Calzaghe aside- who is the GOAT at 168?

I said get it sorted before returning. Not too much to ask now, is it!
You have some sick delusions. Im not going to mock that, as you obviously have issues, because I cant think that you would say such things just because you have been pwned in every debate you have entered into with posters like myself and Super Hans

 

[yt]ACgTJhEdj5M[/yt]
[yt]sWbP9QOgNUU[/yt]
[yt]Q1DdUaGt5nM[/yt]

 

and still is less known who lost it to the guy bute beat :rofl

sun shines on a dog as s once in a while

why is there so many fighters joe never fought

 

owned in every debate ok

just one aboout joe which you twist and turn to suit your agenda


touched a never i told him to leave your main vein alone bails

 

the injured kessler , retierd one month before fuc k your desperate

which froch had already been made joes mando so he dropped it :yep

what happened to joes hbo contract

are you re super hands still busy :think

 

tell hans tell hans







your a cu nt

46-0 ducking and diving

his own dad said it was hell getting your hero in the ring he just did not believe in his own ability or his china hands :hi:

 

failey r u going to tell me what eric is.

Just for the amusement value, you understand.

do u mean butterbean?

 

bailey,

I said Benn had nothing left to give against Collins, and then gave examples of two other fighters who were in the same position. Why are you making this difficult? If both Mike and Oscar had been younger and they'd have fought every month leading up to their losses, it wouldn't have made any difference. I would still have used them as examples to emphasise my point. How they reached the end of the road, is of no relevance. Yes, of course their circumstances were different to Benn's. But again, it doesn't matter. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. Benn was a warrior, but he gave up because he was finished. He had nothing left to give. Oscar and Mike ended their careers in the exact same manner. So there's no reason why I can't use them as examples. If Collins hadn't have beaten Benn again, someone else probably would have done. The wins may look good on paper, but not when you look at the circumstances involved.

I don't know what?

Why was Eubank mixing at a higher level?

Just prior to facing Collins, he'd fought Roch, Wharton, Close, Amaral and Storey etc.

Just prior to facing Roy, Toney had fought the likes of Barkley, Littles, Thornton and Williams etc.

So I wouldn't have said that Eubank had been fighting superior opposition.

I don't view things like you do. You normally rate wins based on statistics, whereas I look from all angles, allowing for circumstances and looking at the manner in which the victories were achieved.

That's a terrible response.

It doesn't matter if Eubank had a better resume than Toney at SMW.

Are you telling me that the version of Eubank who Collins beat, was superior to the version of Toney who Roy fought? Do you think Eubank was on another level or something? This is what I've referred to early, you only base wins on statistics.

Just for a moment, let's assume that Toney hadn't had weight issues, and Roy had've knocked him out easily.

Would you still have rated Collins' win higher, just because Eubank had a better SMW resume than Toney?

That what it reads like.

Do you not take into account the manner of victory at all?

I know Toney had issues with weight. But I don't see how Eubank was much greater, because I think he was slightly past his best when he fought Collins. Also, Toney often had weight troubles.

But Roy won easily, in a bigger fight, whereas Collins had a close fight with Eubank the first time around, where you've acknowledged that Eubank could have nicked it.

So there's no reason why Roy's win can't be classed as a better win. The manner of victory has to count for something.

So what? When you an*lyse Collins' win over Eubank, you look specifically at where Eubank was at the time, without just focusing solely on what he'd accomplished in his entire career. We've discussed this before. Danny Green gets a little bit of credit for beating the 2009 version of Roy Jones. But he doesn't get credit for beating the same fighter who'd beaten Toney etc. We both know that Eubank was never the same after Watson, and that he was lucky not to have had a few defeats on his resume when he fought Collins.

I don't know how you can rate the Benn win above Lucas, all things considered.

Taken in by a magazine? The same magazine that you include when you're highlighting Joe's accomplishments?

Also, it wasn't just the Ring who thought so highly of James Toney back in 94.

The title is just another factor to consider along with all of the others.

That was a typo.

I meant Sheika, who you rate. He also lost and won against Catley, and he was once seen as a potential opponent to Joe. He was a decent fighter, who Roy beat with ease.

The point is, if you thought so highly of Bute, you must have thought very highly of Carl for destroying him. Yet you're saying that you don't think Carl was at the same level as the version of Eubank who fought Collins. Sure, you can point to the Taylor and Johnson fights, but I could point to the Close and Schommer fights etc, for Eubank. I don't really see how they were levels apart, although again, I agree that Eubank was the better fighter when he was at his peak.

 

Also added about 5-10 fights to Calzaghe's brittle hands.

 

Based on strictly SMW, wins, who they fought, the manner of the fights, when, where how and modern era fighter bias I rank them in the following way:-

1. Froch: Magee, Reid, Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham, Johnson, Bute, Kessler, Groves X2
2. Ward: Kessler, Miranda, Green, Abraham, Froch, Bika, Dawson, Rodriguez, Boone
3. Kessler: Green, Thobela, Mundine, Siaca, Lucas, A.Green, Beyer, Andrade, Sartison, Froch, Magee
4. Eubank: Rocchigiani, Holmes, Malinga, Watson, Wharton
5. Benn: G-Man, Galvano, Wharton, Nardiello
6. Ottke: Brewer X2, Nardiello, Johnson, Branco, Mundine, Mitchell, Reid, Krajnc
7. RJJ: Toney, Lucas, Vinny Paz, Malinga
8. Collins: Eubank X2, Benn X2
9. Toney: Barkley, Williams

Overall I pick Roy Jones Jr as the best fighter of the bunch, followed by Toney, Eubank and Benn.

I think Ottke would have lost to each man on neutral grounds with fair refereeing and judges.