I read in boxing monthly could have been last year but they still rated Roy Jones as number 1 Super Middleweight of all time with Calzaghe in 2nd what do you guys think?
Printable View
I read in boxing monthly could have been last year but they still rated Roy Jones as number 1 Super Middleweight of all time with Calzaghe in 2nd what do you guys think?
I guess it depends what you value, overall skill or longevity. I'd say RJJ based on skill alone, but Calzaghe's reign has certainly been much more impressive than Jones'.
The Poll was before Calzaghe vs Kessler and the writer was American Steve Farhood (who has written for KO and The Ring Magazine).
Farhood said that if Joe beat Kessler then that would make him No.1.
That would be for current super middle weights, this is all time.Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob
Thanks for that mate ive been trying to find the mag but ive got boxing news from 1995 to present and loads of Ring magazines and Boxing monthly and i cant find it SHOCK!!;DQuote:
Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob
This is exactly right.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
Calzaghe's best win at 168 IMO was over Kessler
Jones Jr's best win at 168 IMO was over Toney
I think ultimately you can make a very good case for both, however the longevity of Calzaghe's reign clinches it for me, although prime vs. prime I think Jones would have won. It's hard to believe that RJJ vs. JFAT was almost a decade and a half ago.
As the sport of boxing is at least a couple hundred years old and I have not personally seen all the Super Middleweights in that time frame (Nor has anyone else on this forum) it would be hard to give an answer to "Who is the Best Super Middleweight of all time"
SuperMiddleweight has only been a division since 1984Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDWnMXzgeZo&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1z2y9OfDDE
Someone on these boards once argued that there was difference between being the best and being the greatest. Following that I'd say Roy Jones was the best Super Middleweight of all time - no one who has ever fought at 168 would have beaten a prime RJJ at the weight - while Calzaghe is the greatest (due to a better resume at the weight).
Boxing Monthly October 2007 issue ive just found it
I know the Ring awarded Calzaghe a belt after the Lacy or Kessler fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepThat would be for current super middle weights, this is all time.Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob
They actually flew to England and hand presented him the Ring Belt for being the greatest supermiddleweight, not sure if they meant current or all time.
But he has to the best super middleweight ever as his career is tied up to the super middleweight division.
Jones has undoubtedly achieved more but he's fought in many weight classes so cannot be considered a super middle champ in the way Calzaghe has.
If that was the case the Floyd Mayweather is the best super featherweight, lightweight, junior welter and welterweight of the last 15 years.
In modern times it has only been a division since 1984. I go back before that when it comes to watching fights.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepSuperMiddleweight has only been a division since 1984Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
The top 10 of all time in the mag were
1.Roy Jones
2.Joe Calzaghe
3.Nigel Benn
4.Chris Eubank
5.James Toney
6.Steve Collins
7.Sven Ottke
8.Steve Liles
9.Chong Pal Park
10.Mikkel Kessler
I don't followQuote:
Originally Posted by GhostIn modern times it has only been a division since 1984. I go back before that when it comes to watching fights.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepSuperMiddleweight has only been a division since 1984Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
It was for all-time, Greg.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepThat would be for current super middle weights, this is all time.Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob
Top Ten: Super Middleweight
Steve Farhood rates the leading fighters in the relatively short history of a division turned bigtime mainly to European boxers
A question that has puzzled philosophers dating back to Socrates, Confucius, Aristotle, and Don King: How can a division that has flaunted world titlists such as Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns, Roy Jones, Iran Barkley and James Toney be dominated by fighters from the UK and the rest of Europe?
The super middleweight class is 23 years old, and there have been 41 different champions, of which only 13 have been American.
The heart and soul of the super middleweights have been the fighters who committed to the division, made or at least solidified their reputations at 12st, and scored their most significant triumphs at the weight. For multi-division titlists like Leonard and Hearns, super middleweight was a mere pit stop. But Joe Calzaghe, Chris Eubank, Nigel Benn and Steve Collins turned a division into a prime battlefield.
