Super Joe put to shame!!!

[Counter-puncher]

... and out all the Calzaghe haters crawl. Yep - you can tell Froch has just fought.

And Calzaghe still seems to steal Froch's glory by the amount of the bitter haters out there...

Very true.Why cant people just support Froch without slagging Calzaghe off?

meh, I love Joe, but think Froch's resume is probably better, now.

[tonyevs]

Nice one Gomez

All the Calzaghe bitching I feel just cheapens Froch.

[Counter-puncher]

tonyevs, aren't there two positions that aren't mutually exclusive, here, though?

i htink one can say froch has the better resume and Joe was the better fighter without sounding too outlandish?

[whiskey]

You cant really draw comparison's on a completed career against one in progress. Froch has 18 more fights to go yet.

He has Glencoffe Johnson and probably Andre Ward yet. Then he will be on Lucian Bute's case before looking at Jean Pascal at light heavy again, which will be good if he puts away Hopkins.

Then you might have a Degale or whatever domestic fight by then.

It's some career plan.

[Captain Hook]

Was a troll post, but Frochy has got a better resume than JC, hands down.

Calzaghe UD still though.

x2

And why does Calzaghe have to even be brought up?

Let's enjoy Froch's performance, and the fact we have another world class super middle doing the business.

Getting sick of the negativity on here from some posters.

[Captain Hook]

Does anybody seriously think that Calzaghe would have lost to any of the guys that Froch has beaten?

Again, somebody else who's having trouble getting to grips with best record over best fighter.

Calzaghe would like'ly have beaten Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell and Abraham, but anyone with half a brain would conclude that he'd never have fought them. Most certainly not while in their primes and back to back like Froch did.

Calzaghe only has Kessler on his record, its the only fight that stands up against what Froch's out their doing now. Lacy was a hype job, pure and simple and should not be mentioned. After that there's only old man Bernard. There's no young, fresh, in their prime world champions that Calzaghe scalped, he avoided them all and would have done exactly the same with Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham and even Froch himself! Some might disagree otherwise, but historical evidence weighs heavily in my favour!

Some might also argue that the likes of Hopkins would school Froch etc, but again thats deviating from the point in question. Its about who has the best record, not about who was the better fighter. I think most knowledgable fans, after last nights magnificent win, would now say that Froch has either equaled Calzaghe's record, or has surpassed it.

60-70% of the posters on here had Lacy knocking Calzaghe out and losing to Hopkins and you think we should just rule that out with hindsight?

[Tykemania]

Froch's a worthy winner, but are some people forgetting how terrible he was against Taylor? He was also unimpressive against Kessler and rightly lost. Then there is the Direll fight. As for fighting the best well thats true, but because of the super six tournament, which was not around when Joe was fighting and would not have made sense due tot he fact he essentially obtained all four belts himself by beating the relevant champions including Kessler. As for Froch taking away other fighters zeros, well thats all very good, but Joe also did the same with plenty of fighters, once again including the then undefeated two belt world champ Kessler. Its simple mathematics really if you win fights then that's what happens :-)

I do like Froch but from looking at the Taylor and Kessler fights, I think Joe would have slaughtered him. Just my opinion.

Got to argue with you about the Kessler and Dirrell fights - against Kessler, Froch maybe didn;t fight the right fight, but it was a very close affair that I actually had him nicking - and lets not forget that he dumped the Dane on the seat of his pants, which is some acheivement. As for Dirrell - I was there and there was nothing close about it.

[gobbles]

Froch's a worthy winner, but are some people forgetting how terrible he was against Taylor? He was also unimpressive against Kessler and rightly lost. Then there is the Direll fight. As for fighting the best well thats true, but because of the super six tournament, which was not around when Joe was fighting and would not have made sense due tot he fact he essentially obtained all four belts himself by beating the relevant champions including Kessler. As for Froch taking away other fighters zeros, well thats all very good, but Joe also did the same with plenty of fighters, once again including the then undefeated two belt world champ Kessler. Its simple mathematics really if you win fights then that's what happens :-)

I do like Froch but from looking at the Taylor and Kessler fights, I think Joe would have slaughtered him. Just my opinion.

