British fighters' legacies

Wilde.

#1.

alma wrote:Does Froch outdo Calzaghe and Hamed?

Coxy has Peter Buckley outdoing Hamed.

Scottrf wrote:

alma wrote:Does Froch outdo Calzaghe and Hamed?

Coxy has Peter Buckley outdoing Hamed.

The only fighter Coxy has below Hamed is Roy Jones.

Ted Kid Lewis' twenty plus fights against Jack Britton would be sufficient to get the nod from me, even without the other stellar names on his record.

I'd have to agree with Wilde. Nearly ninety years after his last fight, and he's in everone's top 2, at worst, as the best flyweight ever. No-one from the UK can match that.

rowley wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

alma wrote:Does Froch outdo Calzaghe and Hamed?

Coxy has Peter Buckley outdoing Hamed.

The only fighter Coxy has below Hamed is Roy Jones.

Lucien Bute is also down there.

Hard to see past either Wilde or Lewis but have to say of the modern guys Khan is well on the way to putting together a decent ledger, is one fight away from having being the top light welter in the world and pretty much clearing out a division, which considering he is not 25 yet is not bad. Also when one considers the preeminent fighters in the world are getting to an age when they could ever start to slow down a step or retire is not beyond the realms he could do this at welter as well.

I personally still have doubts about his ability to do this but after a shaky start to his career he is definitely on the right track and is not impossible things could line up fairly favourably for him in years to come.

Wilde I'd say - from what I've seen, he's more revered Stateside than both of the Lewis', and he's the only Brit (along with Calzaghe) to have any real sort of claim to being the greatest of them all in his primary division. Have always switched pretty regularly in my mind over who was actually the greatest British fighter between Wilde and Ted, but right now I'm siding with the fearsome-punching Welshman.

Forget to add, Froch doesn't outstrip Calzaghe or Hamed as it stands, at least in my eyes. If he beats Ward, he's snapping at Hamed's heels. If he beats Ward and avenges the loss to Kessler, he edges in front of him, but still behind Calzaghe. If he beats Ward, avenges the loss to Kessler and then adds a strap at 175 lb, he may just be the greatest of the three.

As I was writing up the results yesterday for the Brits it made me realise I had made the wrong choice and having reassessed slightly will have to lean towards Ted Lewis over Wilde.

88Chris05 wrote:Forget to add, Froch doesn't outstrip Calzaghe or Hamed as it stands, at least in my eyes. If he beats Ward, he's snapping at Hamed's heels. If he beats Ward and avenges the loss to Kessler, he edges in front of him, but still behind Calzaghe. If he beats Ward, avenges the loss to Kessler and then adds a strap at 175 lb, he may just be the greatest of the three.

Does he really need to avenge the Kessler loss though? Too much emphasis being put on a Kessler return imo.


If he beats Ward, then he will have beaten the guy who schooled Kessler, so this would more than make up for that loss to Kessler. Then perhaps a series with Ward if the first fight is close.

A rematch with Pascal, a fight with Hopkins, and perhaps a little bit of work up at LH, would would say more than a return with Kessler imo.

Boxing doesn't work like that and if Froch beats Ward you're then left with a very tricky three way battle for supremacy where he would need to beat Kessler to prove himself as the man.

Froch beating Ward doesn't make him better than Kessler because Ward beat him.

Fine.


Ler's have Kessler on neutral territory then.

A lot depends where Kessler is should Froch come through Ward, at the minute there is everything to suggest he will still be a valid and live player near the top of the super middle rankings and as such a rematch is valid. Also worth remembering should be beat Ward Froch will have a pretty decent claim to be the top guy at super middle so will be in a position to ask for the fight in the UK. Decent close fight first time round and a valid and natural rematch I suspect we would all enjoy seeing.

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Forget to add, Froch doesn't outstrip Calzaghe or Hamed as it stands, at least in my eyes. If he beats Ward, he's snapping at Hamed's heels. If he beats Ward and avenges the loss to Kessler, he edges in front of him, but still behind Calzaghe. If he beats Ward, avenges the loss to Kessler and then adds a strap at 175 lb, he may just be the greatest of the three.

Does he really need to avenge the Kessler loss though? Too much emphasis being put on a Kessler return imo.