On 3 November in Cardiff, Calzaghe will clash with fellow unbeaten Mikkel Kessler in a unification bout featuring titlists with a combined record of 82-0. The outcome will impact the pound-for-pound rankings, the super middleweight rankings and the all-time division rankings.
At a press conference announcing the fight, I asked both titlists to identify the best super middleweight of all. Calzaghe said he was number one, with Roy Jones second. Kessler said he was number one, but acknowledged that he'd have to beat Calzaghe to prove it.
Here, then, from a writer on the wrong side of the pond (Farhood is American), are the Top 10 super middleweights in division history.
1 ROY JONES
Jones occupies the highest perch for three reasons: 1) He won his share of the title by masterfully outboxing James Toney, who at the time was ranked second, pound for pound; 2) He made five defences, all by stoppage, and never lost at the weight; 3) He won the title at age 25 and vacated at 28, or to put it more simply, he reigned when Roy Jones was Roy Jones, a breathtaking, unique, overwhelming talent.
Toney aside, Jones's opposition at super middleweight wasn't memorable; his victims were Bryant Brannon, Vinny Pazienza, Antoine Byrd, Tony Thornton and Eric Lucas. Nonetheless, his performances were special. Against Paz, he won a round without absorbing a single blow.
A bout vs fellow titlist Nigel Benn would've been intriguing, but at that point in Jones's career, he wasn't going to lose to Benn or anybody else.
2 JOE CALZAGHE
A 10-year title run and 20 successful defences is the stuff of legends, and the Welsh southpaw is still rolling. Should he convincingly defeat Kessler, I'll place him above Jones.
To place the numbers in perspective, consider that among today's titlists, Calzaghe's reign is seven years longer than that of the runners-up, lightweight Juan Diaz and strawweight Yutaka niida.
Calzaghe has been uneven. He's suffered several injuries, struggled through mediocre performances, and bested forgettable challengers, including Will McIntyre, Rick Thornberry and Tocker Pudwill. Moreover, 18 of his 20 defences have come in the UK. But the positives are sparkling: He won his first title by dethroning an itimidating presence and established titlist in Chris Eubank, rose from a devastating knockdown to stop Byron Mitchell, and schooled Jeff Lacy, who was 21-0 and labeled a mini-Tyson.
At this point, Calzaghe is defined by his dominance over Lacy, who is dismissed as having been overrated only because of the thoroughness of Calzaghe's victory. If the left-hander defeats Kessler, we'll have to reconsider his credentials for the second time in 20 months.
3 NIGEL BENN
With "The Dark Destroyer", there was balance: A former belt-holder at middleweight, Benn followed nine successful defences at 12st with losses in three consecutive title bouts. Title fight wins over Mauro Galvano (twice), Lou Gent and danny Perez don't score a lot of points, but his rematch defence against arch-rival Eubank (D 12), fought before 42,000 fans at Old Trafford, was the division's most significant bout to that point, and his tragic off-the-floor stoppage of fearsome puncher Gerald McClellan was as savage a bout as any in the '90s.
The majority of observers thought Benn nicked Eubank in their 1993 unification showdown. In fact, a point deduction for punching low cost Benn the verdict.
4 CHRIS EUBANK
Sadly, what McClellan was to Benn, Michael Watson was to Eubank. In one of the best fights of the decade (and one of the most dramatic turnarounds in history), Eubank won a vacant title by rising from the first knockdown of his career and immediately dropping Watson. He finished his rival early in the next round, and Watson, severly injured, never fought again.
Eubank mad 14 successful defences. Like most long-reigning titlists, his resume includes some forgettable challenges (Mauricio Costa, John Jarvis, Sam Storey), but his draw with Benn and his points win in Germany over former and future titlist Graciano Rocchigiani, who was 35-0 at the time, elevate him over almost all other super middles.
