Joe Calzaghe : Has Froch's leagacy now overtaken Joe's ?

[Quixall]

I'm now at the point where i just can't split them

froch does have a better list of opponents
but he has been defeated and for all an 0 can indicate a padded record or good matchmaking, staying undefeated at world title level for as long as joe did, is still sone achievement even if he didn't perhaps meet the very best every fihht

your legacy is mainly down to the fights you were in (carl wins that one) and the results you had, but i think we have to take ability into account here and joe was better, most here seem to agree on that, carl would have likely lost to joe, prime vs prime.

Both were in entertaining fights but froch has to edge that one with some of his wars, particularly vs kessler

and of course kessler has to come into the equation. i reckon if calzaghe fought him twice he'd have won both. and against a younger, arguably better version of the dane.

There are just too many variables where i'm putting a tick in joes box then the next one it's a tick for carl.

I've always leaned towards calzaghe, even with froch's very good fight history. but beating an outstanding opponent i a fight of the year rematch and avenging one of your only loses, for me, brings him level.


A win against ward would nick it, but i dont believe carl is capable.
And another win against kessler, perhaps at a neutral venue, as much as i'd love to see it... would prove nothing.

Good post Davie,

I am in agreement with a lot you have said. For me, it's carl's willingness to go outside his comfort zone and take on the challengers. He went abroad, he fought back to back fights with credible and live world champions, apart from Johnson, who waas over the hill but still awkward. He has fought more world champions than Joe and has avenged one of his losses. I personally don't think that Carl would beat Ward. You never know, but i just think that Ward has too many skills.

[Quixall]

Calzaghe's gets a hard time he was a far superior boxer than Froch and would have schooled him easily.. He also moved up and fought and beat everyone at light heavy.

Err... Calzaghe only had two fights at light heavy, against Hopkins and Jones. Didn't face Tarver, Dawson or Johnson, so how can you say what you've said?

Because he clearly knows nothing

[Quixall]

Froch's career is far superior to Calzaghes IMO

Two great fighters but froch was more interested in earning his greatness

Yes, i agree Jeff. Carl seemed to want to go after the fights and the fighters. I don't think Carl was ever bothered about losing a fight. All the great fighters have lost, apart from Mayweather, but to me that doesn't dimisnish your record.

[Quixall]

Something worth considering in this is that Calzaghe was ring champ in 2 weight classes. He also beat Kessler comfortably. Calzaghe is ahead of Froch in any best UK boxer list but Froch has faced every challenge and fought at the very highest level.

Skill wise, Joe tops it, legacy wise Carl tops it.

[stevieb_8006]

agreed. froch has had a better career but joe was the better fighter. I reckon that will eat away at joe as well, all the praise carl will receive.

[expe]

Calzaghe's gets a hard time he was a far superior boxer than Froch and would have schooled him easily.. He also moved up and fought and beat everyone at light heavy. If Froch wants to be considered in the same breath as Joe he would need to step up!! If he was to do that he would get beat. Can stay around at Super Middle and wait to get beat by Groves and Degale or move up and take a chance. How schooled Kessler in Kesslers prime was a close fight last night

Fought everyone at light heavy ? Are you sure about that ? What do you mean when you say that Carl needs to step up ? Move to light heavyweight you mean ? Well, a catch weight fight with Hopkins is possibly on the card. There wasn't an Andre Ward around when Calzaghe was fighting in his prime. You could argue about when certain windows of opportunity were available to Joe to fight Hopkins and Jones, but when he fought them both, they were nowhere near what Andre Ward represents to the division today, ie, Jones and Hopkins were past their sell by dates, Ward is in his prime. Beat by Groves and Degale ? You being serious now ? Calzaghe would have beaten Carl i believe, but wouldn't have schooled him.

Froch would lose a large amount of the respect I have for him if he keeps demanding catchweight fights, either move up or stay where you are.

[Scrap]

Good post Quixall.

I can see what you're getting at & I'm in broad agreement with you.

It's almost a paradox in that I think Calzaghe is better than Froch & would have beaten him had they both fought each other in their peaks, but Froch's resume is superior.

