The Super middleweight division is looking at its weakest in years

What I don't understand is, why are you so sure that today's crop bring OVERALL more talent to the table. Maybe it just LOOKS like that, because they haven't fought strong opposition yet.
Jaidon Codrington looked really talented once. Then Green KOed him in 1. Allan Green looks more talented than Eric Lucas. Think he'd have beat him?

 

montreal is in canada, canada is in north america. so no, he ISN'T european dumbass. his ORIGINS may be of european descent (like any and all white people do might i add), but he was born and raised in north america. man, it really doesn't pay off being THIS stupid does it? but then again this is coming from a guy who lives, breathes, eats, sleeps, and drinks eastside boxing. so it doesn't suprise me the slightest you're under the impression canada is in europe:-(

 

Lucian Bute was born and raised in Romania. He moved to Canada after his amateur boxing career.

 

The talent part is easier to spot because it's not based on actual results like accomplishments are.

Using one of your previous examples, if you were a bookie and you had to make odds for the Kessler-Andrade bout, would you have made Kessler the favorite or Andrade ? Even lets say for the sake of it, if Kessler already had 2 losses to his record ?

I'll assume that you'd say Kessler is favored. Why ? Is it mainly because he's champ or mainly because he's just more talented ? I think the reason is obvious... That's also why I used the Tyson-Berbick example before to make my point, knowing Tyson was green, with not much accomplished yet against the veteran champ, but talent prevailed and most thought it would.

Now again...to end this line of thought, I already conceided that talent alone will not determine winners, anything can happen, but if we need to pick the winners, we normally go with the best ones don't we ?

Since we'll never be able to see the new crop of guys fight the old crop of guys, we can only gauge the best by comparing abilities / strengths and therefore potential results in mutual virtual matchups...

I just believe that today's top guys should beat most of yesterday's top guys...maybe not all but most. Again anything can happen though...

By the way, I 've already said on this thread that I think Calzaghe beats all of today's guys based on what they bring to the table. Again I could be wrong because nothing is set in stone..right ?

 

Everybody at this level has talent. Ottke had talent. Beyer had talent.
Some guys they beat had more talent than them. Maybe more talent than Ward. You're always going to see talented guys coming in into the sport. But most of them will be beaten up and fade away. That's why accomplishments matter.
The exact same thing you're saying now, you might have said 2 years ago about Karoly Balzsay or Dennis Inkin or Allan Green. Maybe 2 years from now, Dirrell and Ward will have dropped to their level. Then you'll have another young unbeaten fighter who looks really talented to latch on to. It's called hype!

 

Are you telling me with a straight face that if you had to decide between Ward & Beyer...you'd pick Beyer ? Hype & potential outcomes aside, in a virtual matchup I favor Ward..you ?

It may all be subjective...but I think most of today's best in the top 10 would beat most of yesterday's best in the top 10 that I wrote on this thread.

Just out of curiosity, besides Calzaghe & Ottke, " which fighters since 2000 would you bet on to either beat Froch - Abraham - Bute - Dirrell or Ward ? "

 

omg, a dumbass post by bailey. why is this not surprising. atsch

 

How about Danny Green? Why wouldn't he have beaten Froch or Abraham or Dirrell?
Why wouldn't Beyer beat some of those as well?

 

I agree about Danny Green. I certainly don't about Beyer though... Beyer was on his way to lose against a green Sakio Bika if an unintentional headbutt wouldn't have stopped that fight.

Again anything is possible, but do you put your hard earned cash on Beyer if forced to place a bet between him and any of the other guys I mentioned ?

As far as I'm concerned, there were good fighters every year in the last 10 years, simply not as many as now when comparing the years, on year by year basis...


Go back to post #95 and tell me if there's a year since 2000 for which you give the edge compared to this year's, in regards to the top 10 guys.

 

i REALLY don't understand why you're saying it's a weak division. I totally disagree. From Light heavyweights to the heavyweights I would understand but i'm sure you can do a much more better top 10 in the super middle weight than in any other bigger category (LHW to heavy) IMO.

 

AA and Bute are enough for the divison.

 

:roflWhat an idiot. At least know your **** before insulting people!

 

Beyer has always been bad. The only reasons i think why Green lost in the 2nd match is that he open up the machine a bit too late ( in the 12th) but i assume he was drained. The guy fought one day in his home country and kept excusing himself at the post fight conference for having lost the bout....In fact he was so drained that he was not aware he won his match via decision. Remember in the first fight, Green shouldn't have been DQ against Beyer but hey, this is germany Beyer wouldn't have been champion for a long time if it was not of that sneaky Sauerland. If you want to win in Germany, you gotta kill the guy on the ring...a broken jaw is not enough,lol (remember Abraham-Miranda I)

 

I wouldn't readily put money against Beyer, either. Didn't he beat Danny Green?

 

and....guys....Bika is underated I think. He's a LOT better than some people may think. Not a lot of exposure even if he made Calzaghe look really bad. Bika won the first 3 rounds against Bute before getting dominated. I'm sure he will give some problems to Ward.