It was before Calzaghe's title-fight win over Eubank that the division developed its reputation as a British stronghold. And even though they fought each other only once at the weight, Eubank and Benn are responsible.
5 JAMES TONEY
It can be argued that at his best, Toney was a better fighter than both Benn and Eubank, but his stay at super middle was relatively short, and his horrendous points loss to Jones deserves penalty.
What to make of Toney's title-winning stoppage of Iran Barkley? "The Blade" had twice beaten Hearns, but had also suffered a first-round KO at the hands of Benn. That aside, Toney, who always struggled to make 12st, defended against Tim Littles, who was 24-0, and comprehensively defeated Prince Charles Williams, who had reigned with distinction at light-heavyweight.
Suffice to say that when we consider Toney's career in its entirety, only a small portion of the focus is applied to his days in this division.
6 STEVE COLLINS
Timing is essential, and for that reason, the Irishman, despite having twice beaten both Benn and Eubank, ranks below them.
Collins caught Eubank toward the end, and both his wins over Benn, the result of injury (First fight) and curious surrender (rematch), were less than comprehensive. The back-to-back losses were the last fights of Benn's career.
One other thing: As tough as Collins was, he wasn't the fighter his more celebrated rivals were.
Collins made seven successful defences. Remove the three that came against Eubank and Benn and his challengers (Cornelius Carr, Neville Brown, Craig Cummings) were underwhelming. He did, however, retire with the belt, something neither Eubank nor Benn can claim to have done.
7 SVEN OTTKE
The German never lost a fight (34-0), but don't even suggest comparisons with Rocky Marciano, which would be grotesque and absurd.
So how does a titlist make 21 defences, retire with two belts, and rank only seventh? Lots of reasons. For one, Ottke never defended outside of Germany. That's a lot of home cooking, which partly explains four wins by split or majority decision. For another, there's nothing special about Ottke's list of challengers. There are some quality wins (Byron Mitchell, Charles Brewer, Mads Larsen, Glen Johnson, Silvio Branco) , but nothing that suggests entry into the pound-for-pound listings.
And let's not forget that in December '03, Ottke was given an early Christmas present when he outpointed Robin Reid.
8 FRANKIE LILES
The long lefty makes the list based on longevity; he made seven successful defences and reigned for the better part of five years.
I'd argue that Liles is a bit underrated, partly because his style was often negative and partly because his reign overlapped with higher-profile titlists like Jones and Benn. Moreover, Liles lacked a defining fight. Instead, he was the consistent type, defending mostly against good fighters like his arch-rival Tim Littles.
Liles's best win came in his first defence, against fellow southpaw and two-division titlist Michael Nunn in Ecuador. Nunn had only two losses at the time.
That Liles, who was never the best fighter at his weight, cracks the Top 10 speaks volumes of the relative immaturity of this division. Twenty-three years isn't enough to establish a solid list of exceptional champions.
9 CHONG PAL PARK
The second titlist in this division's history, Park was an oddity, only because there are very few Koreans fighting in the heavier weight classes. (Interestingly, another Korean, In Chul Baek, reigned at super middleweight in the late-'80s.)
As a two time titlist, Park made a combined nine successful defences. Eleven of his twelve world title fights took place in his homeland. He was a strong super middle, but the quality of his title fight opponents was relatively weak. For instance, Roy Gumbs and Emmanuel Otti were both coming off back-to-back losses, Indonesia's Polly Pasireron was 4-2, and Jesus Gallardo was a novice without a notable win.
The only impressive name of Park's list of victims is Lindell Holmes, and Park barely edged the American, who was a future world titlist.
10 MIKKEL KESSLER
Obviously, "The Viking Warrior" will ultimatly be measured by his performance against Calzaghe. At this point, including him in the Top 10 is based more on talent and potential than accomplishment.
