Who has the best Resume in SMW history?

why should I deny it?

. Sure Joe won the least valued title at 25 and faced a few decent names like you said. Bit difficult for Froch to do that since he started at age 24.

Froch is an even slow starter, but rose to a higher aggregate level. Froch won one of the big three titles younger than Joe and has defended them more than Joe did.

They both deserve credit - joe for his longevity, Froch for setting such a high standard in his 30s.

 

man this Mario Veitkling scalp for Joe Calzaghe is getting past a joke now.


So Froch and Ward would need to defend against someone as weak as Veit to try to match him? Not going to happen. Joe can keep that claim to weakling fame, no way Froch and Ward would try to con their fans facing someone so weak.

To put it plainly, if Froch or Ward faced someone like Mario Veit today, it would actually weaken their resumes!
Bailey argues the opposite for Calzaghe, beating Veit was some kind of 'step up' great win... well maybe but only if your usual level was crap to begin with?

Not to detract that Joe performed well to stop Mario early in Germany 2nd time round. Good win considering it was by the holder of the lesser SMW title.

 

What do you mean by rose to a higher aggregate level?

 

I don't agree with everything Bailey says, I don't his views to tarnish my argument. He argues everything Calzaghe does is better than everything everyone else does.

Veit isn't a great win, Calzaghe faced him because he was the mandatory opponent.

 

yes, aggregate loosely means 'on average'.

 

it was mandatory, no fault of Joes, its a fault of the relatively weak value of the wbo title at the time and like I said he performed well in Germany to stop him fast.

I am just telling it like it is. Ward and Froch wont fight a Veit even once, because it would damage their resumes to fight someone too weak.


Credit is being handed out to me to both parties, quite clearly.

 

Facing a low level opponent doesn't weaken a resume. Provided one beats them.

as I have said, since becoming a champ Calzaghe has more weak opponents than others, but these don't take anything away having the greatest number of strong opponents on his list.

 

That's what a thought you meant. But it doesn't mean that.

 

its a loose term for it, as I said. Average works just as well in this case, but it sounds too plain. Please don't quote what aggregate means from wiki, no need.


Frochs aggregate title fights are a higher standard than Joes, Joes shows a much longer duration.

 

If you said average I might be inclined to agree, but aggregate i wouldn't, and it is aggregate that is more relevant.

Where would you rank Groves, Mack and Johnson amongst Calzaghe's list?

 

Lets see, Groves is a good major title contender, so I would have him on par or a little higher than Bika, depending on how his career pans out - Bika has certainly done well later in his.

Mack is just a weakling defence, on par with many of Joes. Hes not bad at all, but not good.

Glen Johnson? getting on a bit but not a weakling. late bloomer from what I know. I don't think Joe wanted to fight him, so its tricky saying how he would look on Joe s resume. - it would be a great defence of the wbo title, and a fair defence of one of the big three. Allowing that Joe would have fought him younger than Froch did obviously. But too much of a risk and probably a bit scary for Joe since hadn't he just wasted Roy Jones or something? I am not going to read up on it now, jus going on what I experienced.

 

Hey Bails, I'd say Taylor belongs in there for ole Frochy boy. No?

And Lacy for Calzaghe.

 

He does indeed, Taylor at SMW, wasnt a great win for Froch and below Woodhall at SMW

 

the taylor who dominated the prime smw jeff lacy you think was so awesome a win for Joe? or another taylor?

the woodhall was at the end of his career and never had another fight? or another woodhall, that was better than this close to prime taylor?

spill the beans mate.

 

Go back to Wikipedia to find out the facts.
G Johnson and Sheika had to have a box off with Calzaghe to defend against the winner. I would add that this was prime SMW Johnson and not faded Johnson, Froch got a Mdec over, and Sheika won a close decision over Johnson, yet you dont think faded Johnson was a weakling.
Still Im not expecting you to know this.
It has now become apparent Herol knew nothing of Woodhall except what he read on Wikipedia before debating about him, knew nothing about Calzaghes fight with Mitchell, debated about it and then admitted to watching it later, where he feels Mitchell slipped .
What a joke