Got to argue with you about the Kessler and Dirrell fights - against Kessler, Froch maybe didn;t fight the right fight, but it was a very close affair that I actually had him nicking - and lets not forget that he dumped the Dane on the seat of his pants, which is some acheivement. As for Dirrell - I was there and there was nothing close about it.

I was there too and thought he lost. Froch missed so much. Dirrell was an awful opponent with the constant running and spoiling, but that was the worst performance of Froch's career.

[tonyevs]

You cant really draw comparison's on a completed career against one in progress. Froch has 18 more fights to go yet.

He has Glencoffe Johnson and probably Andre Ward yet. Then he will be on Lucian Bute's case before looking at Jean Pascal at light heavy again, which will be good if he puts away Hopkins.

Then you might have a Degale or whatever domestic fight by then.

It's some career plan.

Lets not write Froch off as having reached his summit.
Wouldn`t it be great if he is only halfway to where he will get

Froch is the best value, World class British fighter we have got.
The Calzaghe haters need to put their hand-bags away. And focus on what a gem we have in Carl Froch

[Tykemania]

Got to argue with you about the Kessler and Dirrell fights - against Kessler, Froch maybe didn;t fight the right fight, but it was a very close affair that I actually had him nicking - and lets not forget that he dumped the Dane on the seat of his pants, which is some acheivement. As for Dirrell - I was there and there was nothing close about it.

I was there too and thought he lost. Froch missed so much. Dirrell was an awful opponent with the constant running and spoiling, but that was the worst performance of Froch's career.

Really? I appreciate that he didn't land as high a percentage as he would ideally have liked, but he landed a lot of good blows and clearly shook Dirrell on more than one occasion, whereras Dirrell didn;t appear to me to land a thing the whole fight (I appreciate having seen it back since on tape that he did land a couple of decent shots, both with Froch's back to me, but even with those I don't see how he managed to win more than a coupel of rounds).

[hitman_hatton1]

Really? I appreciate that he didn't land as high a percentage as he would ideally have liked, but he landed a lot of good blows and clearly shook Dirrell on more than one occasion, whereras Dirrell didn;t appear to me to land a thing the whole fight (I appreciate having seen it back since on tape that he did land a couple of decent shots, both with Froch's back to me, but even with those I don't see how he managed to win more than a coupel of rounds).

[ALI]

Does anybody seriously think that Calzaghe would have lost to any of the guys that Froch has beaten?

Again, somebody else who's having trouble getting to grips with best record over best fighter.

Calzaghe would like'ly have beaten Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell and Abraham, but anyone with half a brain would conclude that he'd never have fought them. Most certainly not while in their primes and back to back like Froch did.

Calzaghe only has Kessler on his record, its the only fight that stands up against what Froch's out their doing now. Lacy was a hype job, pure and simple and should not be mentioned. After that there's only old man Bernard. There's no young, fresh, in their prime world champions that Calzaghe scalped, he avoided them all and would have done exactly the same with Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham and even Froch himself! Some might disagree otherwise, but historical evidence weighs heavily in my favour!

Some might also argue that the likes of Hopkins would school Froch etc, but again thats deviating from the point in question. Its about who has the best record, not about who was the better fighter. I think most knowledgable fans, after last nights magnificent win, would now say that Froch has either equaled Calzaghe's record, or has surpassed it.

60-70% of the posters on here had Lacy knocking Calzaghe out and losing to Hopkins and you think we should just rule that out with hindsight?

Nope, i'm not saying that. Lacy was comming over here with a big reputation and many were predicting he'd win, thats factual. Calzaghe put on a masterclass that night and got massive props across the board for it. What i'm saying is, when it comes to summing up Calzaghe's career and picking out the best fighters he fought, Lacy should not be mentioned. He was a hype job, hindsight tells us that. He had beaten nobody of any real standing and has done sweet F.A. since.

I'm not a hater, i'm a realist.

[jBacca]

Got to argue with you about the Kessler and Dirrell fights - against Kessler, Froch maybe didn;t fight the right fight, but it was a very close affair that I actually had him nicking - and lets not forget that he dumped the Dane on the seat of his pants, which is some acheivement. As for Dirrell - I was there and there was nothing close about it.

I was there too and thought he lost. Froch missed so much. Dirrell was an awful opponent with the constant running and spoiling, but that was the worst performance of Froch's career.

