This one is for ALL the marbles...

This was all I needed to be confirmed - thank you, my friend. Btw does this mean you don't rate JCs ring belt for anything other than a paper belt(pun intended).

 

You giving opinions not facts, and your arguments are not strong enough to change my mind. This is a forum for debate and you lack the vision on this subject, it is not black and white...

 

Yeah, it's another trinket. Belts don't matter, the fighters matter.

For example, if Kessler had the WBO currently and Calzaghe the IBF and the unification was IBF to WBO and a guy like Froch had the WBC and Mundine the WBA... which belts matter?

For me, the champ would be the winner of that IBF and WBO because it was contested between the two best. There is no SMW 'champ' at the moment, there is the longest reigning titlist who is the MAN to BEAT and the respective #1 in the division, but there is no undisputed champ.

Calzaghe's WBO belt is just the WBO, but it comes down from the Eubank fight, that means more than Berrio getting the IBF from Stieglitz.

 

Also I'd like to add that the WBO belt in the SMW division was one that Eubank, Hearns and Collins held, historically at SMW it is a significant belt.

All of these disgusting organisations are the same, let's see what fighters contested for them before picking favourites.

 

I've enjoyed reading this debate!

 

No way. Calzaghe is the man at super middleweight no matter how you spin it.

 

Kesslers the bigger,younger man...but I am rooting for Joe

 

Claiming Kessler as linear at 168 is quite ridiculous at this stage, Calzaghe has been the universally recognized #1 ranked supermiddleweight in the world for at least 5 years now. You cannot crown a new linear champion when the title is vacant without involving the man who is unanimously rated at #1 in the world.

That being said, things may change after November 3rd. In the fight itself I see a rather robotic but fundamentally sound Kessler facing off against an aging Calzaghe who has looked vulnerable over the last few years, barring one exceptional performance against the limited Lacy. The fight being in Wales should give Joe a bit of an edge however, as I believe it will go the full twelve rounds.

 

You should never forget the fact that Kessler is half-english on his mothers side - so in lieu with that, you can't loose . The comps are great, we have the same vs the other scandinavians - especially vs the swedes. However, there haven't been many clashes in boxing though.

How would you feel if JC meets Froch?

 

Being the man and being considered the best are two different variables, as explained neatly in the thread.

Deservedbly JC is considered to be the best, no matter how many belts or how great Kessler is. However until they meet there is a questionmark who is the best at this point that has to be erased, and luckily they grant us as much.

I fail to understand why you think Kessler is roboticly? He fights nothing like Ivan Drago. His style is correct boxing, whereas JCs is not. That said, he is not stiff as a board, nor is JC an inferior boxer because of his style - but its not textbook like Kessler.

Other than that lets hope for a great competetive fight, where we see the best of each.

 

Yeah, but so is the WBC - just an earlier one. Simply because it split from the WBA earlier doesn't make it ANY more legitimate than the others.

 

Nobody are discussing legitimacy, but whom is linear champ, and you get that recognition from uniting the WBA and WBC only.

What you are saying is the reason why less people care for this old term. WBO was considered a bogus belt for many years, and still is by some.