Kessler is only 28, and he's the reigning titlist of two organisations. He's made four successful defences, and while there have been no creampuffs, the level of his title fight opposition hasn't been sterling. For instance, Markus Beyer was 35, and Eric Lukas, who hasn't fought since, had gone 2-2 in his previous four bouts.
What makes Calzaghe-Kessler so appetising is not only the combined record of 82-0, but also the fact that they're so clearly the two best fighters in their division. Two European champions fighting for global dominance - just as it should be at super middleweight.
www.boxingmonthly.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDevilRobIt was for all-time, Greg.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepThat would be for current super middle weights, this is all time.Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDevilRob
I like Kessler a lot, but I don't think he has any claim for an all-time SMW champ. I can't get my head around the justification of that. I think maybe it was hype for the fight?
There were no 168lbs fighters before 1984?Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepI don't followQuote:
Originally Posted by GhostIn modern times it has only been a division since 1984. I go back before that when it comes to watching fights.Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostThere were no 168lbs fighters before 1984?Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepI don't followQuote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
Fighters may have weighed 168 lbs. but they were not super middleweights. I understand your argument, but I don't believe it falls into the scope of the question and furthmore as you pointed out it reaches to times where would not have as much material to make a decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepQuote:
Originally Posted by GhostThere were no 168lbs fighters before 1984?Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
Fighters may have weighed 168 lbs. but they were not super middleweights. I understand your argument, but I don't believe it falls into the scope of the question and furthmore as you pointed out it reaches to times where would not have as much material to make a decision.
In fact it does fall into the scope of the question.. "All Time Best" I have been watching fights since before 1984, before they made a division called "Super Middleweight".
168lbs is 168lbs, regardless of what label you place it on.
If the question was: "Who is the greastest "Super Middleweight" since 1984, I would not have posted, but as that was not the question, it opens it up to debate as to who is the best "Super Middleweight" of all time, and last time I looked, 1901 was before 1984. :cool:
So, to make this relevant give me an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheepQuote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
Fighters may have weighed 168 lbs. but they were not super middleweights. I understand your argument, but I don't believe it falls into the scope of the question and furthmore as you pointed out it reaches to times where would not have as much material to make a decision.
In fact it does fall into the scope of the question.. "All Time Best" I have been watching fights since before 1984, before they made a division called "Super Middleweight".
168lbs is 168lbs, regardless of what label you place it on.
If the question was: "Who is the greastest "Super Middleweight" since 1984, I would not have posted, but as that was not the question, it opens it up to debate as to who is the best "Super Middleweight" of all time, and last time I looked, 1901 was before 1984. :cool:
i put jones as one mainly because he fought a prime james toney who was in the top p4p 3 fighters in the world at the time. and calzaghes best fight was kessler who is a good fighter but is not well known and isnt considerd the top 10 best in the worldQuote:
Originally Posted by tysonbruno
That was probably me, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikkel_K
The most accomplished super middleweight ever was Calzaghe without any real question imo. The best was Roy Jones Jr., match any super middleweight with a prime RJ then RJ wins no matter who the other guy beat.
We'll have to agree to disagree then.Quote:
Originally Posted by amatThat was probably me, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikkel_K
The most accomplished super middleweight ever was Calzaghe without any real question imo. The best was Roy Jones Jr., match any super middleweight with a prime RJ then RJ wins no matter who the other guy beat.
For someone to simply say 'a prime roy jones could beat anyone' is ridiculous.
Jones had 7 fights at supermiddleweight and this makes him the best ever?:confused: He didnt unify belts and isnt unbeaten...yet hes 'the best ever' for beating only one worthy challenger at that weight category and a load of bums...people need to start looking at the facts rather than bullsh1t.
Calzaghe beats 5 worthy chllengers at that weight (kessler, lacy, reid, eubank and mitchell)...as well as about 5 x the amount of bums that roy jones fought at super middle and p1ssed all over them...yet he 'wouldnt even stand a chance against a prime roy jones'.
Truly laughable.
