Your top British & Irish Super Mids of all time

Ok, so with Froch destruction of Bute this weekend, there has been some debate.

Who are the best Super Mids produced form Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland?

Love to see some lists.

Go top 5 or top 10 if you have the knowledge. Should be a decent list either way.

1. Froch
2. Calzaghe
3. Benn
4. Eubank
5. Collins

Union Cane wrote:1. Froch
2. Calzaghe
3. Benn
4. Eubank
5. Collins

Benn above Eubank and Froch above Calzaghe. Very interesting Union - I agree that at 168 Benn did a tad more, by virtue of his McClellan win. If it were at 160, I would have Eubank above him

Froch fights the best, Calzaghe didn't, and when Calzaghe eventually did it was at light heavy. Also, Benn above Eubank as Eubank lost some of his "killer instinct" after Watson (quite understandably) and wasn't the force that he was prior to that.

Are we judging on talent, longevity at the weight or list of opponents fought? I expect most of you will have Froch number 1 on all three of them

10 years at the top. JC or me.

Steffan wrote:Are we judging on talent, longevity at the weight or list of opponents fought? I expect most of you will have Froch number 1 on all three of them

Make your list and explain your choices, can be on anything you wish. All you got to do is justify it

1) Calzaghe 2) Froch 3) Benn 4) Eubank 5) Collins 6) Reid 7) Woodhall 8) Sutherland 9) Catley 10) Groves

With his win at the weekend, I believe Froch has removed any doubts about his right to second spot. Impossible to have anyone other than Calzaghe sitting atop the pile; by the time he'd finished with 168 lb in 2007, he'd taken care of every single worthwhile challenger and had not a significant rival in sight.

Sutherland, the unsung trendsetter of British boxing, should command a spot, I feel, although I give Groves a spot largely because of what I think he will do, rather than what he has done.

88Chris05 wrote:1) Calzaghe 2) Froch 3) Benn 4) Eubank 5) Collins 6) Reid 7) Woodhall 8) Sutherland 9) Catley 10) Groves

With his win at the weekend, I believe Froch has removed any doubts about his right to second spot. Impossible to have anyone other than Calzaghe sitting atop the pile; by the time he'd finished with 168 lb in 2007, he'd taken care of every single worthwhile challenger and had not a significant rival in sight.

Sutherland, the unsung trendsetter of British boxing, should command a spot, I feel, although I give Groves a spot largely because of what I think he will do, rather than what he has done.

Nice list, going for top ten. I like it

1) Calzaghe 2) Froch 3) Benn 4) Eubank 5) Collins 6) Reid 7) Woodhall 8) Sutherland 9) Catley 10) Groves

Woodhall knocks out the rest in two, Chris.

Not too many arguments with that list but think there may be a case for ranking Benn and Eubank at equal 3rd. Benn's win over McLellan probably just tips the balance in his favour though.

Groves probably deserves to be there on potential but if Sheng was around I fear you'd be facing claims of prejudice for excluding Ray Close.

Only had Woodhall at seventh because he retired after Calzaghe and because Eubank and Benn ducked him, Superfly. As Ralphy can confirm, he'd have stood Eubank & Benn on their heads had they the nads to face him, and would have done the same to Calzaghe in a rematch. Number seven in career accomplishments, number one in talent and ability.

As for Eubank and Benn, well I have trouble separating them in an overall career sense (though I usually just edge Eubank ahead by a slither), but at 168 lb it has to be Benn for me. Certainly faced better competition than Eubank at the weight and, when they met for a second time, I think Nigel was a little unlucky to only walk away with a share of the spoils.

1. Calzaghe
2. Froch
3. Benn
4. Eubank
5. Collins

Not the hardest of top 5's to do really with each man being the obvious choice for the spot they command.

1. Calzaghe (for now)
2. Froch ( a win against Kessler might put him top spot)
3. Benn
4. Collins
5. Eubank

Cheers

Rodders

JC
Eubank
Benn
Froch


















Collins.

Eubank above Froch on what basis?

He escaped defeats which were genuine, against Watson 1, Close, Schommer and Benn. never beat anyone in the league and consistency of what Froch has done. Cheers

Rodders

Holmes, Watson, Malinga and Rocchigiani weren't nobodies Rodney.

Well is it purely looking at them as Super Middleweights or overall as fighters?

Overall I have Eubank ahead of Benn. Find it very hard to put Benn above.

The Watson/Benn/Eubank triangle I think set Eubank apart, he knocked Benn out himself and outside of that I dont think their records are vastly disimilar.

The McClellan win is probably the only win Benn has that would be missing from Eubank but not enough to compensate for being stopped by Eubank and Watson.

