Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > British Boxing Forum


View Poll Results: After the 40s, has there been any good British boxers besides Turpin or Lennox?
Yes 38 77.55%
No 11 22.45%
Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-14-2014, 07:19 PM   #1
I Know Everythi
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 605
vCash: 500
Default Other than Turpin & Lewis, there are No Decent British Boxers since 1940s

Turpin and Lennox are the only notable British boxers since the 40s. Ricky Hatton never beat a notable fighter (Malignaggi is not notable - a C level fighter) and got KOd vs the top competition. Joe Calzaghe fought nobodies his whole career, before beating a washed up RJJ (still getting knocked down) and getting a gift vs Bernard Hopkins like Sven Ottke and Oscar DLH always got gift decisions. Benn and Eubank ducked Toney and never beat anyone notable. Hamed also beat no names and got showed up by Barrera. Haye's career in any division is also not worth mentioning. Every heavyweight in the post Lewis era (including both Klistchkos) does not have a notable career due to the weakness of the division. Groves is young so we'll see if he does anything notable in the next few years but for now he has a long way to go.

Joe Calzaghe is overrated and has a padded record. All boxing fans with an ounce of knowledge know that Calzaghe is a mediocre fighter with a padded record. Being undefeated is not impressive when you fight in your backyard vs bums for 95% of your career. He wasn't trash, but he wasn't exactly good either. Let's look at his "noteworthy" career.

1) Chris Eubank - this is not a notable win. Eubank was in the end of his career and a shell of his former self. And on top of that, a prime Eubank didn't beat anyone other than Benn - a decent but not great boxer. And he ducked James Toney cuz he knew Toney would crush him.

2) Jeff Lacy - A washed up version of Roy Jones finished this guy. That shows how unimpressive this win is.

3) Sakio Bika - a belt holder with no notable wins.

4) Manfredo Jr - another easy win. Not impressive

5) Kessler - he beat Froch. Whoop de doo who has Froch beaten outside of a washed up Glen Johnson, and padded record Abraham and Bute? (who have never beaten anyone notable) Froch also got a gift from the ref vs Groves and the judges vs Dirrell. Froch's win over Pascal is not impressive because Pascal is nowhere near the same fighter anymore. And Jermain Taylor was a blind squirrel who stumbled across an acorn vs Bernard Hopkins, and did nothing since then. After his 15 minutes of fame Taylor disappeared quickly. So now that we established that Froch is overrated like his countryman Calzaghe, there are no notable wins on Kessler's resume either.

6) Roy Jones - of course when Calzaghe fights Roy Jones, Jones is a shell of his former self. Roy already got viciously KOd twice before this, and he was not anything close to resembling a world class fighter. And he still knocked down the overrated pillow-punching/slapping bum Calzaghe.

7) Bernard Hopkins - Calzaghe did not win that fight. He got gifted a decision. His father was screaming at him in the corner before the last round - telling him he needed a knockout. From the look on Calzaghe's face before the judges' announcement he knew he didn't deserve to win the fight. Then Calzaghe was extremely surprised and excited when he found out he got gifted the win he didn't earn. Calzaghe got whipped and knocked down by a 43 year old man. So much for Calzaghe being an all time great fighter. Is it coincidence that when a man with a padded record finally faced real competition that he had such a difficult time? No. It proves Calzaghe's incompetence as a wannabe top-level boxer.

I know certain sheep that are following the herd have prepared pitiful arguments to defend the mediocrity that is Calzaghe's career, and I will dismantle them here.

1) Calzaghe beat Hopkins legitimately - NO he didn't. Just like Oscar DLH in his fights vs Pernell and Floyd (in which Oscar clearly lost both times despite what the judges said), Calzaghe was the ineffective aggressor while his opponent was the more effective counterpuncher. Calzaghe threw pitter-patter slaps on Bernard's arms and shoulders, and complained about Hopkins faking a low blow (which he probably did) - while forgetting all the times he hit Bernard in the back of the head without being penalized. On no planet did Calzaghe win more than 6 rounds, and because of the knockdown from Bernard there is no way he legitimately won the fight.

2) Well on compubox Calzaghe outstruck Bernard - Compubox stats almost always are innacurate - even glancing blows or blows that completely miss can be counted on the punch stats as an effective shot, so if the compubox stats are your reasoning for Calzaghe's legitimacy then you are a fool. On top of that, matches are scored round by round - not based on who landed more overall shots.

3) Calzaghe is undefeated - Calzaghe fought 44 nobodies (including Eubank). The other 2 were a washed up past-prime RJJ and a 43 year old man that he lost to, but received a gift. It's not about the number of fights you win. It's about who you win against and how you win. Brian Nielsen was 49-0 at one point. Would you take Brian Nielsen over Muhammad Ali (56-5), Evander (44-10-2), etc? I would hope not. Undefeated doesn't necessarily mean good.

What has been written is IRREFUTABLE, UNDENIABLE, UNCONTESTABLE, INDISPUTABLE, UNQUESTIONABLE, flawless FACT. Not opinion or conjecture. Not even the fact that Bernard Hopkins legitimately won (but got robbed by the judges) is an opinion. Nor is it an opinion that Calzaghe is nothing close to an all time great fighter by any stretch of the imagination. I challenge any human being to try and disprove the mastery of wisdom that has been displayed. If someone can do so, I will respond to acknowledge their superior knowledge. Unfortunately for delusional Calzaghe fans, no one can refute the irrefutable.

