Rate these 10 Super Middleweights

For this list i've mixed up the old with the new and even though it might a bit unfair on the fighters that are still active... in what order would you rate them?

Who'd finish top and who would be bottom of the pile?

Chris Eubank
Carl Froch
Nigel Benn
Andre Ward
Joe Calzaghe
Mikkel Kessler
Michael Watson
Roy Jones Jnr
Steve Collins
Sven Ottke

I would rate those with '1' being the best and '10' being the least best of them.

Michael Watson fought once at Super middleweight, and it ended disastourously as we know. How can you include him in the list?

No James toney and particularly Michael second to nunn?

Replace Watson with Hearns. At least he was Champion at this weight

Anyway, it has to be Roy Jones Jr at the top as he was awesome and Otke at the bottom because no one on here likes him anyway

don't remember kev saying they were the top 10 super middles, just a 10.

Ranking them in order of how I rate them as fighters rather than their achievements at that weight.

jones
calzaghe
ward
eubank
benn
kessler
froch
collins
watson
ottke

nothing much to choose between 4 and 9 to be honest.. and 3 still a bit unproven

[quote="milkyboy"]don't remember kev saying they were the top 10 super middles, just a 10.

Sorry. I read it in the title as Rate these ten Super Middleweights ergo they must have at least fought at that weight. Watson did only once. Excellent boxer as he was, I'll stick with the point that he was unproven at Super Middleweight

you are right about watson bhb... the thread just looked like it was going down one of those, 'trash the thread not debate the topic' lines. Most of those guys started at middle, so if he'd just said rate these fighters maybe people would just have done it!

1. Roy Jones Jnr
2. Joe Calzaghe
3. Andre Ward
4. Mikkel Kessler
5. Carl Froch
6. Nigel Benn
7. Chris Eubank
8. Steve Collins
9. Michael Watson
10. Sven Ottke

If you're referring to achievements at the weight than I'd have Calzaghe at No.1.

However, if you're referring to ability and who wins on head-to-head match-ups than I'd have Jones at No.1 by a fairly wide margin.

1. Joe Calzaghe
2. Roy Jones Jnr
3. Chris Eubank
4. Mikkel Kessler
5. Nigel Benn
6. Carl Froch
7. Andre Ward
8. Steve Collins
9. Sven Ottke
10. Michael Watson

1 Roy Jones
2= Froch
2= Ward
4 Calzaghe
5-8 Eubanks, Benn, Collins, Watson in any order
9 Mario Kessler
10 Sven Ottke

Roy Jones Jnr




Chris Eubank
Joe Calzaghe
Carl Froch
Michael Watson
Nigel Benn
Andre Ward
Mikkel Kessler
Steve Collins
Sven Ottke


This is based on how good I thought they were, not what they achieved

JDandfries wrote:Roy Jones Jnr




Chris Eubank
Joe Calzaghe
Carl Froch
Michael Watson
Nigel Benn
Andre Ward
Mikkel Kessler
Steve Collins
Sven Ottke


This is based on how good I thought they were, not what they achieved

This is how good i thought they were based on quality of opposition:

Carl Froch
Chris Eubank
Michael Watson
Nigel Benn
Andre Ward
Mikkel Kessler
Steve Collins
Sven Ottke























































Joe Calzaghe
Roy Jones jr

I knew this one would elicit a response from Coxy!

Roy Jones Jr
Joe Calzaghe
Chris Eubank
Nigel Benn
Andre Ward
Carl Froch
Mikkel Kessler
Steve Collins
Sven Ottke
Michael Watson.

Ward better than eubank and been!

Calzaghe
Eubank
Been
Kessler
Roy jones
Carl froch
Collins
Ward
Ottke
Watson

I have taken potential into account also when rating mine. I think Ward has the potential to be better than Benn in terms of success, however he will never EVER come near to matching the heart, excitement or punching power. Benn was fantastic to watch, rarely in a dull fight. Great great win over McClellan, too.

Actually, what the hell, I have just realised what I'm doing, time for an edit to stick my main man the Dark Destroyer back above that American pretender!

Froch has to be placed mid to low end of the list. During his title reign he has never beaten an established super middleweight world champion, nor has he beat the incumbent champion.

Suppose fighting the divisions best instead isn't good enough really.

Just stating facts. Froch benefitted a lot from Calzaghe moving up and the SM division is now repairing itself. Froch may have fought the best but the best were not that good and more suited to lower or higher weight divisions - Abraham, Taylor, Johnson, Pascal.