Jones was in his prime against the tricky southpaw fighter tarver...LOOK WHAT HAPPENED!
So is it inconcievable to think that an even trickier, faster and more skilled southpaw fighter couldve beaten him?
Ah...i forgot, hes roy jones, his unbelievable incredible record of beating toney, trinidad, hopkins and ruiz, makes him automatically the 'greatest ever'.
The fact he lost to tarver and johnson is meaningless right?
What makes me laugh so much on this forum is that people judge boxers on just 1 or 2 performances, TO JUDGE A BOXER AND EVALUATE HOW GOOD THEY ARE YOU MUST LOOK AT THEIR WHOLE CAREER IN BOXING.
Not 1 or 2 performances.
Calzaghe is far from his peak now, he was at his peak 3 years ago when he totally bashed lacy sh1tless...yet people think its totally inconcievable for the guy who completely schooled lacy (better than anyone jones fought at super middle except for toney) that calzaghe 'wouldnt even stand a chance against a peak roy jones'.
Boxers peak for a fight and then decline, but the greatest boxer is the one with the greatest career.
Is a prime buster douglas the greatest heavyweight of all time? NO HES NOT EVEN AN ATG! FAR FROM IT...but he beat a prime tyson...so according to these rules that people have, A PRIME TYSON IS NOT AS GOOD AS A PRIME BUSTER DOUGLAS!
How does that make sense?
Truly pathetic.
You are truly stupid. The RJJ that beat Toney was levels above Joe Calzaghe. Toney was ranked 2 P4P and Jones completely anihilated him. Yea Jones fough bums at 168 but he only lost 2 rounds in he 7 fights at that weight and knocked 5 guys out.Quote:
Originally Posted by LondonBBWe'll have to agree to disagree then.Quote:
Originally Posted by amatThat was probably me, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikkel_K
The most accomplished super middleweight ever was Calzaghe without any real question imo. The best was Roy Jones Jr., match any super middleweight with a prime RJ then RJ wins no matter who the other guy beat.
For someone to simply say 'a prime roy jones could beat anyone' is ridiculous.
Jones had 7 fights at supermiddleweight and this makes him the best ever?:confused: He didnt unify belts and isnt unbeaten...yet hes 'the best ever' for beating only one worthy challenger at that weight category and a load of bums...people need to start looking at the facts rather than bullsh1t.
Calzaghe beats 5 worthy chllengers at that weight (kessler, lacy, reid, eubank and mitchell)...as well as about 5 x the amount of bums that roy jones fought at super middle and p1ssed all over them...yet he 'wouldnt even stand a chance against a prime roy jones'.
Truly laughable.
Jones was in his prime against the tricky southpaw fighter tarver...LOOK WHAT HAPPENED!
So is it inconcievable to think that an even trickier, faster and more skilled southpaw fighter couldve beaten him?
Ah...i forgot, hes roy jones, his unbelievable incredible record of beating toney, trinidad, hopkins and ruiz, makes him automatically the 'greatest ever'.
The fact he lost to tarver and johnson is meaningless right?
What makes me laugh so much on this forum is that people judge boxers on just 1 or 2 performances, TO JUDGE A BOXER AND EVALUATE HOW GOOD THEY ARE YOU MUST LOOK AT THEIR WHOLE CAREER IN BOXING.
Not 1 or 2 performances.
Calzaghe is far from his peak now, he was at his peak 3 years ago when he totally bashed lacy sh1tless...yet people think its totally inconcievable for the guy who completely schooled lacy (better than anyone jones fought at super middle except for toney) that calzaghe 'wouldnt even stand a chance against a peak roy jones'.
Boxers peak for a fight and then decline, but the greatest boxer is the one with the greatest career.
Is a prime buster douglas the greatest heavyweight of all time? NO HES NOT EVEN AN ATG! FAR FROM IT...but he beat a prime tyson...so according to these rules that people have, A PRIME TYSON IS NOT AS GOOD AS A PRIME BUSTER DOUGLAS!
