Top 25 All-Time British List

I know it's taboo but I actually think Ricky Hatton was a very good fighter with some very good wins but I knew most would disagree, although the only things I ever hear slating him are for his personality, I think 25th is a fair placing. I've got to admit people constantly slagging him off for nothing at all is beginning to irritate me a bit, Tszyu and Castillo were both 'past it' yet they were on good runs prior to Hatton beating them but I know most wont agree, that's fine. His win over Malignaggi seems to get conveniently overlooked as well yet Malignaggi is everyones favourite fighter at the moment.

Another thing I will say for Hatton, at least he fought the best fighters available to him in a stacked division unlike fighters I've put above him in this list. That's worth something.

Good call on Digger Stanley, completely overlooked him although I think top 25 might be pushing it as Moran turned into a much better fighter after his early losses. He's up there though for sure.

Disagree, wins over Max Baer and Tommy Loughran are pretty significant. I think it's unfair to say his career amounts to losing well to Joe Louis. He gave former champ Jim Braddock a close fight as well.

 

Eh, maybe. I know Calzaghe is bound to get some hate, he is no favourite of mine either but his talent gets him up the list rather than his resume. Like I said John H came close.

 

Really? You and me tend to disagree, anyway thanks.

 

Went 89-8-2 and was world flyweight champ when there was only one version of the belt, also went up to 118 to win the European Bantamweight title when it was a much more valued belt. Today he'd be a two, possibly three weight world champ. Drew with Benny Lynch who is higher than him on the list. His only draw back is being KO'd in the first round versus Jackie Paterson who perhaps deserves to be up there too but simply wasnt as consistant as Kane. I think he earnt his spot.

Are you gonna question them all one by one?

 

I will explain my stance and I hope you will understand my point of view. I dont judge fighters on how they would fair in each others era I judge them on how they did in their era, for example Bob Fitzsimmons was a three weight world champ but take him into the future and he may well get schooled by the well trained and conditioned fighters of today but that is not the point, you can only judge a fighter on historical significance, Fitzsimmons, Wilde and all the greats from yesteryear were the pioneers who helped change the sport into what it is today, without them there is no Calzaghe. That is why I give more points for a fighter succeeding in their particular era than as the sport has evolved. I hope this helps explain my reasoning.

 

No worries, I'm learning myself, the stuff I couldnt tell you about Peter Kane could fill a book I'm sure. :good

 

I agree Wilde is something of a controversial pick as little is known about the state of the flyweight division at the time but what is known is that he defeated Tancy Lee, Joe Symonds and Young Zulu Kid, the three best flyweights in the world to become the first world recognised flyweight champ. He held onto that title for seven years. During that time he also campaigned at bantamweight, giving up a large amount of weight to defeat some of the best bantamweights of the time in Joe Lynch x2 (who I consider an ATG) and Memphis Pal Moore. He finally lost his title to another of the great flyweights Pancho Villa, no shame there after more than a hundred bouts, most of which were won by knockout. I think it's safe to say Wilde could have campaigned at a much higher level.

 

freebie?