H2H who was the greatest Super-Middleweight ever

Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Holtol
    Undisputed Champion
    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
    • Dec 2009
    • 1105
    • 32
    • 19
    • 7,468

    #31
    Originally posted by SCtrojansbaby
    Holtol, I dont really understand your post but 5/1 is a betting term
    Boxing has been around for 150 years. To say that someone is the best just because he is in your memory is not logical. There most likely have been more talented boxers. Then the current boxers.

    Comment

    • Wild Blue Yonda
      Undisputed Champion
      Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
      • Nov 2010
      • 1102
      • 49
      • 6
      • 7,596

      #32
      Originally posted by JoeyZagz
      My criteria for Prime is simply different than yours, I choose to go by the laws of nature that apply to every human being, not just boxers. Males begin to rapidly lose testosterone once they near 30. This is unescapable.

      If you were to plot the performance of athletes from different sports like boxing, baseball, basketball, hockey and football, theyd probably all produce similar curves, and itd be hard to distinguish between the sports.

      I understand there are other things at work in boxing, but age/physical prime is still the over-riding factor. To compare Roy/Zagz to a 37 year old fighting a 28 year old is absurd.
      It is the most consistent factor across the board --- to say it is the, "over-riding" factor & imply that, in every instance & with every fighter, it is the foremost measuring stick for someone's prime is quite simply obscenely facile, & completely at odds with reality.

      You cannot tell me Lennox Lewis was a better fighter at twenty-three than he was at thirty-three. I won't hear that Bernard Hopkins, at twenty-six, was better than the Bernard Hopkins of thirty-six. There are plenty of instances down through history.

      To suggest that age over-rides all is, putting it in the simplest possible terms, not looking at the big picture.

      Comment

      • StarshipTrooper
        Banned
        Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
        • Mar 2007
        • 17917
        • 1,180
        • 1,344
        • 26,849

        #33
        Originally posted by JoeyZagz
        My criteria for Prime is simply different than yours, I choose to go by the laws of nature that apply to every human being, not just boxers. Males begin to rapidly lose testosterone once they near 30. This is unescapable.

        If you were to plot the performance of athletes from different sports like boxing, baseball, basketball, hockey and football, theyd probably all produce similar curves, and itd be hard to distinguish between the sports.

        I understand there are other things at work in boxing, but age/physical prime is still the over-riding factor. To compare Roy/Zagz to a 37 year old fighting a 28 year old is absurd.
        While you're entitled to your own opinion you're not entitled to your own facts. What you're calling the "laws of nature" are in fact variables that differ from one biogical unit to another. This isn't physics where the properties for every atom of matter is the same as any other. Human beings and other living creatures do NOT conform to mathmatical formulas and THAT is the only scientific principle that has ever been proven about biologicals.

        Poet

        Comment

        • BennyST
          Shhhh...
          Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
          • Nov 2007
          • 9263
          • 1,036
          • 500
          • 21,301

          #34
          Originally posted by BattlingNelson
          H2H it's between Calzaghe and RJJ. I go with the latter.
          I agree with this.

          Comment

          • XionComrade
            Undisputed Champion
            Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
            • Mar 2005
            • 1017
            • 37
            • 9
            • 7,483

            #35
            Originally posted by CarlosG815
            So you are claiming him to be the greatest super middleweight h2h based on one fight (that he lost)?
            Yes sir. Possibly the hardest puncher in Middleweight history(Or Jackson), fast hands, and the most solid chin of any fighter I have seen at Middleweight(Walked through Jackson's best shots)

            I would say that minus the bloodclot, Benn would have been gone in 2 or 3 brutal rounds...The case can be made that it was over when he first went down. Seeing as how Mcclellan battered Benn throughout the fight and was well ahead on scorecards is way more than is needed to replace Benn with Mcclellan, who was dieing throughout the entire fight. He beat Benn to the point of death before he had to take a knee...Seeing as how his brain was imploding since round 3...get my point?

            I can see him taking Jones in the middle rounds at SMW, seeing as how Jones simply would not be able to hurt Mcclellan, but Mcclellan would easily be the hardest puncher Jones ever faced. Add onto that a 3-4 inch reach advantage for Mcclellan and I see a quick war, Mcclellan 4/5.

