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

but you need to realise we're taking into account h2h ability.

we take into account everything - or as many measurable factors as possible - and its then that calzaghe will come ahead of RJJ, sure h2h, RJJ might be ahead, but thats all. you take the whole package into account and thats where calzaghe will come clear - great record, never lost, first linear, first undisputed, 20 defenses etc. you put EVERYTHING together as a whole package - you have the best supermiddle weight

 

My way of answering the question is of course very very subjective, because the question asks who was the best- this is the most subjective question that can be asked, it is a request for individual opinion.

You say 'best rankings' : what you are referring to is pound-for-pound rankings. P4P rankings are a system used by many people and generally agreed upon, so to come up with those rankings subjective opinion is taken in combination with achievement, otherwise a magazine could never have a P4P ranking as more than one person collaborate to work out rankings.

If you ask people who was best at a particular weight, you are asking for their subjective opinion. Otherwise you could look up the answer in boxingrec's pound-for-pound rankings and give that answer rather than just answer the question and say who you think was the best.

 

But all those facts, those paper achievements, would mean nothing if they met in the ring. I think if they did at 168, Jones Jr would win convincingly. Therefore, he is the best who fought at that weight IMO. The question is as simple as that. If your answer is Calzaghe is the best because he would have beaten anyone else at that weight then that's cool. But to say he is the best because he had 20+ defences does not make sense.

 

joe calzaghe.

 

What is also subjective is your interpretation of the phrase "best super middleweight", as if to say everyone thinks its purely h2h. We all have different meanings, if you want to be pedantic about things :-(

What I was saying is purely coming at it from the angle of "this guy looks better, he is more skilled therefore the best" is completely subjective. Whereas if you have achievement at that weight that BACKS IT UP, then you have a strong case.

 

That would be somewhat feasible if Jones himself were not also a master of throwing off a fighter's rhythm. I've told you how Jones would do so to Calzaghe. I'll have to hear how Calzaghe would do so to Jones in your opinion in order to put thought into it.

 

but im not saying that.

im saying that he is the best because he has the best all around package that takes into account H2H, longetivity, resume, career achievements etc.

The only thing that RJJ has any hope of trumping JC on is H2H, and that we can only speculate.

You do not know for 100% certain that RJJ would beat JC. He may be favoured, but Baer was favoured against Braddock. Tyson was favoured against Douglas. JC considering what he has achieved - h2h, undisputed, linear etc. should never ever be counted out - especially as no other fighter has managed to beat him thus far - he's 36 nearly 37.

I think we should agree to disagree, but i really really think you should take into account that just because RJJ has the near unbeatable reputation doesn't mean that he automatically beats everyone at that weight therefore is the best ever - consider that h2h isn't everything. its important, not gospel however.

 

We simply have a different notion of what best is. I think the best supermiddleweight ever is the guy who I believe who would beat everyone else who ever fought at that weight. That seems very obvious and very simple to me. I don't understand how the question can have an answer that is not who the person answering the question thinks would beat everyone else who ever fought at that weight, but who had the longest sequence of title defences v adequate (and often poor) opposition. If you think RJJ at 168 peak would beat Calzaghe at 168 peak, you think RJJ was best supermiddleweight ever.

 

The question can't have a gospel answer, it is asking for who you think is the best. I answer that question with my opinion based on the evidence I seen. I don't know how else to answer it.

 

Well I'll need to watch several specific fights from both fighters - I'm relatively new to the sport - the first fight that got me into boxing was Harrison/Bonin, then the next fight i saw (excluding Rocky movies) was Calzaghe/Ashira.

I'll send you an analysis that i come up with tomorrow - i'll either pm you or post in this thread, but remember - i'm not stating that i believe joe WOULD win, but I am saying i'm willing to give him a higher chance than what most people say.

Also this will be my first proper fantasy fight analysis - so be kind

 

I look forward to it.:good

 

Have a look at Jones Jr on youtube amigo, you'll wonder what the big debate is. Happy watching!

 

Benn himself states he thinks Calzaghe is the best super middleweight of all time and he, along with Eubank, suggested that Calzaghe would have footed it with the very best of their era.

Eubank also said he was asked by Roy Jones Jr about Calzaghe and what the guy would bring to a fight around 2000-2001 and Eubank recommended staying completely away from Calzaghe.

I still say RJJ of 1994-1999 minces Calzaghe, but after that? The fight gets close.

 

I have seen plenty of RJJ, I've seen many many highlights, and i've seen the Pazienza fight, the Hall fight, and i think i've seen one more full fight (that lasted more than 2 rounds or so).

As skilled and good as he was, I do think there might be weaknesses in his game that i want to check when i research him in-depth tomorrow.

 

RJJ was only at supermiddleweight from 1994 til 1996, so if you think he would've minced Joe Cal in those years, you think he was a better supermiddle. I do too.