Fixed it for youjessi wrote:1.calzage
2.watson
3.Benn
4.eubanks
5.Collins
6.Froch
I am reluctant to place any fighter that failed at world level on any real list
Fixed it for youjessi wrote:1.calzage
2.watson
3.Benn
4.eubanks
5.Collins
6.Froch
ARE YOU BLIND ? OPEN YOUR EYES...THE THREAD SAYS S MIDDLEWEIGHTArbachakov wrote:Froch, Calzaghe etc are small light-heavyweights, not middleweights.
The middleweight limit is 160.Amazing that so many boxing fans don't seem to realise that.Joe Calzaghe was never a proper middleweight.
It didn't say S MIDDLEWEIGHT WHEN IT WAS FIRST POSTED, IT MERELY SAID MIDDLEWEIGHT!mrpedigree wrote:ARE YOU BLIND ? OPEN YOUR EYES...THE THREAD SAYS S MIDDLEWEIGHTArbachakov wrote:Froch, Calzaghe etc are small light-heavyweights, not middleweights.
The middleweight limit is 160.Amazing that so many boxing fans don't seem to realise that.Joe Calzaghe was never a proper middleweight.
What are you his dad ?? When Arbachakov posted that post it said S MIDDLEWEIGHT ..i know cause i posted before him and it clearly said in the thread title S MIDDLEWEIGHT !!!!Syntax Error wrote:It didn't say S MIDDLEWEIGHT WHEN IT WAS FIRST POSTED, IT MERELY SAID MIDDLEWEIGHT!mrpedigree wrote:ARE YOU BLIND ? OPEN YOUR EYES...THE THREAD SAYS S MIDDLEWEIGHTArbachakov wrote:Froch, Calzaghe etc are small light-heavyweights, not middleweights.
The middleweight limit is 160.Amazing that so many boxing fans don't seem to realise that.Joe Calzaghe was never a proper middleweight.
My error.mrpedigree wrote:What are you his dad ?? When Arbachakov posted that post it said S MIDDLEWEIGHT ..i know cause i posted before him and it clearly said in the thread title S MIDDLEWEIGHT !!!!Syntax Error wrote:It didn't say S MIDDLEWEIGHT WHEN IT WAS FIRST POSTED, IT MERELY SAID MIDDLEWEIGHT!mrpedigree wrote: ARE YOU BLIND ? OPEN YOUR EYES...THE THREAD SAYS S MIDDLEWEIGHT
and that benn was shot to bits. mentally finished as he still had every physical tool. its why he quit twice going against everything his entire career had stood forcakes wrote:benn fought in Dec 1996orbtastic wrote:Benn's not fought for 15 years.....and he last fought at middleweight 20 years ago.
For the sake of the thread I'll assume you mean super middle in addition to middleweight?
If so, then it's Froch, who just pips Calzaghe.
If it's just middleweight then it's Eastman.
It didn't. It said middleweight.mrpedigree wrote:What are you his dad ?? When Arbachakov posted that post it said S MIDDLEWEIGHT ..i know cause i posted before him and it clearly said in the thread title S MIDDLEWEIGHT !!!!Syntax Error wrote:It didn't say S MIDDLEWEIGHT WHEN IT WAS FIRST POSTED, IT MERELY SAID MIDDLEWEIGHT!mrpedigree wrote: ARE YOU BLIND ? OPEN YOUR EYES...THE THREAD SAYS S MIDDLEWEIGHT
Lets get one thing clear ,When i posted my very first post it said S Middleweight ...and my post was before their posts...ok !orbtastic wrote:It didn't. It said middleweight.mrpedigree wrote:What are you his dad ?? When Arbachakov posted that post it said S MIDDLEWEIGHT ..i know cause i posted before him and it clearly said in the thread title S MIDDLEWEIGHT !!!!Syntax Error wrote: It didn't say S MIDDLEWEIGHT WHEN IT WAS FIRST POSTED, IT MERELY SAID MIDDLEWEIGHT!
If it was just "s middleweight" than why did he go on to list two fighters who have never even fought at super middle?
The topic title hasn't changed since the start. I just don't think the topic starter really thought things through.orbtastic wrote:It didn't. It said middleweight.
If it was just "s middleweight" than why did he go on to list two fighters who have never even fought at super middle?
No way should froch be higher than watson and eubank. He only recently lost too kessler.forcefraser wrote:With all respect to Watson, he failed at the highest level (McCallum). Froch deserves to be higher than Watson and Eubank..
Watson said he had an off night against mccallum and that he rated Benn as a much better stronger fighter than him..... read what you will of that.kingfinn wrote:No way should froch be higher than watson and eubank. He only recently lost too kessler.forcefraser wrote:With all respect to Watson, he failed at the highest level (McCallum). Froch deserves to be higher than Watson and Eubank..
Mccallum was far better than any opponent froch has beaten.
Watson also said that Benn was better than Eubank; despite the fact that Benn failed to beat Eubank in 2 attempts & was stopped on one of those occasions.gmanji wrote:Watson said he had an off night against mccallum and that he rated Benn as a much better stronger fighter than him..... read what you will of that.kingfinn wrote:No way should froch be higher than watson and eubank. He only recently lost too kessler.forcefraser wrote:With all respect to Watson, he failed at the highest level (McCallum). Froch deserves to be higher than Watson and Eubank..
Mccallum was far better than any opponent froch has beaten.