            Comment

            • StarshipTrooper
              Banned
              Unified Champion - 10,00-20,000 posts
              • Mar 2007
              • 17917
              • 1,180
              • 1,344
              • 26,849

              #36
              Originally posted by XionComrade
              Yes sir. Possibly the hardest puncher in Middleweight history(Or Jackson), fast hands, and the most solid chin of any fighter I have seen at Middleweight(Walked through Jackson's best shots)

              I would say that minus the bloodclot, Benn would have been gone in 2 or 3 brutal rounds...The case can be made that it was over when he first went down. Seeing as how Mcclellan battered Benn throughout the fight and was well ahead on scorecards is way more than is needed to replace Benn with Mcclellan, who was dieing throughout the entire fight. He beat Benn to the point of death before he had to take a knee...Seeing as how his brain was imploding since round 3...get my point?

              I can see him taking Jones in the middle rounds at SMW, seeing as how Jones simply would not be able to hurt Mcclellan, but Mcclellan would easily be the hardest puncher Jones ever faced. Add onto that a 3-4 inch reach advantage for Mcclellan and I see a quick war, Mcclellan 4/5.
              The problem is you can't rate someone in a weight class based on 1 fight and a lot of would of could of should of speculation over what might have been if only. I personally think Floyd Patterson would have been among the very best all-time at Light-Heavyweight.....but I don't rank him there because he was only at that weight long enough for a cup of coffee at the beginning of his career.

              Poet

              Comment

              • Wild Blue Yonda
                Undisputed Champion
                Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
                • Nov 2010
                • 1102
                • 49
                • 6
                • 7,596

                #37
                Originally posted by poet682006
                The problem is you can't rate someone in a weight class based on 1 fight and a lot of would of could of should of speculation over what might have been if only. I personally think Floyd Patterson would have been among the very best all-time at Light-Heavyweight.....but I don't rank him there because he was only at that weight long enough for a cup of coffee at the beginning of his career.

                Poet
                McClellan was a formidable beast, but Jones would've been just about the absolute worst opponent for his management to stick him in with, IMO. McClellan was brutally tough for anyone who was hittable, & in any way brought forth a fight, but his downright amateurish ability to hunt-&-track elusive targets, & keep from absorbing nigh-on everything thrown at him, would've been a disaster, for mine.

                I see Jones completely bemusing McClellan for the bulk of the distance. It's a wide UD. McClellan would be in with a shot, I suppose, but it's going to be lightning-in-a-bottle material, as I see it, if he can put someone as supremely quick & evasive as Jones away.

                Comment

                • SCtrojansbaby
                  Undisputed Champion
                  Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
                  • Sep 2009
                  • 5951
                  • 136
                  • 72
                  • 12,653

                  #38
                  Originally posted by Holtol
                  Boxing has been around for 150 years. To say that someone is the best just because he is in your memory is not logical. There most likely have been more talented boxers. Then the current boxers.
                  The competition is so far and away better now, seeing as how you aren't fighting weekend warriors.

                  Boxing was not even a full time job for 95% of fighters until the mid 60s when the sport blew up with Ali and Don King. My uncle who fought in the 50s and 60s said that if you weren't Marciano, Louis or the like you were a what is known as a weekend warrior(had a day job and fit boxing around it)

                  Comment

                  • Wild Blue Yonda
                    Undisputed Champion
                    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
                    • Nov 2010
                    • 1102
                    • 49
                    • 6
                    • 7,596

                    #39
                    Originally posted by SCtrojansbaby
                    The competition is so far and away better now, seeing as how you aren't fighting weekend warriors.

                    Boxing was not even a full time job for 95% of fighters until the mid 60s when the sport blew up with Ali and Don King. My uncle who fought in the 50s and 60s said that if you weren't Marciano, Louis or the like you were a what is known as a weekend warrior(had a day job and fit boxing around it)
                    That is still overwhelmingly the case today.

                    The biggest distinction between now & then, incidentally, is not related to nutrition, or training methods. The single biggest distinction actually detracts from your case, & that is that participation levels in Boxing have declined immensely, making the sport easier, not harder, to ascend.

                    Comment

                    • SCtrojansbaby
                      Undisputed Champion
                      Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
                      • Sep 2009
                      • 5951
                      • 136
                      • 72
                      • 12,653

                      #40
                      Originally posted by Wild Blue Yonda
                      That is still overwhelmingly the case today.

                      The biggest distinction between now & then, incidentally, is not related to nutrition, or training methods. The single biggest distinction actually detracts from your case, & that is that participation levels in Boxing have declined immensely, making the sport easier, not harder, to ascend.

                      Participation has declined because you can't pay someone 10 bucks to fight, hense there are less fights in general. If anything boxing may have been diluted because of all the fighters.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      TOP