Greatest Super-Middle of All Times

[Humean]

Wonjongkam better fighter than Froch? And what is that based on? Let's go back to "you cannot be serious"

Calzaghe has the best win. Overall Froch has better wins.

No that's not what resume is.

Doesn't count for much when you only fight two top 5 ranked opponents out of 22 title fights and one of them was Jeff Lacy.

Listing your accomplishments on a piece of paper is exactly what a resume is!

I'm basing it upon my eyes, Wonjongkam was a better fighter than Carl Froch has ever been. Now maybe you could look at both of their 'resumes' and conclude that Froch fought tougher opposition, maybe that is true but that only means that Froch fought better opposition not that Froch was the better fighter.

Top 5 ranked by whom? The ring magazine? Unfortunately in the fragmented times of the 90s, 00s and 10s there really are not many fighters who have fought many who were ranked in the top 5 at the moment they fought them.

[billeau2]

Calzaghes resume isn't much better than Ottke's.

Froch wasn't "the man" because Ward's around. Calzaghe wouldn't be "the man" in this era either.

Froch has a better resume, as does Ward.

It's between those two.

Agreed. Calzaghe waited anyone half decent out. Jones would have had Joe for lunch during his prime.

[billeau2]

You think ward would defeat Calzaghe in as dominant a fashion as he defeated Froch? Do you think Froch would defeat Calzaghe? I honestly think Calzaghe would defeat Froch every bit as easily as Ward did, Ward and Calzaghe are just on a different plane to Froch.

Both Kessler fights were close but clear as far as I was concerned. Calzaghe defeated Kessler better and did so when Kessler was undefeated.

Firstly I think Ottke is a better fighter than people make out, he gets so much heat on the forums but he was actually fairly good. Secondly Ottke had about 5 or 6 close fights, as I said Calzaghe had 1 close fight. Calzaghe didn't lose many rounds in his entire career at 168. When you take in the manner of victory Calzaghe's resume it a lot better than Ottke's, as well as adding in that Calzaghe defeated Kessler.

Do you think Froch lost to Dirrell?

But Calzighe never fought anyone. Kessler is a good solid fighter. he is a good victory, but not really impressive.

[billeau2]

Wonjongkam better fighter than Froch? And what is that based on? Let's go back to "you cannot be serious"

Calzaghe has the best win. Overall Froch has better wins.

No that's not what resume is.

Doesn't count for much when you only fight two top 5 ranked opponents out of 22 title fights and one of them was Jeff Lacy.

I mean seriously...its like people ****in elevate Kessler, start talking about the alphabet belts...a sure sigh the BS will be flung....screw the belts! Calslappy never beat anyone of much merit! unless that individual was washed up. People get crazy! I mean now Kessler is like Thomas Hearns!! and Kessler is what? Duran haha Froch is also solid, a good fighter who gutted out some wins...and in a faux division we can certainly discss him... But people actually compare Joe to Jones and wouldn't you know it? because he beat the Teutonic terror, the dragon blooded Dane....

[Humean]

But Calzighe never fought anyone. Kessler is a good solid fighter. he is a good victory, but not really impressive.

I mean seriously...its like people ****in elevate Kessler, start talking about the alphabet belts...a sure sigh the BS will be flung....screw the belts! Calslappy never beat anyone of much merit! unless that individual was washed up. People get crazy! I mean now Kessler is like Thomas Hearns!! and Kessler is what? Duran haha Froch is also solid, a good fighter who gutted out some wins...and in a faux division we can certainly discss him... But people actually compare Joe to Jones and wouldn't you know it? because he beat the Teutonic terror, the dragon blooded Dane....

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.

Agreed. Calzaghe waited anyone half decent out. Jones would have had Joe for lunch during his prime.

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!

[IronDanHamza]

Listing your accomplishments on a piece of paper is exactly what a resume is!

I'm basing it upon my eyes, Wonjongkam was a better fighter than Carl Froch has ever been. Now maybe you could look at both of their 'resumes' and conclude that Froch fought tougher opposition, maybe that is true but that only means that Froch fought better opposition not that Froch was the better fighter.

Top 5 ranked by whom? The ring magazine? Unfortunately in the fragmented times of the 90s, 00s and 10s there really are not many fighters who have fought many who were ranked in the top 5 at the moment they fought them.

No, it's not. It's about who you beat, when etc. Calibur of opponents. Not "20 title defences" and "Lineal Champion".

Froch "maybe" fought better opponents another zinger.

Wonjongkam isn't better than Froch at all. Not even close.

Yes there is, there are plenty.