How does that make sense?
Truly pathetic.
Jones is the greatest ever fighter the 168 division has ever seen, but Calzaghe accomplished more there cos he stayed at 168 longer. I have no doubt if Jones had stayed at 168 for as long as Joe.
Proof of that is he went up a division, fought bigger better fighters at 175 and owned that division for years.
Joe is a great fighter, but to say he'd beat a mid 90's Jones is laughable.
Do you mean Frank Liles or Steve Littles ?Quote:
Originally Posted by tysonbruno
Super Middleweight, p4p, over it's history, will go down as the weakest division of all time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LondonBBWe'll have to agree to disagree then.Quote:
Originally Posted by amatThat was probably me, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikkel_K
The most accomplished super middleweight ever was Calzaghe without any real question imo. The best was Roy Jones Jr., match any super middleweight with a prime RJ then RJ wins no matter who the other guy beat.
For someone to simply say 'a prime roy jones could beat anyone' is ridiculous.
Jones had 7 fights at supermiddleweight and this makes him the best ever?:confused: He didnt unify belts and isnt unbeaten...yet hes 'the best ever' for beating only one worthy challenger at that weight category and a load of bums...people need to start looking at the facts rather than bullsh1t.
Calzaghe beats 5 worthy chllengers at that weight (kessler, lacy, reid, eubank and mitchell)...as well as about 5 x the amount of bums that roy jones fought at super middle and p1ssed all over them...yet he 'wouldnt even stand a chance against a prime roy jones'.
Truly laughable.
Jones was in his prime against the tricky southpaw fighter tarver...LOOK WHAT HAPPENED!
So is it inconcievable to think that an even trickier, faster and more skilled southpaw fighter couldve beaten him?
Ah...i forgot, hes roy jones, his unbelievable incredible record of beating toney, trinidad, hopkins and ruiz, makes him automatically the 'greatest ever'.
The fact he lost to tarver and johnson is meaningless right?
What makes me laugh so much on this forum is that people judge boxers on just 1 or 2 performances, TO JUDGE A BOXER AND EVALUATE HOW GOOD THEY ARE YOU MUST LOOK AT THEIR WHOLE CAREER IN BOXING.
Not 1 or 2 performances.
Calzaghe is far from his peak now, he was at his peak 3 years ago when he totally bashed lacy sh1tless...yet people think its totally inconcievable for the guy who completely schooled lacy (better than anyone jones fought at super middle except for toney) that calzaghe 'wouldnt even stand a chance against a peak roy jones'.
Boxers peak for a fight and then decline, but the greatest boxer is the one with the greatest career.
Is a prime buster douglas the greatest heavyweight of all time? NO HES NOT EVEN AN ATG! FAR FROM IT...but he beat a prime tyson...so according to these rules that people have, A PRIME TYSON IS NOT AS GOOD AS A PRIME BUSTER DOUGLAS!
How does that make sense?
Truly pathetic.
You have to be kidding me here, you are absolutely ridiculous. Read the words of my post. ON PAPER, the GREATEST Super Middleweight ever by what he accomplished ON PAPER, is Joe Calzaghe. The BEST I believe is Roy Jones Jr. That's NOT because of what he did ON PAPER. It's because of how supremely talented he was AT 168 then anybody else has ever been, imo. So when you bring up him getting knocked out after he was already up to light heavyweight, skipped cruiser went up to heavyweight and then came down again to light heavyweight, that doesn't matter. Because I'm talking about when he was at 168. It doesn't matter who he beat, it's how he did it. JONES JR UD TONEY 12 doesn't mean anything it's how he looked doing it and that Roy Jones is the best ever I believe.
The other shit, I don't know what you're on man but you lost me.
Who was the better of the two RJJ or Joe @ SMW?
I'd have to side with RJJ.
