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

[RJP]

Joe was supremely talented fighter but was content marking time throughout much of his career fighting dross (Pudwill, Manfredo etc). Any attempt to place Calzaghe in an all-time list is ultimately hypothetical as Joe never really allowed us to gauge his talents against the best opposition available (Reid, Kessler, Lacy, Hopkins being amongst rare exceptions).

Froch, however, has consistently been willing to fight the best in a way that I've never seen a British fighter do before and therefore is above Calzaghe in my ATG list.

[daviddee]

Ha I am Scottish but the point of this thread is it full of English people who think Froch is better basically because Joe is Welsh. If Joe was English this Legacy question would not be hear fact

[Jack B]

Calzaghe the better boxer, and had they fought when it could have realistically happened (2006-7) he would have won. But Froch has fought a much higher level of opposition, in a tougher environment, over a more sustained period, with a lot of success, and therefore he has the better record.

[polecateddy]

Simply put Froch has the better record now, but Joe was the better fighter. Even now Froch may not be able to handle Hopkins.

[TopGun]

Ha I am Scottish but the point of this thread is it full of English people who think Froch is better basically because Joe is Welsh. If Joe was English this Legacy question would not be hear fact

Terrible comment. That would not determine the majority of people's thoughts on here at all.

[daviddee]

It's the complete truth a lot of narrow minded people!! Not every person but a large majority!! There is no comparison Joe has a legacy at the minute Carl doesn't it really is as simple as that!!

[Final round]

Taking the negative slant that is shown to Joe Calzaghe's career.
Would it be fair to say Carl beat a washed up Jermain Taylor, Robin Reid, Arthur Abraham, Glen Johnson and Mikkel Kessler? scraped past Andre 'Who' Dirrell and his best win was against Jean Pascal who got whipped by an OAP.and the glass jawed unproven Bute.

[Jack B]

Taking the negative slant that is shown to Joe Calzaghe's career.
Would it be fair to say Carl beat a washed up Jermain Taylor, Robin Reid, Arthur Abraham, Glen Johnson and Mikkel Kessler? scraped past Andre 'Who' Dirrell and his best win was against Jean Pascal who got whipped by an OAP.and the glass jawed unproven Bute.

I think there's a little bit of revisionist history in that comment!!!

Jermain Taylor - probably past his best but was the favourite going into the fight, only after Froch and Abraham KO'd him could he be considered washed up.

Robin Reid - way past his best, but not considered one of Froch's elite opponents, merely a stay busy fight at domestic level.

Arthur Abraham - big favourite going into the fight, had only lost once, Froch exposed him as a B+ level boxer with a virtuoso performance.

Glen Johnson - obviously old but still tough and durable, had come off a KO win and a dangerous 'second-tier' fighter.

Mikkel Kessler - warrior, won his last 4 (including a victory over Froch), destroyed Brian Magee in his previous fight, a great win for Carl.

Andre Dirrell - close decision, probably fortunate, but Dirrell a wonderful boxer who would have given anybody in the world problems (proven in his next fight vs Abraham).

Jean Pascal - live challenger, first world level opponent, great win for Carl.

Lucien Bute - undefeated, big favourite going into the fight, Carl destroyed him and probably ruined his career - mainly similarities to the Calzaghe-Lacy fight.

Put simply, go down their records and look at Froch's best opponents lined up against Calzaghe's best. No comparison. Carl every day of the week.

[youngrell]

As most have said, Froch has fought the better level of opponents, but Calzaghe was the better fighter.

In terms of legacy, I think Joe still pips it. I believe he will be remembered in history for longer than Carl Foch will be, mainly down to his unbeaten record and that being such a rare thing in boxing.

All this nonsense of people belittling the other fighter's CV in order to big up your favourite fighter is quite pathetic, it's so easy to pick apart anyone's resume, I'd rather look at the positives. And for those suggesting anyone who sides with Calzaghe "must be from the Valleys", fvck you and your stupid ideals of all Welshmen being so stupid that they blindly follow another Welshman no matter how good/bad he is. If you want to take that viewpoint, take a look at yourselves and your preference of Carl Foch.

As a big fan of Calzaghe, nobody was more frustrated with his career than me but to rubbish his whole CV is more than a little harsh. At the time of his retirement he had cemented his standing as the number 1 SMW, beat the consensus number 1 LHW and was rated by most as either number 3 or 4 P4P. Froch has never been near any of those feats yet. All these points increase Joe's legacy.

I'd also like to point out that both careers have gone along different paths due to different circumstances. Froch has never been in a position where he can sit on a belt picking up regular cash at home, so we will never know if he would have made that choice, and similarly with Calzaghe, he was never forced to go to the lions den or into a super 6 tournament due to not having any TV backing so we will never know if he would have had the balls to do so. Froch has shown tremendous will to be as good as he can be, but he also didn't really have much choice IMO.

