ATG British Boxers??

I like both guys, although admitadly I like Eubank and prefer his style (and yes even arrogance) more. But neither of them fought high quality opponents. McClellan's names is tossed about and I agree it is a solid win, but eubank faced more high ranked opponents regardless of name recognizability (if that is word) than Benn did, a better title reign for me and won the H2h match which is undisputable!

 

Could I see that result????

 

Every boxer (or at least a good many) has had some disputed decision...where do you draw the line??? I choose to go by the official result as far as adding to a boxers legacy even in cases where I feel the result was wrong...i don't add a loss to leonard because of hearns II or Hagler (IMHO)...I don't remove draws from Whitaker (Chavez) or add wins?? Unfortunatelly we need to go by the official result!

 

As far as my personal estimation of a fighter goes yes...when rating them you/we/I can always poke holes in a boxers resume...Tyson beat an old Holmes..Hops only beat blown up MW's..calzaghe only beat handpicked opposition...it is to easy to lift someone up or rip someone down...accomplishment, titles, ranked wins count for a lot more to me than who I think hypothetically is better!

 

Yes, I have heard several Benn fans say that!

 

Once again, Benn and Eubank aside...who is to high/to low missing or should not be there. I feel I can justify the Benn & Eubank picks and minor seperation...But will reevalute that as i go along due to the opinions of this forum, but outside of them what does the best British boxers list look like???