Benn, Froch and Eubank

First topic message reminder :

It's been brought up so I'll ask it

Who had the better cv?

Mochyn du wrote:

AdamT wrote:If Gerald had of landed the punches Kessler did in the 4th, Calzaghe could be in big bother.

I still think Calzaghe would be too busy. Tough, tough fight for sure.

Not sure it would have been that tough for Calzaghe.  The Benn v McClellan fight was a classic case of a flat track bully moving up in weight and being found out.  Calzaghe was a big super middle and by all account better than Benn.

McLellan crowded Jones in their fight backed him up along the ropes and cornered him

If he was able to do that to Jones might he not be able to do the same to Calzaghe?

Roy Jones was what 18 when they fought in the amateurs at light middleweight?

How they got on in the amateurs doesn't have any bearing on how it would go in the pro ranks but interesting none the less apparently McClellan finished the stronger in his fight with Jones to record a 5-0 verdict or was it a 3-2?

McLellan was technically flawed but he had demonic power

Wonder how many pro's reverse the decision having been beaten by a rival in the amateurs, and whether the amateur outcome is a a fairly good indication of the pro outcome. In general, I'd say one off fights are less indicative especially given the number of dodgey amateur decisions but a dominant performance over an amateur series would better represent the outcome of a pro match.

Tricky rating McClellan. On the one hand there's the argument that he was going to be a future legend, and that he had Jones' number both physically and psychologically, hence why Jones (so the legend goes) said he'd never fight him. The Jones aspect has been vital in embellishing his almost mythical standing in that particular circle. On the other hand, there are those who say that he was a one-dimensional banger who didn't like it up him, with the Benn fight being proof of this.

As ever, I'll take the boring route and say that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

McClellan fought Jones once as an amateur and edged him 3-2. Jones was the more accomplished and titled amateur overall, but McClellan won a one-off fight. Similarly, Oscar De La Hoya was the more successful and consistent amateur out of him and Mosley, but Mosley beat him wearing a vest and then repeated the trick twice (at least one of them clearly) in the pro ranks, despite the consensus being that De La Hoya still had the better professional career. Could Jones-McClellan have played out similarly, then? Perhaps.

But for every case such as that, there's one like Bowe-Gonzalez (Gonzalez scores an upset amateur win but gets embarrassed when they meet as professionals) or Tyson-Tillman, the latter managing to beat Iron Mike twice in succession in the amateurs to pip him to a spot on the Olympic team, but who was nowhere near the professional fighter Tyson was and who folded inside a round when they fought for money. Then there's Joshua-White more recently.

Hell, if Frankie Gavin had been forced to retire from the sport just after turning professional, getting too hung up on his amateur exploits would have ended up with many of us saying how lucky Kel Brook got that he never had to face Fun Time!

Jones was a formidable amateur, so McClellan's win is doubtless a feather in his cap, but they were a pair of kids fighting under very different circumstances than the pro game. Better to look at their paid careers if you want an indication of how that fight might have gone circa 1995, and most of the evidence points to a Jones win, albeit it would have taken one of his typically superb performances. You can never rule out someone with McClellan's raw power and tenacity, particularly if you view the Tarver and Johnson disasters almost a decade later as proof that Jones' chin was breakable, if only his opponent could just somehow land cleanly on it.

With regards to the Benn fight: yes, McClellan lost it, and yes he did seem to approach the fight a little naively with nothing but an early stoppage on his mind. But was it a case of the bully being found out once someone fought back and didn't fold? I'm not so sure. It was a legitimate and deserved win for Benn, but McClellan's freak injury is a mitigating factor. Unfair to question his heart as he was clearly struggling in an unusual way which, thankfully, doesn't happen all that often. I don't think it's a given that he loses heart as soon as Froch or Calzaghe take a few big shots in these hypotheticals, albeit gun to my head I'd still pick the pair over him.

Good post. Don't follow most. From memory McClellan showed bags of heart in that fight. Was he a bully, yeah maybe.

Also, not great examples of amateur match ups. Joshua vs white was two clueless novices. That will never mean much.

Tyson vs Tillman was boy vs 'man'. So again, not.mich to take from it.

What if Jones had been ko'd in his pomp say nine years earlier than he was that would have shattered this myth that his fans claim he was invincible for a period?

An all time great talent but not enough outstanding wins to be ranked alongside the true elite

Back on McLellan he should have got a first round ko against Benn. Benn fell through the ropes and exceeded the 20 second count

Herman Jaeger wrote:What if Jones had been ko'd in his pomp say nine years earlier than he was that would have shattered this myth that his fans claim he was invincible for a period?

An all time great talent but not enough outstanding wins to be ranked alongside the true elite

Back on McLellan he should have got a first round ko against Benn. Benn fell through the ropes and exceeded the 20 second count

But he wasn't, odd comment.

Coz he didn't fight enough quality(varied styles) opposition  in his pomp

Not so odd there's method there

Showed his superiority when he did step up though

There's a lot of what ifs.

Good to have you back Hammer (I think )

There's just a little of the what if with Calzaghe and Jones. Myth based on supposition rather than fact a nagging suspicion they're not quite as good as their fans would have you believe

With your Andre Wards and your Carl Frochs there are no what ifs

Both took on everything and found their level Ward all time Froch British that's why it's still up for debate whether Calzaghe is all time is there enough quality opposition in his pomp?

Roy Jones fought and beat better opposition than Andre Ward has thus far and in far better fashion too.

Head to head I'd favour Kovalev to beat Hopkins(fact) Toney(if at light heavy) and McCallum(at catchweight)

Are you sure my friend?

Hopkins and Toney at their bests would have every chance of beating Kovalev not that the whole world revolves around one weight division when you're talking about a four weight world champion.

Hagler would have annhiliated Jones at middle Robinson and Leonard both outbox him with ease Robinson may even stop him

Of course they would, not like Jones holds every single physical advantage over them all; seeing Hagler scrape past Duran would have him quaking in his boots.

Calzaghe would have no chance with Hagler nor Ray Leonard for that matter

We're living in a media savvy age these where they prefer to create a myth and make money off it

Herman Jaeger wrote:Calzaghe would have no chance with Hagler nor Ray Leonard for that matter

We're living in a media savvy age these  where they prefer to create a myth and make money off it

The fab four was what exactly? A term coined by the media.

Not saying Calzaghe is better than the pair but he's a lot bigger than them both and that counts for a lot.

Size has always been everything to you hasn't it

Before I start sounding bitter toward Jones because if you don't like a fighter's personality it can taint your judgment he's all time great just not up there with the very elite like his fans claim

Calzaghe all time great no comment don't want to upset anyone

Size isn't everything at all but it's a factor especially when assessing a boxer like Hagler who didn't move up in weight.

They didn't have super middle then sure he would have done if they did

Besides the money he got off the Leonard fight who would need to fight again. $19m was real money back then maybe fifty sixty million or more in today's money

I think Calzaghe would handily beat Ray Leonard at 168. P4P Ray was much better, but at 168? Calzaghe all day for me!

You could be right Adam!

Roy maybe could beat Ray too at 168

Roy beats everyone at 168, in my eyes anyway. It's all speculation really!

That's the funny thing about these boxing debates the more we debate the less certain I become about everything

If the consensus agrees Calzaghe is all time who am I to disagree

Got the longevity got the talent

If Toney came in shape at 75 against Kovalev that could be an interesting fight

All time great or no I think we're all agreed Calzaghe a notch above Froch

With Hagler we can say he's tougher than Jones and can be relentless but with Leonard I can't see where or how he gets the better of Jones; he's bigger, stronger, faster and more powerful whilst being more elusive.

Definitely pick Joe over Carl. Be a tough fight though.

I was at benn mclellan, partly because it had a great looking undercard to offset the expectation  that the fight wouldn't last more than a few rounds. At the time this was talked of as a stepping stone for a jones mclellan superfight.

Re their amateur fight, they were what 19 and 20? It was the year of the Seoul olympics, that's not as young as it sounds for US amateurs. Regardless it's not necessarily a taster if what's to come, but mclellan was:
- not in awe of jones
- a better boxer than some on here credit him with(he just got carried away with his power
- clearly has something wrong with either before or from the middle of the benn fight
- had a bunch of muppets in his corner, and may have had a very different career if he hadn't fallen out with manny steward (something steward himself accepted some responsibility for)
- was not a nice guy... but those calling a guy a quitter and flat track bully when he left the ring on a stretcher with a brain injury are maybe a little wide of the mark

Jones favourite if they fought because he was a special talent, but mclellan was a live underdog and it would have been a fascinating fight.