Mayweather's beat over 15, Pacquaio beat over 15, Roy Jones beat plenty, Hopkins beat plenty, Morales has, Klitschko has, loads of fighters have.

Calzaghe beat two

[Humean]

No, it's not. It's about who you beat, when etc. Calibur of opponents. Not "20 title defences" and "Lineal Champion".

Froch "maybe" fought better opponents another zinger.

Wonjongkam isn't better than Froch at all. Not even close.

Yes there is, there are plenty.

Mayweather's beat over 15, Pacquaio beat over 15, Roy Jones beat plenty, Hopkins beat plenty, Morales has, Klitschko has, loads of fighters have.

Calzaghe beat two

An actual resume is a summary of achievements and accomplishments, that is what a resume actually is.

Yes maybe, certainly in regards to who he defeated.

Not even close, have you ever seen Wonjongkam fight? You go on about resume and such like all the time but how do you know that defeating Abraham or Pascal are good wins? Because you have eyes and have seen Abraham and Pascal fight before and also used those eyes to see Froch defeat them. Why can't you use your eyes to see for yourself that Calzaghe and Wonjongkam were better fighters than Froch? You talk as if the only way to know if someone is good is if he defeated someone good but you cannot know that without seeing for yourself how good the opponent is.

I'm sure most of those you listed have fought a number of top 5 (Are the ring's rankings truly authoritative? No is the answer, no rankings are) opponents ranked by the Ring but i'm not sure if Kessler and Lacy are really the only two Calzaghe has but anyway he did defeat a number of top 10 fighters and a number of (7) belt holders. So what? There are different measurements you can use as a proxy to determine the quality of opposition. I rather think you use your one to cast Calzaghe in the worst possible light.

[IronDanHamza]

An actual resume is a summary of achievements and accomplishments, that is what a resume actually is.

Yes maybe, certainly in regards to who he defeated.

Not even close, have you ever seen Wonjongkam fight? You go on about resume and such like all the time but how do you know that defeating Abraham or Pascal are good wins? Because you have eyes and have seen Abraham and Pascal fight before and also used those eyes to see Froch defeat them. Why can't you use your eyes to see for yourself that Calzaghe and Wonjongkam were better fighters than Froch? You talk as if the only way to know if someone is good is if he defeated someone good but you cannot know that without seeing for yourself how good the opponent is.

I'm sure most of those you listed have fought a number of top 5 (Are the ring's rankings truly authoritative? No is the answer, no rankings are) opponents ranked by the Ring but i'm not sure if Kessler and Lacy are really the only two Calzaghe has but anyway he did defeat a number of top 10 fighters and a number of (7) belt holders. So what? There are different measurements you can use as a proxy to determine the quality of opposition. I rather think you use your one to cast Calzaghe in the worst possible light.

A resume is a list of fighters you've beaten.

Have I seen Wonjongkam fight? oh no mate never, never ever seen him, where is he from Japan is it? Give me a break, obviously I've seen him fight or I wouldn't bring him up would I.

Yes I can use my eyes and no he isn't better than Froch at all.

Resume aside because it's not even close to arguable if we talk resume. But even aside from resume he's not as good a fighter as Froch.

I don't act like anything, thanks.

Calzaghe-Froch is debatable. He's not that much better from what I see, if better at all. I could easily see Froch beating Calzaghe.

The Ring have the best divisional rankings and have been the go-to ones for as long as I can remember.

And yes Calzaghe did only fight two.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I mean seriously...its like people ****in elevate Kessler, start talking about the alphabet belts...a sure sigh the BS will be flung....screw the belts! Calslappy never beat anyone of much merit! unless that individual was washed up. People get crazy! I mean now Kessler is like Thomas Hearns!! and Kessler is what? Duran haha Froch is also solid, a good fighter who gutted out some wins...and in a faux division we can certainly discss him... But people actually compare Joe to Jones and wouldn't you know it? because he beat the Teutonic terror, the dragon blooded Dane....

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..

[Humean]

A resume is a list of fighters you've beaten.

Have I seen Wonjongkam fight? oh no mate never, never ever seen him, where is he from Japan is it? Give me a break, obviously I've seen him fight or I wouldn't bring him up would I.

Yes I can use my eyes and no he isn't better than Froch at all.

Resume aside because it's not even close to arguable if we talk resume. But even aside from resume he's not as good a fighter as Froch.

I don't act like anything, thanks.

Calzaghe-Froch is debatable. He's not that much better from what I see, if better at all. I could easily see Froch beating Calzaghe.

The Ring have the best divisional rankings and have been the go-to ones for as long as I can remember.

And yes Calzaghe did only fight two.

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.