If he beats Ward, then he will have beaten the guy who schooled Kessler, so this would more than make up for that loss to Kessler. Then perhaps a series with Ward if the first fight is close.

A rematch with Pascal, a fight with Hopkins, and perhaps a little bit of work up at LH, would would say more than a return with Kessler imo.

Put it this way, Kessler is the one mutual prime (or something near it) opponent that both Calzaghe and Froch faced; Calzaghe clearly outpointed him, Froch narrowly lost to him. And, as much as people seem to disagree, I don't think that Froch's wins so far in his career at 168 lb are actually any superior to Calzaghe's. He's just racked up those wins in less time, really. Does Dirrell, Taylor, Abraham, Johnson and Pascal represent a better quality, collectively, than Eubank, Woodhall, Mitchell, Lacy, Kessler, Reid? Maybe marginally, but not by the landslide some have claimed.

The fact is, Calzaghe proved himself the best Super-Middleweight of his era, bar none. No question marks hanging over it. Even if Froch were to beat Ward, the memory of the Kessler defeat would mean that his claim wouldn't be an undisputed one like Calzaghe's was. Of course, if Froch had a long and successful run at Light-Heavyweight, avenging Kessler wouldn't be all that vital, but I don't see that happening; if he does step up to 175 lb, I don't see it lasting more than a single fight or two.

Lets have a fight with Dirrell in America and see what the result is then, Kessler beat Froch fair and square no matter how much it pains you to admit it.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Lets have a fight with Dirrell in America and see what the result is then, Kessler beat Froch fair and square no matter how much it pains you to admit it.

Spot on Ghosty, as you know there is no bigger Froch fan than me but never saw the fuss over the Kessler result, was a close fight but deserved win for the Dane. Is in danger of gaining a Calzaghe Reid mythology about it that portrays it as some highway robbery when nothing could be further from the truth

Calzaghe did prove he was the best SM of his era chris, but I think he benefits from a lacklustre division, as wwas highlighted by Kessler's schooling off Ward.


Had both Ward and Froch been around, not to mention Pascal, five years ago, I can't help wondering that we perhaps wouldn't rate Joe as highly as we do today.

I wanted Froch to win and think his lack of work rate at times cost him, had Kessler in trouble and seemed to back off rather than go in for the kill, the fight was there to be won but he didn't do enough.

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:Calzaghe did prove he was the best SM of his era chris, but I think he benefits from a lacklustre division, as wwas highlighted by Kessler's schooling off Ward.


Had both Ward and Froch been around, not to mention Pascal, five years ago, I can't help wondering that we perhaps wouldn't rate Joe as highly as we do today.

Kessler beat Froch though so we're left with him not having Ward around and not being funny but I can't see any of the fighters mentioned beating Calzaghe, Pascal is a good fighter but he's just been beaten at a more comfortable weight for him by an even older version of Hopkins to the one whom Calzaghe beat.

[quote="Herman Frotchlinger"]Calzaghe did prove he was the best SM of his era chris, but I think he benefits from a lacklustre division, as wwas highlighted by Kessler's schooling off Ward.[quote]

So surely then, the fact that Froch lost to Kessler doesn't say much for his aspirations to be above Calzaghe?

Also, I don't understand why people keep pointing out that Froch lost to Kessler in Kessler's backyard, as if to imply that something fishy was afoot, or that it was unfair that Froch, as champion, had to travel to defend his belt. Was anyone complaining when Kessler had to travel to Ward's backyard to defend a few months before? And given how that fight unfolded, he had a lot more reasons to complain than Froch did.

We can try to ignore, excuse or give reasons for it all we like, but Froch losing to Kessler is a damaging blow in his quest to rank higher than Calzaghe.

Surely those uppercuts Kessler landed on Calzaghe, would have had the Danish crowd in raptures, if the fight had been in Denmark, they'd have robbed Joe imo.

Kind of supposes they robbed Carl, ultimately think most considered it a fair result, is swings and roundabouts though the Dirrell fight could have gone either way, so if you think the Kessler fight was close Carl has got one that went in his favour and one that didn't seems fair to me.

I was at the Calzaghe Kessler fight and nobody not even the Danish fans, who were plentiful had any complaints about the result it was a clear win for Joe and the venue would not have made a jot of difference to that.

