Britains Top 10 Super Middleweights of last 25 years

This is my firsy topic on this board (and its probably been done before im guessing!)so go easy haha. But in light of Saturdays fight i'll give you my top 10 and hopefully we'll get a few of yours  

1. Calazaghe
2. Eubank
3. Froch
4. Benn
5. Collins
6. Watson
7. Reid
8. Groves
9. Woodhall
10. Piper

I think De Gale has the potential to get on the list and Groves can climb the list. I was a bit unsure where to rank Watson but have gone with 6.
I have included Collins even though he is from ROI i think - as he was very much part of the British scene.

What are your top 10's?

Welcome aboard warrior...........You seem like you have something to offer.......

No way Eubank above Froch................

Watson had one fight at 168 and got put in intensive care Mate.........So he's a joke at 6...

Collins above Benn also............Benn didn't "Beat" anybody at 168.........

Eubank x2 and benn x 2 ......more than enough at 168 !!

I'd have Froch ahead of Eubank.

Calzaghe head and shoulders above the rest.


BTW Collin's is from the Republic of Ireland.

Eubank is too high for me mate, Froch and Benn should be above him, beat better opposition. Watson had 1 fight at super middle and we know the tragic consequences around that one , agree with most of the names in there, think Glen Catley deserves a place.

Cheers Rodders

Like Truss would have to have Froch at two, his record at the weight is way beyond anyone outside Joe’s. Think there is an argument for Glenn Catley sneaking in the lower reaches as well. World titlist, which I know does not mean a lot in these days but was very unlucky not to get the nod over Woodhall and so arguably deserves to sneak in.

Welcome aboard by the way.

Great minds and all that Rodders.

I'd have Eubank in 2nd. Watson and Benn wins are as good as anything Froch has. He also gave a hard hitting Calzaghe his toughest fight at a week's notice.

Did Eubank beat Benn at 168 ???

I dont mind being corrected guys, as although I am a boxing fan my knowledge is nowhere near as good as some of you guys on here.
Im a sports fan so Tennis/ Football/ MMA/ Boxing/ Cricket is probably the order of my sports preferences. I did follow the boxing forum on 606 and on here but never had an account til a couple of days ago!!

I thought about Catley but didnt think he had many defences of his title and wouldnt have beat the others above him.
I got Watson wrong then - probably based it on his beating of Benn at 160.
Im a big fan of Eubank so probably biased with him at 2.

Between Calzaghe and Froch for the number one spot and Benn behind them.

Calzaghe has longevity with two stand out wins (Lacy and Kessler), Froch has Kessler, Abraham and Groves against reverses to Kessler and Ward.

I'd be inclined to have Calzaghe ahead but not by a lot.

How about:

1. Calzaghe
2. Froch
3. Benn
4. Eubank
5. Woodhall
6. Reid
7. McGee
8. Wharton
9. Catley
10. Francis

it wasn't all that long ago that a fair few people reckoned Froch's achievements put him above Calzaghe in the British all-time list. Seems that one poor night for Froch (where he still won, albeit in hugely controversial fashion) has seen his stock plummet a little. Don't get me wrong, Calzaghe is n°1 for me, and always has been, but I don't see how you can't have Froch at n°2, he has an extended ledger of very fine wins. It may also be that in the not too distant future his "win" against Groves gets seen in a much better light (similar to Lewis's win against Vitali?)

EDIT: haz has nipped in since I first wrote this one, making much the same point I made.

seanmichaels wrote:I'd have Eubank in 2nd. Watson and Benn wins are as good as anything Froch has. He also gave a hard hitting Calzaghe his toughest fight at a week's notice.

Hopkins gave Calzaghe his toughest fight followed by Kessler.

I thought Robin Reid beat Calzaghe..

Strongback wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:I'd have Eubank in 2nd. Watson and Benn wins are as good as anything Froch has. He also gave a hard hitting Calzaghe his toughest fight at a week's notice.

Hopkins gave Calzaghe his toughest fight followed by Kessler.

I think maybe sean reckons that wasn't a "hard-hitting" Calzaghe, and to be fair he may have a point.

Didn't Eubank beat Benn at middleweight? Their super middle fight was a draw.

The Hopkins fight was also at light heavy so is not particularly relevant here.

Strongback wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:I'd have Eubank in 2nd. Watson and Benn wins are as good as anything Froch has. He also gave a hard hitting Calzaghe his toughest fight at a week's notice.

Hopkins gave Calzaghe his toughest fight followed by Kessler.

“When I fought Eubank he was considered a boxing legend over here and had made his name fighting Nigel Benn, Michael Watson and Steve Collins. It was surreal facing Chris, because I was a huge fan of his and he ended up giving me the hardest fight of my life.”

Seany He didn't beat Benn at 168..........

If you were more on the liberal left......You wouldn't have been owned !! 

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Seany He didn't beat Benn at 168..........

If you were more on the liberal  left......You wouldn't have been owned !! 

Yes I got that wrong.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I thought Robin Reid beat Calzaghe..

Even robin reid didn't think robin reid beat calzaghe. I remember him saying post fight that he hadnt done enough or something to that effect

Reid said at Fridays weigh in he still believes he really won the fight

One of the criteria i look at is who would have won in a fight between the 2 people -
Now for Froch v Calazaghe i always favour Joe to win this on a unanimous decision as his boxing ability is too good for Froch's.

But the ones i struggle with are Froch v Eubank and Benn. I always see Froch beating Eubank by UD as Chris doesnt like getting into a fight and would spoil for 12 rounds and occasionally catch Carl with a big overhand right. Benn on the other hand i could see KO'ing Carl. For me Benn would have the speed advantage and would catch Carl with the right hand and if he did it more than once would eventually KO him. Having said that Carl's pressure could wear him down like Watson wore him down....but my gut feeling is Benn by KO.

Collins is a difficult one to rank - he came along at the tail end of Benn/ Eubanks career and beat them after past wars had caught up them...would he have beat them at their peaks...i personally dont think so, but you go off what did happen. Its all subjective really   

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:Reid said at Fridays weigh in he still believes he really won the fight

He needs the money now. Back then he was still model material and had a career to earn from.

hard to put eubank above froch, especially considering that some of eubanks best performances came at MW and even CW. Not sure how Benn can be above Eubank at SMW though. his best wins almost certainly at MW and I believe Eubank had the better resume overall anyway.

When Boxing Scene put together their all time Top 20 Supermiddleweight  list (prior to the Ward and Froch runs) they had it like this:

1. Calzaghe
2. Kessler
3. Chong-Pal Park
4. Ottke
5. Jones Jr
6. Collins
7. Benn
8. Eubank
9. Toney
10. Mitchell


The article gives the number of Title fights won, number of World champions beat etc for each fighter


http://www.boxingscene.com/-top-20-greatest-super-middleweights-all-time--18376

Benn had the better SM run. Eubank was never the same fighter after the Watson rematch. He should have picked up far more losses than he eventually did.

Calzaghe avoiding Froch like the plague probably just elevates Froch ahead for me(Froch has the better championship run, better list of names strictly at SM, travelling.) but if Froch avoids a rematch with Groves, then I could see Calzaghe sneaking up on the rails and nicking it(Numero Uno, all four belts, undefeated, two weight champ even if he only beat a middleweight at LH and wouldn't fight Dawson.) So the race is still very much on, it's nip and tuck and they're inside the final furlong.

So Froch losing to Ward and Kessler isn't relevant then?

Herman Jaggery wrote:Calzaghe avoiding Froch like the plague probably just elevates Froch ahead for me(Froch has the better championship run, better list of names strictly at SM, travelling.) but if Froch avoids a rematch with Groves, then I could see Calzaghe sneaking up on the rails and nicking it(Numero Uno, all four belts, undefeated, two weight champ even if he only beat a middleweight at LH and wouldn't fight Dawson.) So the race is still very much on, it's nip and tuck and they're inside the final furlong.

So you're actually basing your rankings on people NOT fighting each other?

In that case I believe that I should have quite a strong claim for the p4p #1 spot. Over the past few years I've been a MW, SM, LH and even flirted with CW. At 6'0" and 14st 7lb I was quite a small CW but I've never fought ANY of the top contenders in any of those four divisions and, as such, (using Herman's reasoning) I feel I've done enough to secure the top spot.

I'd have Froch ahead of Calzaghe too. He has the better wins and whilst you could argue he is more talented, he didn't fight the best available to him and should be marked down for that.

Ward beats Calzaghe for me and will rightly be ranked above them both.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....its Calzaghe

Now if you have Calzaghe ahead of Froch Hammersmith, then that's absolutely fine by me, I'd just like to make that clear. I realise I'm in a minority here, and with Froch still fighting, nothing is set in stone.


Thing I have to ask is would Calzaghe have beaten Kessler in Denmark you'll recall many Calzaghe fans on the old 606 admitting that would be a difficult task; and how would he have got on with Ward in AMERICA?


Now it's not unreasonable to suggest he may have beaten Kessler in Denmark(though getting the decision is another matter.) 

But Ward looks nigh on unbeatable at the moment and without wishing to jump the gun, looks potential all time great material.


Just thinking about it though that fight could have been a very difficult fight to make.


But does it hinge solely on Ward and Kessler anyway? 


Calzaghe's still got the best name, Hopkins, maybe that one win alone swings it in Calzaghe's favour? 


I'm just a Froch fan arguing a case for Froch where I think one exists. It's still up for grabs for me, and it's up to Froch to see what he can find in himself at this advancing stage of his career. Can he go to the well again? Is he starting to have doubts for the first time? Can he climb to the summit or will he cave in at the hardest point and see Calzaghe cruise up on the rails and even draw away by a couple of lengths?

If it looks like a Warrior and earns Warrior Points like a Warrior...it's Froch

ShahenshahG wrote:

Reborn-DeeMcK-Reborn wrote:Reid said at Fridays weigh in he still believes he really won the fight

He needs the money now. Back then he was still model material and had a career to earn from.

 

To all those who think ward looks unbeatable, go watch the Darnell Boone fight.

Yes it was years ago, but many fighters look unbeatable until they lose. He's a great fighter but I'll reserve final judgement til his careers over, assuming he gets off his arse and fights more than once a year.

Calzaghe top of this uk pile comfortably for me, then froch, then Pickem. Probably more intriguing on a head to head basis.

There does seem to be something of an assumption that almost gets taken as gospel round here that Ward beats Calzaghe. Whilst I am by no means saying he would not beat him, the idea it is a foregone conclusion is not one I can really agree with. When I watch Calzaghe’s better performances such as Hopkins and Kessler the thing that tends to stand out the most his ability to change tactics and adjust when something is not really working for him.

The Kessler fight is the perfect example of this, in the early rounds he stood and traded and they were pretty too and fro, once he realised this was making things harder than absolutely necessary he began to move a little more and things became if not a gimme then certainly a bit more clear cut. This ability to adjust can be seen through his career in general when as his hands began to fail him he stopped being the puncher he had been early doors and began to rely on output and sheer volume to get the wins.

As I say am not saying Calzaghe beats him as Ward is obviously quality, however it is definitely not a foregone conclusion and if he is an underdog he is about as live a one as you would ever hope to see.

Someone always struggles with somebody........No one looks great all the time...

Could say the same about Vito and Marvin.........

Irrelevant what happens in the past..he's a different fighter now..

Rowley wrote:There does seem to be something of an assumption that almost gets taken as gospel round here that Ward beats Calzaghe. Whilst I am by no means saying he would not beat him, the idea it is a foregone conclusion is not one I can really agree with. When I watch Calzaghe’s better performances such as Hopkins and Kessler the thing that tends to stand out the most his ability to change tactics and adjust when something is not really working for him.