I think their is broad agreement on this Syntax. I don't know what stopped Calzaghe from moving out of the comfort earlier. From what i can remember, wasn't he the king of the WBO belt and just kept on defending that title through Warren ? Carl came out of his comfort zone a lot earlier in his career. The super six tournament was terrific for Carl and everything has followed on from that really.

An expensive Divorce

[Quixall]

What do you mean "keeps demading catch weight fights" ? He hasn't even fought above 168lbs.............

Eddie Hearn mentioned that if he fought Hopkins, then a catch weight would have to be used because of the weight Hopkins would be on fight night. Hopkins wants the fight it seems and says he can go to super-middle weight or a catch weight to get a deal for the fight. Some fighters can move up and be effective, others struggle, who knows how Carl would feel at 175lbs. Calzaghe moved up because it was a struggle to make 168lbs and he hadd good reason to with the fights against Hopkins and Jones. Froch has fish to fry at 168lbs. A bute re-match, a Ward re-match, even a Kessler third fight or a domestic battle against Groves.

[Quixall]

Good post Quixall.

I can see what you're getting at & I'm in broad agreement with you.

It's almost a paradox in that I think Calzaghe is better than Froch & would have beaten him had they both fought each other in their peaks, but Froch's resume is superior.

I think their is broad agreement on this Syntax. I don't know what stopped Calzaghe from moving out of the comfort earlier. From what i can remember, wasn't he the king of the WBO belt and just kept on defending that title through Warren ? Carl came out of his comfort zone a lot earlier in his career. The super six tournament was terrific for Carl and everything has followed on from that really.

An expensive Divorce

Meaning lol ?

[Ratchet Exits Nu]

Meaning lol ?

Better to keep a steady winning streak and keep the cash rolling in than to take big risks and LOSE!

[Horse]

Froch has fish to fry at 168lbs. A bute re-match, a Ward re-match, even a Kessler third fight or a domestic battle against Groves.

Bute isn't a fish that Froch needs to fry again at 168 lbs.

[davie]

Something worth considering in this is that Calzaghe was ring champ in 2 weight classes. He also beat Kessler comfortably. Calzaghe is ahead of Froch in any best UK boxer list but Froch has faced every challenge and fought at the very highest level.

Skill wise, Joe tops it, legacy wise Carl tops it.

I think this pretty much wraps up this debate

so when do we discuss it again? I've got a space in my diary at the start of june, if anyones interested.

[Quixall]

Meaning lol ?

Better to keep a steady winning streak and keep the cash rolling in than to take big risks and LOSE!

True,

But i think Calzaghe maybe needed to take more risks and left it too late to really leave a defining mark on boxing.

[Quixall]

Froch has fish to fry at 168lbs. A bute re-match, a Ward re-match, even a Kessler third fight or a domestic battle against Groves.

Bute isn't a fish that Froch needs to fry again at 168 lbs.

No, but it's there, it's on the shelf, just like a possible Hopkins fight, though Eddie doesn't seem to keen on that.

[Quixall]

Something worth considering in this is that Calzaghe was ring champ in 2 weight classes. He also beat Kessler comfortably. Calzaghe is ahead of Froch in any best UK boxer list but Froch has faced every challenge and fought at the very highest level.

Skill wise, Joe tops it, legacy wise Carl tops it.

I think this pretty much wraps up this debate

so when do we discuss it again? I've got a space in my diary at the start of june, if anyones interested.

lol.......

True Davie, but most things can be reduced down to a sentence in life, but it makes things more interesting if we chew the gum for a while. Does it really need pages and pages to know that Ferguson was a top rated manager, me thinks not, but it won't stop the chat, the debate, the quotes and the statements, all saying the same thing, but in different ways.