LionsV2 wrote:With Hagler we can say he's tougher than Jones and can be relentless but with Leonard I can't see where or how he gets the better of Jones; he's bigger, stronger, faster and more powerful whilst being more elusive.

He isn't faster and Ray's way more accurate and skilful much better more accurate jab there's levels in skill and Ray a notch up

Be a great fight though! At 60

Leonard was not faster than Jones at all, you're doing Jones a massive disservice.

Jones was very very quick but Leonard one of the quickest I've seen beautiful inside fighter and sitting on the ropes two things Jones can't do

You only sit on the ropes if you're forced back there, Leonard was a fabulous boxer but defensively he wasn't the greatest and had to bail himself out a few times with his other attributes.

Maybe Roy had quicker single shot selection? But Ray had faster combinations and faster feet?

It'd probably be splitting hairs to say who is faster between a Welterweight Leonard and a Super-Middleweight (taking that as his peak weight, as he always has himself) Jones. Both had gloves like a blur.

But at any weight heigher than Light-Middle, Leonard didn't move his hands the same way. Comes with the territory when fighters move up in weight, generally. Leonard was still very fast as a 160 or 168 pounder, but Jones was like greased lightning right up to 175.

Similarly, Leonard might well be the better fighting specimen, pound for pound. But if we're talking about matching him against Jones hypothetically, it's got to be at 160 at the lowest, and Jones holds most of the cards if that's the case. At 160 Leonard's got a chance of sorts. At 168 he's pi$$ing in the wind, and at 175 he'd do well to win a round.

Jones is just too big for Leonard, in my eyes. Both phenomenal talents, and Leonard was probably the more complete all-rounder if you're taking all factors in to consideration...But one was a natural Welterweight and the other was a natural Super-Middle.

You're right Chris Jones has a great chance to beat Ray at 160 coz Ray never stopped anything at 160 and nowhere near as quick with the added weight

Hagler destroys Jones though at 160

If Calzaghe agreed to a catch weight with Ray and came down to middle I think he'd be too drained to beat Ray should beat him at 68 though

Can't see srl troubling jones at middle and certainly not super. Mind I couldn't see him troubling hagler either.

Leonard was much flatter footed above 147, he'd also taken 5 years off to snort coke which isn't the greatest preparation

You saying Ray snorted everyday for five years?

That's good going. That would have diminished him physically no end you would think makes the Hagler performance that little bit more impressive

Never having shared a line with the great man, I couldn't comment on the exact frequency of his substance abuse hermy

Herman Jaeger wrote:They didn't have super middle then sure he would have done if they did

Besides the money he got off the Leonard fight who would need to fight again. $19m was real money back then maybe fifty sixty million or more in today's money

Yep, my $19m doesn't go very far these days. I'll have to get a second job.

As far as people who can beat Jones at Middleweight goes, Monzon for me is the one who could do it.

It's hard to say with jones. He beat everyone put in front of him with such ease in his prime that it's easy to think no-one touches him. Some of them were great fighters themselves like Hopkins and mccallum or very good ones like Toney. But put another hat on and you can say hopkins was not the finished article and never at his best against fast handed boxers, mccallum was well past his best and above his best weight etc.

When you look at guys like hagler and monzon, you know they're gonna keep coming for 12/15 rounds depending on when this mythical match up took place. It's impossible to say whether meldrick taylor meets his Chavez in this scenario. Jones never fought guys quite like hagler or monzon. Could he have beaten them, it's entirely conceivable to me. Would he have beaten them? Impossible to say for me.

Cue debate about hagler's problems with boxers and can of worms well and truly open.

LionsV2 wrote:As far as people who can beat Jones at Middleweight goes, Monzon for me is the one who could do it.

I take it you are an aficionado of Monzon or are you just saying that to make you sound clever? Often the way with some people they love to pretend they've got some inside knowledge on Monzon

Often the way with people talking about Hagler and Leonard too, I've watched all of Monzon's fights and his ability to adapt to fighting on the inside or the outside behind his unorthodox jab makes him a tricky fight for anyone.

It's generally greb, (who lets face it, no-one has seen much of!) or monzon for greatest middleweight ever so it's hardly a left field call to suggest he might make a fight of it against jones, hermy

As a top three middleweight all time Monzon gives any middle ever a hard time just think it's a bit of a joke to say only Monzon can beat Roy at 60

Roy never faced a sharp counterpuncher or a tremendous pressure fighter at 60 the two styles that could beat him