So Calzaghe has a victory over Kessler then and not much else because they weren't very good yes?

Try and dismiss Froch all you want but your talking absolute BS.

Calzaghe has very decent wins against champs in Eubank, Reid (not the shot version Froch beat), Woodhall, Brewer, Mitchell, Lacy and Kessler.

Just stating facts that during Froch's reign there is no established SMW champion there. Apart from the one he lost to.

So thus proving my point that apparent top level opposition that Calzaghe beat during his title reign was Kessler

The others may have been former champions but they were either old and past it or just not very good, a victory over Pascal for instance means far more than beating the likes of Brewer or Mitchell.

Surely you cant really include Eubank in a list of Slappy Joes achievements?

Unless of course just being 5 years overcooked, as opposed to jones who was 10, makes it ok?

Roy Jones Jnr
Joe Calzaghe
Carl Froch
Chris Eubank
Nigel Benn
Andre Ward
Mikkel Kessler
Steve Collins
Michael Watson














Sven Ottke

difficult for various reasons to list, but Froch has now done more than Eubank for me and Benn, Ward will go above froch if he beats him but on standard of opp he is behind Eubank,benn and froch at the mo
.

The others may have been former champions but they were either old and past it or just not very good, a victory over Pascal for instance means far more than beating the likes of Brewer or Mitchell.[/quote]

No not really. There is always an argument to say that Pascal just wasn't as effective at the weight so moved up to LHW, where to be honest the talent pool was poor, Pascal having less stamina than a 46 year old oh dear!. At least Brewer and Mitchell made their name at SMW. Besides both were robbed against the other so called champion in Ottke. Brewer in particlualr was a very handy win, beat Herol Graham, no mean feat.

Graham was 38 when he lost to Brewer, so what you're saying is that beating a former champion is the be all and end all regardless of how poor they are? They made their names at super middleweight but they hardly had a reputation to boast about did they.

The fact that Brewer and Mitchell lost to Ottke surely says something about their quality?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Graham was 38 when he lost to Brewer, so what you're saying is that beating a former champion is the be all and end all regardless of how poor they are? They made their names at super middleweight but they hardly had a reputation to boast about did they.

Maybe not and I guess Pascal did/does? No matter how good Hopkins is, being a 28 year old champion having less stamina than a 46 year old is nothing to boast about either.

JDandfries wrote:The fact that Brewer and Mitchell lost to Ottke surely says something about their quality?

The word LOST could be applied in the loosest sense, especially the first Brewer/Ottke fight. I watched those fights and just wonder what on earth they score Ottke on? Sven Ottke was a highly contoversial figure and naturally why I put him very low down in the author's list.

Pascal does have a far better reputation than Brewer or Mitchell ever had.

Maybe overall but certainly not as a super middleweight.

A loss is a loss

I dont think Froch lost to Kessler, and I dont think Calzaghe beat Hopkins, but they are still losses

Why because they once held titles and in Brewers case held a title years before the fight?

JDandfries wrote:A loss is a loss

I dont think Froch lost to Kessler, and I dont think Calzaghe beat Hopkins, but they are still losses

Yes but they can always be hotly disputed. With the corruption in boxing we should never accept a loss is a loss even if it's official. Just like we wouldn't accpet Lewis v Holy 1 was actually a DRAW because in reality it wasn't. Ottke celebrated as soon as the final bell sounded against Mitchell in a fight most thought he lost. Gives you an indication that the fight was rigged.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Why because they once held titles and in Brewers case held a title years before the fight?

Again could say Brewer should never have lost his title in the first place, the first Ottke fight was a sham. Also he was a super middleweight world champion, something that Pascal never was.

Groundhog Day!

He was a world champion 4 years before the Calzaghe fight, beating a former champion is no different to beating someone who hasn't held a title, the more important thing is their actual ability which in Pascals case is better than Brewers. Victory over an undefeated ranked fighter like Pascal or a victory over Brewer who had recently been beaten by Echols?

It's a toughie.

I think to a certain extent some of Frochs wins have been glamourised due to the Super Six format.

Abraham and Johnson in particular I would rate as little better than much of Calzaghes opposition. Pascal is Frochs best win for me but ranks some way below Calzaghes victories over an unbeaten Kessler and Hopkins at light heavyweight. One of whom beat Froch and the other of which beat Pascal.I thought Calzaghe got slightly lucky beating Hopkins but notwithstanding overall the results suggest to me he was a notch up from Froch and Kessler who rank below.

