Which British fighter......

Discussion in 'British Boxing Forum' started by DrMo, Dec 30, 2012.


  1. DrMo

    DrMo Team GB Full Member

    22,198
    19
    Jan 29, 2011
    .....has the greatest WBO reign of terror? :twisted:

    Who fought the longest list of obscure opponents?

    Is it Calzaghe, Eubank, Nelson...etc ?
     
  2. Earl-hickey

    Earl-hickey Boxing Junkie banned

    14,011
    3
    Oct 31, 2010
    Calzaghe IMO

    that decade is one of the lowest points in british boxing

    So many names he could have knocked off at that point.
     
  3. atberry

    atberry Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    9,548
    19
    Sep 30, 2009
    Nelson by far. Eubank's and Calzaghe's reigns were littered with quality fighters like Mike Watson, Graciano Rocchi, Mikkel Kessler, Nigel Benn, Lindell H, Rob Reid, Rich Woodhall, Charles Brewer, Byron Mitchell, Tony Thornton, and I suppose Lacy.
     
  4. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,144
    Oct 22, 2006
    :huh Look at the 30s through to the 70s, the UK barely had more than three world class fighters at any one time in that period. As the 80s began, we started to get a bit of depth. By the time 1997 was here, we had at least half a dozen world class fighters, that is an historic high, not low for the sport in this Country.
     
  5. Earl-hickey

    Earl-hickey Boxing Junkie banned

    14,011
    3
    Oct 31, 2010
    I mean "his" decade

    wasted away.

    Typical reign of "he who must not be named" managed fighter.
     
  6. icemax

    icemax Indian Red Full Member

    27,158
    2
    Apr 24, 2008
    Steve Robinson or Scott Harrison, probably the former
     
  7. P Parkker

    P Parkker New Member Full Member

    70
    0
    Oct 25, 2012
    Naseem Hamed, 5 years he defended his WBO title.
     
  8. DrMo

    DrMo Team GB Full Member

    22,198
    19
    Jan 29, 2011
    Nelson loses points imo for travelling so often & taking on guys in their hometown, a WBO reign of terror should be as easy as possible.

    :good

    Good shout, but Naz loses points for unifying & going to America.
     
  9. thistle1

    thistle1 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,915
    149
    Jul 30, 2006

    WHAT???

    there were only 8 divisions NOT 17!!!

    ONE world champion and the Lonsdale Belt for many a year was as good as.
    Fighters had to earn their right at a title fight the long & hard way... and many who could have never got near titles such was the comp.

    Britain ruled boxing in the lower weights, and our Champions & Leading Contenders were the real deal...

    the only reason we have more as you put it, is because of the 17 weight divisions and at least 5 possible world title belts to pursue and achieve after only having fought anywhere from 15 - 25 fights.

    :patsch
     
  10. Espin88

    Espin88 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,784
    9
    Sep 28, 2012
    Well said.
     
  11. jcairns1

    jcairns1 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,510
    283
    Feb 3, 2011
    Nelson because he was in a **** division, he shoulda given Carl Thompson a rematch imo.
     
  12. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,144
    Oct 22, 2006
    I think you are looking back with rose tinted glasses, to a 'golden era' that simply was not there. We were generally shocking above 112; relying on one or two exceptional talents to come through a poor domestic scene at any one time. It was not until the 80s when TV money and the Duff et al Promoters cartel was broken (led for all the grief he (often rightly) gets here, by FW) that the sport started to comeback to life and things got better.