BoxRec

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑10 May 2019, 15:55 How is 17-0 less dominant than losing 4 times?

Because -- and I think this is really, really obvious -- the title reign I'm referring to took place in between the losses.

Recall that one of the things that made the original Super Six exciting was that there was not agreement about the real top dog at super middle. It was only after Ward beat Kessler and Froch, and Froch subsequently beat the daylights out of Bute, that it really became clear that it was Ward. Subsequently, fans started retroactively exaggerating how long that had been obvious to them.
I think Calzaghe fans do the same thing. Yes he beat Eubank in '97 and Reid in '99, but he was slow to really make himself known as the top dog, and the rest of his opponents' names weren't really helping. Frankie Liles, Byron Mitchell, and Bruno Girard all had some claim to the title during that period, and The Ring continued to rank Sven Ottke ahead of all of them for several years afterward.
Klitschko, on the other hand, I think was clearly the man at heavyweight from his brother's retirement in '05 (or at least from his demolition of Chris Byrd in '06) until losing to Tyson Fury a decade later. (Vitali 2.0 could have probably taken that top spot from him, but obviously chose not to try.)

If you're talking about single weight class dominance then Wlad. If you're talking about dominance all around, then Mayweather.

squiggy wrote: ↑10 May 2019, 17:59 Because -- and I think this is really, really obvious -- the title reign I'm referring to took place in between the losses.

OK....The other one had no........Losses.

squiggy wrote: ↑10 May 2019, 19:01 Recall that one of the things that made the original Super Six exciting was that there was not agreement about the real top dog at super middle. It was only after Ward beat Kessler and Froch, and Froch subsequently beat the daylights out of Bute, that it really became clear that it was Ward. Subsequently, fans started retroactively exaggerating how long that had been obvious to them.
I think Calzaghe fans do the same thing. Yes he beat Eubank in '97 and Reid in '99, but he was slow to really make himself known as the top dog, and the rest of his opponents' names weren't really helping. Frankie Liles, Byron Mitchell, and Bruno Girard all had some claim to the title during that period, and The Ring continued to rank Sven Ottke ahead of all of them for several years afterward.
Klitschko, on the other hand, I think was clearly the man at heavyweight from his brother's retirement in '05 (or at least from his demolition of Chris Byrd in '06) until losing to Tyson Fury a decade later. (Vitali 2.0 could have probably taken that top spot from him, but obviously chose not to try.)

Absolutely true. Ward never dominated the division even after the super six. Calzaghe went 17-0 defending one title for 7-8 years. We have the benefit of all of this happening and the ability to analyze after the facts. It's close for me, but Joe takes it.

oogiebe wrote: ↑10 May 2019, 20:09 Absolutely true. Ward never dominated the division even after the super six. Calzaghe went 17-0 defending one title for 7-8 years. We have the benefit of all of this happening and the ability to analyze after the facts. It's close for me, but Joe takes it.

Calzaghe's best career win was as a Light Heavyweight, and a lot of his Super Middleweight resume is padded, it wasn't until the final few years of his career that he started having particularly significant fights. I rate Andre Ward over him. Not by a wide margin mind you, but a significant enough one that I don't think it's all that debatable.

Calzaghe's best win at Super Middleweight is Kessler, and Ward beat him even more clearly than Calzaghe did. Not to mention the fact that he beat a few other names at Super Middleweight that are superior to any wins that Calzaghe ever notched at 168.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 May 2019, 20:12 Calzaghe's best career win was as a Light Heavyweight, and a lot of his Super Middleweight resume is padded, it wasn't until the final few years of his career that he started having particularly significant fights. I rate Andre Ward over him. Not by a wide margin mind you, but a significant enough one that I don't think it's all that debatable.

Calzaghe's best win at Super Middleweight is Kessler, and Ward beat him even more clearly than Calzaghe did. Not to mention the fact that he beat a few other names at Super Middleweight that are superior to any wins that Calzaghe ever notched at 168.

I'm going by most dominant in one division since 2000. I have it close between Calzaghe and Wlad. Calzaghe gets the nod due to four losses by Wlad. That's all I got.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑10 May 2019, 20:06 OK....The other one had no........Losses.

You're thinking, maybe, that the entire period between 2000 and now has to be considered? It doesn't.

squiggy wrote: ↑10 May 2019, 21:21 You're thinking, maybe, that the entire period between 2000 and now has to be considered? It doesn't.

