Who has the best Resume in SMW history?

something incorrect? easy, your next sentence - the phrase 20 odd years.

20 is an even number, not odd.

 

you gotta learn to take what people are giving you :good

 

the relevance to you, you mean? their relevance is they are your own words on this thread. Pretty damn relevant to you, then.

unless of course you are implying that your own words are inherently irrelevant?.... I couldn't agree more in this case.

 

Bailey,

I didn't say that Toney was better than Eubank at SMW, that's another debate altogether.

I said that Roy's win over Toney, was better than Collins' win over Eubank.

An undefeated fighter in Dan Schommer, who wasn't a great fighter, who Eubank admitted should have got the decision.

No, in this instance, you can't just look at Eubank's resume, and then give Collins loads of credit.

That's not how it works.

I'm sure you just stick to your guns to bait people.

Why do you never allow for circumstances?

I agree with you that Eubank has the better SMW resume over Toney.

But that doesn't automatically mean that Steve Collins's win over Eubank, was better than Roy's over Toney.

Why?

Because there's many things you need to take into consideration.

This really shouldn't need explaining to you.

So what?

Collins had three big fights before, and he'd lost all of them.

Toney was Roy's first big fight against a world class opponent.

Again, you need to take things into consideration.

Eubank in his own opinion, had lost to Schommer and had just beaten Wharton. Again, Barry Hearn, Ronnie Shields and Eubank himself, have all stated that he was never the same after Watson.

After his defeats to Collins, Eubank never won another fight at the top level, and went on to retire.

Also, as previously stated, he was extremely lucky to be still undefeated going into the Collins fight. You put far too much emphasis on a guy being undefeated.

With regards to Toney, the weight was an issue, but it always has been, and in Jackie Kallen's opinion, he was more than happy to take the fight, and he thought he would beat Roy.

Going into the fight with Roy, he was in form, having had some good wins.

After the loss to Roy, he then went on to have some good/great wins.

That's right.

I agree with you.

Again, Eubank had the better resume at SMW.

But again, that doesn't mean that Collin's wins over him, eclipses Roy's win over Toney.

You're just working off of black and white stats, without allowing for circumstances.

Debating with you is hard work at times.

I've made my points above.

James Toney was a better fighter in 1994, than what Eubank was in 1995, IMHO.

Again, Toney also went on to have other good/great wins, whereas Eubank didn't, and he retired shortly afterwards.

You really need to look deeper when analysing wins, instead of letting a guy like Collins piggy back off of Eubank's earlier success.

Also, how can you rate Collins's wins over Nigel Benn?

They weren't great wins, all things considered.

 

Eubank was extremely proud of his performances against Thompson, and rightly so.

The deck was stacked against him, and he went out on his shield and in his opinion, won the respect of the entire British boxing public, for his gallant displays.

But he'd tell you himself, that he was a different fighter, with a different mindset, before the Watson tragedy.

 

After the S6 it was debateable between Ward and Bute, as to who was the best SMW, but Ward didnt take that challenge and Froch beat Bute, so we will never know how it would have gone between them.

Dont disagree with that. Froch has a superior chin to Groves, but I think Froch has had a tougher career, due to length of time fighting and who he has fought compared to Groves

Not an eye injury and Kessler said the alledged hand was not a problem. I have that on tape. Calzaghe carried injuries into that fight and was an old SMW

 

Kessler said before the fight that he didnt have a hand injury and after the fight said the hand wasnt a problem. Still Calzaghe haters will even go against what Kessler himself said

 

You still posting. Boring and not relevant to the thread. Nothing out of the ordinary for you

 

Froch

 

its always irrelevant when you cant answer.

 

He didn't do anything else at the weight.

He moved up.

What does it matter?

 

It's close between Joe Calzaghe and Andre Ward.

Calzaghe defeated a prime Kessler and Ward defeated a prime Froch. When a faded version of Kessler fought Froch it was Kessler who came out on top. But in the rematch Froch avenged his loss and besides he has a better resume than Kessler all together. I think Kessler was better head to head, so Calzaghes top win edges Wards.

