I think the 1970s and 1980s were better eras overall for British boxing. The 1990s too. As someone already noted, we had British champs that were better than some of these guys now holding 'world' titles. Although we did have a few dodgy 'world champs' back then too ! I do like the fact that we have Fury as #1 heavyweight. If he can get past Wlad again he could go on to show some real special talent.
LOL; I do not know your age, but I remember Bruno rightly being panned for some shocking opposition; ditto Benn, Eubank, McGuigan et al... Boxing has always been like that, this era is no different. The difference is this era has a fairly significant number of British fighters that are 'world class', unlike other eras that had a few. But because we had so few, these fighters were considered very special. That is the difference...
No it is not the difference. I thought you were a better poster than this. So guys like Winston,Conteh,Naz and Benn were called 'very special' because Britain had less champions in their era's and not because they actually were special. Name me one champion we have right now more talented or more 'special' as the boxers mentioned above?
Nigel Benn was not a great fighter and would lose to a number of current fighters. Ditto the others you mentioned. You're rewriting history to suit some trolling agenda.
Same thing was said in the 90s about the 80s and so it continues. A lot of the boxers mentioned above fought some dross but had defining fights. It is the good fights they are remembered for. Current crop no different. Hopefully some will have those defining fights; be it as master technicians, iron chinned warriors etc etc. Can only judge when career is finished - most recent probably Froch and I think he belongs in that group
British Boxing went right down the pan when Eddie Hearn got the solo deal with Sky and the birth of ButtNation. We know have the following: 1. Pay per Poos for mediocre/one sided fights sometimes without any belts. 2. Absolute one sided pony on Sky Sports. 3. Absolute pony shyte on ButtNation or nothing on most weeks for the domestic/European scene. Contrast this to the state of Boxing 10 years ago when Moore v Mackin type fights were the standard fights on Sky Sports compared to Pluke Campbell, Worry or Chell Brook fighting cans. It has never been so bad the past 5 years and can only improve.
I never said Benn was a great fighter did I?. He was a special kind of warrior with special power though. My point is - name me one British fighter we have now that's better than the boxers I mentioned above?
All were very good fighters; Winstone/Frampton would be pick-em. Conteh had so much potential, sadly the booze cost a shot at greatness. Naseem was better than many here give him credit for, but still he did not live up to the hype that he created. Benn found a way to reinvent himself a few times, each time becoming a better fighter, that is impressive. All the fighters listed have up to 50 years of hindsight. We know how good their opposition was, we know with hindsight how impressive their performances are. I think 20 years down the line, this era will be recognized as the UK's strongest since the 1880s, as there is so much depth and I think in due course two or three superstars will head the group. And most importantly there will be 20 years of hindsight to judge them too!
Winston was much more talented than Frampton and it's not even close. I see that fight as a one way technical masterclass in favour of the brilliant Welshman. If you can't see the obvious lack of elite talent in this era of champions then I don't know what to say. I'll just assume you're trolling and move on.
Dire? With the fighters and world champions we currently have, it's in the best state it's been in a long time. Hearn and Matchroom, whether you like it or not, have brought more attention to the game and it has gone up a level to what it was a few years back when fish eyes had the monopoly.
Disagreeing with your opinion does not mean I am winding you up. We all often fall into the stereotype as the boxing fancy of saying 'our era' was best. Mine by the way was McGuigan and Bruno through to Naseem. But I do not think I am stupid; there was a time in that period where the amazing Dennis Andries was the only title holder, things were not always brilliant... It is easy to criticise a current era, because as I wrote, there is no hindsight involved. We rate fighters who are maybe not even halfway through their career against those who have had a full career, many years ago, and thus we can also clarify their opposition. Winstone et al were icons of their era, very good to brilliant fighters, but calling the modern era superb, probably the best era in over a century does not demean others achievements.
Clearly a troll thread seeing as though UK has more world champions than any other country and is flying at the moment. Ignore this thread or report it.
Its the best era In over a century in terms of how many belt holders we have not in terms of talent. You do know in the era of Buchanan and Winston there was only two belts per division to be won, And in era's before that only the one world belt. This is the era of paper champs where you have guys winning belts off of absolute disgraces like Charles ****ing Martin and that Italian farce Burns won his 3rd weight world title from. It's much, much easier winning a title in this era because there's so many B class paper champs and the comp is much weaker. I'll ask again. How many of our current champions are genuinely proven elite talent? Give me quality over quantity any day.