Top Ten Greatish British Fighters of All Time

My list would be as follows:

1. Jimmy Wilde
2. Bob Fitzsimmons
3. Ted "Kid" Lewis
4. Freddie Welsh
5. Jack "Kid" Berg
6. Benny Lynch
7. Jim Driscoll
8. Ken Buchanan
9. Joe Calzaghe
10.Lennox Lewis

Must say I had a tough time deciding how to place the top 7 slots and another head scratcher on who desrved the last 3 slots.

If we're including Fitzsimmons which I do then he's a clear clear number one, a genuine top ten ATG other than cant complain too much

Nice to see my man Buchanan take the first of those three slots, he was a great boxer and genuine world class, Benny Lynch was a little machine and a shame we didn't get to see more of him in his prime. Good list.

No comment

imperialghosty wrote:If we're including Fitzsimmons which I do then he's a clear clear number one, a genuine top ten ATG other than cant complain too much

Wont deny Fitzsimmons has a very strong claim to the number 1 spot and couldnt argue with any that had him there.

You could be opening a can of worms adding fitzsimmons on your Brits list. And Lewis too for that matter if Truss beefsters his way onto the thread. I'd have lennox higher than 10th, definitely higher than calzaghe. Might find a spot for Owen Moran somewhere in the ten. Good list though.

Just out of interest on what grounds do you have Wilde above Fitzsimmons?

01)Bob Fitzsimmons
02)Jimmy Wilde
03)Lennox Lewis
04)Ted (Kid) Lewis
05)Joe Calzaghe
06)Ken Buchanan
07)Naseem Hamed
08)Lloyd Honeyghan
09)David Haye
10)Randy Turpin

Bob Fitzsimmons 
Ted Lewis
Jimmy Wilde
Lennox Lewis
Joe Calzaghe
Ken Buchanan
Freddie Welsh
Jack Berg 
Jim Driscoll
Benny Lynch

imperialghosty wrote:Just out of interest on what grounds do you have Wilde above Fitzsimmons?

Not a huge amount in it. I would say the lack of clarity on some of Fitzsimmons bouts, the fact that I consider Wilde the greatest ever flyweight and much as Fitzsimmons is a fantastic fighter, I would struggle to call him the greatest in any one division. Wilde himself was regularly outweighed by large amounts and was a pioneer in terms of his skills and approach in many ways. He was described by Tunney as the greatest fighter he had ever witnessed which is a massive compliment also.

Fitzsimmons operated in the more marqee divisions perhaps but Wilde was equally "superman" in terms of being able to match it with bigger men. I think hes unfortunate that flyweight was not recognised worldwide as he may well have dominated the world title for many years.

A combination of the above reasons really but would not argue those that rate Fitzsimmons and his remarkeable acheivements as greater.

I take it you jest D4?

No John Conteh?

D4thincarnation wrote:01)Bob Fitzsimmons
02)Jimmy Wilde
03)Lennox Lewis
04)Ted (Kid) Lewis
05)Joe Calzaghe
06)Ken Buchanan
07)Naseem Hamed
08)Lloyd Honeyghan
09)David Haye
10)Randy Turpin

Honeyghan & Hamed I'd have somewhere in the 10-15 places. But Haye? Seriously D4? I like haye, but there's no way he a top ten atg British fighter.

I would say wins over Corbett, Dempsey, Gardner, Sharkey, Maher and Choynski out do Wildes best wins but agree he never dominated a division like Wilde did.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:01)Bob Fitzsimmons
02)Jimmy Wilde
03)Lennox Lewis
04)Ted (Kid) Lewis
05)Joe Calzaghe
06)Ken Buchanan
07)Naseem Hamed
08)Lloyd Honeyghan
09)David Haye
10)Randy Turpin

Honeyghan & Hamed I'd have somewhere in the 10-15 places. But Haye? Seriously D4? I like haye, but there's no way he a top ten atg British fighter.