Wards victory over a faded Kessler is good, but I have a hard time to see it beeing better than Calzaghes win over Eubank - the fight itself showes he was still able to perform. Second best win goes to Calzaghe.

Ward has the better top third win. Dawson may have been drained, but is still a more solid boxer than Lacy.

Wards victory over Bika equals Calzaghes.

Calzaghes victory over Reid should be roughly equal to Wards win over Arthur Abraham. I know AA had his arse kicked good and regulary at SMW, but he was dangerous in his fight against Ward.

Throw in Calzaghes long reign and the only rational conclusion is that he has the better resume. Ward can be the better boxer head to head, but that dont change history.

 

did calzaghe haters perform the surgery on kesslers hands straight after the fight too?

wrong on so many levels.

 

bailey,

I know what the thread title is called.

Eubank vs Collins was at SMW, and Roy vs Toney was also at SMW.

Roy's win was better, because Toney was better than Eubank and he won 11 of the 12 rounds with ease.

That's it.

I don't care what Eubank had done at the weight and what Toney had done at the weight.

Roy's win was better.

Based on what I've wrote above.

James Toney in 1994, was better than the version of Eubank from 1995.

In his autobiography.

Toney gave an honest interview where he stated that Tiberi had beaten him. He took him lightly, and underestimated him, just like Eubank had done with Schommer and Ray Close etc.

But you have to look at a fighters form going into the fight that you're analysing.

The Tiberi fight was over two years before he fought Roy at a different weight.

How many times do you need it explaining?

Despite their SMW resumes, Toney was a better fighter in 94, than what Eubank was in 95, and he was in better form.

Roy also beat Toney with absolute ease, whereas Collins didn't beat Eubank in the same manner.

Therefore, IMHO, Roy's win was better.

It doesn't matter if it was Collins' first big fight at the weight.

Toney had proved that he was a world class fighter going into the ring with Roy.

Collins hadn't going into the ring with Eubank.

Take away Collins' wins over faded versions of Eubank and Benn, and what's left?

Ray Close, Dan Schommer and Nigel Benn fought earlier versions of Eubank, and should have been awarded the wins against him.

Malinga had beaten a faded version of Benn before Collins got to him.

Therefore, Collins' victories over Benn and Eubank can't be classed as great.

I'm not dismissing it as a good win.

I'm dismissing it as a great win.

You've just agreed that Eubank was past his absolute best when facing Collins, by saying "that maybe the case...." in reference to what Barry Hearn etc had said.

You have also just stated that the Collins loss was debatable.

So, Eubank lost a debatable decision to Collins.

Whereas Roy easily beat Toney.

So how on earth can Collins' win be better than Roy's??

I've acknowledged that, and again, James admitted that a few years ago, I think during an interview with fight hype.

I've never mentioned Chad Dawson in this thread. Also, Chad's circumstances were completely different to Toney's.

Nobody's interested in doing a direct comparison, because it's irrelevant when analysing Roy's win over Toney, and Collins' win over Eubank.

I've already agreed with you that Eubank has the better SMW resume.

But again, you look at a fighters form guide going into the fight you're analysing, as well as looking at where they were in their careers at that point in time.

He lost two debatable decisions to a very good fighter in Montell Griffin.

Don't make Griffin out to be some nobody.

He was a good fighter, and was trained by Eddie Futch.

Going into the fights that we're discussing, Toney had recently knocked out Tim Littles in four rounds, who himself had beaten Frankie Liles, whereas Eubank had got lucky against Schommer and had beaten Wharton.

It's not like saying that at all.

Made, as in a past tense.

He was a shell of his former self going into those Collins fights.

He came out of retirement after losing to Malinga.

I don't know anybody apart from you, who gives Collins huge credit for those wins.

The rematch was shocking when Benn hurt his ankle.

He'd got nothing left to give at that stage.

Steve Collins's claim to fame was beating two british legends who were past their best.

There's lots of fighters who could have beaten the versions of Benn and Eubank that he beat.

They weren't great wins.