The only genuinely great British fighters of the last 30 years !!

Lennox Lewis
Joe Calzaghe
Naseem Hamed
Ricky Hatton
David Haye..............

These are the only guys who will leave a lasting legacy on the sport in World terms.........In my opinion as humble as it is........Each of the above apart from leaving legacies have been involved in superfights...........at one time or another..

I wouldnt really agree with the last two on that list.

Maybe Haye for his Cruiserweight reign but certainly not for anything he has done in the last 3 years.

I would also possibly suggest Eubank in the mix (and possibly Benn)

No Amir Khan? You will upset Azania with that ommission. Blatant racism, of course.

Tbh, as much as I don't like it, I'd probably agree with your list. On the basis that many other fighters are 'names' but not 'greats', e.g. Benn, Eubank, Bruno etc.

We've had quite a lull in boxing pedigree but I see that changing, especially with the US taking its foot off the gas, and we could be adding a couple of names to that list over the next 10 years.

Adam D wrote:I wouldnt really agree with the last two on that list.

Maybe Haye for his Cruiserweight reign but certainly not for anything he has done in the last 3 years.

I would also possibly suggest Eubank in the mix (and possibly Benn)

Haye is second to Holy in the fact he unified cruiser and went on to win a heavyweight title.......was also involved in a superfight........

Hatton was a top p4per who was involved in two superfights and won countless titles..........Hatton was a great fighter..

Well it's always tough to define exactly what 'great' is, and it gets even tougher when you're trying to confine it to fighters from the UK alone, but if Haye and Hatton are in there then I don't see how Froch can be left out. His accomplishments, for me at least, outstrip Haye's in terms of consistency at the highest level and opposition beaten, and I think he's done enough to be held in higher esteem than Hatton now, too.

True, Hatton headlined in Vegas and was involved in a couple of tussles which centred around the pound for pound debate, but at the end of the day he was well beaten both times, so I personally wouldn't use those bouts as a reason to put him ahead of Froch. The only real thing Hatton has going for him, in terms of what each man did in the ring, is that he held a Ring Magazine belt whereas Froch so far hasn't, but Light-Welter between 2005 and 2009 didn't offer the same kind of depth in quality as Super-Middleweight has in the past few years.

Lewis and Calzaghe certainly belong above Froch, and Hamed does as well albeit by a smaller margin, but I'd struggle to put either Hatton or Haye (particularly the latter) in front of him.

I'd consider the top two only and Calzaghe's claims are dubious.

Depends what you mean as great?

Rest weren't great fighters.

Is being in headline fights is a sign of greatness? if so, i guess that makes hatton a great then, and not the marketing man's wet dream I have him down as. I kind of agree with haz, Naz was a great talent but ultimately did he prove himself a great fighter? calzaghe will divide opinion based on his seeming lack of ambition.

Numbers 3-5 on the list were great self publicists, rather than great fighters.

88Chris05 wrote:Well it's always tough to define exactly what 'great' is, and it gets even tougher when you're trying to confine it to fighters from the UK alone, but if Haye and Hatton are in there then I don't see how Froch can be left out. His accomplishments, for me at least, outstrip Haye's in terms of consistency at the highest level and opposition beaten, and I think he's done enough to be held in higher esteem than Hatton now, too.

True, Hatton headlined in Vegas and was involved in a couple of tussles which centred around the pound for pound debate, but at the end of the day he was well beaten both times, so I personally wouldn't use those bouts as a reason to put him ahead of Froch. The only real thing Hatton has going for him, in terms of what each man did in the ring, is that he held a Ring Magazine belt whereas Froch so far hasn't, but Light-Welter between 2005 and 2009 didn't offer the same kind of depth in quality as Super-Middleweight has in the past few years.

Lewis and Calzaghe certainly belong above Froch, and Hamed does as well albeit by a smaller margin, but I'd struggle to put either Hatton or Haye (particularly the latter) in front of him.

Haye was the main man at cruiser and attained superfight status..........

Hatton was a top p4per...........who Americans had heard of...........All of the fighters in my list are known in America...

Froch isn't..Besides Hatton lost to two p4p number ones..........Froch lost to Kessler..

Re hatton. No shame obviously in losing to floyd and manny. But they were the only 2 fighters who were both genuinely any good AND in their prime truss. And they didnt just beat him, they butchered him. Ricky was very good, but if he was great, there's a very long list of great fighters.

Depends how greatness is being measured. As things are now I don’t think Haye qualifies in any real sense of the word. I cant see him leaving any kind legacy of achievement on anything other than superficial examination.
Hatton, possibly, in terms of impact. He will certainly be remembered, even in the U.S I think although not necessarily as a great fighter.