[ajwesty13]

good topic.... i do feel for Jo calzaghe with unfortunate situations like ottke hijacking the belts and staying in germany with some ludicrous dodgy decisions ...ottke not fighting out of germany and refused to fight JC not allowing to unfi the belts...

there has been talk that Jones and Hopkins ducking JC ... but in all honesty JC was not a big name in stateside and was not on the Jones radar.. which is probably the same reason Hopkins priced himself out of the fight by doubling the purse the next day after agreeing a purse in 2002 of 3mil ... with that paving the way for Hopkins to fight in Allen and joppy for more cash apparently ..however they both did fight JC later however just for a money when jo was worth a few bucks...

The best fighter JC fought was kessler in his prime when JC was in his mid 30 and still beat a very good fighter even thou he left it to the later rounds..

Jo never ducked a fight even thou rumours were rife about ducking glen Johnson but this was more to do with injuries and personal stuff and lets have it right johnson record wasnt great why duck someone like that.. ps he was always busy fighting tarver.. Dawson at the time wasnt a big name just a good fighter... JC fought anyone that was put in front of him and watching recently 'the gloves are off' RJJ was around the table when JC said 'i never ducked anyone' not a murmur from Jones..

Froch is very entertaining when he fights as he has proved only losing twice too great fighters.. but Froch just keeps ploughing in with the big names so for me its 50/50 Froch has the better respect form the boxing fraternity for the names on his record, while calzaghe was the better boxer....

i have just tangled myself into a corner and i feel none the wiser now

[daviddee]

He fought Jones Jnr and Hopkins the 2 best fighters at that weight didn't need to fight anyone else.. Joe also fought Lacy who was the Ward of the time.. Anyone who believes Froch wouldn't of been schooled by Calzaghe should just stop following boxing.. Complete different levels and the Kessler fights showed that. As for Groves and Degale if Froch takes the fight with Groves he will lose his belts. He will lose them anyway because Ward schools him again. Only fight there that he could win is the Kessler rematch and that's a 50/50 fight.. He should move to light heavy and fight Cleverley no doubt a lot of you idiots on here will say Froch destroys Cleverley ask yourself why he has never took the huge pay day.. I like Froch he has a great chin but is quite limited and will never be the best in his division unlike Calzaghe at 2 weights.. But I'm sure we will hear different from the experts ^^^^^^

[Quixall]

He fought Jones Jnr and Hopkins the 2 best fighters at that weight didn't need to fight anyone else.. Joe also fought Lacy who was the Ward of the time.. Anyone who believes Froch wouldn't of been schooled by Calzaghe should just stop following boxing.. Complete different levels and the Kessler fights showed that. As for Groves and Degale if Froch takes the fight with Groves he will lose his belts. He will lose them anyway because Ward schools him again. Only fight there that he could win is the Kessler rematch and that's a 50/50 fight.. He should move to light heavy and fight Cleverley no doubt a lot of you idiots on here will say Froch destroys Cleverley ask yourself why he has never took the huge pay day.. I like Froch he has a great chin but is quite limited and will never be the best in his division unlike Calzaghe at 2 weights.. But I'm sure we will hear different from the experts ^^^^^^

Jones was a washed up fighter looking for a payday and Hopkins was a fighter well past his prime years. Kessler was a far harder fight than Jones and there was more certainty amonst the critics that Calzaghe would beat Hopkins than was the case when Joe fought Kessler. The Kessler fight was seen as 50-50, where as people thought Hopkins was too old to cause any real concern. Froch would not have been schooled by Calzaghe. It would have been a close fight that maybe Joe would have edged. On what grounds do you think Groves beats Froch ? It's fantasy land. Groves is no-where near the level of Froch at the moment. Why would he move to light heavyweight and fight Cleverley ? What does Cleverly offer ? You as sure as hell are no expert, that's for sure.

