Top 100 British boxers (6-10)

The penultimate part of the list which, obviously, this week has had an effect on. Top five next week and then down to the final list, so if you want your favourite up or down, add your comments.

6. Ken Buchanan
Roberto Duran called Buchanan the best boxer he had ever faced, which was probably untrue, but he probably felt more than a little guilt at taking Buchanan's WBA lightweight title in 1972 by knocking the Scot out with a punch that was not only brutally low, but landed about two seconds after the bell. Oh for a decent ref, history might have been so different.
Many boxers on the list have had the line "how good would he have been if..." next to their name, well how good would Buchanan have been considered had he boxed at home. Buchanan never defended a major professional title in Scotland. He won his world title in Puerto Rico, beating Ismael Laguna, retained it in New York and Los Angeles - where he added the WBC title before gibing it up in a contractual dispute - and lost it to Duran in New York. He never retained the title in Britain because the BBBC did not recognise the WBA. For his only other world title bid he had to travel to Tokyo. He also boxed (and won) in South Africa, the newly-formed Zimbabwe, Italy, Canada, France and was based in Denmark late in his career.

7. Naseem Hamed
Never lacking in talent, flair, charisma or power, Naz laid a trail of destruction on his way to winning the WBO featherweight title from Steve Robinson in 1995. He held that title for five years, adding the IBF and WBC titles briefly, but the story goes that he never trained properly after Robinson, relying increasingly on his punching power to get him out of trouble. When he met a great fighter in Marco Antonio Barrera, the show surrounding the fight was more important than the fight, and he was thrashed. No shame there, but his passion was gone and, despite repeated comeback plans, he has only boxed once since.

8. Lloyd Honeyghan
Lloyd will always be remembered anytime a Brit goes for a massive, unlikely, win. His 1986 win over Donald Curry to become undisputed world welterweight champion in Atlantic City will always guarantee him a place high in this list. He made five successful defences either side of a technical decision loss to Jorge Vaca, before losing the title to Marlon Starling and then - as Terry Lawless put it - "looking like a boxer who couldn't stand up" against Mark Breland.

9. Jimmy Wilde
Some people will have you believe Jimmy Wilde was one of the best 2-3 boxers of all time. This could possibly be true, but it's impossible to prove. What we do know is that few people would rate the world heavyweight champions of his era, Jack Johnson and Jess Willard, as the best, so why Wilde, a flyweight who never beat a boxer from Mexico, the Far East or South America? The fact is that boxing in Wilde's era was not the worldwide sport it would become in the Thirties. His legacy is huge, he won the world flyweight title, travelled to America where he had many famous wins, but if he was first, eighth, or eightieth in this list it would be pretty arbitrary, because it is difficult to really know how good Wilde was.

10. Ricky Hatton
Had Ricky pulled off victory against Floyd Mayweather Jr on Saturday, he would have possibly been top of this list - as it was he was rather exposed. But he has won (and given up) four world titles, not including the WBU belt he defended for years, which clearly does not count. His victory over Kostya Tszyu is by far his greatest achievement, although wins over Castillo, Phillips and Maussa are all worthy of note. Should he do what Hamed never did, and come back to the top after a first loss, he will be moving back up the list. Let's hope he finally faces Junior Witter next year in what would be a fabulous event.

Comments

[Woody]

I meant to say - my top 5 (any order you like)...

Ted Kid Lewis, Lennox Lewis, Jimmy Wilde, Ken Buchanan, and if we're not allowed Bob Fitzsimmons then Jack Kid Berg. Thanks

[Woody]

Ron

I know this is all fun and games but please, please, reconsider Jimmy Wilde's position. Surely Lloyd Honeyghan can't be rated above Jimmy - that's a travesty. And Tommy Farr at #66? That's pretty harsh also.

Personally, I would have rated both Tommy Farr and Henry Cooper higher than you put them. They may not have won World Crowns but they were highly creditable and competitive British Heavyweights fighting in golden eras and each fought some of the bravest fights against the best in history (Ali, Louis etc...).

Anyway, thanks for the debate, it's been fun.

[Phill Arrowsmith]

In all the talk about the top of this list I'm shocked that everyone has overlooked how high Lloyd Honeygan is. The very reason his win over Don Curry was so amazing is that Lloyd was a very average boxer in everyone's eyes. Yes that win was so outstanding that he deserves a decent placing but it alone does not make him a top ten great. None of his fights before or after the Curry win showed anything other than an average boxer who had taken his chance brilliantly.