Froch will be remembered in Britain. If American recognition is a necessary parameter then Froch might miss out. His performances over there I don’t think convinced the Americans he was anything special and his take on all comers probably isn’t as appreciated on that side of the pond as over here. He suffers from an unfortunate position of having an excellent win column but never really being ever the best fighter in his division.

Lewis – yes

Calzaghe yes, although probably always with a few grumbles

Hamed. Hes probably been retired long enough at this stage to assess if he has left a lasting legacy. Unquestionably in Britain he has but I don’t think in the U.S he would be regarded as a great fighter. He could be remembered over there more for being a flashy pretender than anything else.

milkyboy wrote:Re hatton. No shame obviously in losing to floyd and manny. But they were the only 2 fighters who were both genuinely any good AND in their prime truss. And they didnt just beat him, they butchered him. Ricky was very good, but if he was great, there's a very long list of great fighters.

Kosta was a top 10 p4per..........Froch has yet to beat one of them..

Well obviously it's each to their own when it comes to how they rank fighters, but personally things such as being a big 'name' fighter or transcending the sport don't really hold much weight with me, otherwise De la Hoya would be a shoe in for anyone's all-time top ten list!

Hatton was brilliantly marketed (by himself as much as anyone) but when you strip that away I don't think his CV reads any better than Froch's overall. For blockbuster factor you could perhaps say that Hatton's win over Tszyu reads better than any single win that Froch has, even if Kostya had seen better days, but I think Hatton's record underneath that is a bit thin to make him a 'great', even if it's only by British standards.

Ricky's best three wins outside of that were probably Collazo, Castillo and Malignaggi, but whereas they're numbers 2-4 on Hatton's record they'd probably be more like 4-6 on Carl's.

On paper, Froch has more to answer for by losing to Kessler than Hatton does by losing to Floyd and Manny, but again the margin of defeat is a factor, for me. Froch lost a close fight on points to Kessler whereas Hatton was basically comprehensively outclassed by both Mayweather and Pacquiao.

The humblings he got in those fights, as well as his struggle and unconvincing win against a pretty serviceable fighter in Collazo for instance, lead me to believe that Hatton certainly wouldn't have been above dropping a decision to a fighter from the same kind of level of Kessler if he'd have fought as many of those kind of fighters as Froch has.

Hatton was the man in his division and never lost to anybody ordinary like kessler...........

Margin of defeat isn't a factor because Hatton beat Kessler types and Mayweather and Manny were special once in a generation fighters...

But each to their own............

I know you rate him truss... Personally I don't think he beat anyone as good as Kessler... At least not while they were in their prime. Cherry picked soft touches to build a resume and bank balance. Good management, not a great fighter.

If margin of defeat isn't a factor, are you offering an olive leaf to Duran for the hearns fight? Not like ricky was rolled like a drunk

Why is Kessler good ???? ordinary European stand up guy.......

Lost to an old Calzaghe...lost to Ward...........

But he's a better win than a still at the top Kosta..

Ricky's best win certainly truss, but if never to fight again, almost 36 year old tszyu .. with less than 3 rounds (against a chinny shot guy he'd already beaten) in 2 and a half years, is still at the top...then I'm reappraising the concept of prime.

Kostya wasnt shot, but frank picked him for a reason... It was a good time to get him.

Mayweather is 36.............

.. And Bhop is nudging 50. Both are smart defensive fighters who don't ship punishment and are still fighting. Tszyu wasnt and never fought again after hatton.

Foreman wasn't smart...........

And the legacy of his aged comeback is based on a 'lottery punch'.

Had enough to extend Holyfield........

Fact is Kosta was always a pressure fighter with little talent........Hatton outfought and outgamed him........

Hatton wins everytime...Age made little difference............

That's a fact is it truss? Sounds like an opinion to me. Not one I share. Hatton out gamed him, because he was fresh and tszyu wasnt... Also an opinion

He couldn't hurt Hatton...

I would agree with the names on your list apart from Haye. Haye was good, not great. He lost to Wladimir Klitschko who I dont rate as a great by an stretch despite his fan club on here. Size played a big part but a smaller great fighter would beat Wladimir. Case in point Holyfield. You could make a case for Eubank, Benn and Collins too.

If you are including Haye and Hatton, then there's a reasonable arguement to be made for Honeyghan- undisputed , two time world champ. Can't see that either Haye or Hatton achieved much more. TBH I think your list is too long by atleast two, possible three names.

Lewis lost to MCcall.............