Kind of appears that way in the title.

squiggy wrote: ↑10 May 2019, 13:26 It was Lennox Lewis's division in 2000. Wlad was peripheral.

Did you not see the thread title?

Not my favourite but has to pick Vlad

gilgamesh wrote: ↑10 May 2019, 20:12 Calzaghe's best career win was as a Light Heavyweight, and a lot of his Super Middleweight resume is padded, it wasn't until the final few years of his career that he started having particularly significant fights. I rate Andre Ward over him. Not by a wide margin mind you, but a significant enough one that I don't think it's all that debatable.

Calzaghe's best win at Super Middleweight is Kessler, and Ward beat him even more clearly than Calzaghe did. Not to mention the fact that he beat a few other names at Super Middleweight that are superior to any wins that Calzaghe ever notched at 168.

Calzaghe's win over Lacy is overlooked. Lacy was a big favourite and heralded by many as the second coming. Joe absolutely ruined him physically and mentally in that fight. He finished Lacy's career.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑10 May 2019, 21:52 Did you not see the thread title?

I saw it; I don't think you understood it.

If the question demands accounting for the entire span between 2000 and now, we wouldn't be able to choose Crawford or Usyk, whose 13 year old asses would have gotten destroyed at championship level in 2000, or Tszyu, who's been retired for 15 years. I think we can go ahead and take for granted that champions are only champions for a certain time period.

squiggy wrote: ↑11 May 2019, 14:24 I saw it; I don't think you understood it.

I did.

You're just pretending not to as a kind of performance art, then, or...?

I went with Floyd. Though I think Wlad makes a good argument, too.

I think if Wlad had Manny with him a few years earlier (I know it wasn’t possible) Manny would have saved him a loss or two.

Then it’d be Wlad for sure

Contendeh wrote: ↑11 May 2019, 15:50 I went with Floyd. Though I think Wlad makes a good argument, too.

I think if Wlad had Manny with him a few years earlier (I know it wasn’t possible) Manny would have saved him a loss or two.

Then it’d be Wlad for sure

Floyd wasn't in just one division though was he?

Floyd also was routinely stepping away from welterweight for a year or even two years at a time, and to me that shouldn't be thought of as a continuous title reign. And popping back up to beat an Ortiz or a Guerrero was really not establishing that he was still the best at such a loaded division.

oogiebe wrote: ↑11 May 2019, 15:51 Floyd wasn't in just one division though was he?

Still accomplished more in more dominant fashion. He's more accomplished at 54 in 3 fights than wlad is at heavyweight or calzaghe at 68 IMO. That's not the question, but his welter span got my vote as dominating better competition means more to me.

has to be Mayweather well for start he has beat canelo. though joe was brillitant some of his fight were nail bitters were pretty boy has never been close to losing

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑11 May 2019, 16:17 Still accomplished more in more dominant fashion. He's more accomplished at 54 in 3 fights than wlad is at heavyweight or calzaghe at 68 IMO. That's not the question, but his welter span got my vote as dominating better competition means more to me.

I absolutely agree. Floyd's 3 title fight victories at 154 were Oscar, Canelo & Cotto!! His 154# title foes were not as numerous as his 12 title fights at 147, where there were more of them...including Mosley, Marquez & Hatton.

Best Coast wrote: ↑11 May 2019, 18:31 I absolutely agree. Floyd's 3 title fight victories at 154 were Oscar, Canelo & Cotto!! His 154# title foes were not as numerous as his 12 title fights at 147, where there were more of them...including Mosley, Marquez & Hatton.

Not to mention he dominated the second most dominant fighter in that timeframe.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑11 May 2019, 19:13 Not to mention he dominated the second most dominant fighter in that timeframe.

My bad!!

I forgot to mention Pacquiao at 147!!

JimStone wrote: ↑11 May 2019, 02:59 Calzaghe's win over Lacy is overlooked. Lacy was a big favourite and heralded by many as the second coming. Joe absolutely ruined him physically and mentally in that fight. He finished Lacy's career.

It's one of his biggest wins in my eyes. Bigger than the Roy Jones win because of the fact that Lacy was the favorite, and Calzaghe was so dominant.

I consider Kessler to be the bigger win though because he's more accomplished than Lacy, but yeah beating Lacy was a bigger shock. By the time he beat Kessler people knew how good Calzaghe was, up until the Lacy fight nobody really knew for sure what he had at that level.