Froch still has time though and wins over Ward and Kessler would certainly give him a strong argument to rival or surpass Calzaghe.

[ At least Brewer and Mitchell made their name at SMW. Besides both were robbed against the other so called champion in Ottke. Brewer in particlualr was a very handy win, beat Herol Graham, no mean feat.[/quote]

So because Brewer and Mitchell were beaten by Calzaghe, he is a legend, whereas because they were beaten by Ottke, they were robbed and he was a stay at home cheat. Properly confused now

Imperial Ghosty wrote:He was a world champion 4 years before the Calzaghe fight, beating a former champion is no different to beating someone who hasn't held a title, the more important thing is their actual ability which in Pascals case is better than Brewers. Victory over an undefeated ranked fighter like Pascal or a victory over Brewer who had recently been beaten by Echols?

It's a toughie.

But you don't take account of the weight aspect. At least Brewer was established at the weight. Within a couple of fights Pascal went up North which proves that he wasn't the man he would later become (a 28 year old with less stamina that a man of 46) at light heavyweight. Brewer was a staple top 10 performer at SMW. Pascal was a relative novice. Besides Brewer was robbed utterly against Ottke, the first fight was a complete farce! Brewer could and should have become much more but he wasn't allowed to be I guess.

Brewer was the better win I'm afraid.

So coming off a loss to the great Echols makes Brewer a good win?

You Calzaghe fan boys do make me laugh.

bhb001 wrote:[ At least Brewer and Mitchell made their name at SMW. Besides both were robbed against the other so called champion in Ottke. Brewer in particlualr was a very handy win, beat Herol Graham, no mean feat.

So because Brewer and Mitchell were beaten by Calzaghe, he is a legend, whereas because they were beaten by Ottke, they were robbed and he was a stay at home cheat. Properly confused now [/quote]

bhb - don't know if you've seen the Ottke/Brewer fights. They were quite obviously rigged, the first one was a disgrace to the sport. Ottke's career was stage managed by a rich promoter, Brewer was just an honest pro with no such trappings. Complete farce!

Calzaghe easily outpointed Brewer so there was no question of hometown bias.

Brewer? Boon, just leave it would you?

Who got spanked by some randomer (without checking it sounded something like Erosch or something).....

Yeah, he's real class! And lets not forget that Pascal beat "The Man" @ 175 in Dawson and is now 0-1-1 with one of the greatest fighters of the last 10 years. Mitchell could never claim such a thing, could he?

Pascal is a better win than Brewer without question but its taking Frochs best win and comparing it to Calzaghes 4th/5th/6th best win.

The Pascal win should be measured against wins like Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins rather than Mitchell/Brewer etc.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So coming off a loss to the great Echols makes Brewer a good win?

You Calzaghe fan boys do make me laugh.

Brewer won before Echols besides who did the great Jean Claude Pascal beat before he met Froch?

I wish people would stop making out PAscal as some kind of monster, he wasn't and isn't. Right place at the right time in a weak light heavy division. You Froch fan boys make me laugh.

So it's better to fight a fighter coming off a loss than an undefeated one?

Suppose beating the highly rated Dawson was being at the right place at the right time

Super D Boon wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:So coming off a loss to the great Echols makes Brewer a good win?

You Calzaghe fan boys do make me laugh.

Brewer won before Echols besides who did the great Jean Claude Pascal beat before he met Froch?

I wish people would stop making out PAscal as some kind of monster, he wasn't and isn't. Right place at the right time in a weak light heavy division. You Froch fan boys make me laugh.

You can put little, somewhat pathetic, little "laughing" smilies after your post - but can you answer me this?

Did Brewer ever beat "the man" at any weight? Like Pascal did? No, you can't - can you?

Time to trot on

Oh, and can i add:

Did Brewer ever beat a P4P ranked fighter who was "the man"?

No, he can't.

Froch's wins over Taylor, Abraham, Pascal, Johnson and Dirrel are better than anything Calzaghe fought, except for Kessler and Hopkins (which he lost IMO) and Lacey. You can certainly discount most of his opponents as low qulity, and Eubank and Reid were washed up!

AND in his 3rd last fight, when he was supposed to be God, Calzaghe fought Peter Mafredo, he should have been arressted for that!