyway Bladder, have you read the man's story and all the top commentators that spoke about him?

God Bless these fighters who knew well who they were and the fans and 'documentors that knew also!

Britain's greatest..? NOT complete without some of these men!

Recognition?

Jim, you've been banging on about your grandfather Gilroy ever since I have been coming to this board.

But, EVERYTIME someone puts up a list of the best Brit 160 pounders, grandad never makes the cut does he?

Now is that because we are ALL too daft to realise he was the best ever? You'd think, if your book was so enlightening that just once someone would mention Grandad. Apart from you, me and Bladder (God Bless Him) of course.

Decagon wrote:

silkov wrote:

dr_devious wrote: Only because you know jack sh1t about British boxing

He knows Jack about boxing period!....

That might be true, but at least I've never ranked Joe Bugner above Lennox Lewis.

Yep, and you've probably never even seen Bugner fight either!....

silkov wrote:Here is my top ten of Britains greatest middles.... measured by ability and overall careers...

1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Len Harvey
3. Jock Mcavoy
4. Randolph Turpin
5. Chris Eubank
6. Nigel Benn
7. Herol Graham
8. Micheal Watson
9. Joe Calzaghe
10. Alan Minter

................any comments opinions and insults very welcome!.... 8)

Why do you have Watson rated above Calzaghe? Yes Watson was a good fighter but the only fighter of note that he beat was Nigel Benn. He was stopped by McCallum, lost a close decision to Eubank and was tragically stopped in the rematch. Plus he only ever won the Commonwealth title.

His record doesn't come close to matching Calzaghe's ?

Decagon wrote:

silkov wrote:Yep, and you've probably never even seen Bugner fight either!....

Like pretty much everyone in this forum, I'm addicted to Youtube. It's the Boxrec of the last half of this decade. Of course I've seen Bugner fight, but you have inspired me to watch more, and I thank you for that. Ranking him based on his record and a couple of fights with Ali might not have been the best, but after watching all the other footage I could find, I still can see NO REASON to rank him above Lewis, even though I've gained a greater appreciation for Bugner.

I will concede that our difference in opinion comes from the way we rank fighters. To you, the outcome or even the deserved outcome of a fight bears little or no weight in how you rank fighters, and I simply cannot agree with that. Here is the conclusion I've made:

• Bugner lost to most of the top heavyweights he fought.
• Lewis beat every fighter he fought.

I simply can't understand how you can ignore this.

Judging by your comments you have absolutely no idea how I rate fighters and I'm afraid I havent really the time or inclination to enlighten you... as for Lewis winning every fight he was in I think you're leaving out the two times he was koed by mediocre fighters!....

silkov wrote:

Decagon wrote:

silkov wrote:Yep, and you've probably never even seen Bugner fight either!....

Like pretty much everyone in this forum, I'm addicted to Youtube. It's the Boxrec of the last half of this decade. Of course I've seen Bugner fight, but you have inspired me to watch more, and I thank you for that. Ranking him based on his record and a couple of fights with Ali might not have been the best, but after watching all the other footage I could find, I still can see NO REASON to rank him above Lewis, even though I've gained a greater appreciation for Bugner.

I will concede that our difference in opinion comes from the way we rank fighters. To you, the outcome or even the deserved outcome of a fight bears little or no weight in how you rank fighters, and I simply cannot agree with that. Here is the conclusion I've made:

• Bugner lost to most of the top heavyweights he fought.
• Lewis beat every fighter he fought.

I simply can't understand how you can ignore this.

Judging by your comments you have absolutely no idea how I rate fighters and I'm afraid I havent really the time or inclination to enlighten you... as for Lewis winning every fight he was in I think you're leaving out the two times he was koed by mediocre fighters!....

You do realise this post was about the middleweight division not the heavyweights?

Anyhow Lewis was a world champion with 15 title defences (only Louis and Holmes above him). He avenged both defeats by stoppage and beat every fighter there was to beat (apart from Bowe who wanted no part of him).

Bugner, was a good fighter but just doesn't compare to Lewis's achievements. You say Lewis was ko'ed by medioce fighters, what about Bugner being ko'ed in his pro debut by a fighter with a 1-3 record who went on to lose every other fight he ever had?

If I asked you to name the top 10 or 20 heavyweights of all time you can't honestly say you would have Bugner ahead of Lewis, that just doesn't make sense !!

Controversial wrote:

silkov wrote:

Decagon wrote:Like pretty much everyone in this forum, I'm addicted to Youtube. It's the Boxrec of the last half of this decade. Of course I've seen Bugner fight, but you have inspired me to watch more, and I thank you for that. Ranking him based on his record and a couple of fights with Ali might not have been the best, but after watching all the other footage I could find, I still can see NO REASON to rank him above Lewis, even though I've gained a greater appreciation for Bugner.

I will concede that our difference in opinion comes from the way we rank fighters. To you, the outcome or even the deserved outcome of a fight bears little or no weight in how you rank fighters, and I simply cannot agree with that. Here is the conclusion I've made:

• Bugner lost to most of the top heavyweights he fought.
• Lewis beat every fighter he fought.

I simply can't understand how you can ignore this.

Judging by your comments you have absolutely no idea how I rate fighters and I'm afraid I havent really the time or inclination to enlighten you... as for Lewis winning every fight he was in I think you're leaving out the two times he was koed by mediocre fighters!....

You do realise this post was about the middleweight division not the heavyweights?

Anyhow Lewis was a world champion with 15 title defences (only Louis and Holmes above him). He avenged both defeats by stoppage and beat every fighter there was to beat (apart from Bowe who wanted no part of him).

