The best HOMEGROWN BRITISH heavyweights of all-time ?

I think you're probably right, but mainly because Lewis apart we've never produced a great heavyweight!

 

I'd controversially put Bruno at number one out of those eligible Farr at two

 

I agree.

I have Haye rated highly.

And, if Fury beats Wlad Klitschko, he'll immediately assume the number-one spot.

 

Bruno ... number one. Yes.

Farr ... I have lower. He didn't really accomplish a whole lot. And if there were three judges instead of just the referee deciding matters, he might not even have his one big win.

 

You are right, I don't want to hear it.

If I don't place much value on who I think would win head to head, then why would I care what you think of the matter?

 

Then that is very bad news for the other candidates, because they accomplished a lot less.

 

His record at heavyweight is 21-10-1.

He decisioned Baer and Burman.

He lost to Werner Weigand, Al Hoosman, Frank Bell, Lloyd Marshall, Burman, Lou Nova, Baer, Jim Braddock, Don ****ell and Joe Louis. And he drew with Jim Wilde.

Whether you look at it in total or just his heavyweight run, it's not the best ever. He fought a handful of names, unfortunately for him, all the "names" beat him.

 

I am on your side, I just accept Farr was a good fighter, and there is a solid argument to place him above Bruno. I just think it is not quite solid enough.

So there is no need to disrespect Tommy like you have, it is clearly not a black and white issue, and unlike some other places on the Internet, you are debating against some excellent posters.

 

The best I could say about your criteria, is that it penalizes fighters who were matched hard early in their careers, or fought well past their prime, while promoting anybody who was protected.

This seems pretty bonkers to me!

 

How am I disrespecting a fighter by saying I take his entire career and all his losses into consideration?

The people who want to focus only on THREE YEARS of a fighter's 20 or 30 year career ... and only pick the fights they want to point out ... and turn around discount other fighters because they "choose" to focus on his entire career are doing the disrespecting.

I'm not.

I rate Farr in the top 10. But there were better heavyweights, who won world titles, who were ranked longer globally, and who accomplished more in the British ring.

But the same people running those guys down are the ones who say you can only look at Tommy Farr's career from this year to that one.

It's nonsense.

I hope Fury wins. If so, that "should" put an end to it.

 

It seems "bonkers" to rate a guy on his whole career?

Then don't. Go ahead and rate all the British heavyweights based ONLY on their BEST wins (like you're doing with Farr).

I look forward to reading your list.

Don't forget Danny Williams KO4 Tyson.

 

Well 5 of those losses were when he came back after being out of the ring for 10 years.
He was 41 when ****ell beat him.

 

But surely one must consider how long that prime run lasted? If not, you can rank Ingemar Johansson as highly as Joe Louis, and we both know how silly that would be.

 

But your summations lack context. Losing a bout 80 after 25 years in the game, is different to losing fight 40, eight years in. Also you need to remember era, and what fighters needed to do to make a living.

Did Farr get paid the same as Frank? Did he get the opportunity to rest up between fights, like The Bomber? If not, how would that affect things?

Also, I was alive and a fan during Bruno's era, I remember most of his fights, and the context surrounding them, not so with Farr, so I need evaluate that as well. What were circumstance in this context, and how does it affect your judgement?

These seem to be questions you have not answered.

 

I feel like I've answered everything a hundred times. I'm about the only person who made a list both of fighters born in England and those who weren't.

I've listed Farr's total resume and Farr's heavyweight resume. I acknowledged the heavyweights he beat and those he didn't. I acknowledged all his losses and all his wins.

Now you want to know how much time he had to train between fights and what his pay was compared to every heavyweight who ever fought in a British ring? atsch What are you guys talking about?

His heavyweight resume wasn't the best. His total resume wasn't the best. He turned pro at 13. He retired at 39. He had nearly a 10-year break during WWII. He wasn't always 13. He wasn't always 39.

I got it!

I looked at it, and I rated him HIGHER than some and LOWER than other heavyweights for the same reasons I've listed seemingly a 100 times.

If you only want to look at his best wins ... fine. But do the same and ONLY look at the best wins of the other guys you rate.

Don't rate one guy based on two years out of a 25 year career ... and then discount one guy because you took ALL his fights throughout his career into your decision.

Be freaking consistent.

I rated on the entirety of their careers. I don't just count wins and losses. I understand "context."

Farr beat former champ Baer on a decision at home where only the ref scored the fight. That's his best win. The British newsreels couldn't seem to find two minutes of footage that show Farr even besting Baer, but so be it. Shortly after, Baer floored him repeatedly beat him handily in the return. CONSIDER THAT.

Also consider Danny Williams traveled to the U.S. and KNOCKED OUT Mike Tyson (who is rated by everyone higher than Baer) and who was still rated among the top three heavyweights in the world. Tyson never faced Williams again, he never had any inclination to face Williams again and never beat Williams in a return.

Keep that in mind when comparing Farr's BEST win with Danny Williams' BEST WIN. If you don't want to consider Farr losing to someone nearly every year he fought, then don't consider Williams losing to nearly everyone he's faced in the last decade either.

If you want context around everything ... just be consistent.

I acknowledge fighters' best wins, but I also acknowledge that if they lose to every bum they face for a decade, it begins to negate a big win or two here and there.

I don't know why that's so hard to grasp.

I look forward to reading your listing, too, and why you rated them that way.

But if you only rate a few guys based on a good year or two they had, and rip a guy for his total career ... I'll call you on it. :hi: