Who has the best Resume in SMW history?

Come on Bailey surely you know I was joking?
In truth I don't really rate the overall resumes of the smw champions. Boxing would of been a lot better if we had just stuck with the original 8 classes

 

Of course I knew you were joking. I was joking also

 

I did

 

Agreed. However, I'd say Calzaghe still has the best SMW resume, but not by leaps and bounds. The peak level of their wins is about the same, with Calzaghe and Ward each proving the level of guys they could beat. Calzaghe has the best win in a stronger version of Kessler, but Ward has a Froch on his resume, where Calzaghe's next best SMW win is Lacy, who Froch outdistances substantially.

Still, I'd give it to Calzaghe for having the quantity of the 2nd tier guys, (Woodhall, Reid, etc.) that Ward doesn't have as many of.

 

:good

 

A little off topic but I saw it discussed above.

I recently watched Hopkins-Calzaghe for the second time. When I first saw the fight I felt it could go either way.

This time I scored it 115-113 for Calzaghe, I gave Hopkins the first 3 rounds, but Calzaghe won nearly every round after that... There was also a round I scored even probably being generous to Hopkins if anyone, and could have very well been 115-112 for Calzaghe. I also gave Hopkins a late round I forgot which one it was, my wife tossed my paper I had it written on. But it was a close round again. So 116-111 wouldn't be a crazy card.

There were a few rounds that looked no clear winner to me going into the last 30 seconds where I thought a Calzaghe flurry stole the round.

Anyway, I think it was a close but clear win for Calzaghe. Hard for me to imagine scoring that for Hopkins, he might have landed the best punch of the fight, but Calzaghe got through plenty.

 

bailey,

Give you another?

If you were a fan back then, you'd know.

Only in your fantasy world was the WBO belt held in the same regard as the main three.

What a joke.

It doesn't matter how many people I quote, because all you'd do, is question their credentials and say they were American etc.

A pointless task.

But it beggars belief that you can question if me and other posters were watching back then, while writing your nonsense.

The true unified champ in the 80's and 90's, had the main three.

I've brought Joe up as an example, to try and get through to you.

I've used Joe because you're such a big fan.

Again, you asked me why I thought Toney was better than Eubank.

So I mentioned his abilities, such as his defence etc, and you asked who he'd displayed this against at SMW.

I came back to you, and said not just at SMW, but as a whole. I said that I saw his skill set throughout his whole career, and I believe he was better.

Then you came back and say no, we're only discussing SMW, nothing else.

At which point, I said you were being unfair, and that if someone made a thread featuring Joe vs a LHW, you'd no doubt take his whole career into consideration, and not just his two fights at the weight.

None of the above matters.

Joe's SMW belt wasn't held in high regard in the 90's, and outside of Europe, neither was he.

How have you caught me out?

Respected boxing writers had no respect for the WBO belt back then.

Do you know who Thomas Hauser and Steve Farhood are?

I've told you they're on YouTube. Go and hear the thoughts of Hauser, Larkin, DiBella, Davis and Farhood etc.

The division was new.

The titles weren't.

The IBF was formed a little earlier.

The WBA and the WBC were formed in the 60's, and their origins went back much further.

You're trying to claim that because the division was new, all of the titles were on the same footing.

Of course they weren't.

The WBA and the WBC had history.

How could a newly formed organisation, be held in the same regard as two others that had been formed years earlier?

Stop kidding yourself.

Possibly, but I doubt anyone else was bothered about about their guy winning a one year old belt in a new division.

It wasn't prestigious.

I haven't tied myself in knots.

Joe's belt wasn't held in high regard.

Neither was his division, and neither was he back in the late 90's.

Eubank has said that if he'd still have been with Ronnie Shields, he wouldn't have let him take the fight.

You're so biased.

If any other fighter who hadn't made SMW in a long time, who was training to fight at LHW, suddenly found himself with only 11 days to make weight and face a southpaw, you wouldn't rate the win at all.

But because it's Joe, it's different.

How could Eubank not have been underprepared?

Also, just because Joe fought guys in the top ten, that doesn't mean they weren't substandard.

The WBO moved a guy up by two places after he'd died.

So how respected were their rankings?

The division wasn't hot in the late 90's/early 00's.

You were discussing how a fighter can make a belt.

I've told you how Joe didn't.

If he'd have gotten more exposure, and had charisma and a big fan base etc, then yes, he could have made the belt more recognisable and it could have gained more respect.

When I tell you something you don't want to hear, you say it's all irrelevant.

I didn't say SMW, I said it cost him bigger fights and earlier recognition.

No Eubank didn't need to impress in America.

Because his objective was to just defend the WBO in Europe on Sky and ITV.