And let's not end without diminishing Froch's weak career. Who has Froch beaten outside of a washed up Glen Johnson, and padded record Abraham and Bute (who have never beaten anyone notable)? Froch also got a gift from the ref vs Groves and the judges vs Dirrell. Froch's win over Pascal is not impressive because Pascal is nowhere near the same fighter he was then. And Jermain Taylor was a blind squirrel who stumbled across an acorn vs Bernard Hopkins, and did nothing since then. After his 15 minutes of fame Taylor disappeared quickly, so another weak mark on Froch's record. The Brits should stick to cricket and football because boxing is not for them. The days of Fitzimmons, Turpin, and Lennox are long gone.
I Know Everythi is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-14-2014, 07:40 PM   #2
jc
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,502
vCash: 419
Default Re: Other than Turpin & Lewis, there are No Decent British Boxers since 1940s

Didn't read.

Long post, probably would've been a waste of Time.
jc is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 08:31 PM   #3
ChipChair
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,175
vCash: 75
Default Re: Other than Turpin & Lewis, there are No Decent British Boxers since 1940s

How deflating must it be to put all that work into a post like that and 99% won't read it, myself included.
ChipChair is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 03:20 AM   #4
topdog88
frohaye
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: south wales
Posts: 248
vCash: 5139
Default Re: Other than Turpin & Lewis, there are No Decent British Boxers since 1940s

Read a little bit of it and quickly came to the decision that you are an absolute ****! Well done
topdog88 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 04:27 AM   #5
leedsnproud
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 176
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Other than Turpin & Lewis, there are No Decent British Boxers since 1940s

What a load of old tripe-just another boring anti-Calzaghe rant really-get back on the toilet,you stupid prick.
leedsnproud is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 04:37 AM   #6
TED 822
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,088
vCash: 500
Default Re: Other than Turpin & Lewis, there are No Decent British Boxers since 1940s

Didn't know Howard Winstone,Walter Mc Gowan,Alan Rudkin,Ken Buchanan,John Conteh,Lloyd Honeyghan,fought before the war.And theres more.Also just read the first bit.
TED 822 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 05:13 AM   #7
Flemo83
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 370
vCash: 807
Default Re: Other than Turpin & Lewis, there are No Decent British Boxers since 1940s

Couldn't be arsed reading it all but while i scanned quickly through all as i could see was Calzaghe's name over and over. Change the thread title to I Think Calzaghe was shi t and just have done with it
Flemo83 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 05:34 AM   #8
sharpy
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 389
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Other than Turpin & Lewis, there are No Decent British Boxers since 1940s

Define good boxer? There have been plenty of good boxers
sharpy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 05:35 AM   #9
tdf1974
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 802
vCash: 500
Default Re: Other than Turpin & Lewis, there are No Decent British Boxers since 1940s

number 1 = dick turpin was a highwayman not a boxer
number 2 = lewis was not english
number 3 - you are a complete wum
tdf1974 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 10:25 AM   #10
KermitTheFrog
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 105
vCash: 500
Default Re: Other than Turpin & Lewis, there are No Decent British Boxers since 1940s

A shame when someone spends so much time on something, and at the end, are wrong.

And no, I didn't read it all.
KermitTheFrog is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 11:38 AM   #11
thistle1
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,977
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Other than Turpin & Lewis, there are No Decent British Boxers since 1940s

it amazes me how people can be so naive and in many cases deliberately, they don't wont to know or acknowledge...

there have been hundreds, that's right hundreds. from 8 divisions to 17 divisions makes one hell of a lot of fighters over 65 years or so.

the real stupid thing is to believe that the world champion(s) were/are the best. Many times they weren't. the next stupid thing to believe is that many of the other Top fighters weren't as good or better. They Were!!!

and last, Boxing is such a straight up sport that everybody got a fair crack of the whip, so as to prove the best were the real deal. They DIDN'T and the real deal is a minority of fighters NOT the Majority.

so once again there have been HUNDREDS!!!
thistle1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 12:12 PM   #12
second to none
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,770
vCash: 500
Default Re: Other than Turpin & Lewis, there are No Decent British Boxers since 1940s

What a retarded thread, Calzaghe in the HOF first time around clearly a ATG fighter, Froch been at the top of the sport for years now and to your post, He beat Pascal, Abraham, Taylor, Bute ect. David Haye i've been a big critic and he has done nothing great at HW but as a CW he is one of the best ever, i mean that at his peek CW days maybe 4 or 5 beat him in history and even than only Holyfield beats him for sure IMO. Your thread is clearly an attempt to troll so kindly **** off
second to none is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 12:29 PM   #13
Makingweight
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North London
Posts: 698
vCash: 500
Default Re: Other than Turpin & Lewis, there are No Decent British Boxers since 1940s

Skimmed through the OP.

No fan of British boxing & JC oh well can't please them all!
Makingweight is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 12:40 PM   #14
Two Shakes
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: I would never lose to a white boy
Posts: 2,543
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Other than Turpin & Lewis, there are No Decent British Boxers since 1940s

I liked the way the comparison jumped 40 years to find an example.
Yet another uneducated psuedo boxing fan, who's only ever watched boxing via Cable or satelite.
Two Shakes is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2014, 03:21 AM   #15
MAJR
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,180
vCash: 789
Default Re: Other than Turpin & Lewis, there are No Decent British Boxers since 1940s

I thought this was going to be a generic anti-British swipe at all British boxing, instead it was a generic anti-Calzaghe rant with a few shots at other British fighters thrown in seemingly as an afterthought. Definitely a troll in any regards.
MAJR is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > British Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013