Purely Super Middle record then I guess Benn might take it via the G-Man win.

That's pretty much my take on it, Manos. Eubank just ahead overall, Benn ahead at 168 lb by a similarly small margin.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Holmes, Watson, Malinga and Rocchigiani weren't nobodies Rodney.

I agree mate, Rocchigiani I class as his best win bar the Benn victory on foreign soil. However Eubank never boxed in the league or got the victories Froch has so can't see how anyone can rank him above Froch, but each their own.

Cheers

Rodders

Rodney wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Holmes, Watson, Malinga and Rocchigiani weren't nobodies Rodney.

I agree mate, Rocchigiani I class as his best win bar the Benn victory on foreign soil. However Eubank never boxed in the league or got the victories Froch has so can't see how anyone can rank him above Froch, but each their own.

Cheers

Rodders

Ok Rodders, Froch lost to Ward and Kessler his best two opponents at 168, Eubank beat Watson drew with Benn his best two at 168. I can except that Ward is the best of those four, but Watson and Benn top Kessler for me. Froch victories- KO of a gassed Taylor, who was well ahead at the time, piped Dirrell at the post, outboxed Abrahams in much the same way the Eubank did to Wharton ( a fighter probably on par with the one dimension AA), Glen Johnson was way past his best, Eubanks better victories included Thornton, Holmes, Wharton, Rocchigiana and based on that I can't see that your claim that Eubank neither boxed in the same league or got the victories holds any water. I find it very hard to put any clear water between Eubank, Froch or Calzaghes records to be honest, being as it is that Calzaghes best wins were over Kessler, who wasn't better than Benn, an unprepared and shop worn Eubank and lacy, who was unproven.
The only things I'm certain of is that the best performance was Benn v McClellan,and that if they all boxed against each other in a league I would back Calzaghe to top it at the end of the season. One other thing- can anyone confirm that SMW is Britains most successsful weight div . in terms of the number of champions we have had?

88Chris05 wrote:That's pretty much my take on it, Manos. Eubank just ahead overall, Benn ahead at 168 lb by a similarly small margin.

You've gone blue. When did you cross over to the darkside?

Got dragged over there kicking and screaming yesterday, Kev!

Congratulations buddy.

I can't really accept Watson or Benn being rated higher than Kessler at super middleweight especially the former who had a single tragic loss at the weight, as for Wharton being amongst the elite, do me a favour.

Based purely on 168lb resume

1. JC (based on Eubank, Kessler and Lacy wins)
2. Froch (tough run of recent fights, only losing to the top fighters)
3. Benn (McClelland win)
4. Eubank
5. Collins

horizontalhero wrote:

Rodney wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Holmes, Watson, Malinga and Rocchigiani weren't nobodies Rodney.

I agree mate, Rocchigiani I class as his best win bar the Benn victory on foreign soil. However Eubank never boxed in the league or got the victories Froch has so can't see how anyone can rank him above Froch, but each their own.

Cheers

Rodders

Ok Rodders, Froch lost to Ward and Kessler his best two opponents at 168, Eubank beat Watson drew with Benn his best two at 168. I can except that Ward is the best of those four, but Watson and Benn top Kessler for me. Froch victories- KO of a gassed Taylor, who was well ahead at the time, piped Dirrell at the post, outboxed Abrahams in much the same way the Eubank did to Wharton ( a fighter probably on par with the one dimension AA), Glen Johnson was way past his best, Eubanks better victories included Thornton, Holmes, Wharton, Rocchigiana and based on that I can't see that your claim that Eubank neither boxed in the same league or got the victories holds any water. I find it very hard to put any clear water between Eubank, Froch or Calzaghes records to be honest, being as it is that Calzaghes best wins were over Kessler, who wasn't better than Benn, an unprepared and shop worn Eubank and lacy, who was unproven.
The only things I'm certain of is that the best performance was Benn v McClellan,and that if they all boxed against each other in a league I would back Calzaghe to top it at the end of the season. One other thing- can anyone confirm that SMW is Britains most successsful weight div . in terms of the number of champions we have had?

Morning Horizontal

I think nostaglia gets a little bit in our way with Watson/Eubank we all love those guys, but Eubank's win over Michael really cant be classed in the league of Calzaghe's against Lacy,Kessler and Froch's against the other top guys, remember Froch now holds wins over Jean Pascal and Lucian Bute two unbeaten proven world elite fighters. Eubank didnt do that for me, yes he holds some worthy wins but not top drawer Premier League for me, in reality Eubank got gifts against Ray Close, Benn and Dan Schommer in Sun City. Then we have the two Collins defeats, IMO there is a fair old distance in Calzaghe, Froch then the others, no way on earth can Eubank be ranked above Froch I just dont believe it makes any sense, other than favouritism and nostalgia.

