Rate these Brits in order .....

Simply in terms of ability at peak\prime

Conteh
Calzaghe
Honeyghan
Hamed
Froch
Hatton
Andries


Conteh's the best, most natural fighter here and a coulda\shoulda been an all-timer sort of fighter.I also think he beat the best fighters of the group, but he can be punished for his lifestyle and lack of longevity and is by no means an outright lock for top spot because of it.

Calzaghe, Hamed and Honeyghan all very talented guys with some big flaws here and there, though Joe is the most solid overall for me.

He's not as glaringly technically flawed as Hamed, allowing for a much wider versatility and superior general level of effectiveness against varied styles, even if it is in an ugly janky fashion.He has a much better sense of his strengths and weaknesses in the ring than Honeyghan did, a superior ring-general.

Hamed WAS a brutal puncher, one of the best at featherweight in that regard, but he never really learned to fight properly.never truly developed an effective all-around style.Add in his poor lifestyle and mentality...the way he went out with such a whimper and i can't rate him above the slapper.

Honeyghan was much the same as Hamed, relying on a lot of natural talent, but his style was more versatile.Quick awkward in and out movement, brutal overhand right...his style circa the Curry fight reminds me somewhat of what Pac was doing at 122 and 126 back in his weight cutting days.Not going to work against everyone, yet if you can't cope well with speed and awkward aggression...you might get smashed to bits.

However, he abandoned rather than refined that approach pretty quickly after winning the title and seemed to convince himself he was a mix between Armstrong\Pryor and Foreman.He'd just charge right in thinking he could obliterate opposition without the setup...and he wasn't durable enough or quite as big a puncher as needed to be doing that.That quickly lead to a career ruining beating and far shorter prime than needed be the case.

Not a lot between Hamed and Honeyghan really.I think Lloyd did have the stronger approach though, if only briefly.hamed probably more unrealised potential, if he'd had the mindset to apply himself earlier more and learn the fundamentals to a higher level...but he'd need to have been at a different gym\trainer for that and it's all a bit too much guessing for me.

The last three at the bottom didn't have as many effective technical or physical gifts\skills as the others.Andries and Froch do have some of the best mentality in and out of the ring though.Hatton...not so much.

Froch and Andries are in that Bazooka Limon kind of camp for me.You watch them coming up and see little obvious assets other than toughness and a hard punch....they are slow, not technically skilled, everything is ponderous and looks like it can be taken advantage of...but they grind out decent runs with sheer will and ability to withstand and fire back in a war.They have unpredictable approaches that other more skilled, yet also flawed-and not as tough-fighters can find hard to deal with.But despite being more than the sum of the parts they still lose or get schooled now and again too, because they really aren't all that effective if you don't have glaring flaws to exploit.Good fighters to enjoy watching in a weak era, just tough fodder in a strong one.

Hatton was a bit more talented technically than them....he had good feet and was an intelligent closer of distance, but he had a far worse lifestyle and not really any more physical gifts.A pretty sloppy, mediocre offense when he wasn't just digging in body punches, but was a decently effective mauler and spoiler at 140.Not that good a chin for his style.

His win over Tsyzu trumps anything the other two did, though i consider his effort against Pac one of the worst from a legit British world champ i've ever seen.Short prime at the top.

 

Naseem cleaned out his division in four years, beating all four world champions by knockout - while making 15 title defenses, almost all spectacular knockouts. That's phenomenal.

 

John Conteh
Joe Calzaghe
Naseem Hamed
Carl Froch
Ricky Hatton
Lloyd Honeyghan
Dennis Andries


Shows you how good everyone is, because Andries is not bottom of many of these 'best of British' lists.

 

Andries had so much strength and toughness and drive.

 

Steward was taping Andries' hands when McClellan was out there losing to Dennis Milton. Also, Steward was too consumed with Tommy's Leonard rematch to train McClellan for his comeback fight - another loss.

It was great though that Steward took on Andries after the Hearns fight, seeing such raw material that he could mould and improve, after such a spirited performance.

 

And as I am sure you know, prior to Hearns; Andries had been unbeaten for a number of years, as he had upped his game from Area Champion to legitimate world top 10 fighter, basically through sheer hard work.

 

1. Carl Froch
2. Joe Calzaghe
3. Prince Naseem Hamed
4. Ricky Hatton
5. John Conteh
6. Lloyd Honeyghan
7. Dennis Andries

 

Hamed
Calzaghe
Conteh
Froch
Hatton
Honeyghan
Andries

Hamed was a wonderful talent with tremendous power, up until his arrogance overwhelmed his dedication, and he believed all he had to do was touch a guys whiskers, and it would be all over.

That is why I have him top.

 

In other words; he nicked Conteh's gimmick...

 

get rid of Andries and insert Boza-Edwards. He had an English accent and was better than Andries

 

Hamed was arrogant from day one. It was a great day when Barrerra taught him a lesson.

I'd rate Calzaghe above Hamed.

 

Calzaghe
Hamed
Conteh
Honeyghan
Froch
Hatton
Andries