Unified the cruiser division and then became heavyweight champion and could well become undisputed champ this year.

I think even Haye would be embarrassed if he saw D4thincarnations list

Maybe a few of you will change your minds by the end of the year.

Maybe at the end of the year but not at this current time

To expand on a point I posted elsewhere:

In Hayes whole career to date he has barely beaten a single good fighter. He has also been stopped by an over the hill Carl Thompson.

That Haye held titles is simply a product of existing in weak divisions where there are numerous titles to choose from. If you actuall explore his record, wins and losses then you will see Haye is simply a style over substance and a product of generous circumstances, hype and publicity.

To have Haye ahead of the likes of Welsh, Berg, Driscoll and Lynch is almost unforgiveable.

D4thincarnation wrote:

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:01)Bob Fitzsimmons
02)Jimmy Wilde
03)Lennox Lewis
04)Ted (Kid) Lewis
05)Joe Calzaghe
06)Ken Buchanan
07)Naseem Hamed
08)Lloyd Honeyghan
09)David Haye
10)Randy Turpin

Honeyghan & Hamed I'd have somewhere in the 10-15 places. But Haye? Seriously D4? I like haye, but there's no way he a top ten atg British fighter.

Unified the cruiser division and then became heavyweight champion and could well become undisputed champ this year.

Did well at cruiser but it was hardly a talent stacked division. He's not the hw champion, merely a title holder, there's a significant difference. Could be undisputed hw champ by the end of the year - agreed and let's hope he is, but you can't put him in there based on what he could achieve later in his career. Good fighter but way too high on your list when you look at his cv.

That title is WBA Heavyweight Champion

I'm putting him in on his talents and what he has achieved.

So your saying he's achieved more than Welsh, Lynch, Berg, Driscoll and Conteh?

Despite their wins over Robinson and Curry I can't see what else Turpin and Honeyghan did to be ranked so highly

D4 he's 'A' heavyweight champion not 'THE' heavyweight champion

D4thincarnation:
Haye is WBA Heavyweight Champion

----------
And Matthew Hatton just challenged for the WBC light middleweight champion. Do you take everything literally or use your own judgement? You know full well that there's a significant difference between being the man in a division, the established number 1 or world champion than being a mere title holder. It's a trinket, nothing more and you know it.

D4thincarnation wrote:That title is WBA Heavyweight Champion

I'm putting him in on his talents and what he has achieved.

Using a superficial method which fails to take into account the alphabet nature of titles, the quality of his opposition and the vastly superior talents and acheivements of numerous other British fighters.

Look at his wins:

Harrison - not remotely world class and never has been.
Ruiz - an ancient heavy with a record riddled with losses to average fighters. Considered mediocre at his peak. Retired straight after.
Valuev - looked imposing. A quick look at his record will tell you he fought few of note and had to rely on hometowners to beat anyone vaguely rated. Extremelly average.
Barret - another past his prime journeyman.
Maccarinelli - completely average. Knocked out numerous times since and acheived nothing.
Mormeck - Decent fighter but ageing in a weak division. Had been beaten by already by the average Bell. Happened to be the top cruiserweight at the time in the weak division. Failed to make a dent when moved up to heavy.
Fragomeni - completely average, should be at light heavyweight. Not world class.
Thompson - lost to an ancient Thompson that was pushing 40.

That is simply nowhere near credible enough to be considered a top 10 British fighter. To rate that ahead of Welsh, Driscoll and Berg amongst other beggars belief. Good Lord.

I change my mind about the order in which to place them every time I try this, though the names remain just about constant.

Whether or not we regard Fitzsimmons as British is a contentious issue, of course, and I am among those who do not. The esteemed contributor from the old forum, captain carrantuohil, used to say that ' being born in a stable doesn't make one a horse, ' and given that Fitz began boxing in New Zealand and Australia and spent his glory years in America - ultimately taking American citizenship, I believe - I really couldn't regard him as a British fighter. Were he so, I'd have him topping the lot.