All the best

Rodders

Hi Rodders,
I'm not neccessarily saying that Calzhages or Frochs record aren't better, just that there is not that much between them, and pointing out that some of Eubanks and Benns fights were definately against top draw opponets.
As I said I think the Lacy win is tainted by the fact that Lacy has gone on to lose a lot more fights at top level, as for Kessler , do you really think that he was alot better than Watson? For 11 rounds Watson beat a prime Eubank from pillar to post, one else ever came close to doing that to Eubank, and I'm not sure that Kessler would have done. I honestly believe that Watson would have gone on to have a long and successful reign had it not been for that one punch. likewise does Kessler beat McClellan? Benn did, and drew with Eubank. It's not nostalga mate, I just thought about their best performances and for me there's not a lot in it, and for the record Iwasn't suggestnig that Wharton was an elite fighter, but I don't think was either.

All this hype for Froch. When the adrenalin stops and rational thinking ensues you will realise that Froch, whilst good, is below Benn and Eubank. Calzaghe is the undisputed British #1 SMW without a doubt.

Froch clearly lost to Kessler who JC clearly beat. That is the deciding factor. Kill the hype and get the rational thought processes working.

Kind of shame the super-midds weren't around in the early 80's.........

Had a lot of respect for Sibbo...........and It might have given him the world title he deserved....

azania wrote:All this hype for Froch. When the adrenalin stops and rational thinking ensues you will realise that Froch, whilst good, is below Benn and Eubank. Calzaghe is the undisputed British #1 SMW without a doubt.

Froch clearly lost to Kessler who JC clearly beat. That is the deciding factor. Kill the hype and get the rational thought processes working.

No truer words have been spoken

Why is Froch below Benn and Eubank?

Agreed certainly higher than Benn and Eubank in my book as is Calzaghe..

manos de piedra wrote:Why is Froch below Benn and Eubank?

Because of the quality of opposition faced and beaten. Froch's best wins are AA, Taylor, Bute and the Jamaican. Eubank had Watson, Roccigianni and Malinga. I'd put Watson above anyone Froch has beaten by a long way.

Benn with his victory over G-Man cements his place above Froch.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Why is Froch below Benn and Eubank?

Because of the quality of opposition faced and beaten. Froch's best wins are AA, Taylor, Bute and the Jamaican. Eubank had Watson, Roccigianni and Malinga. I'd put Watson above anyone Froch has beaten by a long way.

Benn with his victory over G-Man cements his place above Froch.

Hardly. All three suffer from the same stigma of not being the top guy in the division but outside of that common factor I think Froch has a very sturdy claim to rank above far beyond just hype or overreaction. Why omit Pascal and Dirrell from Frochs wins? A record that reads top level wins of Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham, Johnson and Bute. Losses to Kessler and Ward.

I think its fairly unreasonable to rank Watson so highly. He has a good win over Benn and a decent win over Errol Chrisite but he hardly sets himself miles apart from Frochs opponents. Theres no real basis to that. He gave Eubank two tough fights and was well beaten by McCallum. Malinga? Not up there with with Frochs opponents and not overly convinced Rochogianni is particularly better than anything Froch beat and think hes worse than Pascal or Bute for instance. Then throw in two losses to Collins, which I think is happily and incorrectly explained away as Eubank being shot - no real basis for that unless you consider him shot since Watson II. Also two near escapes with Ray Close and a fight against Schommer that even he thought he had lost.

Benn I rate even lower overall and dont think his record is in any way superior to Frochs.

The more comments that I read here the more convinced that I was right in assessment that there is very little between Froch, Eubank, Benn, and Calzaghe is not that far ahead of them.
Best wins for each all comparable;
Eubank- Watson, the draw with Benn, Rochoogianna
Benn - the draw with Eubank, McClellan
Calzaghe- Kessler, lacy, Eubank
Froch - Bute, Dirrell, Pascal.
it's also hard to judge Froch whilst he's still active- after all he could go on and benefit from some questionable verdicts like Eubank did, or avenge his losses , who knows.
The arguements surrounding whose better out of the like of Malinga, Pascal, Holmes etc areagain difficult- all were good if not stellar opponents

Really Alma? I had not ever heard that there were suspicions regarding McClellans health before the fight-please could you expend on that at all?

horizontalhero wrote:The more comments that I read here the more convinced that I was right in assessment that there is very little between Froch, Eubank, Benn, and Calzaghe is not that far ahead of them.
Best wins for each all comparable;
Eubank- Watson, the draw with Benn, Rochoogianna
Benn - the draw with Eubank, McClellan
Calzaghe- Kessler, lacy, Eubank
Froch - Bute, Dirrell, Pascal.
it's also hard to judge Froch whilst he's still active- after all he could go on and benefit from some questionable verdicts like Eubank did, or avenge his losses , who knows.
The arguements surrounding whose better out of the like of Malinga, Pascal, Holmes etc areagain difficult- all were good if not stellar opponents

I agree with you that theres probably not a great deal overall seperating them. But I think its a bit superifcial just to take three results from each as the primary yardstick.

