Greatest Super-Middle of All Times

[BattlingNelson]

andre ward could retire, and he would be known as the best fighter of the era at the weight, and the more accomplished and able fighter.


no historian is going to look back and say that froch was a greater fighter than andre ward.

why would they? nobody has really answered that. ward being inactive isn't an answer. you need to demonstrate that froch is the more accomplished fighter over the course of his career, not that he was more active.

It's a matter of resume. If both retired now, I would rank Froch higher in an all-time sense. Sure Ward has that h2h win, but Froch has much the deeper record. For my money anyway.

Of course that could change if Ward becomes active again and continues to campaign at 168.

[IronDanHamza]

I wouldn't compare junior Jones to Ward because it's obvious Ward is a better fighter and hasn't been knocked out numerous times like Junior Jones has. Other than Barrera, Jones doesn't have a lot. Not so with Ward. Certainly nothing like Hamed or Morales.

Besides that, I dont think Froch and Ward's resumes are so far apart to justify Froch surpassing him all time.

Ward doesn't have that much other than Froch and Kessler.

I agree they aren't far apart, they aren't far apart at all.

But they are close, that's my point.

You said it's not debatable that Ward has a better resume right? But aren't you saying here that they're close? So how can't it be debatable if it's close?

[joseph5620]

Ward doesn't have that much other than Froch and Kessler.

I agree they aren't far apart, they aren't far apart at all.

But they are close, that's my point.

You said it's not debatable that Ward has a better resume right? But aren't you saying here that they're close? So how can't it be debatable if it's close?

I personally don't think it's close enough to rate Froch ahead. In that sense I don't think it's debatable but I can respect your points that make the resumes close.

As far as Ward he pretty much has everything that Froch has with the exception of Bute or Pascal who I see as a good wins for Froch but not enough to elevate him to number 1.

The wins over Froch and Kessler for Ward are better. Snd Ward has dominated these fighters. Froch was very fortunate to get the decision over Dirrell and that was certainly no showcase fight for Froch. And I don't even like the way Dirrell fought.

[IronDanHamza]

I personally don't think it's close enough to rate Froch ahead. In that sense I don't think it's debatable but I can respect your points that make the resumes close.

As far as Ward he pretty much has everything that Froch has with the exception of Bute or Pascal who I see as a good wins for Froch but not enough to elevate him to number 1.

The wins over Froch and Kessler for Ward are better. Snd Ward has dominated these fighters. Froch was very fortunate to get the decision over Dirrell and that was certainly no showcase fight for Froch. And I don't even like the way Dirrell fought.

What about Taylor and Groves? They're decent wins.

I thought Dirrell won aswell but Dirrell lost it for himself, and it was a close fight.

I understand your point of view entirely, all my point was if you go by resume then Froch COULD be rated ahead. Still arguable.

[New England]

It's a matter of resume. If both retired now, I would rank Froch higher in an all-time sense. Sure Ward has that h2h win, but Froch has much the deeper record. For my money anyway.

Of course that could change if Ward becomes active again and continues to campaign at 168.

why?

.........

[billeau2]

you have to go to friggin lengths to make a case for froch being a better SMW than andre ward. it gets extremely silly the more you talk about it.


it's easy to say that ward is the greater SMW, and there's a reason for that.


anybody who thinks froch was the best sMW of this era is doing it wrong. i can't see how anybody with a clue would dispute that.

ask carl froch if he's a better fighter than andre ward.


froch fought everybody and didn't always win. you guys seem to forget that he lost his two biggest fights, and had no business even being in the ring with ward. you forget that froch had zero interest in a rematch.

Could not have laid it out better myself.

[billeau2]

Well it certainly turned out that he was overrated. But it was Froch who stepped up to expose him. And to me that counts for something. Bute wasn't considered damaged goods until after he fought Froch.

I can grokk this logic, provided it is used consistantly. Not referring to you Scott, but...if we give Froch credit for being good enough to expose a tough guy in Bute then we need to stop making excuses for Dawson...who was more than a slightly overrated tough opponent. It amazes me how many people don't see the parallels.

[billeau2]

Why does that take the cake?

Pep did lose to Saddler 3 out of 4 times but most people rate Pep higher than Saddler at Featherweight and in general.

Just because Ward beat Froch doesn't necessarily mean he'll be ranked higher there are so many examples to support that.

Whoa Nelly!! this is not Montel Griffith giving Jones fits here....Ward did not just have Froch's number, he dominated every single fighter he faced in the division.

[Scott9945]

I can grokk this logic, provided it is used consistantly. Not referring to you Scott, but...if we give Froch credit for being good enough to expose a tough guy in Bute then we need to stop making excuses for Dawson...who was more than a slightly overrated tough opponent. It amazes me how many people don't see the parallels.

The Dawson fight is a difficult one to put in perspective. Ward looked so good, Dawson looked so bad, and it was apparent that Dawson had made a terrible mistake agreeing to 168. And like Bute, Dawson has been totally lackluster since.

To me a more apt comparison is Calzaghe-Lacy. Nobody was dismissing it before the fight, then a career destroying beating rewrote history. If a fighter goes against someone who is the betting favorite over him and nobody thinks it's a mismatch before, can it really be held against the winner when the loser's career goes down the drain after?

[joseph5620]

What about Taylor and Groves? They're decent wins.

I thought Dirrell won aswell but Dirrell lost it for himself, and it was a close fight.

I understand your point of view entirely, all my point was if you go by resume then Froch COULD be rated ahead. Still arguable.

Taylor and Groves were good wins. I agree with that. Hopefully Ward will get active this year so maybe this will no longer be a debate lol.