[fist]

Froch is a fabulous fighter, but I feel Calzaghe was more successful and a better boxer. Joe fought all those put in front of him, including an in prime undefeated Kessler, at a time when critics were speculating (wrongly) that Calzaghe would duck him. Of course he wouldn't, he was a fighter and wanted to be the best. His success made him undisputed. Something Froch has not achieved yet. And its the latter and his two losses, which of course have provided the motivation to challange big names reguarly in recent years. Calzaghes dominance prevented such a scattering of supposed big names. Plus the fact that Joe retired and left an array of belts amongst some good boxers led to the unique Super Six, which Froch would have been insane not to be involved in, just as all the participants would have been. Calzaghe was never in that situation, partly because he dominated and ended up undisputed. Froch fought Bute because he was chasing a belt. Froch fought Kessler for a second time cos he wanted a belt and to avenge his loss. Joe was never in these situations because he kept winning. I also think as much as the comeback against Taylor was good, you cant ignore just how superior a declining Taylor was for much of the fight.

Kessler is seen as an example of Froch chasing big names, yet Calzaghe risked his titles and zero when Kessler was at his peak and undefeated. Johnson does not hugely enhance Froch's record and most other big names were part of the Super 6.

My point being that as much as Froch is a great fighter and deserves lots of respect, he is not as good as Calzaghe, and the argurments about opposition are misleading and relative to an indivual's successes and failures - remember, Lacy for example was one of the 'big' names just as some of Froch's opponents get referenced, until Calzaghe destroyed him - Joes dominance negated the weight of the name in a sense, because many backtracked and simply categorised Lacy as overhyped. What is less subjective is that Calzaghe won all belts.

[expe]

What do you mean "keeps demading catch weight fights" ? He hasn't even fought above 168lbs.............

Eddie Hearn mentioned that if he fought Hopkins, then a catch weight would have to be used because of the weight Hopkins would be on fight night. Hopkins wants the fight it seems and says he can go to super-middle weight or a catch weight to get a deal for the fight. Some fighters can move up and be effective, others struggle, who knows how Carl would feel at 175lbs. Calzaghe moved up because it was a struggle to make 168lbs and he hadd good reason to with the fights against Hopkins and Jones. Froch has fish to fry at 168lbs. A bute re-match, a Ward re-match, even a Kessler third fight or a domestic battle against Groves.

My respect for Froch is based on the fact he will fight anyone, anywhere, what's the difference with going up a weight to that? Hopkins is a natural middleweight, if he can make 168, make it there, if he can't, make it at 175, Hopkins IBF title means he can only put on 10lbs and I doubt he puts that much on, plus he's not the type to out strength someone to win. He suggested a catchweight for any light heavyweight fights he may have.

I don't think Bute will fight Froch again, he's moved up to light heavy, but he won't be back out until December, that fight wouldn't be possible until May next year and I don't think Bute wants it anyway.

A Ward rematch goes the same as the first fight, with Ward being as, if not more, dominant this time around. I don't think he would travel here either.

The Kessler rematch on neutral ground is Froch's best option IMO. I think the best options would be Germany, Atlantic City, Las Vegas or maybe take it to Oakland as co main event to Ward's next fight with the winner fighting Ward in Las Vegas in a rematch.

I would be surprised if Booth throws Groves in with Froch yet, I think he needs 3 or 4 more fights yet before he's ready for that.

[Quixall]

What do you mean "keeps demading catch weight fights" ? He hasn't even fought above 168lbs.............

Eddie Hearn mentioned that if he fought Hopkins, then a catch weight would have to be used because of the weight Hopkins would be on fight night. Hopkins wants the fight it seems and says he can go to super-middle weight or a catch weight to get a deal for the fight. Some fighters can move up and be effective, others struggle, who knows how Carl would feel at 175lbs. Calzaghe moved up because it was a struggle to make 168lbs and he hadd good reason to with the fights against Hopkins and Jones. Froch has fish to fry at 168lbs. A bute re-match, a Ward re-match, even a Kessler third fight or a domestic battle against Groves.

My respect for Froch is based on the fact he will fight anyone, anywhere, what's the difference with going up a weight to that? Hopkins is a natural middleweight, if he can make 168, make it there, if he can't, make it at 175, Hopkins IBF title means he can only put on 10lbs and I doubt he puts that much on, plus he's not the type to out strength someone to win. He suggested a catchweight for any light heavyweight fights he may have.

I don't think Bute will fight Froch again, he's moved up to light heavy, but he won't be back out until December, that fight wouldn't be possible until May next year and I don't think Bute wants it anyway.