[Paul]

I think it is a little unfair not to have included Nigel Benn anywhere in the top 100. Clearly he cannot be in the top five, given that he was comprehensively beaten by Watson, Eubank and Collins. But surely his eventual world title and his victories over McLellan and Barkley count for something. I'm not suggesting you put him in the top ten ahead of the three guys who hammered him - that would be ridiculous - but you can't leave him out completely...

[QUARTZ]

I cannot think Hatton is better than Benn. Benn beat a peak McLellan and drew with a peak Eubank. Hatton beat a nealy finished Tszyu and a shot Castillo, and has lost conclusively to Mayweather. I like Hatton, and belive he will continue to be dangerous at light-welter, but Benn and others were better.

[Crashing Dashing Kid]

Mr Lewis, as much as I have admired your articles on boxing over the years, I must support the other view this time. It is not Jimmy Wilde's fault he only fought Europeans. Just because the best little fighters are now from South America does not mean they always were. Boxers and great fighters tend to come from areas where there is an underclass - generating hungrier and tougher fighters. Remember, there was a time when we had ghettos producing great fighters like this by the bucket load in your very own country. Jimmy Wilde fought the very best that America had to offer and he fought them over there. On this alone he would be ranked above Calzaghe. The fact that Wilde conceded weight to every opponent he fought is also a measure of his greatness. Similarly some fighters never fought black opponents - especially over in the USA. But though this was based on a racist ignorance by the ruling white masses which deprived black fighters of the chance to reach the top, it was also perpetuated on the harsh economic reality that most of these white ticket buyers would not pay to watch a black man fight. This deprived a great many white fighters of the chance to fight black opponents too, in most cases through no fault of their own. Should we hold it against modern day champs that they only fought black Americans & Hispanics just because they make up the majority of the USA's underclasses? Similarly, I do not think great black fighters should be denied the title 'great' because they were denied the opportunity to fight white fighters or fight for the title (as a great many were). Wilde ruled his weight division for a decade and gave weight away in each fight. He also managed to KO 99 of those opponents. Had some of these opponents came from China, Peru, Panama or Timbuktu it would not have mattered a jot. He was the only universally recognised world champ at his weight until he lost to Pancho Villa - and remember that defeat was only after he was practically retired and had not fought for years.

[Matthew Syed]

Ron - not withstanding your arguments, I cannot agree with Wilde at number 9. It is not just the glowing tributes paid to him by many of his contemporaries and by boxing experts who watched him live, there is also his monumental record. Wilde, in my view, is not merely the greatest British boxer of all time but one of the top 20 from any nation. No other British boxer comes close.

Having said that, it has been a fascinating list and provoked many fond memories. I look forward to the top 5...

[Ron Lewis]

Owen Moran was missed out because of an oversight, not because he wasn't considered worthy. I merely pointed out that there is often a habit of over-romanticising eras when it is impossible to quantify how good a boxer was. Many people believe boxing changed forever after Sugar Ray Robinson for instance. It was certainly easier for a boxer from Britain to win a world title in 1919 than in 1959. To go back to the Jimmy Wilde example, the top flyweights of today come from Mexico, Japan, Thailand, Argentina and the Philippines. How many boxers did Wilde face from those countries? One, and he lost. That's not his fault but it is a sign of how the sport broadened out. Anyway, Wilde is in at nine, I am hardly writing him off.

[Crashing Dashing Kid]

The writers reasons for not according older fighters the same weight as modern fighters, that 'boxing with gloves had only been around a few years' is spurious. How long does boxing have to have been around before you can get to the top of the list? It is not the fault of the boxer to have been born in a certain era. Greatness is measured by a) calibre of opponent b)longevity at the top c)superiority over a range of fighters. No Owen Moran? Missed out because the writer did not want to bore the masses? Is this objectivity? Top 3? 1.Ted Kid Lewis 2. Lennox Lewis 3. Joe Calzaghe . Joe has not fought in the same calibre and never fought outside Europe against Jones Jnr etc at their peak. Lennox did fight everyone but they were all past their best. Kid Lewis fought them all, from Benny Leonard, Jack Britton, Mike Gibbons to George Carpentier. His numbers are frightening and he was almost always the underdog. Not his fault he fought between 1911-1937, or whenever it was. Best is best. He fought in the style of the day. Brought up in the modern style, his speed, style, chin, power and heart would have seen him as a multiweight champion in the States.

