The Best S.Middleweight of all time is.....

A monster division? In the years that Roy was there? Explain. There were some good fighters, but most of the top guys from around that era(Benn, McClellan, Eubank, Nunn, etc) were all past their best or done as fighters.

 

Well eubank didnt taste defeat until 1995 and benns best win came in 95 as well and jones was only at 168 since 1993 except for the thomas tate fight :huh

So please explain your comment mate cause it dosent make any sense at all ?


He could of fought any of them between 93 , 94 and 95

 

RJJ end thread now.

 

It surprises me no one mentioned this idiot comment. (The comment, not the person).

Ottke? Are you F(*@!# kidding me? I don't even need to explain why you are WAYYYYY in the left field for this one.:-(

 

He didn't fight at SMW until 1994, the Tate fight was a non-title bout where he didn't have to make a certain weight, no big deal. The Toney fight in '94 was his first real fight at the weight, and by the time he left in '96 Eubank was on the downslide. So I don't understand how he could've stayed at SMW and fought anyone of real note in their primes.

And you also didn't mention that Benn was done by this point, as was McClellan. The others were well past their primes outside of maybe Steve Collins.

Still, not a monster division at the time he left it. It's not like he really ducked anyone.

 

Steve Ottke deserves a lot more attention he was 34-0 captured and defended the WBA and IBF SMW belts a total of 26 times!

 

Great analysis, but doesn't that place quite an assumption that Joe would employ the one style through the match?

one of Joe's biggest strengths as of late (and this is where it gets into a grey area for me as i'll mention in a second), is his adaptability and his mental game to learn how to nullify a mans strengths - "He spoils your boxing".

Now the grey area is that its more recently that Joe has really shown how much of a boxing brain he has, and how good his level of adaptability is, which is when he is considered to be past prime, whereas earlier in his career I for one, didn't see it as much as when he was far more physically in prime - no hand problems etc. etc. For what it's worth Joe believes that he could beat his younger self - read into that what you will.

however, irrespective of that, Joe has been able to adapt for the second half of the fight virtually every opponent he has fought. Obviously RJJ would be his toughest opponent, but is it not even possible that Joe could find someway to adapt and have his moments - maybe take a shot at his chin which although i believe to be solid, due to the nature of the KO's, has a little question mark with the benefit of the doubt for me - now joe might not show power but both lacy and kessler will tell you he hurts, and there's a lot of them coming. I really do find it very unlikely - even naive that RJJ is that superior, that Joe will have no to little success what so ever.

 

Considering the blatant robberies, I don't think he'll be considered anywhere near what he should have been.

I

 

You are very obviously the one who is using the term for your own agenda.

If I am asked the question "Who is the best supermiddleweight ever?"
I say: "Roy Jones Jr."
If I am asked why, I say: "Because he was the best fighter that ever fought at that weight. I watched all of his fights, and I saw him give the best performance I ever seen at the weight (v Toney) and every other time I saw him he looked in my opinion to be operating a level higher than any other SMW fighter I ever saw. In conclusion, the question is who was the best, I answer by stating RJJ was the best in that he was better than the rest, by definition the best- as the question asks."

Decisions on who was best must surely always be made on actually watching their fights, and then deciding on the evidence you saw in the ring who was the best fighter. If we can, like you do, make the decision on paper achievements ("Calzaghe defended titles this many times, Jones only had that many fights") then what is the point of even watching the fights? Someone who has never seen either man fight could come to the same conclusion- it is removing the most important evidence we as fans have- watching the fights and evaluating who you think showed himself to be 'the best'.

You have been asked the question "Who is the best supermiddleweight ever?"
You say: "Joe Calzaghe."
Your reason? I quote: "For me, I consider it as being the one who achieved the most, stood out above the rest.
in that sense - considering both careers at SMW, JC>RJJ - therefore in this case, in my opinion, Joe Calzaghe was the BEST super middleweight" At no point was the simple answer 'because he was the best, he would have beaten everyone else who fought at that weight, which would make him by definition, the best'

I consider it as being the one who achieved the most - this is quite simply an altogether different question from who was the best. If that was the question being asked then its a fair answer, but it is not the question. If 'the best' was determined by who achieved the most, then Sven Ottke was definitely better than Roy Jones Jr. Do you think that?

