What happened to British boxing?

Discussion in 'British Boxing Forum' started by Neebur, Jun 19, 2016.


  1. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,596
    Nov 24, 2005
    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.
     
  2. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,177
    Oct 22, 2006
    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...
     
  3. Neebur

    Neebur Active Member Full Member

    939
    316
    Jun 9, 2016
    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?
     
  4. Kahuna

    Kahuna Active Member Full Member

    928
    107
    May 22, 2014
    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.
     
  5. krb

    krb Active Member Full Member

    680
    9
    Nov 25, 2014
    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
     
  6. Pro Punter

    Pro Punter Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    7,140
    7
    Mar 12, 2014
    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.
     
  7. Neebur

    Neebur Active Member Full Member

    939
    316
    Jun 9, 2016
    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?
     
  8. Neebur

    Neebur Active Member Full Member

    939
    316
    Jun 9, 2016
    Where are these master technicians and Iron chinned warriors?

    Yes Froch belongs but he's retired.
     
  9. Neebur

    Neebur Active Member Full Member

    939
    316
    Jun 9, 2016
    Great post.
     
  10. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,177
    Oct 22, 2006
    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!
     
  11. Neebur

    Neebur Active Member Full Member

    939
    316
    Jun 9, 2016
    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.
     
  12. Furey

    Furey EST & REG 2009 Full Member

    16,680
    6,790
    Oct 18, 2009
    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.
     
  13. TBooze

    TBooze Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    25,495
    2,177
    Oct 22, 2006
    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.
     
  14. Vyacheslav

    Vyacheslav European CEO Full Member

    197
    1
    Jun 21, 2016
    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.
     
  15. Neebur

    Neebur Active Member Full Member

    939
    316
    Jun 9, 2016
    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.