A Ward rematch goes the same as the first fight, with Ward being as, if not more, dominant this time around. I don't think he would travel here either.

The Kessler rematch on neutral ground is Froch's best option IMO. I think the best options would be Germany, Atlantic City, Las Vegas or maybe take it to Oakland as co main event to Ward's next fight with the winner fighting Ward in Las Vegas in a rematch.

I would be surprised if Booth throws Groves in with Froch yet, I think he needs 3 or 4 more fights yet before he's ready for that.

There are a lot of variables being thrown around there. Regardless of the possible outcomes or your percieved outcomes, there are many fights at 168lbs for Froch. I think there is a good chance that the Ward fight will happen and in this country aswell. Ward will view it as an easy fight and i agree that Ward wins a re-match, though i can see a closer fight than last time. Groves is being touted and could be an option 18 months from now. Bute, as you say, may not want any part of Frooch again, but it is a possibilty down the road. The Kessler fight or another Kessler fight i can see happenning. As for Hopkins. I don't know the science behind weight loss, weight gain, fighting weight, walking around weight or fight night weight, suffice to say that Eddie Hearn has suggested that Hopkins weight on fight night would give too much advantage to Hopkins. I agree with you, in that Hopkins is a natural middleweight and i don't see any problem with that fight being made at 168lbs, because Hopkins could fight at that weight if he really wanted to. I can't see Froch actually moving up to light heavyweight, because there is no real reason to do so. Fights could be collaberated between 168 and 175lbs fighters, as was the case with Dawson and Ward and Pascal moved up and fought Hopkins etc, but i don't see that road for Carl personally.

[Quixall]

Froch is a fabulous fighter, but I feel Calzaghe was more successful and a better boxer. Joe fought all those put in front of him, including an in prime undefeated Kessler, at a time when critics were speculating (wrongly) that Calzaghe would duck him. Of course he wouldn't, he was a fighter and wanted to be the best. His success made him undisputed. Something Froch has not achieved yet. And its the latter and his two losses, which of course have provided the motivation to challange big names reguarly in recent years. Calzaghes dominance prevented such a scattering of supposed big names. Plus the fact that Joe retired and left an array of belts amongst some good boxers led to the unique Super Six, which Froch would have been insane not to be involved in, just as all the participants would have been. Calzaghe was never in that situation, partly because he dominated and ended up undisputed. Froch fought Bute because he was chasing a belt. Froch fought Kessler for a second time cos he wanted a belt and to avenge his loss. Joe was never in these situations because he kept winning. I also think as much as the comeback against Taylor was good, you cant ignore just how superior a declining Taylor was for much of the fight.

Kessler is seen as an example of Froch chasing big names, yet Calzaghe risked his titles and zero when Kessler was at his peak and undefeated. Johnson does not hugely enhance Froch's record and most other big names were part of the Super 6.

My point being that as much as Froch is a great fighter and deserves lots of respect, he is not as good as Calzaghe, and the argurments about opposition are misleading and relative to an indivual's successes and failures - remember, Lacy for example was one of the 'big' names just as some of Froch's opponents get referenced, until Calzaghe destroyed him - Joes dominance negated the weight of the name in a sense, because many backtracked and simply categorised Lacy as overhyped. What is less subjective is that Calzaghe won all belts.

Some good points fist. I think it's down to how you view it personally, what you think counts in terms of being a fighter that is recognised and respected. First off, i and most people would agree that Calzaghe was the more skillful boxer. I agree that Taylor was outboxing Froch and dominated much of the fight before running out of gas, but that in a large part was down to what Carl did and he still had to finish the job. He did that and credit to him for it. Froch is also a lot better and more experienced fighter than when he faced Taylor. I agree that teh super six tournament came at a good time for Froch and he would have joined whatever the circumstances. What the super six did, was to give Froch world level fights against genuine world title holders in back to back fights over a two year period. Regardless of anything else, having constant big fights and no interim fights has to be respected, regardless of how and why the super six tourmament came about.

