'Ability' without proving that ability against top tier opposition is rather meaningless when in ATG level discussions. People that disregard accomplishments are basically rating 'who looks the best' against overmatched opponents. The problem with that, is that nwar elite fighters can hide plenty of their achilles heels fighting overmatched opposition. There have been many fighters that look like superman against second tier fighters, only to be shown their weaknesses against other elite fighters. Thats why opposition is so important, it seperates the levels and helps to truly reveal and define fighters. Opposition matters so much more then subjective judgement on how 'unbeatable' someone appears.
Why would he not beat either of them? How does it mean nothing? Calzaghe was closer to the end of his career than Jones when he beat him and not as established at lhw either
I agree it can come down to individual which is why I wrote What doesn't come down to individual is that two fighters with an 0 often creates a bigger event. Not sure why you are using rosado as an example? He is without being rude a good journeyman. Not the same example. Look at how Joshua fought after his first defeat compared to the fighter who went for the ko Also you didn't address what I said about hype of 2 fighters having an 0, and that is where it plays a part in having an 0. Look at how D Currys career changed from being undefeated p4p #1 and then suffering a loss
Not sure about that I believe Toney was at SMW longer than lhw And believe that Nunn was at SMW longer than lhw I think it's where a person's weight is comfortable
What are you basing your rating on? I tend to look at resume. Don't disagree at all with Calzaghe at #1, as I don't think that could be disputed but how do you have Eubank and Ottke as low? Collins arguably has the best singular win at the weight and imo arguably a better SMW resume than many on there I would think at a glance 3 time WBC champ beyer would have a greater SMW resume than toney but would guess it to be debatable
So having a 0 is mostly relevant in terms of fight night hype? Yeah, being undefeated doesn´t mean **** all. Like mentioned, some never recover from a loss. While others go on to learn and become better and better(Rosado) A great example is Carl Froch. Was he at his best when he lost to Kessler, or was it post Ward? Because Froch went on a tear after his second loss. Looked better than ever.
Froch was a hell of a fighter, heart above talent. He was at his best during the super 6 though imo. Sure he crushed Bute and flattened Groves, but they weren't of the quality of fighter he faced during his Pacal - Kessler II run.
#1- Calzaghe- What Ray Robinson is at welterweight, Joe is at Super middleweight. The best. #2 - Jones- great talent not enough work. H2H almost unbeatable. #3 - Toney - Another great talent who lost to one of the best ever in his biggest fight. #4 - Ward - It's hard to rate Ward this high but wins on paper count. If some of his fight were refed fair, he would have a couple of DQs on his record. His fight with Kessler is one of the dirtiest fights I see in recent years. It remind me of Pac's fight with Sanchez. He should of been DQed for headbutts.
Kessler has to make a 10. ...and that isn't me speaking as my alter-ego IB the hardcore man-crushing head of the "Mikkel is a god" bandwagon. That is me speaking as objective IB, flat-out.
Just saying it was a weight class that didn’t really come into prominence until the late 80’s or early 90’s. A few great names but nothing like the major classes that existed in previous decades. Lightweight, Welter, Middleweight, LH and Heavyweight each have a much bigger pool. Saying someone is the best SMW to me doesn’t carry the weight of the best MW or the best Lightweight because there were no greats in the division before the 90’s. Okay, late 80’s but I don’t consider SRL a great super middleweight. He was just an old guy with a big name who fought at the weight. It’s never been as prestigious as the major divisions.
You may be right, but you also may be wrong. While Roy was past his best when he fought Joe, that is a two way street. It's not that I think Calzaghe is unbeatable, it's that his work rate would have provided Roy problems. Roy was also on the sauce so that takes him down a notch in my book. I think it would be a great fight.
Calzaghe and Ward are probably going to be debated in the #1 spot for generations to come, much as Usyk and Holyfield at cruiser. (mind you, this is no relativistic cop-out where I'm saying either choice is equally acceptable in both divisions...there's a clear right & wrong answer for each IMO...but they will be debated...)