Which of these fighters had the single biggest win of the pair? Carl Froch and Andre Ward Nigel Benn and Chris Eubank Scott Harrisson and Wayne McCullough Chad Dawson and Tomasz Adamek Dick Tiger and Bob Foster Archie Moore and Rocky Marciano Ezzard Charles and Rocky Marciano ____________ Of course the word "Biggest" is open to interpretation,could mean "Biggest event", "biggest shock", etc but generally it would mean a win of greater significance in boxing, and we all know pretty much what I mean by that. Sometimes its obvious. Ali vs Norton is a good example. Norton probably beat Ali 2 out of 3 but we know who had the bigger wins. Ali, over Frazier, Foreman, etc. Maybe Norton if he had beaten Holmes, who knows, that might have made it a closer argument. Benn vs Eubank....Benn has that win over McClellan which I think might just trump any other single individual win of Eubanks, barring, of course, the win over Benn himself. Would either of Adameks wins over Banks, Cunningham, Mike Grant, Arreola top Dawsons wins over Johnson, Tarver? :dunno: Are any of Bob Fosters wins over guys like Chris Finnegan or Mike Quarry or Frank DePaula really bigger than Tigers wins over the Fullmers, Jose Torres, Giardello etc? People have Foster down as the #1 LHW of all time, but his resume seems a bit sparse, a lot of what he is remembered for seems built on not just the win but the nature of the win over Tiger. Would Carl Frochs slapping-around of Bute count for more or less than Wards wins over.....Abraham, Bika, or would Wards win over Kessler count for more than Frochs win over Bute?
Regarding Foster and Tiger, there's no doubt that Tiger's outstanding resume trumps Foster's... Tiger fought just about everybody and beat just about everybody What makes Foster a consensus top 5 LH all-time is the alarming domination of his reign... He completely outclassed his opponents, brained them, Tiger included (one of the 5 most impressive, meaningful KOs of all-time, I'd have to bet) ... With Foster, it was never a question of whether or not he would win, it was a question of "can the other guy see the final bell?", most of the time the answer was no. Head-to-head, it's tough to confidently pick against him. But, when you add in level of comp, he's got to go down a few places to make room for Ezzard Charles (really, a no-brainer selection for #1, i think in my mind), Mike Spinks (outstanding comp before he even won the title) and Archie Moore (lots of great comp, especially on the way up and a lot of longevity) ... some might even prefer Jones (I don't, because he showed no initiative in going after the main pretender to the throne, DM... When Foster was inexplicably stripped of the WBA title and Vicente Rondon won it, Foster was foaming at the mouth to get him and did so with a vengeance)
I think Ward's win over Kessler trumps Froch's wins over Bute, Pascal, and Dirrell. Probably. If Ward beats Dawson, that win probably trumps Froch's wins, too. Froch gets penalized for beating Bute so easily. If that had been a war with Froch stopping him late, it would be viewed as a better win.