Have watched the HBO presentation for the Calzaghe/Kessler fight and the commentary team couldn't speak highly enough of Joe that night, Manny Steward went as far as to say that irrespective of weight class that such a unique fighter as Joe on that form would be difficult for anyone to beat, the result was beyond question as was the Froch/Kessler fight.

I disagree with Steward on this one. We now know Kessler's not that good in light of his schooling off Ward.

Jeff, Dirrell threw away the fight with Carl ,by dropping to his knees all the time. In the words of Steward- 'acting like a punk.'

Herman I actually agree Dirrell did not deserve the nod, shameful tactics to adopt in a world title fight, but the point I was making is it was close enough to have gone either way, irrepsective of your position on Andre's tactics, Carl got the nod, so can have no real complaints about not doing in the Kessler fight.

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:I disagree with Steward on this one. We now know Kessler's not that good in light of his schooling off Ward.

Jeff, Dirrell threw away the fight with Carl ,by dropping to his knees all the time. In the words of Steward- 'acting like a punk.'

Froch can't be that good either then, which is it?

Do you think Calzaghe would beat Kessler in Denmark jeff?


I tell you a fight that i think could settle this is Pascal v Kessler, so then there would be more than one common opponent.

Yes Calzaghe would beat Kessler wherever the fight took place, he is without doubt a step up from any other super middleweight of the past 10 years, what did you see in the fight to suggest the result would be different elsewhere?

Do we then discount every victory a fighter has at home?

Fine, you think that but plenty Calzaghe fans admitted it would be tough for Joe to get a result in Denmark.


Put the Froch Kessler fight in Nottingham, and all I'm seeing is a fairly comfortable ud for Froch, in a fairly tepid fight, with Carl not really getting out of second gear.


We shouldn't discount every victory at home no, but we should make allowances when a fighter loses a wafer thin one away from home.

Got to say I am with Ghosty on this, never really warmed to Calzaghe, not ambitious enough for my liking and too many gimmes on his record, however this is not to deny his talent and he was a truly exceptional fighter and a good step above Kessler and indeed most super middles of a recent vintage.

Would not deny 50,000 in the Millenium helps him out but for me wherever they fight the talent gap is enough to mean he wins every time, just a step above him, and Froch for that matter.

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:

We shouldn't discount every victory at home no, but we should make allowances when a fighter loses a wafer thin one away from home.

Yes, I make allowances for poor Andre Dirrell.

Super D Boon wrote:

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:

We shouldn't discount every victory at home no, but we should make allowances when a fighter loses a wafer thin one away from home.

Yes, I make allowances for poor Andre Dirrell.

If he'd stayed on his feet, he'd have got battered.

The Calzaghe/Kessler fight wasn't even close though was it so fighting in Denmark would have made next to no difference and i'd be very appreciative if you could provide proof of these plenty of Calzaghe fans who thinks he'd struggle to get a decision in Denmark?

We make allowances if we disagree with the decision but there was nothing controversial about the Froch/Kessler fight, stop trying to ignore the fact that Calzaghe did something that Froch couldn't and that's beat Kessler.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:The Calzaghe/Kessler fight wasn't even close though was it so fighting in Denmark would have made next to no difference and i'd be very appreciative if you could provide proof of these plenty of Calzaghe fans who thinks he'd struggle to get a decision in Denmark?

We make allowances if we disagree with the decision but there was nothing controversial about the Froch/Kessler fight, stop trying to ignore the fact that Calzaghe did something that Froch couldn't and that's beat Kessler.

Nothing controversial?



Press Row scored it to Froch.



You can't come to terms with that can you?

Yeah but according to Froch:

"85% of the people I spoke to says I woon that Faaaight!"

Press row did not have the fight to Froch, what in the name of Jesus H Christ are you going on about, bullshitting about the result because it goes against your clear bias isn't going to change the actual facts of the matter.

Press Row scored it to Froch 2-1

Ultimately it doesn't really matter who the press row scored it for it matters who the three judges scored it for and that was Kessler. Could it have gone the other way, possibly so but lets not re-write history, this was a close fight but not in any way a robbery, Williams Lara was a robbery, Vanzie Earl was a robbery, Barnes Vincent was a robbery this was a close fight.

Jeff it was a close fight that could only really have gone one way, the rounds that Kessler won he won big but the rounds that Froch won were close, Calzaghe dominated Kessler beyond any doubt because he was that damm good something Froch unfortunately isn't.

