Best Super Middleweight of all time to date?

[RozzySean]

You can make a case that Steve Collins ranks a close third to Calzaghe. Two wins over prime Chris Eubanks, two wins over Nigel Benn (he was older, but so was Eubank when Calzaghe fought him), and Chris Pyatt. Frederic Seillier was also a decent win.

[Fenster]

You can make a case that Steve Collins ranks a close third to Calzaghe. Two wins over prime Chris Eubanks, two wins over Nigel Benn (he was older, but so was Eubank when Calzaghe fought him), and Chris Pyatt. Frederic Seillier was also a decent win.

You can only do that by judging their careers on paper.

Benn was well finished. And Eubank was arguably never really the same after the Watson fight - so a long way from his prime.

Calzaghe had never been past 8 rounds, so Eubank, even though not prime, was a BIG step-up in class for him. That's the difference.

[RozzySean]

You can make a case that Steve Collins ranks a close third to Calzaghe. Two wins over prime Chris Eubanks, two wins over Nigel Benn (he was older, but so was Eubank when Calzaghe fought him), and Chris Pyatt. Frederic Seillier was also a decent win.

You can only do that by judging their careers on paper.

Benn was well finished. And Eubank was arguably never really the same after the Watson fight - so a long way from his prime.

Calzaghe had never been past 8 rounds, so Eubank, even though not prime, was a BIG step-up in class for him. That's the difference.

That is the most illogical thing I've ever heard. I don't know how you can credit Calzaghe for beating Eubank, yet not fully credit Collins for beating a much younger, much better version. You also argued in another thread that Eubank wasn't shot against Calzaghe, only weight drained. You can't have it both ways, Fenster.

So what if Calzaghe had never been past 8. Kelly Pavlik didn't go past 9 until Taylor 2. Eubank might have been a step up for at that time, but how does that matter that Calzaghe hadn't gone past 8?

[Fenster]

You can make a case that Steve Collins ranks a close third to Calzaghe. Two wins over prime Chris Eubanks, two wins over Nigel Benn (he was older, but so was Eubank when Calzaghe fought him), and Chris Pyatt. Frederic Seillier was also a decent win.

You can only do that by judging their careers on paper.

Benn was well finished. And Eubank was arguably never really the same after the Watson fight - so a long way from his prime.

Calzaghe had never been past 8 rounds, so Eubank, even though not prime, was a BIG step-up in class for him. That's the difference.

That is the most illogical thing I've ever heard. I don't know how you can credit Calzaghe for beating Eubank, yet not fully credit Collins for beating a much younger, much better version. You also argued in another thread that Eubank wasn't shot against Calzaghe, only weight drained. You can't have it both ways, Fenster.

So what if Calzaghe had never been past 8. Kelly Pavlik didn't go past 9 until Taylor 2. Eubank might have been a step up for at that time, but how does that matter that Calzaghe hadn't gone past 8?

Hang on.. there's a world of difference between being "past your prime" and "shot."

Simply put the Eubank that faced Collins wasn't the very best version. So naturally he couldn't have been against Calzaghe either but was still far from being "shot."

The rounds matter because doing championship level distance is a big psychological plus for any fighter. In Calzaghe's case - how could he really know he had the stamina for it having never been beyond 8? He said himself he was knackered in the later rounds.