All three are equal in the sense that they never really became the top man in their division at any stage.

But Ive got to say that I think Frochs win list is better and he also has the distinction of literally fighting every guy there was to fight in the division , willing to take chances and risks etc which I think should count for something. To only select Bute, Dirrell and Pascal for Froch is selling him a bit short I feel. I think given that it is fine margins we are talking about you really have to go into as much detail as possible.

Looking at the opposition:
Froch, as things stands, has 6 world title fight wins at SMW: Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham, Johnson and Bute
2 losses: Kessler, Ward.

Benn has 9 world title wins at SMW: Galvano x 2, Piper, Gent, Wharton, Giminez, McClellan, Nardiello, Perez
1 draw: Eubank
3 losses: Malinga, Collins x 2

Eubank has 15 world title wins at SMW: Watson, Malinga, Jarvis, Esset, Thornton, Gimenez, Holmes, Close, Rochigianni, Amaral, Storey, Schommer, Wharton
2 draws: Close, Benn
3 losses: Collins x 2, Calzaghe

Looking at that, Froch has the least wins but they are all genuine "world" wins. Nobody making up the numbers like Piper, Close, Gent etc who were domestic/euro level at best and a few of their U.S equivalents like Esset/Jarvis. Theres a lot of Eubank and Benn defences you can almost disregard as being scarcely world level whereas with Froch they all are.

Trying to establish some kind of parity isnt easy but I would instantly disregard the following as being irrelevant to the comparison: Piper, Gent, Galvano, Perez, Nardiello, Giminez, Jarvis, Esset, Thornton, Amaral, Close, Schommer. None of these guys were really world class. They were largely upper domestic/euro level fighters. None of them would even measure up against Frochs weakest championship win.

That leaves a much trimmed and revised list of:

Froch: Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham, Johnson, Bute

Benn: Wharton, McClellan

Eubank: Watson, Malinga, Holmes, Rochigianni, Wharton

Obviously Benn looks pretty thin there, but his win over McClellan has an argument to be the best of the lot. Factor in a draw for Benn/Eubank and that also adds to their record. Again looking to establish some kind of parity I would say Malinga and Johnson are fairly comparable as are Rochigianni and Abraham. You might argue Holmes and Taylor are also.

Watson is a tricky one because he was clearly a talented fighter whos record undersells him. Hes 1-3 in his big fights. You might argue Dirrell and McClellan are similar in that regard in terms of their record compared to their talent. You could also say the Froch win over Taylor and the Eubank win over Watson were similar.

Losses wise, I dont think theres much in it.

Looking at that there isnt a massive amount in it probably although on reflection Benns is alot thinner when you cut away the chaff. Personally I would plump for Froch. I also think other small things favour him. He took on everyone and unlike say Eubank he didnt struggle to overcome inferior opposition a level below him like Schommer and Close. In many ways comparing Eubank to Froch is like comparing Ward to Calzaghe. You cut away the chaff and you are left with records that are quite similar. One has a proactive based ambition counting for it, the other has greater longetivity going for it.

Initially, I had Benn above Eubank at SMW but having just gone through it there in more detail Im tempted now to put Eubank above him as Benn actually really only has two top wins at the weight. McClellan might be the best but its not to far off Watson and outside of that its clearly advantage Eubank. But Froch overall me albeit not by a huge margin. Just my take!

1. Froch
2.Froch
3.Froch
4.Slappy
5.Eubank

Slappy has gone way down on the list after what Froch has achieved. Getting one back on a loss next is in line, then the yank.

davidemore wrote:1. Froch
2.Froch
3.Froch
4.Slappy
5.Eubank

Slappy has gone way down on the list after what Froch has achieved. Getting one back on a loss next is in line, then the yank.

Can safely say that you didn't spend your sabbatical looking for a brain.

superflyweight wrote:

davidemore wrote:1. Froch
2.Froch
3.Froch
4.Slappy
5.Eubank

Slappy has gone way down on the list after what Froch has achieved. Getting one back on a loss next is in line, then the yank.

Can safely say that you didn't spend your sabbatical looking for a brain.

Overall (legacy and ability):

1. Calzaghe
2. Froch
3. Benn
4. Eubank
5. Collins

Record:

1. Froch
2. Calzaghe
rest same.