Herman. I didn't watch the fight at the time but listened to it on Radio 5 and even Richie Woodhall had Froch as the loser, hell even Steve Bunce said it was a draw! That gives you an idea, twas a close fight but fair result. The only controversy was one score card from a "judge" called Roger Tillerman who's a complete **** who should have his body ravaged by tigers and his eyes pecked out by crows. But apart from that it was pretty much a ligit win for Kessler.

I had Froch 2 down against Kessler, and i'm a fan of Froch and like watching him fight.

Just didn't do enough, if he'd hit the gas pedal at critical moments i would've fancied him to possibly stop him as he had him going a few times. Overall just lacked a work rate, which for me is the sole reason he lost the fight.

Super D Boon wrote:Herman. I didn't watch the fight at the time but listened to it on Radio 5 and even Richie Woodhall had Froch as the loser, hell even Steve Bunce said it was a draw! That gives you an idea, twas a close fight but fair result. The only controversy was one score card from a "judge" called Roger Tillerman who's a complete **** who should have his body ravaged by tigers and his eyes pecked out by crows. But apart from that it was pretty much a ligit win for Kessler.

Can we just agree to disagree then Boon? One thing I will agree with you on, and this has always been a gut feeling nothing more, is that Collins would be a handful for any version of Eubanks and Benn, on that I think you are right.

Herman Frotchlinger wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:Herman. I didn't watch the fight at the time but listened to it on Radio 5 and even Richie Woodhall had Froch as the loser, hell even Steve Bunce said it was a draw! That gives you an idea, twas a close fight but fair result. The only controversy was one score card from a "judge" called Roger Tillerman who's a complete **** who should have his body ravaged by tigers and his eyes pecked out by crows. But apart from that it was pretty much a ligit win for Kessler.

Can we just agree to disagree then Boon? One thing I will agree with you on, and this has always been a gut feeling nothing more, is that Collins would be a handful for any version of Eubanks and Benn, on that I think you are right.

Ah yes, that was a heated discussion about the Collins/Eubank/Benn triumvirate.

For what it's worth to say Froch should have won is not outrageous but I think most people think it was a fair decision. It was a hard fight to score, Froch landed the cleaner shots but Kessler did throw and land a bit more also caught him a corker in the fifth and the body shots for me just edged it in the Dane's favour.

i actually did have kessler losing that fight, but it was close and cant complain, also it was frochs fault he lost the fight. kessler only has limited boxing ability, and managed to draw froch in to his kind of fight, froch should have been more elusive and kept on the move, putting the pressure on when the oppertunity was there. i think he probably learned from that fight, and see him winning the re-match. if he beats ward, kessler and takes butes belt i think he outshines calzaghe, if he can take cleverlys WBO belt then he definetly calzaghe- however another loss and think he cannot surpass the unbeaten welshmen, especially as i think 4-5 fights 6 at the most will be a day for froch. he's had a tougher career compared to most.

Don't think a win over Cleverly does anything in comparison to Calzaghes record as the victory would be nothing compared to Hopkins, Froch does first however need to prove his supremacy at super middleweight.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Don't think a win over Cleverly does anything in comparison to Calzaghes record as the victory would be nothing compared to Hopkins, Froch does first however need to prove his supremacy at super middleweight.

Got to agree, at the risk of incurring Steffan's wrath Cleverly has done the square root of sod all to prove he is a world class light heavyweight yet, he may go onto in the future but at the minute he is just a guy who holds a belt, a belt it is worth remembering he did not beat the champion to earn.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Don't think a win over Cleverly does anything in comparison to Calzaghes record as the victory would be nothing compared to Hopkins, Froch does first however need to prove his supremacy at super middleweight.

the reason i mentioned cleverly is that it would be another belt a light heavy, so in legacy terms is another tick in the right box. also because i think it is a likely fight to happen should froch manange to come through SMW

Lennox Lewis has the best legacy and no one comes near.

Ken Buchanan, Lloyd Honeyghan and Nigel Benn have quality resumes but for me Lennox stands above all the rest.

Impressive what this small Island has done and people like Wilde, Driscoll have flown the flag superbly.

Would you say that Lennox Lewis is head and shoulders above the likes of Wilde, Driscoll, Welsh and Kid Lewis then?