Name Euro fighters who were not frauds

[Mugwump]

Ken Buchanan was an excellent fighter. I like Carl Thompson and John Conteh, also.

[RubenSonny]

I'm not sure about the significance of referring to them as an entity, but whatever. They are obviously working in tandem as the situation dictates. Are you suggesting that they should fight each other? Joe Louis fought one inferior opponent after another in title defenses, yet he escapes scorn for how miserable the division was during his reign. He was fortunate to be able to build a solid resume when he was a contender.

Vitali won the vacant WBC title (held by Lewis) from Corrie Sanders. Every fight he has had since has been for that title. In the world we live in now, that makes him as much of a champion as WBC welterweight champion Floyd Mayweather is today.

Well a big difference is that Louis was one fighter while Klitschkos aren't. Also Louis beat much better fighters than the Klitschkos. I don't blame the Klitschkos for not fighting each other but it does help explain their so called dominance and any excuses (valid or not) don't do anything for legacy. The key difference between Floyd and Vitali is that Floyd has lineal claim to the welterweight title while Vitali never has and most likely never will, the WBC part is irrelevant and worthless.

[RubenSonny]

Ken Buchanan was an excellent fighter. I like Carl Thompson and John Conteh, also.

Buchanan was excellent, I really don't rate Thompson though.

[deansluk]

yeh buchanan was one of the best ! conteh and watt good mentions , lloyd honeygan whooped curry ! not to mention the unbeaten legend that is Svenne ottke ! lmao

[Mugwump]

Buchanan was excellent, I really don't rate Thompson though.

His record doesn't break any eggs (largely because he lacked genuine stopping power). But he was a true warrior with good skills, tremendous stamina and he'd fight anyone, anywhere at any time.

To be honest, I have a lot of time for Carl Froch. I mean, skills-wise he's very, very limited. But unlike just about every British fighter of the last ten years he's prepared to put himself in harm's way (regardless of venue) and go up against the best. Very few fighters today show similar aspirations. They are more concerned with protecting their records (against mediocre opponents), filling their wallets and living the high life.

We can thank guys like Frank Warren for that.

[Mugwump]

One guy I never rated was Duke McKenzie. I mean here's a boxer who, on paper, reads like a star. A three-weight world champion! But who did he fight? It just goes to show that - with the right management - just about anyone these days can get a belt of some description.

[deansluk]

agreed cant stand duke mckenzie , he won the wbo title when it was about as relevant as the wbf belt of today , and on british tv he claims to be a 3 weight world champion, its shocking lol froch whilst limited is a throwback and youve got to love him , i wasnt a fan til he beat dodson ? never thought hed be where he is today

[Mugwump]

Froch gets hit so often it's incredible he isn't brain damaged. Why his hands are so low I have no idea. It frustrates the life out of me when boxers fight with a low guard. It's disrespectful to the opponent and sooner or later - no matter how fast your reflexes are - you are going to get tagged. If elusive guys like Herol Graham couldn't get away with dropping their hands then Froch - with his very modest speed - must know it's a ****** idea.

That said, despite his limitations, he finds a way to win. That counts for something in my book.

Moving on, Calzaghe was a good fighter. But he allowed Frank Warren to toss away the best years of his career. I know he had problems making fights against the top American boxers. But he could have forced the issue by doing what Nigel Benn did taking them on in their own back yard. Had he despatched a few guys in similar fashion to Benn's victories over DeWitt and Barkley Roy Jones and company would have been compelled - through sheer weight of public opinion - to enter negotiations.

[Scott9945]

Well a big difference is that Louis was one fighter while Klitschkos aren't. Also Louis beat much better fighters than the Klitschkos. I don't blame the Klitschkos for not fighting each other but it does help explain their so called dominance and any excuses (valid or not) don't do anything for legacy. The key difference between Floyd and Vitali is that Floyd has lineal claim to the welterweight title while Vitali never has and most likely never will, the WBC part is irrelevant and worthless.

I don't think being brothers is an excuse not to fight. It is morally and ethically correct. And their dominance is evident, not so called.

If you considered Lennox Lewis the lineal champion then Vitali winning the same belt he vacated is legitimate. The term lineal title will become more obscure every year. You can bet on that. The boxing business just doesn't care about hardcore fans perception of purism.

[wmute]

Duilio Loi should be mentioned.