Bugner, was a good fighter but just doesn't compare to Lewis's achievements. You say Lewis was ko'ed by medioce fighters, what about Bugner being ko'ed in his pro debut by a fighter with a 1-3 record who went on to lose every other fight he ever had?

If I asked you to name the top 10 or 20 heavyweights of all time you can't honestly say you would have Bugner ahead of Lewis, that just doesn't make sense !!

Henry Armstrong was koed in his debut also, I suppose he sucked as well!!. If you cant see the difference between someone being koed when theyre just a kid of 18 and someone being koed twice when theyre supposedly at their peak, then I dont think theres much hope for you I'm afraid!!..... 8)

Controversial wrote:

silkov wrote:

Decagon wrote:Like pretty much everyone in this forum, I'm addicted to Youtube. It's the Boxrec of the last half of this decade. Of course I've seen Bugner fight, but you have inspired me to watch more, and I thank you for that. Ranking him based on his record and a couple of fights with Ali might not have been the best, but after watching all the other footage I could find, I still can see NO REASON to rank him above Lewis, even though I've gained a greater appreciation for Bugner.

I will concede that our difference in opinion comes from the way we rank fighters. To you, the outcome or even the deserved outcome of a fight bears little or no weight in how you rank fighters, and I simply cannot agree with that. Here is the conclusion I've made:

• Bugner lost to most of the top heavyweights he fought.
• Lewis beat every fighter he fought.

I simply can't understand how you can ignore this.

Judging by your comments you have absolutely no idea how I rate fighters and I'm afraid I havent really the time or inclination to enlighten you... as for Lewis winning every fight he was in I think you're leaving out the two times he was koed by mediocre fighters!....

You do realise this post was about the middleweight division not the heavyweights?

Anyhow Lewis was a world champion with 15 title defences (only Louis and Holmes above him). He avenged both defeats by stoppage and beat every fighter there was to beat (apart from Bowe who wanted no part of him).

Bugner, was a good fighter but just doesn't compare to Lewis's achievements. You say Lewis was ko'ed by medioce fighters, what about Bugner being ko'ed in his pro debut by a fighter with a 1-3 record who went on to lose every other fight he ever had?

If I asked you to name the top 10 or 20 heavyweights of all time you can't honestly say you would have Bugner ahead of Lewis, that just doesn't make sense !!

And its just like Dec to answer the heavyweight thread in the middleweight thread!.... from now on I'll only be discussing the heavies in the heavy thread!!..... hope thats clear for you Dec!....

Controversial wrote:

silkov wrote:Here is my top ten of Britains greatest middles.... measured by ability and overall careers...

1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Len Harvey
3. Jock Mcavoy
4. Randolph Turpin
5. Chris Eubank
6. Nigel Benn
7. Herol Graham
8. Micheal Watson
9. Joe Calzaghe
10. Alan Minter

................any comments opinions and insults very welcome!.... 8)

Why do you have Watson rated above Calzaghe? Yes Watson was a good fighter but the only fighter of note that he beat was Nigel Benn. He was stopped by McCallum, lost a close decision to Eubank and was tragically stopped in the rematch. Plus he only ever won the Commonwealth title.

His record doesn't come close to matching Calzaghe's ?

I'd be interested to hear why you rank Watson over Calzaghe?

Controversial wrote:

Controversial wrote:

silkov wrote:Here is my top ten of Britains greatest middles.... measured by ability and overall careers...

1. Bob Fitzsimmons
2. Len Harvey
3. Jock Mcavoy
4. Randolph Turpin
5. Chris Eubank
6. Nigel Benn
7. Herol Graham
8. Micheal Watson
9. Joe Calzaghe
10. Alan Minter

................any comments opinions and insults very welcome!.... 8)

Why do you have Watson rated above Calzaghe? Yes Watson was a good fighter but the only fighter of note that he beat was Nigel Benn. He was stopped by McCallum, lost a close decision to Eubank and was tragically stopped in the rematch. Plus he only ever won the Commonwealth title.

His record doesn't come close to matching Calzaghe's ?

I'd be interested to hear why you rank Watson over Calzaghe?[/quote

I think Watson was the better all round boxer, had they fought I think Watson would have won... as for holding Mccallums victory over Watson against him, Calzaghes never fought anyone as good as Mccallum.... I doubt very much that he would have beaten Mccallum...

silkov wrote:

Controversial wrote:

Controversial wrote: Why do you have Watson rated above Calzaghe? Yes Watson was a good fighter but the only fighter of note that he beat was Nigel Benn. He was stopped by McCallum, lost a close decision to Eubank and was tragically stopped in the rematch. Plus he only ever won the Commonwealth title.

His record doesn't come close to matching Calzaghe's ?

I'd be interested to hear why you rank Watson over Calzaghe?[/quote

I think Watson was the better all round boxer, had they fought I think Watson would have won... as for holding Mccallums victory over Watson against him, Calzaghes never fought anyone as good as Mccallum.... I doubt very much that he would have beaten Mccallum...

I'm still confused. You said at the start of this thread you are rating fighters on their ability and overall careers. Watson was a good fighter but at the end of the day he was still stopped by McCallum after being behind on all cards. He was also outpointed then tragically stopped by Eubank. He was also outpointed by James Cook, who was on a 4 fight losing streak, early in Watsons career. Watson never won a British or European title, let alone a World title.

The only 'name' Watson beat was Benn, who was partly to blame for his defeat by non-stop punching and wearing himself out, hence being ko'ed by a Watson jab. Credit where its due though because Watson fought a perfect fight.

If your rankings include fighters 'overall careers' Calzaghe surely wins hands down.

Ginger Sadd would have beaten all those 80's middleweights easily.