As it is, his exclusion leaves a slot for the oft - overlooked Owen Moran, and so my ten would run something along these lines :

Jimmy Wilde
Ted ' Kid ' Lewis
Lennox Lewis
Ken Buchanan
Jim Driscoll
Joe Calzaghe
Jack ' Kid ' Berg
Owen Moran
Naseem Hamed
Freddie Welsh

The chasing pack would include Benny Lynch, Randolph Turpin, John Conteh, Lloyd Honeyghan and Ricky Hatton.

On talent alone I would put Naz and Calzaghe above Lewis.

azania wrote:On talent alone I would put Naz and Calzaghe above Lewis.

I certainly agree that Naz would be much nearer the top had he fulfilled his potential, azania. You might be right about Calzaghe, too. I've always been ambivalent when it comes to Calzaghe, since I could certainly see his talent, but was never much excited by his fights. Top talent, no doubt.

I think Naz fulfilled his talent. His only loss was to an ATG. No shame in that. He more or less unified the FW division. Retired young and healthy. Shame about his driving though.

As for JC, I wonder how much of his problems were as a result of Warren wanting to milk his cash cow and feeding him chumps? I liked his style regardless of the slapping.

azania wrote:I think Naz fulfilled his talent. His only loss was to an ATG. No shame in that. He more or less unified the FW division. Retired young and healthy.

You may be right, mate, but I can't help but think that he ' ran away with his tail between his legs, ' rather than regrouping, learning from his loss and coming back stronger for it. I'm thinking Louis post - Schmeling, Ali - post Frazier, Leonard post - Duran, etc.

Just my take on it but, as I say, you may well be right and I certainly wouldn't argue the point too strongly.

D4thincarnation wrote:Maybe a few of you will change your minds by the end of the year.

As already stated, there's a big difference between what a fighter HAS achieved, and what a fighter MAY achieve. Ah, but I forget who I'm talking to.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I think Naz fulfilled his talent. His only loss was to an ATG. No shame in that. He more or less unified the FW division. Retired young and healthy.

You may be right, mate, but I can't help but think that he ' ran away with his tail between his legs, ' rather than regrouping, learning from his loss and coming back stronger for it. I'm thinking Louis post - Schmeling, Ali - post Frazier, Leonard post - Duran, etc.

Just my take on it but, as I say, you may well be right and I certainly wouldn't argue the point too strongly.

For me the point of boxing is to make as much money and get the hell out. Its such a brutal sport and with what happened to Mike Watson always on the back of my mind, I dont blame Naz for leaving as opposed to securing some sort of legacy to please fans at the expense of his health.

I have issues with Leonard/Duran 2 in that SRL decided on a quick return knowing full well Duran was bloated and not fully fit. Duran took the money offered and lost. SRL decided against a trilogy until Duran was even older and a shell of his former self. He was after legacy and money. Refusing to give hearns and Hagler quick returns taints his legacy imo. Superb boxer but as you can see, I cant stand him.

azania wrote:I think Naz fulfilled his talent. His only loss was to an ATG. No shame in that. He more or less unified the FW division. Retired young and healthy. Shame about his driving though.

As for JC, I wonder how much of his problems were as a result of Warren wanting to milk his cash cow and feeding him chumps? I liked his style regardless of the slapping.

Azania - naz did not fulfil his potential. He didn't train properly in preparation for his biggest fight, so didn't fight to his full potential in it and lost handily. And he didn't fight the best of his era. 

But for politics he was undisputed fw champion agreed, but he was only 26 when he quit and if you look at the potential tests he couldve faced had he carried on in Barrera 2, morales, mayweather, Marquez, pacquiao etc. it makes his resume look pretty thin given his best win was probably Kevin Kelley (who decked him a couple of times). 

If a boxer can make a shedload of cash and get out with his faculties intact then more power to him, but that is NOT criteria for top ten status. 