Really? I appreciate that he didn't land as high a percentage as he would ideally have liked, but he landed a lot of good blows and clearly shook Dirrell on more than one occasion, whereras Dirrell didn;t appear to me to land a thing the whole fight (I appreciate having seen it back since on tape that he did land a couple of decent shots, both with Froch's back to me, but even with those I don't see how he managed to win more than a coupel of rounds).

Wow. Watch the fight again with some pen and paper, and count how many blows were landed by each fighter. You'll find Dirrell easily landed the more punches, and the more telling ones too.

Many, many, many people thought Dirrell won that. The people who fought Frochy won were mainly the fans who went, and I'm guessing they fought a lot of Froch's aggression was effective whereas simply, it weren't.

[15829]

i went and thoght dirrel won there were a couple americans behind us an 1 had froch winning the other had dirrel

[jamesmcdonnell]

Again, somebody else who's having trouble getting to grips with best record over best fighter.

Calzaghe would like'ly have beaten Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell and Abraham, but anyone with half a brain would conclude that he'd never have fought them. Most certainly not while in their primes and back to back like Froch did.

Calzaghe only has Kessler on his record, its the only fight that stands up against what Froch's out their doing now. Lacy was a hype job, pure and simple and should not be mentioned. After that there's only old man Bernard. There's no young, fresh, in their prime world champions that Calzaghe scalped, he avoided them all and would have done exactly the same with Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham and even Froch himself! Some might disagree otherwise, but historical evidence weighs heavily in my favour!

Some might also argue that the likes of Hopkins would school Froch etc, but again thats deviating from the point in question. Its about who has the best record, not about who was the better fighter. I think most knowledgable fans, after last nights magnificent win, would now say that Froch has either equaled Calzaghe's record, or has surpassed it.

60-70% of the posters on here had Lacy knocking Calzaghe out and losing to Hopkins and you think we should just rule that out with hindsight?

Nope, i'm not saying that. Lacy was comming over here with a big reputation and many were predicting he'd win, thats factual. Calzaghe put on a masterclass that night and got massive props across the board for it. What i'm saying is, when it comes to summing up Calzaghe's career and picking out the best fighters he fought, Lacy should not be mentioned. He was a hype job, hindsight tells us that. He had beaten nobody of any real standing and has done sweet F.A. since.

I'm not a hater, i'm a realist.

Agreed, Lacy with hindsight wasn't what we thought. Sure Calzagfhghe probably ruined him, but great fighters aren't ruined by one bad fight.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I was there too and thought he lost. Froch missed so much. Dirrell was an awful opponent with the constant running and spoiling, but that was the worst performance of Froch's career.

Really? I appreciate that he didn't land as high a percentage as he would ideally have liked, but he landed a lot of good blows and clearly shook Dirrell on more than one occasion, whereras Dirrell didn;t appear to me to land a thing the whole fight (I appreciate having seen it back since on tape that he did land a couple of decent shots, both with Froch's back to me, but even with those I don't see how he managed to win more than a coupel of rounds).

Wow. Watch the fight again with some pen and paper, and count how many blows were landed by each fighter. You'll find Dirrell easily landed the more punches, and the more telling ones too.

Many, many, many people thought Dirrell won that. The people who fought Frochy won were mainly the fans who went, and I'm guessing they fought a lot of Froch's aggression was effective whereas simply, it weren't.

That was exactly what I thought at the time. Froch landed little of any consequence, neither landed much in any round, but the clean shots all came from Dirrell.

I think the judges penalised him for his negative approach and all the flinging himself to the ground to avoid being hit. Perhaps quite rightly.

[stujones]

Probably best not to over analyse it. For all the criticisms of Joe Calzaghe, you could label flaws with Froch.

For example, a big criticism of Joe was that he seemed to continually fight Sven Ottke's left overs. Yet Carl Froch's last two fights are coming off fighters who lost their last fight.

Kessler is now apparently "green" when he fought Joe.... yet against Froch many people (even before the fight) saw him as faded. That's a shorter prime than Mike Tyson.

Froch might be officially 4-1 at world class (many see it as 3-2). Although looking at the 4 wins..... Dirrell at the time hadn't got a single win against a world class Super Middleweight.... Neither had Taylor, Neither had Pascal. Only one was AA - and that was against a bulked up Middle.

