Greatest Super-Middle of All Times

[billeau2]

Kessler has been one of the best super-middleweights, there really aren't that many better wins in the (admittedly short) history of the super-middleweight division than Calzaghe's against Kessler. I mean what are Andre Ward's impressive wins if Kessler and Froch are so underwhelming? It is easy to dismiss practically any fighters wins, people do it in regards to Jones Jr's wins all the time.



Calzaghe defended his belt for a whole decade and retired at the age of 36/37. He just happened to come between two better eras at the weight. Surely it was Jones who was in a hurry to leave the 168 division, he only stopped there for 2 years. Then Jones doesn't ever fight the best other fighter in his new division despite being there for many years. At least Calzaghe fought Kessler!

There are definitely some interesting permutations of boxing supremacy when we consider this division in a vacuum. Yes you are correct that when we consider this very discreet weight class, the pickins being somewhat slim....some guys shine who we would not consider.

But Hume....Jones has a fantastic record compared to Calzighe....there is virtually no comparison actually....You have the capacity to look at these things, like relative records of fighters....so you know this is so. I know you didn't say otherwise I just thought this would obviate any Calzighe supremacy within narrower confines.

I am one of those people that don't buy the whole "Poor poor poor Aundrey Dawson....a mere shell of himself, probably could have used an iron lung agianst Ward." As a matter of fact I find it patronizing of some of the guys in this section who should watch that fight carefully before repeating this mantra.

Aundrey Ward took apart, methodically and skillfully, the guy who many people thought would be the next ATG pound for pound king of the hill. So that was in my estimation quite a win!

[billeau2]

Ripping down Kessler doesn't help your case for froch..

Old Kessler and never has been Lucien bute are frochs best wins..

And prime Kessler beat froch, calzaghe clearly beat prime Kessler..


If you wanna talk about guys beating guys and when,,, calzaghe beat the other prime champs in the division when they were at their peak..
You can't discount jeff lacy and then turn around and try and act like bute was anything different,, just pretenders that got exposed and never did anything else..

You misunderstood my post, i care no more for Crotch than I do Slappy, the Danish destroyer, etc. Calzighe may have more talent out of these three but my point is that they are basically mediocre fighters with a little more physcal strength, drive, luck? and nothing special. Ward is talented, jones of course, but when people start elevating Froch by trying to make pigeons into eagles its laughable.

[Suckmedry]

You misunderstood my post, i care no more for Crotch than I do Slappy, the Danish destroyer, etc. Calzighe may have more talent out of these three but my point is that they are basically mediocre fighters with a little more physcal strength, drive, luck? and nothing special. Ward is talented, jones of course, but when people start elevating Froch by trying to make pigeons into eagles its laughable.

I don't get how you can call guys at that level mediocre. Sure theres some things they didn't do well, but some things were outstanding about them such as Calzaghes stamina, speed and angles, kesslers all round technique, frochs chin, heart an due is a pretty good puncher too.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

You misunderstood my post, i care no more for Crotch than I do Slappy, the Danish destroyer, etc. Calzighe may have more talent out of these three but my point is that they are basically mediocre fighters with a little more physcal strength, drive, luck? and nothing special. Ward is talented, jones of course, but when people start elevating Froch by trying to make pigeons into eagles its laughable.

Neither froch nor calzaghe are mediocre...

Froch is like a cotto that his best claim to fame is he fought everyone..

Calzaghe is like hopkins, reigned over a weak division but clearly was the best..



I just don't see how you can rate a guy higher that was never better than a distant 2nd in the division at his peak, than a guy that was the undisputed champ for a few years.. Calzaghe had one belt, beat Kessler who had 2, beat lacy that had the other..
How can you rate higher a guy that never got to the mountain top, than a guy that did reach the mountain top.. It just makes no sense to me

[IronDanHamza]

That might be your idea of 'resume' but plenty of people take into considerations things such as longevity, belts won, defences, etc, as well as fighters defeated. They do so because that is what the word 'resume' actually means, a summary of achievements and accomplishments.

You do act like that, every time a fighter is brought up it is all about 'resume', 'who did he beat' bla bla bla. It makes no sense. I know Froch's opposition has been good, I've seen them fight but i've also seen Froch fight, he is not as good as Calzaghe or Wonjongkam. Fine you disagree but don't give me all this nonsense about who they did or did not beat as evidence. The eye test tells the story.

Sure the Ring rankings have historically been the best around but like all the rankings they are simply flawed opinions, pure guesswork. It is of no great significance if the Ring (or anyone else) ranks one figher #4 and another #8 The only way any ranking system could be anything else is if all the top guys fought each other and you had a league.

How can you say what resume means This is boxing the fighters don't go home and add title defenses to an actual literal resume

Resume, to most, is a list of fighters you've beaten.

So no, to your orginal point, no that's not "what a resume is"

The "eye test" doesn't tell the whole story that's as flawed as using resume only. The eye test tells part of the story. A lot of fighters pass the eye test against weak opposition.

