BoxRec

Continuing my series...

http://www.britishboxing.net/news_2849- ... story.html

Bugner is a good pick.

I'm guessing next weeks over-rated will be, given Ollie penchant for the controversial,

Herol Graham, Henry Cooper, Howard Eastman, Barry McGuigan and Randy Turpin.

DavidPayne wrote:Bugner is a good pick.

I'm guessing next weeks over-rated will be, given Ollie penchant for the controversial,

Herol Graham, Henry Cooper, Howard Eastman, Barry McGuigan and Randy Turpin.

Eastman is still an active fighter, so I can't do him for this particular article.

Herol Graham.

Eubank said in his bio "you couldn't hit him with a handful of stones".

Sadly he'll always be remembered first and foremost for giving Jackson a boxing lesson, then being knocked cold.

Shame really, because he was probably one of the most talented fighters to come from Britain post-war.

Some good ones there - Bugner is usually one of the first names that come to my head when it comes to Under-rating.

Although alot again will depend on the definition. I know lots here think I underated Bruno (especially) and Naz- but when I mention Bruno, I'll always say "Former World champion" in the paragraph somewhere - for me, means he overachieved.

Now, am I underating him by claiming he over achieved or are we all putting him on the correct level by citing his fantastic achievement everytime we discuss him.

One fight who I think you have missed is Dave Charnley - just seems to have been forgotton about and Terry Downes.

stujones wrote:Some good ones there - Bugner is usually one of the first names that come to my head when it comes to Under-rating.

Although alot again will depend on the definition. I know lots here think I underated Bruno (especially) and Naz- but when I mention Bruno, I'll always say "Former World champion" in the paragraph somewhere - for me, means he overachieved.

Now, am I underating him by claiming he over achieved or are we all putting him on the correct level by citing his fantastic achievement everytime we discuss him.

One fight who I think you have missed is Dave Charnley - just seems to have been forgotton about and Terry Downes.

I think Bruno's historical position is fair. He is remembered as a partial titlist who beat a middle-of-the-road champ. But there have certainly been worse champions and I think he's done a disservice by many of the critics for the reasons I mentioned. A prime Bruno fighting today would be a shoe-in for one or more world championships.

Couldn't agree more Oliver. Frank could've cleaned up the Skelton/Harrison/Williams/Sprott merry-go-round in an afternoon.

I think he'd only have Wlad to fear. Even then he'd have much more than just a puncher's chance.

One thing about Jimmy Wilde’s “record” though is that back then they weren’t quite derived the same way were they? I may be wrong, but for example the newspapers the following day would decide who won etc. So doing a like-for-like comparison between records of different eras is dodgy to say the least.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not looking to belittle the achievements of someone who was undoubtedly very good, but the fact remains that the facts are sketchy.

Loftgroov wrote:One thing about Jimmy Wilde’s “record” though is that back then they weren’t quite derived the same way were they? I may be wrong, but for example the newspapers the following day would decide who won etc. So doing a like-for-like comparison between records of different ears is dodgy to say the least.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not looking to belittle the achievements of someone who was undoubtedly very good, but the fact remains that the facts are sketchy.

That's a fair point, and I also think there were more mistmatches back then (although countered by the greater frequency of bouts) but I think however a record is compiled, to get a W-L-D run like that demands respect. To use a modern example, there's certainly a lot of "filler" on Calzaghe's record, but for anybody to make 21 title defences of any description is seriously impressive. And so it is with Wilde, however these wins were compiled, and whomever they were against. 105 wins of any description is amazing, and putting the records to one side, to hold a world title for seven years when there were only eight divisions is the stuff of legend.

stujones wrote:Although alot again will depend on the definition. I know lots here think I underated Bruno (especially) and Naz- but when I mention Bruno, I'll always say "Former World champion" in the paragraph somewhere - for me, means he overachieved.

A fair comment I think.

Bruno was brave and tenacious and I always enjoyed the bandwagon but he was very fortunate to meet a disinterested Oliver McCall.

That isn't to detract from his performances or career because he gave each fight everything he had.

tony3 wrote:

stujones wrote:Although alot again will depend on the definition. I know lots here think I underated Bruno (especially) and Naz- but when I mention Bruno, I'll always say "Former World champion" in the paragraph somewhere - for me, means he overachieved.

A fair comment I think.

Bruno was brave and tenacious and I always enjoyed the bandwagon but he was very fortunate to meet a disinterested Oliver McCall.

That isn't to detract from his performances or career because he gave each fight everything he had.

I think a Bruno right hand which almost knocked McCall's head into Row Z of Wembley Stadium in the first round had a lot to do with him losing interest!

oliverfennell wrote:

tony3 wrote:

stujones wrote:Although alot again will depend on the definition. I know lots here think I underated Bruno (especially) and Naz- but when I mention Bruno, I'll always say "Former World champion" in the paragraph somewhere - for me, means he overachieved.

A fair comment I think.

Bruno was brave and tenacious and I always enjoyed the bandwagon but he was very fortunate to meet a disinterested Oliver McCall.

That isn't to detract from his performances or career because he gave each fight everything he had.