Haye was the man at cruiser and managed to win a piece of the greatest prize in sports......

Superfight status too.............

Would say that Eubank, Benn and possibly Collins deserve on this list.

All former world title holders that had career defining fights (against each other) as well as Benn going to overseas to win the titles.

Selling out football arenas when fighting at home as well, some of the biggest fights in Britain.

Barry McGuigan could also have a shout at being included.

Makes me proud to think of the number of world class boxers the UK has produced.

To give us a comparative Truss I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the truly great US boxers of the same time period.

Yeh, agree Huw, given the population is 5 times as large I'd expect a least of about 25. Be interesting to see how that quote could be filled up from the last 30 yrs only.

Froch trumps them all.

I forgot about McGuigan. He should be included.

As big a fan boy as I (apparently) am, I'd struggle to fit Haye into that bracket just yet. Sadly, injury or not, he stank the place out against Wlad and made a winnable fight pretty much one way traffic. As Superfights go, it was a bit of a damp squib.

However, I do believe there's still time for him to put that right although whether it'll be enough to erase the memory of the Wlad fight remains to be seen (Hatton will always get the Manny pasting levelled at him, Lewis will get McCall and Rahman, Hamed get Barrera and Calzaghe gets his entire career). For me, for now...David Haye, bags of talent but still a fair bit to do to be remembered as one of our very best

Clinton Woods?

Further down the list, it is tougher to make the argument. I agree that you give up after the first three.

davidemore wrote:Clinton Woods?

Got a lot of time for Clinton and was geninely chuffed when he won the title. I was even proud of his showing against RJJ but his timid losses to Tarver and Cloud will prevent him from being anything but a good honest fighter.

PS I'd pick him to beat the daylights out of Cleverley

Clinton Woods? Whaaaaaa......

Hatton, like McGuigan, seemed to peak in winning the world title and was never the same afterwards. There's no shame in that but he wasn't a great fighter -- genuine world champion should be enough.

Lewis is the only definite (and you'll find some experts who dispute even that -- it was a mighty close thing).

hazharrison wrote:

Lewis is the only definite (and you'll find some experts who dispute even that -- it was a mighty close thing).

Was watching an ESPN special on Top 10 greatest ever HW's the other day, led by Bert Sugar as the expert/adjudicator, and he didn't even have Lennox in his top 15. Had him as far out as 19/20th.

Sugar was like Colin Hart...a self serving tossbag of the highest order

Lewis isn't in my top 10...........

Just ahead of Bowe around the 12/15 mark..

It's a rare fighter indeed who peaked any time after WWII and still manages to find themselves in the top ten of any Bert Sugar list.

Or Rodders!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Lewis isn't in my top 10...........

Just ahead of Bowe around the 12/15 mark..

No major complaints with that, it was more Sugar's assertion that Lewis barely scraped into Top 20 I had issues with.

88Chris05 wrote:It's a rare fighter indeed who peaked any time after WWII and still manages to find themselves in the top ten of any Bert Sugar list.

He had Holmes #10. Which was funny as they had old man grumpy in the studio as it was being discussed!

Wasnt that the one when he went skitz at foreman being higher than him?

ShahenshahG wrote:Wasnt that the one when he went skitz at foreman being higher than him?

Possibly. Kept on banging on about how he beat Ali too

Beginning to think that there's a valid argument in ranking Wlad ahead of Lewis.

The fact Lewis fought, and beat, Wlad's brother (and greatest equal in his era) will always set the two apart. However unfair that may be.

Ruddock, Tua, Mercer, Morrison, Holy x 2, Tyson, Vitali, Tucker, Bruno pre-title............

More than enough to suggest Lewis comes higher..

Despite some of them being a little old...in the tooth

TopHat24/7 wrote:The fact Lewis fought, and beat, Wlad's brother (and greatest equal in his era) will always set the two apart. However unfair that may be.

Beating his brother i snot the same as beating Wlad. Don Curry had a brother who was a world champ but oft beaten. Meaningless. I base my 'logic' on the Joe Louis logic of beating bums for eons and getting a high ranking as a result.

Thats true AZ but no matter how great Wlad is - Lewis beat the consensus number one contender during Wlads entire reign. No one will hold it against Wlad or Vitali for not fighting each other but the fact that Lewis did beat Vitali gives him a better win than Wlad can hope to match. Unless Wilder and co turn out to be greats/atg Wlad will always sit behind Lewis.

When Haye beats Vitali does it mean Haye beats or draws with Lewis? Wlad has reigned longer and has been more dominant. Take a leaf out of how Louis is ranked and apply that to Wlad.