I think Calzaghe gains great credit for beating Kessler when he was in his prime years and undefeated. I also think that he perhaps viirtually ended the career of Jeff Lacy. Prior to that fight, Lacy was seen as someoen who was going to blast Joe to pieces. Was Lacy over hyped or was Joe that good that he damaged Lacy beyond a point at which he could return as the fighter he should have been. I am inclined to think he was over-hyped. Dirrel was nothing special and Johnson over the hill, though awkward. For me, its the activity in the super six, plus the wins over Bute and Kessler and a still very dangerous Jermaine Taylor that makes me say that Froch has got the better leagacy. I said in a previous post that Carl's Dirrell and Johnson were Joes's Bika and Jones. Carl's Taylor was Joe's Hopkins and it could be said that Carl's Bute was Joe's Lacy. All subjective of course, but for me its the sustained activity over a short period of time against genuine world title holders that makes me give the nod to Froch and not Calzaghe.

[Bricks]

Has Carl Froch's legacy now overtaken that of Joe Calzaghe's ?

I feel that Carl's leagacy has now gone beyond that of Calzaghe's. I don't place much credence on unbeaten fighting records, because that can say as much about match making, as it can about your ability. For me, Calzaghe's reputation was built on the back of three things. Firstly, he was unbeaten. Secondly, he beat Kessler, when Kessler was in his prime years and thirdly, he beat two names in Hopkins and Jones. The first has been answered. I think he gains genuine credability for beating Kessler in his prime. I think that Jones was shot to pieces and that the Hopkins win shouldn't be hailed as highly as it seems to have been. Hopkins is a tricky opponent in many respects, but he is still an old fighter. He was an old fighter when Calzaghe fought him and it was a close fight in my eyes. It felt to me that he beat the name and not the man, in that the Hopkins that Joe fought wasn't the guy who fought Trinidad or Oscar, but neverless was still capable and is still capable of beating younger fighters. Bika was a decent name and Lacy was a guy with a big reputation who had yet to fight outside of his comfort zone. Though Joe destroyed him, it just seemed to prove that the hype wasn't justified in the first place.

Froch isn't unbeaten. Does that matter ? Not to me. He has lost to two exceptional fighters, one for whom he has just sought a succesful revengence in Kessler. The other, Andre Ward, for me is a very talented fighter and one that i feel Carl will never beat on the basis that Carl is too limited technically. However, Carl has done things that Joe hasn't done. Carl has fought back to back fights against genuine world class fighters, in their primes for the most part and has travelled away from his own country to do so. He has fought Kessler twice, Taylor, Ward, Dirrell, Johnson, Abraham and Bute. These list of fighters in my opinion are ahead of the fighters that Joe fought in his career. Carl's Johnson is equal to Joe's Jones. Carl's Dirrel is equal to Joe's Bika. They both fought Kessler and maybe Joe has the edge because he beat him when he was undefeated and the first time around. I would say that Jermaine Taylor at the time he fought Carl was a more dangerous opponent than Joe fighting Hopkins. Overall, Carl has fought more genuine world championship fighters and at a time in their careers when they were still "live". He has also comeback from two defeats, which for me says a lot about a fighter.

For me, Carl has not ducked opponents. He has travelled to other people's home cities to take on genuine world operators. Calzaghe fought three named fighters in Jones, Hopkins and Kessler. Froch was fought six named fighters in Bute, Taylor, Kessler, Johnson, Ward and Abraham. Froch fought these fighters back to back over a two year period, not taking any easy interim fights, though i guess that was contractual because of the super six set up, but the point still stands. Froch came back from two defeats, so was challenged mentally and prevailed. Froch went back in with one of his main rivals and won a re-match. Froch to me, though this is perhaps outside of the deabte, is an exciting fighter to watch. I think he perhaps lacks some of the technical subtleties of Calzaghe, but from a fans point of view, i think his fights generate more excitement, akin to the Benn / Eubank / Watson days. I also recognise that the Jones and Hopkins fights for Calzaghe were at light heavyweight and not super middleweight, but have to be included to have a wholesome debate.