I think a Bruno right hand which almost knocked McCall's head into Row Z of Wembley Stadium in the first round had a lot to do with him losing interest!

He (McCall) did look rather shell-shocked when he found out that Bruno could punch and that he might be in for a hard night.

But I still think that McCall looked jaded and unusually lethargic.

Unfortunately, Oliver's state of mind for his next big fight after Bruno and that performance vs Lewis has always left a doubt about his state of mind for the Bruno fight, justifyably so IMO.

Whilst I doubt I'll ever see behaviour like that again - cannot say I was overly surprised that something might happen. A loose cannon is a bit of an understatement when labelling McCall.

I'd have Dave McAuley in there, took part in one of the greatest title fights you'd see against Fidel Bassa, who was a good champion, Dave had previously competed at British level, so it was a huge jump in class.

He then lost a rematch to Bassa, still pushed the champion close. Dave then travelled to London to dominate the big favourite Duke McKenzie winning the IBF title.
He defended this 5 times, including beating Dodie Boy Penalosa and a 1 punch KO of Jacob Matlala. He won a controversial decision over Rodolfo Blanco, who would beat McAuley in a rematch. Which to me looked to have been a win for McAuley.

He then retired, and all that in 23 fights, which included 9 world title fights, and 1 british title fight.

think there's room for him on your list Oliver

Old bones Ian wrote:I'd have Dave McAuley in there, took part in one of the greatest title fights you'd see against Fidel Bassa, who was a good champion, Dave had previously competed at British level, so it was a huge jump in class.

He then lost a rematch to Bassa, still pushed the champion close. Dave then travelled to London to dominate the big favourite Duke McKenzie winning the IBF title.
He defended this 5 times, including beating Dodie Boy Penalosa and a 1 punch KO of Jacob Matlala. He won a controversial decision over Rodolfo Blanco, who would beat McAuley in a rematch. Which to me looked to have been a win for McAuley.

He then retired, and all that in 23 fights, which included 9 world title fights, and 1 british title fight.

think there's room for him on your list Oliver

Excellent suggestion, Ian.

I suppose it depends on how you rate him, but Michael Watson???

He seems to get remembered more his injuries than for being a top-notch boxer

Chambers2 wrote:I suppose it depends on how you rate him, but Michael Watson???

He seems to get remembered more his injuries than for being a top-notch boxer

Yes, but I deliberately didn't include him because we will never know how much he would or wouldn't have achieved so, tragic as it is, he can never fairly or accurately be assessed in these terms.

oliverfennell wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:I suppose it depends on how you rate him, but Michael Watson???

He seems to get remembered more his injuries than for being a top-notch boxer

Yes, but I deliberately didn't include him because we will never know how much he would or wouldn't have achieved so, tragic as it is, he can never fairly or accurately be assessed in these terms.

Yeah fair comment.

Anyone that beat Benn and had 2 very close fights with a peak Eubank is a class act. Just had a scout through his career, I didn't realise he'd fought Mike McCallum as well

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer

oliverfennell wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote:I'd have Dave McAuley in there, took part in one of the greatest title fights you'd see against Fidel Bassa, who was a good champion, Dave had previously competed at British level, so it was a huge jump in class.

He then lost a rematch to Bassa, still pushed the champion close. Dave then travelled to London to dominate the big favourite Duke McKenzie winning the IBF title.
He defended this 5 times, including beating Dodie Boy Penalosa and a 1 punch KO of Jacob Matlala. He won a controversial decision over Rodolfo Blanco, who would beat McAuley in a rematch. Which to me looked to have been a win for McAuley.

He then retired, and all that in 23 fights, which included 9 world title fights, and 1 british title fight.

think there's room for him on your list Oliver

Excellent suggestion, Ian.

Top, top suggestion.

Terry D wrote:I disagreed with Ollie a few times over the course but agree on Bruno being underrated.

I do not think he was an all-time world-beater but he is seen as having very little fighting acumen.

Bruno is always going to attract extreme reactions.

I might chuck a couple of Mancunians into next week's article just for you ;)

I think Conteh has slowly become more underestimated as time goes on.

He was a more complete and talented fighter than his contemporary Buchanan.


The Finnegan brothers and Dave Charnley would be my other choices.

Arbachakov wrote:I think Conteh has slowly become more underestimated as time goes on.

He was a more complete and talented fighter than his contemporary Buchanan.


The Finnegan brothers and Dave Charnley would be my other choices.

Good post. I remember reading that Hagler pointed at Kevin Finnegan in a crowded room and said that he'd given him his hardest fights (not sure at which juncture in Hagler's career that he reputedly said this).
I also think that Minter and Sibson's achievements have been somewhat obscured by the shadow of Marvin Hagler looming over them. Both would have more than held their own in the modern 'golden middleweight' era of Benn, Eubank, Collins and Watson - imagine Sibson vs Benn... what a tear-up that would have been

Steve Conway

How about Murray Sutherland - I'm not saying he was the best champion of all time or anything - but he was a world champion and he hardly gets mentioned.

Although Boxrec's rankings seems to love him!

does Alan Rudkin fit into this category? or does he already get the credit he deserves?