Neither and both? Okayyy…. I wasn't answering questions with questions. I was just asking a question because I needed to clarify your point before I could answer it. If you're looking to nominate only 5 fighters across ALL divisions for a British Boxing Hall of Fame then I don't see what naming TEN better fighters than the ones you chose and from the SAME division has got to do with it. But as far as Eubank and Bruno are concerned... I don't think Eubank was even the best British fighter in his division at that time, I thought Michael Watson was better. I think that Randolph Turpin at his peak would have comprehensively battered Eubank at his peak. I would definitely nominate Turpin ahead of Eubank. Bruno was undoubtedly the best British heavyweight of the 80's but that isn't really saying a great deal and I think Bugner in his prime would have outpointed him.
Hagler wasn't as good as Leonard but it doesn't mean because he got beat of Leonard that he was not a great fighter.
No shame being grouped alongside Benn, Eubank and Hatton. They were all great fighters! I just feel Froch's achievements are just below that of Lewis, Naz and Calzaghe. All a matter of opinion of course.
Of course mate. I think he is above Naz (not on ability but in resume) and I think his resume and as a fighter he was better than Hatton. I do not think being beat of Ward on points in his own country is a big blemish on his record. It was the fighters he fought back to back including many outside the UK and winning most of them that is Frochs biggest achievement (most of these fighters were in their pomp too). I think at SMW Calzaghe and Froch are easily our best two ever (though I have a feeling Callum Smith will break into that group in a few years).
It's an interesting question and maybe I'm looking back through rose tinted specs but I think Froch was lucky to win some of those fights whereas Naz was winning convincingly. What a fight prime Benn and Froch would have been I cant really separate them H2H. Smith certainly has potential if he can get Canelo, GGG or Saunders and a top LHW on his resume.
For pure Brutality Froch v Benn would possible be the best mythical match up in Britain. I think Benn was really a middleweight, only went to SMW as a new division. I think Froch would have beaten him size/strength advantage and his long jab being key differences.
Froch and Benn were two extremely hard men, nobody ever stopped the former, I don't think Benn would either and I would expect Froch to edge it with a late stoppage or on the cards.
The Kessler performance and remaining unbeaten puts Calzaghe in the top 5 for me. The way he destroyed the previously unbeaten and much hyped Lacey, destroying his career in the process, was one of the greatest performances of a British boxer in the 21st century, the fact that he did it not being 100%, as he wasn't for most of the second half of his career, makes it all the more admirable. For being able to change his style, adapt and remain on top, Calzaghe earns a top 5 place, even if some of the opposition was questionable. A truly fantastic boxer and an education to watch. I might be being a bit biased!
Lewis Calzaghe Froch Buchanan Fitzsimmons Just missed the cut: Hamed Eubank Hatton Benn Johnny nelson (13 or 14 title defences) Watt Conteh Just my opinion Edit : just seen it was 5 fighters only, I will remove Hamed and eubank
Ted "Kid" Lewis!!! He held a world record nine titles at three different weights Total fights 300 Wins 193 Wins by KO 80 Losses 32 Draws 14 Mike Tyson - “probably the greatest fighter to ever come out of Britain,” “Lewis would win bouts in all eight boxing divisions of his time.” “you rate a fighter by longevity, and for years Ted Lewis beat the greatest American fighters for years … it’s unbelievable the guys he had to fight! The Who’s Who of Boxing, the greatest of the great, and yet he still prevailed as number one.”
Wilde Fitzsimmons Turpin Conteh Lewis Oh edit: I should be finding a spot for Ted Kid Lewis in there.