What are you talking about? When I even use Wonjongkam's resume as "evidence" for anything? You're just making things up.

I said Wonjongkam is not as good as Froch. No more, no less. Nothing at all to do with his resume. Didn't mention anything about it.

I don't really care for a history lesson on The Ring Magazine's rankings, just merely staying that they are the go-to rankings and Calzaghe fought a (laughable) two out of 22 title fights.

[-PBP-]

I don't think any 168 fighter has done enough to clearly lay that claim yet to be honest. 1 day I will say Froch, in another thread I may say Calzaghe and tomorrow I may say Roy.

But to be honest, all Ward has to do is make a few more defenses against top contenders and possibly beat GGG when he moves up and he will clearly be the best to ever do it at this weight class.

So whoever you have #1 now is just temporarily borrowing Ward's spot.

[IronDanHamza]

I don't think any 168 fighter has done enough to clearly lay that claim yet to be honest. 1 day I will say Froch, in another thread I may say Calzaghe and tomorrow I may say Roy.

But to be honest, all Ward has to do is make a few more defenses against top contenders and possibly beat GGG when he moves up and he will clearly be the best to ever do it at this weight class.

So whoever you have #1 now is just temporarily borrowing Ward's spot.

I really thought he'd have solidified it by now.

He could have by now.

[billeau2]

I don't get how you can call guys at that level mediocre. Sure theres some things they didn't do well, but some things were outstanding about them such as Calzaghes stamina, speed and angles, kesslers all round technique, frochs chin, heart an due is a pretty good puncher too.

Well mediocre might be stretching it, but certainly not great fighters. It just seems like to make a case for Froch....Kessler is being characterized as a lot better than he is. I don't think much of Calzighe but I can understand a decent argument for skills he posseses....But I really have a hard time with all the Froch hyperbole. The way I see it Froch, Ward, Kessler (along with a few others) had the benefitt of a tourney and Ward was so much better than Froch that it should make people think.

Take a fighter like Glen Johnson. Johnson has a lot of skills and could easily have had his hand raised for many fights he lost! Johnson, as a tough no nonsense guy...the same image that froch projects...is imo better than Froch. Yet people hardly talk about hard nosed tough, skilled guys like Johnson and meanwhile Froch, who has a lot of holes in his game, is given the red carpet treatment!

[billeau2]

Neither froch nor calzaghe are mediocre...

Froch is like a cotto that his best claim to fame is he fought everyone..

Calzaghe is like hopkins, reigned over a weak division but clearly was the best..



I just don't see how you can rate a guy higher that was never better than a distant 2nd in the division at his peak, than a guy that was the undisputed champ for a few years.. Calzaghe had one belt, beat Kessler who had 2, beat lacy that had the other..
How can you rate higher a guy that never got to the mountain top, than a guy that did reach the mountain top.. It just makes no sense to me

I can concede using the term medocre is pushing it and Joe has some skills...But all these accolades sanctioned by an external body, like belt holder, etc mean very little to me unless they are based on a fighter facing competition that is worthy. Second in a division is a relative term...who is first? Belts don't matter, what matters is who is fighting against one to defend the belt.

I call Kessler and Froch overvalued for a very simple reason: and it does not concern me the devil in the details...i.e. the weight, the structure of the tourny, etc...The fact is that there was a round robin set up to determine the best fighter in that division....Belt, pendulum, Brass ring? linear brass ring? don't even care what belt was won. The important thing is that Ward made the rest of the division look very ordinary and he did so with relatively little effort. Kessler, a tough non nonsense guy, could not deal with a physical fight with Ward, Froch was made to look ordinary mediocre.

If you put Froch and Kessler in a division like the division where Quartey, Trinidad, De La Hoya, Mosley, Forrest Judah were in, neither guy would get very far imo. Even Mayorga has wins against guys like Forrest! That is the basis for my chip regarding Kessler and Froch. Calzighe is another story...suffice to say Joe never fought much of anyone and cherry picked the legends when it suited him.

[soul_survivor]

Who do you rate as the greatest super-middleweight of all times: A great list of champions at 168lbs. here is some of the big names to reign.

Thomas Hearns.
Ray Leonard.
James Toney.
Roy Jones.
Carl Froch.
Iran Barkley.
Joe Calzaghe
Andre Ward.
Sven Ottke.
Nigel Benn.
Michael Nunn.
Chris Eubank

My choice of greatest 168lb - Roy Jones Jr.

Jones was a damn physical anomaly at 168, however he doesn't really have any stand out names bar Toney, which is sad because with his talents he could have taken that division to new heights. The omissions are glaring, Eubank, Benn and Collins to name a few. That's just sad.

In terms of talent, skill, resume, title reign and titles, Calzaghe is the greatest, no doubt in my mind. Eubank, Froch, Ward and maybe Jones/Kessler round off the rest of the top 5.