'Best' simply means who was the best. Simple. If that can be determined by a guy's record, then why even bother having boxing matches then? The guy with the better record and more achievements could just say "why would I fight him, I am already proved to be better as I have achieved more". The best can only be determined in the ring. If Jones of Nov 1994 fought any version of Calzaghe, I am convinced RJJ would win, and win convincingly. Therefore, by definition, he is the best supermiddleweight as he would have been proved better than Calzaghe in a fight at 168.

For all I have seen of both of them, I cannot comprehend how anyone could think Calzaghe was the best. It was Jones Jr without a doubt.

 

That train of thought doesn't really work, if you apply it consistently. There are too many grey areas. How do we know he's really that great in respect to the divison, if he didn't actually prove it against the same competition as another guy? And how many fights do you need at that weight, say somebody has one fight at a weightclass and looks outstanding, is he then considered as one of the best of all-time?

This is not even specific to Roy Jones, the logic just throws me.

 

exactly - his logic is just bull crap. He is being far too subjective and is trying to portray his own opinion as fact, or at least he considers his own opinion to have so much weight it is considered as fact.

no fighter is unbeatable, the toney win while great, wasn't THAT great, and i think you'll find pacman84 - i am not using it for my own agenda, i qualified what i considered to be a suitable definition for the term best, that covers a range of criteria, and applied that to the fighter i consdered fitted it best - that was Joe Calzaghe.

Your beliefs follow a similar trail of thought to that thread by Klion, whereby he asked us to add another fighters skill to a fighter to make them unbeatable - however giving Calzaghe power was null and void - it just doesn't work like that.

 

another thing is - how much stock should we hold by how well they look on film?

you're placing a lot of emphasis on it, and hold much stock by it. Have you considered that maybe achievements can count for as much as how well someone looks on film?

 

But then the Ottke question returns, if you are basing a decision about 'best' on longevity and number of defences. Sven Ottke made so many defences he must be considered better than RJJ by your criteria. Therefore it just cannot be how best is determined.

Let me put this to you:

Roberto Duran only fought for a world welterweight title twice, so his record in welterweight title fights was 1 win (on points), 1 loss (by stoppage).

Simon Brown was IBF welterweight champion for 3 years and WBC champion for 1 year, the vast majority of his 59 fight career was spent there.

If you saw both guys fights at welterweight, you would know that if they fought, Duran would win easily. Therefore by definition, he is the best of the two at welterweight. However, if someone asked who achieved more at welterweight, it's Brown. Different questions have different answers.

If you believe Duran on the night of the Brawl In Montreal would have beaten anyone else who ever fought at welterweight, you would think he was the best welterweight ever. It can't be proved but it is your opinion based on the evidence you saw in the ring. That's the point of the question.

Sugar Ray Robinson is rated the best fighter ever. That is not on his achievements, as there are a couple of fighters who have achieved more. It is because those who seen him at his best believe he fought at a level no-one else at any weight could match in relation to their own opposition. I think this proves the question regarding 'best'.

 

In the short history of the division, Calzaghe achieved the most and ranks as the greatest super middleweight ever, while Jones was by most accounts, better at his best than Calzaghe was.

If you want to go back in time though, many fighters in history fought around the 168 lb. range before there was a super middleweight division. Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Lloyd Marshall, Billy Conn, Harry Greb, etc...The footage is limited, but it adds more discussion to who was the BEST guy who fought around the range of 165-168 lbs.

 

This is why when you see some of the best rankings, they are done using a healthy combination of both criteria - achievement and skillset. Using your way is just far too subjective, and there is nothing really tangible to work with from a discussion point of view.

Tyson h2h is probably top 5 all-time, achievement scrapes top 20, overall, in the teens. That is fair.

Joe Calzaghe's resume at 168 is way way superior to Jones, simply because he's stayed there longer. The disparity in skillset is not enough to compensate for that in many peoples eyes.

It's not even worth getting into Ottke. He is an anomaly in that he was fradulent, and everybody considers him so.