Fantastic win on Saturday, a career defining performance - but he was pretty ordinary in his previous 3 outings and that's something we should hold into some perspective.

[Adamj1987]

Kessler was green now? Come on.

have you seen the colour his tats are done in?

[stujones]

Really? I appreciate that he didn't land as high a percentage as he would ideally have liked, but he landed a lot of good blows and clearly shook Dirrell on more than one occasion, whereras Dirrell didn;t appear to me to land a thing the whole fight (I appreciate having seen it back since on tape that he did land a couple of decent shots, both with Froch's back to me, but even with those I don't see how he managed to win more than a coupel of rounds).

Wow. Watch the fight again with some pen and paper, and count how many blows were landed by each fighter. You'll find Dirrell easily landed the more punches, and the more telling ones too.

Many, many, many people thought Dirrell won that. The people who fought Frochy won were mainly the fans who went, and I'm guessing they fought a lot of Froch's aggression was effective whereas simply, it weren't.

That was exactly what I thought at the time. Froch landed little of any consequence, neither landed much in any round, but the clean shots all came from Dirrell.

I think the judges penalised him for his negative approach and all the flinging himself to the ground to avoid being hit. Perhaps quite rightly.

Okay - give Froch the two or so rounds that Dirrel flung himself to the ground.... lets ignore the rest of the rounds..... I STILL cannot see how he got that fight. On my first viewing I thought - well Dirrell is being negative, but still scoring. On subsequent viewing I don't even see him as being THAT negative. He was on frequent occasions backing up Froch (I don't mean forcing him back, but controlling centre of the ring and peppering arm jabs) - Froch would leap in in once every minute or so and get countered..... Dirrell dictated that fight.

I really don't even think that fight was close. Froch vs Kessler was closer.

[Finn]

it's true that Froch should be lauded for his willingness to take on the best and there's probably some mileage in claims that Calzaghe didn't do this enough.

However, Calzaghe, for me, was much more pleasing to watch, was a much superior boxer to Froch, I think this is why he banked a lot more money and while I take nothing away from Froch I honestly believe that (that coke business aside) Joe Calzaghe could come back out of retirement and hand Carl Froch his ass in 2011 if he wanted to, but obviously he doesn't and why should he?

Froch is an all action fighter but he stuggles against fast, skilled, accurate opponents. AA was a perfect style for froch, i pesrsonally thought AA's handspeed and power (when he can be bother to throw a punch) would see froch on his arse, due to his poor defence. But fair play he proved he was better than i thought.

That aside i also think calzaghe could come out of retirement and take him to school next year if he wanted to.

Kudos to Froch for the level of fights he's taken but at the end of the day 2 of the fighters involved in the tourney JC beat convicingly already.

JC's legacy is bitched for one reason and one reason only - he didnt fight a prime RJJ. And that was as much RJJ ducking as it was JC.

What JC should consider doing - and many people may disagree - is wait until the super six is done and dusted and then come out of retirement to fight the winner. That would silence the critics - plus if he looses he can just say it was down to being old.

[gasman]

Off topic. I was about to put on a Joe Calzaghe DVD that I won in a competition (woohoo) - it has been sitting in a drawer for a few months. I had a look at the contents and it features the Jones fight, a bit of montage of his career, interview and a couple of songs from his da and uncle Sergio..........its back in the drawer.......

[jamesmcdonnell]

it's true that Froch should be lauded for his willingness to take on the best and there's probably some mileage in claims that Calzaghe didn't do this enough.

However, Calzaghe, for me, was much more pleasing to watch, was a much superior boxer to Froch, I think this is why he banked a lot more money and while I take nothing away from Froch I honestly believe that (that coke business aside) Joe Calzaghe could come back out of retirement and hand Carl Froch his ass in 2011 if he wanted to, but obviously he doesn't and why should he?

Froch is an all action fighter but he stuggles against fast, skilled, accurate opponents. AA was a perfect style for froch, i pesrsonally thought AA's handspeed and power (when he can be bother to throw a punch) would see froch on his arse, due to his poor defence. But fair play he proved he was better than i thought.

That aside i also think calzaghe could come out of retirement and take him to school next year if he wanted to.

Kudos to Froch for the level of fights he's taken but at the end of the day 2 of the fighters involved in the tourney JC beat convicingly already.