[GRAHAM]

Just a quick word on the merits (or otherwise) of putting Lennox Lewis at No1. In my humble opinion he only fought the truly great fighters when they were long past their best and had been in a few wars. Tyson was all washed up when he faced him as was Holyfield after his own legendary wars. Razor Ruddock was probably finished after facing Tyson and no-one will ever convince me that Riddick Bowe ducked him. Seems to me the only time Lewis wanted to fight Bowe was when he had nothing left in the tank.
Yes, technically he was outstanding but KOs to Rahman and McCall surely mean he that he can't be the best Brit ever.
Gotta be Calzaghe then Buchanan!

[James Fairweather]

Just as an aside, Ron, if you consider an all-time England cricket team, five certainties would be Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Compton and SF Barnes, two of whom made their debuts well before World War I, two in the 1920s and one in the 1930s. Harold Larwood would also have a case for selection - that would make over half the team from before World War II. Boxing is not the only sport where old is good; certainly not in England, anyway!

[Bulldog]

Scrapiron would like to see Calzaghe at the top of the list. I would have liked to have seen him step outside his comfort zone. I trust and expect we will both be disappointed.

We don't know how good Kessler is because he has swum in the same shallow divisional pool as Calzaghe. We now know how good Lacy isn't. Outside of those two Calzaghe has mainly fought B and C list super middles, pumped up middles or old men. It also took him 15 years to unify what is a poor man's division.

Unfortunately most of his defences, of a dump belt, were little more than glorified exhibitions and when you think of the number of good fighters who slipped under his radar it is enough to make you laugh at his current elevated position.

He had one chance of true greatness early in this decade when he talked the talk about a super fight with Roy Jones. Instead of pressing his case he contented himself with feeding on the Tocker Pudwill's of this world.

Lewis in contrast took on all comers (who actually had the guts to get in with him) in their own backyard. He also fought and derailed many of the up coming heavyweights of the 90's and was the undisputed champion of the silver era of heavyweight boxing.

He got careless and paid the price on two occasions but showed amazing strength of character to chase both men down and deal with them.

Even at an age when all the previous greats were faded memories he was still standing toe to toe with the best of the new breed of heavy and emerging from war victorious.

Calzaghe is undoubtedly top ten because we haven't produced that many great fighters.

Lewis stands alone as our most accomplished ever champion.

[James Fairweather]

Personally, I would have loved to argue the toss about the relative merits of Harvey and Kane!

I think that where, British boxers are concerned, I have to disagree about an overall climb in standards from the 30s, although I might agree with the thrust of that argument in more general global terms. From the time of Freddie Mills (1948-1950), who never made a successful defence of his title, to Ken Buchanan, fully a quarter century later, we had only four boxers who could call themselves world champions - Turpin, Downes, McGowan and Winstone. None could hang on to the title for longer than about six months. Although there were others (notably Charnley) in that period who could, as Hugh McIlvanney would say, "have a row" during those years, I still maintain that this was a comparatively barren period of boxing talent in British history.

Around World War I was clearly a golden age for British boxing, and I happen to think that history will tell us that we're living through another one now (I would rank Hamed at 11 and Hatton at 13, for what it's worth). My Top 10 also includes 3 from the modern era (late 80s to today), two from the 70s and one from the immediate post-war era. I'd still say that those proportions are about right.

[Scrapiron]

I take your point about how hard it is to compare such disparate eras, and that a degree of guesswork is involved. You're guessing that era was lower in quality. I'm guessing that era was higher in quality. We can't be sure who's right. I just feel Jimmy Wilde's record of knockouts and victories speaks for itself. As regards Lennox, I regard him as just as British as anybody else on the list. That's not my issue. My issue is he got starched by two nobodies. They might have "got lucky", but how many opponents has Joe Calzaghe allowed to "get lucky" against him? There is not a single reason to put Lennox above Joe. Still, that's for next week!!!

[Ron Lewis]

Hands up, Moran was overlooked, that will be corrected in the revised list. A few boxers were missed out. That would have been less likely if my original plan of going through the decades one by one had been accepted. The powers that be decided that a debate on the comparative merits of Len Harvey and Peter Kane would not get too many readers in.
However, I think top ten for Moran is generous. Again he is from a time when it's difficult to get perspective on his true ability, although his draw with Jim Driscoll is probably the best form line.
Regarding Wilde, you have to take a view on the general standards of boxing just after the turn of the century. I believe the sport improved markedly from the Thirties onwards and the general standard is far higher today, although, thankfully, boxers box far less. Comparing Calzaghe and Lennox Lewis with Wilde, you are comparing someone who boxed four times a months, with someone who boxed twice a year. How do you compare Evander Holyfield or Mikkel Kessler with Young Zulu Kid or Battling Al Murray? You just have to take a realistic guess.
Scrapiron and James, both your top tens include four boxers (if you include Ted 'Kid' Lewis') that were at their peak at around World War I. Considering boxing with gloves only really started just before the turn of the century, doesn't that seem a bit much?
How many greatest ever football of rugby teams would even include a single player from that era? The reality is that then Britain and the US were the only real world powers in the sport, while there were also multiple world titles.