The Kessler fight is the perfect example of this, in the early rounds he stood and traded and they were pretty too and fro, once he realised this was making things harder than absolutely necessary he began to move a little more and things became if not a gimme then certainly a bit more clear cut. This ability to adjust can be seen through his career in general when as his hands began to fail him he stopped being the puncher he had been early doors and began to rely on output and sheer volume to get the wins.

As I say am not saying Calzaghe beats him as Ward is obviously quality, however it is definitely not a foregone conclusion and if he is an underdog he is about as live a one as you would ever hope to see.

Plus, Ward is being judged in his pomp -- what's to say someone doesn't knock him out in the next few years? His whole image would change. He was once viewed as fragile early in his career.

Best to rate fighters after they've retired I reckon.

You seem to rate Mayweather now or not as the case may be..

Geez..............   

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You seem to rate Mayweather now or not as the case may be..

Geez..............   

You forget, Mayweather's already retired once so we're well within our rights to judge him.

Talking about ........Andre...

We had a cleaner called Andreas working for us a few years ago.......and I went up to him for a chat once and said .....

"You're from Poland you'll be able to answer me this!!

"No I'm Romanian not Polish..Please don't call me Polish It's an insult...

"Sorry Andre"

"AAAAARGH Andre is a Polish name don't call me that !!......call me Andreas"..

Decided to quit on a hat trick !!!!

Dave667 


 ' So you're actually basing your rankings on people NOT fighting each other?'



Rightly or wrongly Dave, it can and sometimes does influence how I judge a fighter.


I mean, a few months ago, people on here were seriously starting to question Ray Robinson for not fighting Burley!


And for a while the argument gained some momentum!

Herman, I was jesting in order to further my claims for not-fighting- anyone p4p stardom.

It's a serious point though Dave, if we were living in Rowley's world, Charley Burley would now be pound for pound number one of all time.

milkyboy wrote:To all those who think ward looks unbeatable, go watch the Darnell Boone fight.

Yes it was years ago, but many fighters look unbeatable until they lose. He's a great fighter but I'll reserve final judgement til his careers over, assuming he gets off his arse and fights more than once a year.

Calzaghe top of this uk pile comfortably for me, then froch, then Pickem. Probably more intriguing on a head to head basis.

Last time Ward lost a fight he was 12years old,not bad,man and boy.

Herman Jaggery wrote:It's a serious point though Dave, if we were living in Rowley's world, Charley Burley would now be pound for pound number one of all time.

However in my world it would be Peter Jackson followed by Bradley Pryce

DAVE667 wrote:

Herman Jaggery wrote:It's a serious point though Dave, if we were living in Rowley's world, Charley Burley would now be pound for pound number one of all time.

However in my world it would be Peter Jackson followed by Bradley Pryce

Jackson can be joint top Dave, I am known as a fair man. And in my defence I have been one of the more pragmatic and reasonable voices over the whole Burley Robinson affair.

Can't say fairer than that Dave.


Perhaps you could do us a few Jackson articles again, ashamed to say I didn't read them at the time.

Herman Jaggery wrote:Can't say fairer than that Dave.


Perhaps you could do us a few Jackson articles again, ashamed to say I didn't read them at the time.

There's nothing new to add I'm afraid and so I've adopted the unusual position on 606v2 of not going over old ground just for the sake of it and posting the same f*****g article ten times.

There are a few posters on here who could follow suit...and Thomas Hauser might want to pay attention before inflicting his latest biography of Muhammed Ali on us

Calzaghe ahead of Froch but not by much,couldn't care less about Froch's personality, but he's alway's been prepared to fight any fighter any place anytime, and while they're in their prime.
At one stage I thought Calzaghe must have a fear of flying.

I thought Reid edged Calzaghe as well, Reid unlucky on the night.