Greatest British fighters since 1945

[GeneralZod]

Lennox over Prince, was thinking Fitzsimmons but i forgot it was post 45.

[Humean]

too high ... very entertaining fighter of course ... but no

Care to elaborate? Dissect his record for example.

I'm guessing people think his record is weaker than Lennox Lewis', i'm not so sure about that myself plus Hamed really smashed the hell out of a lot of guys. Nas also only had one defeat against a guy who was one of the best p4p at the time whilst Lewis lost two fights, the latter in particular against someone not especially impressive.

[rightsideup]

Interesting thread. Just as a side note I am Canadian so I am claiming Lennox as he rose to Oly Gold medalist in Canada. LOL Glad to see Ken Buchanan getting love very smart technical boxer with a ton of Heart.

[Scott9945]

Froch and Hatton have already earned a spot on that list, imo. Haye and Bruno are interesting propositions.

[IronDanHamza]

Lewis would definitely #1 from 1945 onward IMO.

Not really sure how I'd lay the rest out

[mickey malone]

Lewis would definitely #1 from 1945 onward IMO.

Not really sure how I'd lay the rest out

I agree.. With Calzaghe at no2 imo.

He gets a lot of bad posts on here, but would have given any versions of Jones and Hopkins, a good run for their money.. Young Joe was virtually unhitable

[LacedUp]

Since 1945 so that excludes Fitzsimmons.

Froch top 5 but not Hamed top 5? You cannot be serious.

I also think because Froch is active it is harder to judge. So for example if Bute beats Pascal then that increases Froch's win against Bute I think. I confess I am not, and never have been, a big Froch fan but I do think it is best waiting for him to retire to get a better perspective upon his career.

Hadn't seen since 1945.

I can't be serious? I'm sorry mate, but Froch's resume pisses all over Naseem's. I loved Naseem to bits, he's one of my personal favourites. I wish he was around today.

Yet, that doesn't take away from the fact that Froch has continuously fought the best in his division, time after time - probably has the best resume of any super middleweight ever - plus the division he's fighting in is a lot deeper than Naseem's. There are several fighters Naz didn't fight during his time, and he more or less quit after his first loss.

How did Froch reach to his losses? Right.

[Humean]

Hadn't seen since 1945.

I can't be serious? I'm sorry mate, but Froch's resume pisses all over Naseem's. I loved Naseem to bits, he's one of my personal favourites. I wish he was around today.

Yet, that doesn't take away from the fact that Froch has continuously fought the best in his division, time after time - probably has the best resume of any super middleweight ever - plus the division he's fighting in is a lot deeper than Naseem's. There are several fighters Naz didn't fight during his time, and he more or less quit after his first loss.

How did Froch reach to his losses? Right.

People talk about how good Froch's resume is but he did officially lose twice plus in my book he lost to Dirrell. So at least by my judgment he lost three fights. Naz lost one fight and that was to a pound for pound guy in Barrera.

Froch's best wins, no particular order.
Kessler
Bute
Pascal
Abraham
Taylor
Groves
Johnson
Magee

Hamed's best wins, no particular order.
Robinson
Medina
Johnson
Kelley
Vasquez
McCullough
Ingle
Soto
Bungu

Hamed 36-1-0
Froch 32-2-0

WORLD TITLE FIGHTS:
Hamed 16 fights with 16 wins (If you want to include Barrera for IBO then 17 and 16 wins)
Froch 11 fights with 9 wins


Plus watching both Hamed and Froch fight Hamed was simply the better fighter to me, look at the manner of Hamed's wins in comparison to Froch's. Hamed's reaction to the Barrera loss is certainly a notch against him but he did achieve quite a lot up to that point.

[LacedUp]

People talk about how good Froch's resume is but he did officially lose twice plus in my book he lost to Dirrell. So at least by my judgment he lost three fights. Naz lost one fight and that was to a pound for pound guy in Barrera.