He never wanted the big American fights with Roy, Nunn and Toney etc.

He was content doing what he was doing.

He didn't need America, because he didn't want to progress from the level he was at.

That's right, and that's a good move for him.

But his circumstances are different.

He hasn't won a title yet, and he's rebuilding after his loss.

But if he comes back, and he wants to go to the top, he'll no doubt go over at some point.

Hopkins also spoke of possibly fighting in Wales.

But in the end he wasn't interested in Joe, or the three fight package he was presented with.

He fought him after he'd embarrassed Lacy and beat Kessler.

He fought him after he'd become known and respected in the U.S.

What would he have gained?

He was mentioned by them, yet they went on to pursue other fights.

Ha!

Against a relatively unknown SMW, who's biggest win was against a faded Eubank for a vacant belt?

Roy held talks and nothing else.

The keyword being TALKED.

 

Part 2.

Roy had three LHW belts that he had to defend, and he was only fighting twice a year. He was also looking to go up to HW.

He was open to talks and nothing more.

If he'd have wanted Joe's belt, he'd have pursued the fight.

In the end, he didn't.

I've showed you his post fight interview after Woods, where he said the only thing stopping a Tarver fight, was a John Ruiz fight, with absolutely no mention of Joe.

How is it only my opinion, when Roy pursued other avenues?

Joe wasn't really known in the U.S. back then.

Stop splitting hairs.

Roy weighed up his options, and Joe was one of them.

But in the end, he wasn't interested.

Frank couldn't have afforded to have paid Roy what he would have wanted to have dropped weight, left home, and risked losing one of his LHW belts.

In the U.S. Roy was making around $5m with his opponents getting a tiny fraction of that,

We know that Joe wouldn't have gone to the U.S. to have fought Roy for peanuts.

It wouldn't have got Joe the fight, because again, he wouldn't have gone over to the U.S. and fought for a small purse.

Go and watch the YouTube docs.

Joe was asked "Would you go to America, for less money, but for MORE exposure?"

Joe said "No, that wouldn't make sense."

Because he wasn't looking at what was down the road. He was only looking at what was directly in front of him.

 

bailey,

Why do you keep posting these links?

What's the purpose?

Caught out?

I said that Roy didn't struggle for the Tarver rematch, and he'd been destroyed four years before Joe fought him.

It can't be disputed.

 

I rate a win highly, based on many factors.

Kessler and Froch had close fights.

Ward beat Froch easy with a double fracture.

So I think that was Wards best win.


Now you keep telling us how bad Kessler was when Ward fought him.


So if that's your opinion, why do you think Kessler is Ward's best win?

 

bailey,

I'm going to narrow this down, because you're just repeating yourself.

You're asking me questions that have already been answered.

Yes, I agree that Eubank's SMW resume was greater.

But I still think Toney was the better fighter overall.

You haven't corrected me over Littles.

I said that Toney had good wins over Littles and Williams going into the fight.

How have I been caught out?

You've asked me what wins I rated at MW, and I told you.

You've answered in this very post, below.

I gave an example using Joe.

You then asked me a question, yet when I answer, this is what you reply with above.

You think Taylor got Hopkins at the right time.

You think Chad got Hopkins when he was old and had declined.

Yet sandwiched in the middle, was Joe's fantastic win over him.

Yet it's me who's got an agenda?

Right, here we are.

If I hadn't said what wins of Toney's I thought were his best, then you wouldn't have written the above would you?

Look, the Hopkins win for Joe was debatable.

But it was official, and you refer to it all the time as his best win.

So be quiet.

I believe the results were fair, and they were world class fighters.

So what if Nunn was ahead?

Nunn was a class act, and it wasn't a lucky punch by Toney. Stop trying to discredit the win.

You asked me a question, and I've answered it.

Yes, Eubank beat a guy in Roch, who beat Nunn.

How is that relevant exactly?

Toney fought a peak Nunn in 91, Roch fought him in 97/98.

Stop with the 'linking the opponents' game.

Yes, Eubank beat Benn, who beat Barkley.

But Toney's win over Barkley was still a very good win.


We can all play your silly games.

Collins beat Eubank, McCallum beat Collins, Toney beat McCallum.

It means nothing.

They were just a few examples out of 5/6.

Based on what?

His age, his performances, the level he was fighting at.

Are you saying he was at his best against Roch?

Why do you ask stupid questions?

As above.

You think 91 Nunn and 97/98 Nunn were the same?

He didn't.

Different circumstances, but I never said Barkley was Toney's best win.

Please just answer my question, with a simple yes or no, instead of going around the houses.

Do you think Toney was undeserving as being classed as one of the best fighters in the world when he fought Roy?