How do I rank them, well being that I personally rank RJJ as a LHW. I would rank Joe as #1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheepSo, to make this relevant give me an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
In fact it does fall into the scope of the question.. "All Time Best" I have been watching fights since before 1984, before they made a division called "Super Middleweight".
168lbs is 168lbs, regardless of what label you place it on.
If the question was: "Who is the greastest "Super Middleweight" since 1984, I would not have posted, but as that was not the question, it opens it up to debate as to who is the best "Super Middleweight" of all time, and last time I looked, 1901 was before 1984. :cool:
Bill Yank Rudd fought between 1910 and 1920, had 39 fights and is concered a "Super Middleweight" fighter even tho division did not exist back then.
I am sure that if I went back farther I can come with others that fall in "All Time" list.
Yeh totally agree. Had they fought Prime for Prime I would strongly favour RJJ to win, BUT if you are ranking them at SMW, You'd have to put JC ahead on achievment, longjevity etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by CutMeMick
LOL;D yes mate Frankie Liles its because as i was writing i was thinking of his fight with Steve Little and his up and downer with Tim Littles cheers mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Lord AlDo you mean Frank Liles or Steve Littles ?Quote:
Originally Posted by tysonbruno
One of the dumbest comments i've ever witnessed, your Joe Calzaghe fanboyism is just laughable. Yea the Roy Jones Jr that fought Antonio Tarver was obviously the same Roy Jones who defeated James Toney :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by LondonBBWe'll have to agree to disagree then.Quote:
Originally Posted by amatThat was probably me, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikkel_K
The most accomplished super middleweight ever was Calzaghe without any real question imo. The best was Roy Jones Jr., match any super middleweight with a prime RJ then RJ wins no matter who the other guy beat.
For someone to simply say 'a prime roy jones could beat anyone' is ridiculous.
Jones had 7 fights at supermiddleweight and this makes him the best ever?:confused: He didnt unify belts and isnt unbeaten...yet hes 'the best ever' for beating only one worthy challenger at that weight category and a load of bums...people need to start looking at the facts rather than bullsh1t.
Calzaghe beats 5 worthy chllengers at that weight (kessler, lacy, reid, eubank and mitchell)...as well as about 5 x the amount of bums that roy jones fought at super middle and p1ssed all over them...yet he 'wouldnt even stand a chance against a prime roy jones'.
Truly laughable.
Jones was in his prime against the tricky southpaw fighter tarver...LOOK WHAT HAPPENED!
So is it inconcievable to think that an even trickier, faster and more skilled southpaw fighter couldve beaten him?
Ah...i forgot, hes roy jones, his unbelievable incredible record of beating toney, trinidad, hopkins and ruiz, makes him automatically the 'greatest ever'.
The fact he lost to tarver and johnson is meaningless right?
What makes me laugh so much on this forum is that people judge boxers on just 1 or 2 performances, TO JUDGE A BOXER AND EVALUATE HOW GOOD THEY ARE YOU MUST LOOK AT THEIR WHOLE CAREER IN BOXING.
Not 1 or 2 performances.
Calzaghe is far from his peak now, he was at his peak 3 years ago when he totally bashed lacy sh1tless...yet people think its totally inconcievable for the guy who completely schooled lacy (better than anyone jones fought at super middle except for toney) that calzaghe 'wouldnt even stand a chance against a peak roy jones'.
Boxers peak for a fight and then decline, but the greatest boxer is the one with the greatest career.
Is a prime buster douglas the greatest heavyweight of all time? NO HES NOT EVEN AN ATG! FAR FROM IT...but he beat a prime tyson...so according to these rules that people have, A PRIME TYSON IS NOT AS GOOD AS A PRIME BUSTER DOUGLAS!
How does that make sense?
Truly pathetic.
And Roy Jones lost to Antonio Tarver because he was a tricky Southpaw ? are you kidding me ? maybe it had something to do with Roy Jones being 35, and dropping tons of weight making him weak which resulted in losing alot of muscle mass. For someone who is supposedly a body builder im suprised you failed to mention this.