[Steve Randall]

ScrapIron - if Ron wants to put Lennox Lewis top that's fine by me. The only reason he doesn't get the credit he deserves is because people don't accept that he's a Brit. Well he was born in West Ham and lived there until his teens so that's good enough for me. Bowe would never fight him so he had to wait his turn. He absolutely battered Razor Ruddick in one round which eventually got him a shot at Holyfield and he won both those fights in my opinion - the first "draw" was a joke. He had it all; presence, fast hands, a fantastic jab, good defence and he avenged both his defeats convincingly - on their day any heavyweight has a puncher's chance. Rahman and McCall got lucky. When fully tuned up Lewis would have held his own in any heavyweight era.

[James Fairweather]

Yes, echoing Scrapiron, I feel that I should too. 1)Wilde 2) Calzaghe 3)Ted Kid Lewis 4) Lennox Lewis 5) Buchanan 6) Driscoll 7=) Turpin and Honeyghan 9)Conteh 10) Moran.

Benn misses out for the manner of a couple of his defeats rather than the defeats themselves. I don't like to see boxers either KO'd by a jab (vs Watson) or simply quit altogether (vs Collins) and for all his heroics against McClellan and Barkley, there remains the odd question mark against Benn for me.

[Scrapiron]

Incidentally, I suppose it's only fair that I should reveal my top 10 so that you can respond:

1 Joe Calzaghe; 2 Jimmy Wilde; 3 Ted Kid Lewis; 4 Ken Buchanan; 5 Jim Driscoll; 6 Jack Kid Berg; 7 Ricky Hatton; 8 Randy Turpin; 9 Barry McGuigan; 10 Lloyd Honeyghan, Nigel Benn or, if I'm feeling extraordinarily generous, Lennox Lewis.

[Scrapiron]

So it's impossible to tell how good Jimmy Wilde was? Well, doesn't the opinion of Gene Tunney count for something? Tunney said Wilde was "the greatest fighter I ever saw". He was world champion for seven years. He weighed less than eight stone, but knocked out 99 opponents - the majority of whom out-weighed him by one or two stones. Arbitrary? I think that speaks for itself. It says enough to me to suggest the only credible challenger to Wilde as the best Brit of all time is Joe Calzaghe. Behind Lloyd Honeyghan????!!!! Are you mad? Sure, Honeyghan deserves his place in the top 10. But does one big night put him ahead of Wilde? Madness. One other thing. I wake up in cold sweats about this. Please tell me you're not going to do what I think you're going to do. You are, aren't you. You're going to put Lennox Lewis at number one. The guy who got flattened by Rahman and McCall and bored the pants off us all for years. To do so would be to make a mockery of a pound for pound ranking, because you would be lending extra importance to the title he won. Otherwise there is no reason to put Lennox up there. You've got one chance left. Put Super Joe at his rightful place at number one (unlike Lennox, he hasn't got flattened by any stiffs), and all will be forgiven. Just about.

[James Fairweather]

Ron, five marvellous candidates here, although I'm fairly sure that Buchanan should be above both Benn and Turpin, who will presumably be members of your top 5 and who will both owe that position mostly to one magnificent victory at home. This is to quibble, however, and I generally tip my hat for the job that you're doing.

I may not feel quite as warm-hearted if, as I am beginning to suspect, the great Owen Moran, one-time bantamweight champ, so nearly featherweight champ, KO winner over Battling Nelson, victor over George Dixon and Ad Wolgast and Nat Fleischer's choice as one of the top 3 lightweights of all time, doesn't make it into your top 100 at all. With Ted Kid Lewis, Lennox Lewis, Joe Calzaghe, Turpin and Benn to be ranked, it is beginning to look that way and, make no mistake, Moran belongs no lower than Number 12 or so in your rankings. We don't have sufficient inductees at Canastota to omit one of our all-time greats from a top 100 list, especially when he is also so highly regarded overseas.