JC's legacy is bitched for one reason and one reason only - he didnt fight a prime RJJ. And that was as much RJJ ducking as it was JC.

What JC should consider doing - and many people may disagree - is wait until the super six is done and dusted and then come out of retirement to fight the winner. That would silence the critics - plus if he looses he can just say it was down to being old.

Calzaghe also never faced Lucas, Beyer or Ottke, or gave Robin Reid a rematch. I could pick out more names, Mundine for instance.

There is zero chance of Joe risking his perfect 0 to fight the winner of this tournament.

[sendo]

Froch isn't even finished yet. I expect him to beat Glen Johnson, another world class name to add to the mix and someone Joe ducked.

[ALI]

it's true that Froch should be lauded for his willingness to take on the best and there's probably some mileage in claims that Calzaghe didn't do this enough.

However, Calzaghe, for me, was much more pleasing to watch, was a much superior boxer to Froch, I think this is why he banked a lot more money and while I take nothing away from Froch I honestly believe that (that coke business aside) Joe Calzaghe could come back out of retirement and hand Carl Froch his ass in 2011 if he wanted to, but obviously he doesn't and why should he?

Froch is an all action fighter but he stuggles against fast, skilled, accurate opponents. AA was a perfect style for froch, i pesrsonally thought AA's handspeed and power (when he can be bother to throw a punch) would see froch on his arse, due to his poor defence. But fair play he proved he was better than i thought.

That aside i also think calzaghe could come out of retirement and take him to school next year if he wanted to.

Kudos to Froch for the level of fights he's taken but at the end of the day 2 of the fighters involved in the tourney JC beat convicingly already.

JC's legacy is bitched for one reason and one reason only - he didnt fight a prime RJJ. And that was as much RJJ ducking as it was JC.

What JC should consider doing - and many people may disagree - is wait until the super six is done and dusted and then come out of retirement to fight the winner. That would silence the critics - plus if he looses he can just say it was down to being old.

Calzaghe also never faced Lucas, Beyer or Ottke, or gave Robin Reid a rematch. I could pick out more names, Mundine for instance.

There is zero chance of Joe risking his perfect 0 to fight the winner of this tournament.

Its not just about the stand out names he never faced, its about the fact that he almost never fought the best available oponent to him at any given time, nor the second or even third best. He was racking up wins against nobodies and fringe contenders or has beens for the best part of his career. I said it many times back then and still believe it now, that had it not been for Hatton showing Calzaghe the way, he'd likely never have fought Lacy nor would he have gone to America.

Warrens way of doing things matched up well with Calzaghe's reluctance! He was a very very talented fighter, but a complete waste of talent and i hope we never see a repeat of his kind!

[jamesmcdonnell]

Froch is an all action fighter but he stuggles against fast, skilled, accurate opponents. AA was a perfect style for froch, i pesrsonally thought AA's handspeed and power (when he can be bother to throw a punch) would see froch on his arse, due to his poor defence. But fair play he proved he was better than i thought.

That aside i also think calzaghe could come out of retirement and take him to school next year if he wanted to.

Kudos to Froch for the level of fights he's taken but at the end of the day 2 of the fighters involved in the tourney JC beat convicingly already.

JC's legacy is bitched for one reason and one reason only - he didnt fight a prime RJJ. And that was as much RJJ ducking as it was JC.

What JC should consider doing - and many people may disagree - is wait until the super six is done and dusted and then come out of retirement to fight the winner. That would silence the critics - plus if he looses he can just say it was down to being old.

Calzaghe also never faced Lucas, Beyer or Ottke, or gave Robin Reid a rematch. I could pick out more names, Mundine for instance.

There is zero chance of Joe risking his perfect 0 to fight the winner of this tournament.

Its not just about the stand out names he never faced, its about the fact that he almost never fought the best available oponent to him at any given time, nor the second or even third best. He was racking up wins against nobodies and fringe contenders or has beens for the best part of his career. I said it many times back then and still believe it now, that had it not been for Hatton showing Calzaghe the way, he'd likely never have fought Lacy nor would he have gone to America.

Warrens way of doing things matched up well with Calzaghe's reluctance! He was a very very talented fighter, but a complete waste of talent and i hope we never see a repeat of his kind!

Here's my two pennorth.

http://bucketofspit.blogspot.com/2010/1 ... -does.html