Froch's best wins, no particular order.
Kessler
Bute
Pascal
Abraham
Taylor
Groves
Johnson
Magee

Hamed's best wins, no particular order.
Robinson
Medina
Johnson
Kelley
Vasquez
McCullough
Ingle
Soto
Bungu

Hamed 36-1-0
Froch 32-2-0

WORLD TITLE FIGHTS:
Hamed 16 fights with 16 wins (If you want to include Barrera for IBO then 17 and 16 wins)
Froch 11 fights with 9 wins


Plus watching both Hamed and Froch fight Hamed was simply the better fighter to me, look at the manner of Hamed's wins in comparison to Froch's. Hamed's reaction to the Barrera loss is certainly a notch against him but he did achieve quite a lot up to that point.

I'm sure if you are looking at the top 10 wins of each guys you will see it's heavily in favour of Froch. You might say he lost a decision in your book to Dirrell - but fact is he won. I don't want to go into all fighters who may or may not have dropped a close decision - but there are plenty of them which is why the only thing we can take is the facts.

Hamed might have had more title fights - but if you look at his reign you will see a lot of journeymen and guys that weren't ranked in the top 5-10 of the featherweight division. At least until he started fighting on HBO his resume wasn't really that strong, and many people felt that guys like Barrera, Morales and even Marquez were just as good if not better than him. But for one reason or another, he didn't fight the main guys in the division before late in his career - and what happened? He lost and didn't avenge it.

Froch's only unavenged defeat also came to a top P4P rated fighter - probably more established than Barrera was at that point - if I'm not mistaken Naz was the fav going into the fight.

Froch could have gone down the same route fighting guys like Yusuf Mack time after time, but he has chosen to fight the equivalent of Marquez, Barrera, Morales time after time. He may have come up short once or twice - but then again - how much do we care about the 0? Sven Ottke is not the greatest SMW of all time is he? No, because he didn't fight the best. Froch fights the best time after time.

His wins over Taylor, Pascal, Kessler & Bute are better than or equal to any win Naz has on his resume imo. That's what makes me rank him higher.

Now, I wouldn't dispute Naz having more natural fighting talent, ability etc. But in terms of career accomplishments - Froch takes it. The only thing that counts against him is that he's never been considered the #1 fighter in the division.

[Humean]

I'm sure if you are looking at the top 10 wins of each guys you will see it's heavily in favour of Froch. You might say he lost a decision in your book to Dirrell - but fact is he won. I don't want to go into all fighters who may or may not have dropped a close decision - but there are plenty of them which is why the only thing we can take is the facts.

Hamed might have had more title fights - but if you look at his reign you will see a lot of journeymen and guys that weren't ranked in the top 5-10 of the featherweight division. At least until he started fighting on HBO his resume wasn't really that strong, and many people felt that guys like Barrera, Morales and even Marquez were just as good if not better than him. But for one reason or another, he didn't fight the main guys in the division before late in his career - and what happened? He lost and didn't avenge it.

Froch's only unavenged defeat also came to a top P4P rated fighter - probably more established than Barrera was at that point - if I'm not mistaken Naz was the fav going into the fight.

Froch could have gone down the same route fighting guys like Yusuf Mack time after time, but he has chosen to fight the equivalent of Marquez, Barrera, Morales time after time. He may have come up short once or twice - but then again - how much do we care about the 0? Sven Ottke is not the greatest SMW of all time is he? No, because he didn't fight the best. Froch fights the best time after time.

His wins over Taylor, Pascal, Kessler & Bute are better than or equal to any win Naz has on his resume imo. That's what makes me rank him higher.

Now, I wouldn't dispute Naz having more natural fighting talent, ability etc. But in terms of career accomplishments - Froch takes it. The only thing that counts against him is that he's never been considered the #1 fighter in the division.

Every Hamed opponent I listed was a belt holder. If I thought Direll-Froch was especially close I would consider it a legitimate win but it wasn't close enough for me to say that.

The best win out of both Froch and Hamed's records is Hamed's. The manner that Hamed beat the version of Vasquez he beat was more impressive than Froch's best win which was probably the Kessler win, which was a very narrow victory. I don't know if it is just because Froch's opponents are more recent but his standard of opponents really isn't higher than Hamed's. Is Bute really better than Bungu for example? They had similar periods as belt holders, Bungu 6 years and Bute 5, both got smashed to pieces when they fought Hamed and Froch respectively.