The Top 20 Greatest Super Middleweights of All-Time

[crold1]

Wow, Ali second. While I think he is top 3 overall I seriously wasn't aware he would be top 5 numerically based on this logic. Fascinating stuff, really. I knew Louis would be there and I rank him as my pick for ATG-HW based on everything across the board. Any way you spin it, I know it's not a head to head comparison and just numerical theorem, etc... and It's all going to be open to opinion until the end of time as you already know and stated.

Good reading and nice chatting. >Chase.

Chase:
Ali won the world title 3 times and defended 19 times in the first two reigns. That's a 22 point start. Conversely, Holmes wouldn't get a full point per defense until after the Ali fight when he gained pretty much full recognition as champ.

[BattlingNelson]

Actually, I've already started working on that and Louis and Ali finish 1-2; shocking I know.

Numbers are a way to compare eras which is why I like them; it's just different. There are no perfect lists. Most folks just makes lists of who beats who in their mind. That's fine too. If I can help them examine how they approach that, groovy. If I can help someone look and say who was Park, or Baek, or go back and watch some Liles, even better.

As the divisions get older, how does one compare a multi-title, less fights era against a single title, more fights era? I think it's an intriguing question and comparative analysis can help.

Instead of giving points for beating 'fellow champions' perhaps the formula should be altered to give points based on the opponents Ring Magazine (or another independent source) ranking at the time of the fight.

[Abstraction]

Lacy is on the list?

Sorry, but the list has Fail written all over it.

[crold1]

Lacy is on the list?

Sorry, but the list has Fail written all over it.

Or the division only has a list of champs so short that he manages to essentially fit in the lower portion of the top half.

Instead of giving points for beating 'fellow champions' perhaps the formula should be altered to give points based on the opponents Ring Magazine (or another independent source) ranking at the time of the fight.

That's not what I'm interested in measuring and giving the better champs credit for their title defenses addresses at least some of that.

[BattlingNelson]

Or the division only has a list of champs so short that he manages to essentially fit in the lower portion of the top half.



That's not what I'm interested in measuring and giving the better champs credit for their title defenses addresses at least some of that.

My point is that Kessler's win over for example Eric Lucas shouldn't count as much as Calzaghe's win over Kessler.

[Chunk..]

Joe Calzaghe is the greatest Super Middleweight of all time, which is fair enough but how are Ottke and Kessler ahead of the likes of Eubank, Benn, Collins, Roy and Toney????

[Dave Rado]

Joe Calzaghe is the greatest Super Middleweight of all time, which is fair enough but how are Ottke and Kessler ahead of the likes of Eubank, Benn, Collins, Roy and Toney????

Have you tried reading the article? It explains that in great detail.

[Duke McKenzie_]

Jones stopped Malinga

inside of six rounds

What is this Fat Yankery? Why the "of" six rounds?

[dans]

Have you tried reading the article? It explains that in great detail.

See I don't care what his explanation is. No one should use formula's to determine this stuff. I have no problem with Calzaghe being #1 and some of the other rankings make sense. But to have Kessler as the #2 SMW of all time means something is wrong with your logic.

[Dave Rado]

See I don't care what his explanation is. No one should use formula's to determine this stuff. I have no problem with Calzaghe being #1 and some of the other rankings make sense. But to have Kessler as the #2 SMW of all time means something is wrong with your logic.

Kessler has had a lot of title fights at the weight, and a lot of fights against other titlists - and he's won all but one. Toney and Jones had very few title fights or fights against other titlists at this weight. There's no such thing as a perfect list, either they're purely subjective or they use a formula. Even in the case of subjective lists you have to state your criteria. Toney and Jones would both be likely to beat all the others in a mythical match-up, but that wasn't the criteria. Even in a subjective list, it would be hard to justify putting them at the top, because they had so few fights at the weight.

The formula method is interesting and throws up surprising results that if you think about what they mean, tell you something you hasn't previously considered (which is why they're surprising).