Reggie Johnson was a very good tricky Southpaw fighter. Actually he was better than Antonio Tarver, considering when he was at the end of his career. He only just lost a SD to Antonio Tarver, a prime Roy Jones dominated Reggie Johnson. He also beat Eric Harding who was another good Southpaw fighter.
Please actually learn about boxing Roy Jones defeated James Toney, when he was a P4P top 3 fighter in the world. With victories over Reggie Johnson, Michael Nunn, Mike McCallum, Merqui Sosa, Iran Barkley, Doug DeWitt, Tim Littles ETC.
Show me any of Joe Calzaghe's opposition who had a record like that ? if anyone actually believes Joe Calzaghe would of beaten a prime Roy Jones then you don't know boxing end of. Roy Jones was beating fighters like Thulani Malinga easily, who beat a prime Robin Reid, and should of had 2 wins over Nigel Benn including a win over Chris Eubank.
Roy Jones is x2 a fast as Joe Calzaghe, he hits x2 as hard and he does everything better than Joe Calzaghe. He was a special fighter where as Joe Calzaghe is just a very good fighter IMO.
I think accomplishment wise at 168 Calzaghe takes it no doubt.
Had both fighters faced each others in their prime at 168 Jones would win.
To me it goes to Joe due to his long reign there where Jones did nowhere near as much at 168.
To be an all time great at something or in a certain place you have to have spent some time there...Jones was only at SM for a short period...I don't even think he had 5 fights at the weight class......
Joe Calzaghe was a SMW for pretty much his whole career and managed to hold the reigns tightly,
I have to pick Joe Calzaghe at SMW for the reason of his longevity and ability to stay on top during that stay..
With that being said....
At SMW I think Roy Jones was the most talented fighter to ever grace this sport and that includes SRR....I do not mean over all in their careers but just the version of Jones at 168...IMO he was as close to being unbeatable as any fighter could possibly be.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostQuote:
Originally Posted by killersheepSo, to make this relevant give me an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost
Bill Yank Rudd fought between 1910 and 1920, had 39 fights and is concered a "Super Middleweight" fighter even tho division did not exist back then.
I am sure that if I went back farther I can come with others that fall in "All Time" list.
OK let's approach this logically then, this is all according to boxrec, because I don't know anything about the guy. He fought for a regional heavyweight and middleweight title losing both, never fought anyone of note. Furthermore his few recorded weigh-ins had him in at middleweight and light heavyweight limits. I don't see how he is relevant. I don't see how you can consider him a super middleweight either. Please find another example or at least explain how he was a Super Middleweight, IF you can prove justification for him as a super middleweight THEN you can justify how he was better than Calzaghe or Jones Jr.
If it said greatest SMW I would have voted for Calzaghe because when that word is used I go off achievement, but when the word best is used I simply go off skill and Roy Jones at the time he was at SMW was unbelievably talented and skillfull so he gets my vote here!
You are missing my point killersheep, The question was "Who is the Best Super Middleweight of All Time"? As there are 1000's of boxers who have fought at 168lbs over the years,(since time began) that no-one has ever seen or heard of, how can a winner or answer to question be given?Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
If the question was limited to the years between 1984 and now, different story. But "All Time" covers a greater time frame.
I guess my interpretation of it was "the best super middleweight of all time"Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostYou are missing my point killersheep, The question was "Who is the Best Super Middleweight of All Time"? As there are 1000's of boxers who have fought at 168lbs over the years,(since time began) that no-one has ever seen or heard of, how can a winner or answer to question be given?Quote:
Originally Posted by killersheep
If the question was limited to the years between 1984 and now, different story. But "All Time" covers a greater time frame.
as opposed to "the best 168 lb. fighter of all-time" and since the title "Super Middleweight" came into existence in 1984 I foolishly assumed that would constitute a statute of limitations. You're right.