Best Super Middleweight of all time to date?

[killersheep]

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 1984


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDWnMXzgeZo&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1z2y9OfDDE

[Tysonbruno]

Boxing Monthly October 2007 issue ive just found it

[Ghost]

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 1984

In modern times it has only been a division since 1984. I go back before that when it comes to watching fights.

[killersheep]

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 1984

In modern times it has only been a division since 1984. I go back before that when it comes to watching fights.

I don't follow

[Ghost]

SuperMiddleweight has only been a division since 1984

In modern times it has only been a division since 1984. I go back before that when it comes to watching fights.

I don't follow

There were no 168lbs fighters before 1984?

[killersheep]

In modern times it has only been a division since 1984. I go back before that when it comes to watching fights.

I don't follow

There were no 168lbs fighters before 1984?

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.

[Ghost]

I don't follow

There were no 168lbs fighters before 1984?

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.

[killersheep]

There were no 168lbs fighters before 1984?

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.

So, to make this relevant give me an example.