Eubank: Benn/Graham were better than Nunn/McCallum!

didn't you have Khaosai galaxy in your list of "true" greats booze?:yep


I've always thought a fight between Graham and McCallum circa 84\85 would have been very interesting.It's a shame a lot of these fighters only fought once.

 

fair enough, but i disagree:good

 

No, I once said there could be no more than 40-ish fighters who could be considered great, if the word/term was to mean anything. The last time I did a top 100 (January 2011; roughly 18 months left to go folks, before I post another one) my top 40 went thus:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

I once did a top 101 of the 80s, in which I had Galaxy #13...

 

ah, that'll be it.

 

I thought what he said about Hearns was the most interesting thing in those quotes.

 

I think the term great fighter is under used and I'd definitely say that more than 40 fighters deserve that accolade. You can talk about AtG and i think you could easy have a top 100 at that considering the depth of boxing history. What are we saying here, that anyone outside that this is merely a good fighter? Is anyone less than a champion, challenger or perennial contender an average fighter? I don't think so!

 

Anyone outside this list, I would consider excellent or less.

As for 'Champion'; the term has become *******ized. Thanks in part to the Internet the term means little. I do not rate fighters based on being Champion, challenger or perennial contender, that is warped now, in an admittedly already abstract concept.

 

By the way, i'd rate Benn, Eubank, Graham and Watson below Mike, Sumbu, Nunn as well as Toney and RJJ.

 

:huh He beat Watson, and before that Graham's party trick (the shoulder toss) cost him (Graham) a draw...

I appreciate you may not be a fan, but McCallum achieved so much more...

 

I agree the term champion does't mean what it used to. What basis do you rate your fighters on?

 

I'm sure I remember him famously proposing to his girlfriend live on ITV after that very fight.
:huh

 

Think your right. Karen, wasnt it?

 

I'm sure he means the period in training that he was away from her.

ALso obviously abstinence.