I think Froch edges it.

How do you see it ?

Froch is ahead now. He is far far more technically gifted than people are able to see. Concrete chin exceptional stamina lightning reflexes a strong plan a and plan b equally adept onback foot and very underrated power values with slow hands and feet

[Bricks]

He fought Jones Jnr and Hopkins the 2 best fighters at that weight didn't need to fight anyone else.. Joe also fought Lacy who was the Ward of the time.. Anyone who believes Froch wouldn't of been schooled by Calzaghe should just stop following boxing.. Complete different levels and the Kessler fights showed that. As for Groves and Degale if Froch takes the fight with Groves he will lose his belts. He will lose them anyway because Ward schools him again. Only fight there that he could win is the Kessler rematch and that's a 50/50 fight.. He should move to light heavy and fight Cleverley no doubt a lot of you idiots on here will say Froch destroys Cleverley ask yourself why he has never took the huge pay day.. I like Froch he has a great chin but is quite limited and will never be the best in his division unlike Calzaghe at 2 weights.. But I'm sure we will hear different from the experts ^^^^^^

You're an assclown. how the he'll was Lacy the ward of his time.grove isn't ready for Froch he may never be. Gallagher was a formidable fighter but any version of Jones under 35 annihilated him and a 200 year old Hopkins beat him no matter what the fools think.imagine how prime hopkins would have foreman grilled his ass.

I said it on here immediately after the first fight.ward caught Froch on his worst ever night. Froch beats him in a rematch. Even if they never fight the Hopkins fight is a bigger stain on calzaghe than ward is on froch.

[Quixall]

He fought Jones Jnr and Hopkins the 2 best fighters at that weight didn't need to fight anyone else.. Joe also fought Lacy who was the Ward of the time.. Anyone who believes Froch wouldn't of been schooled by Calzaghe should just stop following boxing.. Complete different levels and the Kessler fights showed that. As for Groves and Degale if Froch takes the fight with Groves he will lose his belts. He will lose them anyway because Ward schools him again. Only fight there that he could win is the Kessler rematch and that's a 50/50 fight.. He should move to light heavy and fight Cleverley no doubt a lot of you idiots on here will say Froch destroys Cleverley ask yourself why he has never took the huge pay day.. I like Froch he has a great chin but is quite limited and will never be the best in his division unlike Calzaghe at 2 weights.. But I'm sure we will hear different from the experts ^^^^^^

You're an assclown. how the he'll was Lacy the ward of his time.grove isn't ready for Froch he may never be. Gallagher was a formidable fighter but any version of Jones under 35 annihilated him and a 200 year old Hopkins beat him no matter what the fools think.imagine how prime hopkins would have foreman grilled his ass.

I said it on here immediately after the first fight.ward caught Froch on his worst ever night. Froch beats him in a rematch. Even if they never fight the Hopkins fight is a bigger stain on calzaghe than ward is on froch.

Always good to read your posts Mugabi.........

I agree with two of your statements. I also think that a pre Ruiz Jones beats Calzaghe with comparative ease. I also thought that Hopkins won the fight with Calzaghe by a round. Calzaghe didn't start to get anywhere in that fight until the seventh round and had been put down by Hopkins. Hopkins ran out of steam to a degree and Calzaghe slapped his way back and that is no criticism of Joe, it's just what he did. Again, a prime Hopkins eats him alive and as you say, a lot of people think Hopkins won that fight. The only point i wouldn't agree on is your analysis that Ward would lose to Carl in a re-match. I think that Ward has the wrong style for Froch completely. Yes, Froch wasn't on form, he got his tactics wrong, but he is fairly predictable in his fighting style. Carl leads with the jab now and then comes in with counter punches, where as at one time the jab wasn't there. But Froch still likes a fighter who comes forward. Kessler was giving Froch problems in the 4th and 5th rounds simply because of upper body and head movement, making Froch's jab less effective and Kessler less easy to counter. The major difference here is that Kessler relents and goes for the big punches and stands toe to toe, where as Ward will stay out of distance all night long.