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

azania wrote:I think Naz fulfilled his talent. His only loss was to an ATG. No shame in that. He more or less unified the FW division. Retired young and healthy. Shame about his driving though.

As for JC, I wonder how much of his problems were as a result of Warren wanting to milk his cash cow and feeding him chumps? I liked his style regardless of the slapping.

Azania - naz did not fulfil his potential. He didn't train properly in preparation for his biggest fight, so didn't fight to his full potential in it and lost handily. And he didn't fight the best of his era. 

But for politics he was undisputed fw champion agreed, but he was only 26 when he quit and if you look at the potential tests he couldve faced had he carried on in Barrera 2, morales, mayweather, Marquez, pacquiao etc. it makes his resume look pretty thin given his best win was probably Kevin Kelley (who decked him a couple of times). 

If a boxer can make a shedload of cash and get out with his faculties intact then more power to him, but that is NOT criteria for top ten status. 

Point taken. But looking at some of those names placed above him, who have they fought? After Naz lost, he lost his mojo. Arguably he lost his mojo before his loss. Made too much money to bother getting up to run.

azania wrote:Point taken. But looking at some of those names placed above him, who have they fought?

Some might quibble at the consistency of quality on Wilde's or Calzaghe's records, azania, but there's no denying that the others whom I have above Hamed faced excellent opposition.

It's an interesting point about Wilde, if widely considered to be a genuine p4p ATG even being rated as highly as 14 by the IBRO but his opposition doesn't jump out at you.

imperialghosty wrote:It's an interesting point about Wilde, if widely considered to be a genuine p4p ATG even being rated as highly as 14 by the IBRO but his opposition doesn't jump out at you.

I believe that in his case a combination of things offset the quality of some of his earlier opponents, Ghosty.

Firstly, there's the manner in which he disposed of them. Big, small, stout and tall, he chopped them down just as Tyson would sixty or seventy years later.

Secondly, when he DID meet the top men, ( until the Villa fight, obviously, ) he acquitted himself admirably, even in his losing effort against the all time great bantam, Pete Herman.

Thirdly, the sheer longevity and number of fights go in the ' plus ' column. Had he not been the real deal he would, sooner or later, have slipped on a banana skin and would have been found out.

Finally, we have some footage of the man in action, along the testimony of men such as Tunney, who maintained to his dying day that Wilde was the greatest fighter he ever saw. We also have the fact that historians are ALMOST unanimous in naming him the best flyweight of all time, ( IBHOF inductor Tracy Callis has him second, behind Jimmy Barry, ) which is probably something he shares only with Robinson at welter and Jofre at bantam.

I wouldn't argue too strenuously if somebody had Ted ' Kid ' Lewis pipping Wilde for top spot, since Lewis fought a veritable who's who from welter up to lightheavy with even an occasional heavy thrown in for good measure, but I believe Wilde is certainly one or two if we discount Fitzsimmons.

Drop Calzaghe promote Lewis one spot add Hamed.

azania wrote:For me the point of boxing is to make as much money and get the hell out. Its such a brutal sport and with what happened to Mike Watson always on the back of my mind, I dont blame Naz for leaving as opposed to securing some sort of legacy to please fans at the expense of his health.

Thing is with Naz, he DID make a comeback of sorts, and that underlined how much he'd lost interest. I dare say that if he'd not lost he'd have continued for as long as the money kept coming.

I have to agree with Lewis being at the bottom end of the top ten, rather than at the top. Regardless of any excuses and later rectifications, he did get beat by a couple of average fighters and that in itself means he needs to drop down the list

Just wondering whether you guys should actually read the title of the article as it actually asks for GREAT-ISH fighters as opposed to GREAT-EST.

Using "ISH" as a suitable barometer you could include Hatton, Bruno, Honeyghan, Hamed, Benn, Eubank etc etc...all great-ish without necessarily being the great-est!

I wouldnt consider Fitzsimmons a bonafide Brit but if he is included then I think he has to be top.

Think most people have the same names in various order except for D4 or course.