My All-Time 60 Best British Fighters

That list is horrendous starting with no.1.

Rudkin behind Sibbo? :rofl

 

Kid Lewis is there for a large part based on the 20 fights with Jack Britton.

Very few boxers can boost so many fights at such a high level.

I won't try to defend the list because I don't have the knowledge of the guy that wrote it.

Every time I questioned anything on the list and studied the records I found the list to be very accurate.


Personally I would have Wilde at No.1 because he was was such a freak of nature power wise for such a small man.


Henry Cooper had Ted Kid Lewis at No.1 ATG British fighter and he is not the only one to say this. Mike Tyson also has Kid Lewis as the best fighter ever to come out of Britain.


On record Kid Lewis fought in an era packed with talent fighting from featherweight to light heavy (lost KO1 to Carpentier at LH).

Personally I would only have Wilde ahead of him.

 

He wasnt doing too bad against Carpentier in the 1st until he turned to the ref to complain I think I am right in saying and Carpentier just kncoked him clean out.

 

Does anyone else here think Froch has already done enough to be a top 60 p4per?

Comparing to names like WItter and Hide for example.

 

He's definitely better than those two at least.

 

That's all Ted Lewis has though. And as great as Jack Britton was, if your defining moment is not getting the better of a series, then I can't see a claim for being the best Brotosh fighter.

I think Lewis gets overrated because he is, historically, overrated. One of our top fighters but I can't see a case for him being no.1 myself.

 

The IBRO has an interesting take on Kid Lewis in its ATG Welters Top 20

This content is protected

1. This content is protected
2. This content is protected
3. This content is protected
4. This content is protected
5. This content is protected
6. This content is protected
7. This content is protected
8. This content is protected
9. This content is protected
10. This content is protected
11. This content is protected
12. This content is protected
13. This content is protected
14. This content is protected
15. This content is protected
16. This content is protected
17. This content is protected
18. This content is protected
19. This content is protected
20. This content is protected

This content is protected

Lewis is ahead of some good welters and 13th in arguably the most stacked weight division in the history of boxing, nice recognition I'd say. At Fly and Heavy Wilde and Lennox were swimming in a much smaller pond than the quality in numbers of Welter.

Anyway it's only different opinions and theres no harm in that.

 

It is only opinion but he's way too high IMO :good

Lennoxs comp at Heavy>>>Lewis' at Welter for sure. And Wilde has two wins over Lynch up at 118.

 

Just interested to know what the basis is for ranking Bob Fitzsimmons so high?

Is it that people have watched his fights and feel the video quality is good enough to judge his ability? Have people seen enough footage of his opponents to judge their ability as a yard-stick to his?

Sports writers of the time could get away with the kind of inaccuracies that would be impossible today so it's hard to take their word; how many fights were televised?

Going purely on record isn't accurate without a full knowledge of opponents, just one of many examples, some boxers are finished at 28, some peak well after. How do you really know how good they were in the first place without actually seeing a cross-section of their full-fights in decent quality?

How far is trying to have an opinion of his ability away from trying to understand modern boxing using only box-rec, the sun and sky sports news?

Not saying it's wrong, there are plenty on here who know their boxing better than me, just asking the question.

 

Sportswriters of that time were as clues up as we are on TheSweet Science, I can assure you.

 

Yes but don't you also have to look at the opponents of Jack Britton when assessing Kid Lewis?

Jack Britton had two ND's against Packy McFarland and 2 against Benny Leonard. Britton picked up a disqualifiation win against Leonard in their 3rd fight.

Kid Lewis also fought Benny Leonard to a ND.


There was only a cigarette paper seperating Britton and Lewis over their 20 contest.

4 wins to Britton
3 wins to Lewis
1 draw
12 ND's


In fighting Britton I think Ted Lewis kept better company that Lennox did. Kid Lewis also didn't get knocked out in his prime by two also rans. Those two bad loses will always affect Lennox's standing when considering the very best heavyweights or greatest Brit.

 

I'm sure they were clued up, it's just that they wouldn't be so accountable; embellishing achievements is much easier when there's no evidence to disprove it. Hyperbole happens plenty today, it's just human nature.

Would you make a judgement of a fighter given only the opinion of Steve Bunce and John Rawling?

 

No, but I've read many, many accounts of Fitz :good

SB; I'm well aware of how good Britton was. Also, you have to look into those NDs. By most accounts, Britton got the better of them :good

Any better than Bergs wins over Chocolate? I don't think so, we are sure of there conclusive outcome.

 

8 of the Lewis v Britton fights were for the WW world belt. There were no fillers in these fights and the two men could barely be seperated 4 wins to 3 and a draw.

Lewis and Britton get so much credit I reckon because they had one of the greatest rivalries of all time. Two great fighters evenly matched. The historians like Kid Lewis and so did the newspaper men.


Chocolate is ranked as a feather so this has to be taken into account. Great fighter though.

 

Chocolate was quality at 135 too! He was really a 130lber, but that division lacked distinction at the time. He was outweighed in both Berg fights, but he was outweighed by Canzoneri, and we have proof that he looked utterly sensational against him.

Berg looks ugly on film. Regardless of a few lbs, I could not envision him beating a fighter of Chocolates ability. But he did, twice :good