Best UK Boxer of all time

[IronDanHamza]

Tancy Lee -First ever British Champ,also World flyweight Champ ,

Hubert Toms-Europe and World champ in fly ,

Joe Lynch -Bantamweight champ ,HoFer ,Much bigger Then Wilde ,highly ranked in All time Bantama list ,even us 4th best ever

Thomas Wilson Moore (Memphis pal Moore )-Bantama Champ ,HoFer Also bigger man ,he fought and won over many World champs

Also good fighters like :Billy Padden ,Zulu Kid ,Johny Rosner ,George Clarke .took 2 guys in 1 night and koed both in 5 Rounds combined.
Lost to ATG Pete Herman in 17th Herman was 14 lbs heavier.

His 3rd best puncher of All The time by ring magazine, also best flyweight ever by ring ,Also voted as best Batama ever .

He fought some of them more Then 1 in tournaments and other bouts but its hard to say numbers and resoults .

First and foremost, please show me who the hell has rated Jimmy Wilde as the best Bantamweight ever because if they aren't already dead they need to be shot immediately.

Secondly, there's no chance in hell that Joe Lynch is a Top 5 Bantamweight of all time. IF he's top 10, it's lower top 10.


Ok so we have 0 ATG's, two low end HOF'ers and a handful of decent contenders.

You are impressed by this?

That is not a great resume.

[Canelo and GGG]

First and foremost, please show me who the hell has rated Jimmy Wilde as the best Bantamweight ever because if they aren't already dead they need to be shot immediately.

Secondly, there's no chance in hell that Joe Lynch is a Top 5 Bantamweight of all time. IF he's top 10, it's lower top 10.


Ok so we have 0 ATG's, two low end HOF'ers and a handful of decent contenders.

You are impressed by this?

That is not a great resume.

HBHOF in 2014 so im sure they are alive (boxers and former boxers vote there),If they are not legends and ATG for you ,we will just disagree here ,saying that Lynch is low end HoFer is laughable, they All was best of that generation and he beat them All loseing one time to lee, and 2 times to younger greats on his way out ,most great opponents he faced was bigger Then him ) Memphis pal deserv HoF more Then guy like Hagler (fought with more Champs and won with more )in era where champ was champ and not a *****.

[IronDanHamza]

HBHOF in 2014 so im sure they are alive (boxers and former boxers vote there),If they are not legends and ATG for you ,we will just disagree here ,saying that Lynch is low end HoFer is laughable, they All was best of that generation and he beat them All loseing one time to lee, and 2 times to younger greats on his way out ,most great opponents he faced was bigger Then him ) Memphis pal deserv HoF more Then guy like Hagler (fought with more Champs and won with more )in era where champ was champ and not a *****.

Memphis Pal Moore deserves to be in the HOF more than Marvin Hagler? Don't be ridiculous.

They aren't ATG's. Literally none of them. That's not debatable.

Two of them are HOF'ers. But like I said, down the bottom end.

It's clearly not a great resume I don't know how that can even be disputed.

[IronDanHamza]

Show me who ranks Jimmy Wilde as the best Bantamweight ever and I'll show you a person who knows nothing about Boxing.

[Humean]

The records of probably most of Jimmy Wilde's opponents are incomplete, perhaps wildly so. Wilde was recognized as the best of his time irrespective of how many of his opponents are in the hall of fame or not. You can only defeat the opponents that there are at the time and besides the flyweight division at that time was largely a 'British' division.

[Canelo and GGG]

Memphis Pal Moore deserves to be in the HOF more than Marvin Hagler? Don't be ridiculous.

They aren't ATG's. Literally none of them. That's not debatable.

Two of them are HOF'ers. But like I said, down the bottom end.

It's clearly not a great resume I don't know how that can even be disputed.

So who was better than this guys back Then who they smh didnt fought ?answer is nobody Dan .you can spin it how you want but they are ATGs ,its like saying that Morales ,MAB and Pac are not ATG,same situation 3 best guys of theyr era ,what is so impressive in Hagler resume loseing to Monroe or WW in SRL or KOing another WW ,dont be ridiculous Dan ,They faced superior comp to Haglers comp on Daily bases, how beating best of your era ,and fighting Then sometimes many times, being one of First champs in your devision (maybe even first if i got it correctly)is not makeing you ATG, Many ppl and experts diagree with you here.you are master here Dan but i will diagree strongly with you on this topic ,Hagler had no great MW rival ,this guy had them in both fly and Bant ,so devision higher and not WWs or Lw like Duran (in my Book Hagler is not on par with Sugar or Hearns )

[Canelo and GGG]

The records of probably most of Jimmy Wilde's opponents are incomplete, perhaps wildly so. Wilde was recognized as the best of his time irrespective of how many of his opponents are in the hall of fame or not. You can only defeat the opponents that there are at the time and besides the flyweight division at that time was largely a 'British' division.

Valid points many bouts are not in record books ,also yea it was british devision mostly

[IronDanHamza]

The records of probably most of Jimmy Wilde's opponents are incomplete, perhaps wildly so. Wilde was recognized as the best of his time irrespective of how many of his opponents are in the hall of fame or not. You can only defeat the opponents that there are at the time and besides the flyweight division at that time was largely a 'British' division.

You can only beat what's infront of you yes but if what infront of you isn't that good then that's sadly just their problem.

Bob Foster fought the best guys out his era and everyone in his divison but his resume isn't that great right?

What's your view on Wilde's resume, pretty far from great, no?

[IronDanHamza]

So who was better than this guys back Then who they smh didnt fought ?answer is nobody Dan .you can spin it how you want but they are ATGs ,its like saying that Morales ,MAB and Pac are not ATG,same situation 3 best guys of theyr era ,what is so impressive in Hagler resume loseing to Monroe or WW in SRL or KOing another WW ,dont be ridiculous Dan ,They faced superior comp to Haglers comp on Daily bases, how beating best of your era ,and fighting Then sometimes many times, being one of First champs in your devision (maybe even first if i got it correctly)is not makeing you ATG, Many ppl and experts diagree with you here.you are master here Dan but i will diagree strongly with you on this topic ,Hagler had no great MW rival ,this guy had them in both fly and Bant ,so devision higher and not WWs or Lw like Duran (in my Book Hagler is not on par with Sugar or Hearns )

No one was particularly better but it's irrelvant.

It's nothing like saying Pacquaio, Barrera and Morales aren't ATG's because they are vastly superior fighters who also beat vastly superior fighters.

Experts disagree with me? Find me one expert that has Memphis Pal Moore ranked ahead of Marvin Hagler and I will give you all of my points. It's absolutely asinine to suggest that these two fighters are on the same level.

Infact, find me on expert that has Joe Lynch or Memphis Pal Moore on their top 100 ATG list.

There's nothing to spin here. None of Wilde's opposition were ATG calibur and few of them were HOF calibur. His resume is not strong at all it simply isn't.

[Humean]

You can only beat what's infront of you yes but if what infront of you isn't that good then that's sadly just their problem.

Bob Foster fought the best guys out his era and everyone in his divison but his resume isn't that great right?

What's your view on Wilde's resume, pretty far from great, no?

Well I think that it is a good reason not to place so much weight upon the quality of opponents when judging a fighter. It is one thing when a fighter deliberately avoids the best opponents of his era but if a fighter happens to beat the best that there is and the eye-test (judged by those who saw him and his contemporaries) says he is brilliant (by standards of the time) then that is enough for me. I mean I doubt Wilde was so brilliant by today's standards but for his time he was considered something special, both by observers in Britain and the US.

I take a similar view on Bob Foster except in his case I can use my own eyes to evaluate him and his opponents.