Who has the best Resume in SMW history?

what good is a "top undefeated fighter" if he hasn't stepped up and fought anyone on "the level of Kessler and froch"?
traveling is a moot point if you beat your top contenders

i'm not making excuses for ward not fighting bute, but it wasn't unreasonable for bute to earn his shot at ward, since all the fighters in the super six had to earn their right to claim the title - which was more prized than bute's belt
how do we know this?
because participants in the super six were willing to risk their belts to become a real world champion

 

Only a complete ****ing idiot would argue!

What has Taylor done at world level at super middle?

Hahahahahaha!

What has Abraham done at super middle? How many world championship fights has Abraham won at super middle? What is his win loss ratio at super middle?

This site encourages some ****ing morons.....

 

You are clueless if you think that. Tell me what Ward, Toney, Benn or Froch did more than Calzaghe? This will be amusing.
Calzaghe has the best SMW resume and Eubank has a better SMW resume than the fighters you list. Toney has a terrible SMW resume. Lets hear it, I could do with a giggle

It wasnt about what I wanted, it was what did happen. A nothing win against Ouma a LMW at MW, a draw with LMW Wright, a SD that some felt he lost against former WW champ and LMW Spinks.
Its not about what I would have wanted, its what did happen

 

I agree.
I find that many posters who comment on here, werent watching the division a few years back and really dont know the facts when they post and just rely on what others say to get an opinion.

 

This.

 

what did happen is that taylor was the man who dethroned Bernard Hopkins, and he backed it up by doing it again

 

Baily, how can you casually disregard EVERYTHING that someone does in a division adjacent to SMW?
Basically you seem to feel you can disregard them even if they were undisputed or undefeated MW or LHW champion, that this carries absolutely nothing towards their ability at SMW. You think they will have zero ability at SMW????!

Why do you do this when its obvious its a failed stance?

 

bailey,

Are you telling me that I can't say that Toney was better than Eubank, just because Eubank had the better overall resume at SMW?

Really?

Again, I take many things into consideration, unlike yourself.

If I analyse both fighters skills, then it appears to me that Toney was a better fighter.

If I analyse Eubank and Toney's form going into said fights, then it appears to me that Toney was in better form.

If I analyse the manner of which Collins and Roy won, it appears to me that Roy's win was better.

Yes, Toney had weight issues, but he always had weight issues. He lived above a bakery and had no discipline.

Eubank being Mayweather, and Algeri being Toney?

How ironic.

I've explained to you in detail why I believe Roy's win was better.

I take many things into consideration when ranking a fighter and rating a win.

It's you who never allows for circumstances and rates wins from black and white statistics.

Everyone in this debate is offering their opinions.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But my opinions are based on logic.

Yours aren't.

I think James Toney was a better fighter than Chris Eubank, because overall he had more ability.

You think that Eubank was better, because he did more at that weight.

I haven't got one to hand, but I'm sure Bulldog has.

Stop doing a direct comparison of their overall SMW careers.

It's irrelevant.

Because again, the Eubank that Collins fought, was not the guy that had beaten Benn and Watson etc.

Going into the fight with Roy, Toney had better wins than what Eubank had going into the fight with Collins.

Forget their OVERALL SMW resumes.

Eubank had beaten Wharton, and had struggled and got a gift against Schommer just prior to fighting Collins.

Toney had knocked out Littles early, and Williams, going into the fight with Roy.

Because the Watson fight had scarred him, and he fought in a different manner, trying not to hurt guys.

If you don't think that Benn was faded for the Collins fights, then I don't know what to say.

I've read a quote from him, where he said he knew that he was sort of gone, but he placed a large bet on himself, to try and convince him otherwise.

We've discussed Tiberi, and Reggie was a world class southpaw, at a different weight.

You won't even let me discuss fights at other weights.

You accuse me of not having watched boxing back then, but you're now asking me to explain how he was faded? Ha!

Anybody who watched Benn fight in 1996, knows that he was faded.

Stop being argumentative.

As above.

Psychology plays a huge part in the outcome of a fight.

He did have some good wins after Watson.

But what you're doing, is basically saying "Eubank had great wins over Benn and Watson etc, and Collins beat him, therefore Collins is great, and it was a great win."

Yes, I do realise that you didn't actually say that, but effectively, it's the message you're trying to get across.

All I'm doing, is to try and get you to look deeper.

Collins deserves credit for beating Eubank, especially how he psyched him out.

But he didn't face the young hungry guy, who'd beaten Watson and a ferocious young Nigel Benn, 5 and 6 years earlier.

So for those reasons, I can't give Collins huge credit and say that his wins were great.

Struggling against Schommer and fighting Wharton were levels above knocking out Littles etc?

Tim Littles, not that it's really relevant, for the reasons I've already mentioned.

But you don't account for a number of things, such as: How good of a fighter they were, the form guide going in, what they did after, the manner of the victory etc.

You don't take any of those things into consideration.

Why wasn't Toney proven at the weight?

He knocked out a good fighter in Littles, who'd beat Liles, and he had a few stay busy fights, before fighting Roy and then moving up.

But was he not proven as a WHOLE?

Are we going to forget everything that he did at MW, and just class him as a SMW prospect or something, because he didn't have a lot of great wins at the weight?

He was classed as one of the very best fighters in the world.

Before you start saying it's mythical, we're talking about respected fighters, trainers, promoters, sports writers etc, all holding him in such high regard.


Tell me how Collins getting a debatable decision, trumps Roy's easy win?

? I've agreed with you.

It doesn't elevate him.

Once again, there's a whole lot of things that you haven't taken into consideration.

More twisting and turning. So I can't highlight how he performed in the first fight with Roy, and I can't discuss the Toney fights because they were at LHW?

If you watched boxing back then, you'd know that Griffin was a good fighter.

Now are you going to argue otherwise, just because I can't reel off loads of star names?

Eubank had a very good win over Roch, especially as it was in Germany, and again, Collins deserves credit for beating Eubank.

But my initial post, was just to get you to look at the whole picture, and not just a fragment.

You can't have an educated and objective debate, unless you're willing to analyse all the things that I have.

How on earth was it the same?

Completely different circumstances.

So he didn't retire directly after the Malinga fight?

He retired, and then gave it one more go, even though he knew deep down that he was faded.

Do some research.

It wasn't a big win, everyone knew the score.

Start a thread.

Who apart from you, gives Collins lots of credit for those wins?

You can have your little dig about me not watching, I'm not bothered.

I know what I watched, and it was a sad night for me at 16, watching one of my favourite fighters retire in that manner, hobbling around the ring.

I was desperate for him to have one more fight, even though he was shot.

I wanted him to go out on a win.