[Final round]

Taking the negative slant that is shown to Joe Calzaghe's career.
Would it be fair to say Carl beat a washed up Jermain Taylor, Robin Reid, Arthur Abraham, Glen Johnson and Mikkel Kessler? scraped past Andre 'Who' Dirrell and his best win was against Jean Pascal who got whipped by an OAP.and the glass jawed unproven Bute.

I think there's a little bit of revisionist history in that comment!!!


Jermain Taylor - probably past his best but was the favourite going into the fight, only after Froch and Abraham KO'd him could he be considered washed up.

Taylor got knocked out at MW and then out pointed at a CW against Kelly Pavlik. Froch got completely outboxed before finally grinding him down

Robin Reid - way past his best, but not considered one of Froch's elite opponents, merely a stay busy fight at domestic level.
yes, you could also say Yuesef Mack was his Manfredo type cash in

Arthur Abraham - big favourite going into the fight, had only lost once, Froch exposed him as a B+ level boxer with a virtuoso performance.
Andre 'who' Direll did him first handling him easily, exposing AA as a career MW who has since proved his formidable power did not travel upwards with him.


Glen Johnson - obviously old but still tough and durable, had come off a KO win and a dangerous 'second-tier' fighter.
Froch made hard work of an old Johnson who Bute had no problems out boxing clearly the same year

Mikkel Kessler - warrior, won his last 4 (including a victory over Froch), destroyed Brian Magee in his previous fight, a great win for Carl.

Carl lost against a Kessler who had already been beaten by Calzaghe a few years before and had just been rough housed out of a fight by Ward.Wins against Bouadia, Green and Magee are far away from the pinnacle of Mikkels career


Andre Dirrell - close decision, probably fortunate, but Dirrell a wonderful boxer who would have given anybody in the world problems (proven in his next fight vs Abraham).

Who's best win is AA who one fight later was then comprehensively 'outboxed' by ..Carl Froch.

Jean Pascal - live challenger, first world level opponent, great win for Carl.

in the end Pascal never beat anyone of note at super middle.
Lucien Bute - undefeated, big favourite going into the fight, Carl destroyed him and probably ruined his career - mainly similarities to the Calzaghe-Lacy fight.

Big hype job best wins were stopping an old Andrade, Magee and Miranda.


Put simply, go down their records and look at Froch's best opponents lined up against Calzaghe's best. No comparison. Carl every day of the week.

Revisionist history at it's worst (!! with elements of hard truths thrown in)

Disclaimer; I'm a Froch fan!

[Final round]

Joe was supremely talented fighter but was content marking time throughout much of his career fighting dross (Pudwill, Manfredo etc). Any attempt to place Calzaghe in an all-time list is ultimately hypothetical as Joe never really allowed us to gauge his talents against the best opposition available (Reid, Kessler, Lacy, Hopkins being amongst rare exceptions).

Froch, however, has consistently been willing to fight the best in a way that I've never seen a British fighter do before and therefore is above Calzaghe in my ATG list.

I agree with you there also I think Calzaghe would have beaten everyone of Froch's opponents but he didn't seem as willing to prove his himself against all comers like Froch.
E.g When Pavlik was riding high he was calling out Calzaghe left right and centre but Jc jus didn't want to know . Hopkins grabbed it and Lacy'd him. No doubt that Joe would have chinned him the same way but naah.
Shame Joe never fought Superman in his prime

[SamWise72]

What I think is, I'm not looking at Froch and thinking about all the guys I wish he would fight. I'm thinking there's only one meaningful fight left for him at SMW, and that's not because he hasn't already fought Ward. I know exactly how good Froch is. I suspect that's not as good as Calzaghe, but I don't know and that's because Joe didn't care whether he ever proved himself. Therefore, for me at least, Froch's legacy of amazingly exciting fights against the very best there was out there is worth a lot more than Joe's sparkling performances in avoiding the best.

I'll never even know how Joe would have fared against Frankie Liles, never mind Jones, Ottke, Brewer at his peak, Hopkins in his prime etc. What questions like that do you have of Froch? He faced his Jones, and he wants to do it again despite being shut out. Incomparable.

[danconnollyeire]

[quote="SamWise72"]What I think is, I'm not looking at Froch and thinking about all the guys I wish he would fight. I'm thinking there's only one meaningful fight left for him at SMW, and that's not because he hasn't already fought Ward. I know exactly how good Froch is. I suspect that's not as good as Calzaghe, but I don't know and that's because Joe didn't care whether he ever proved himself. Therefore, for me at least, Froch's legacy of amazingly exciting fights against the very best there was out there is worth a lot more than Joe's sparkling performances in avoiding the best.

I'll never even know how Joe would have fared against Frankie Liles, never mind Jones, Ottke, Brewer at his peak, Hopkins in his prime etc. What questions like that do you have of Froch? He faced his Jones, and he wants to do it again despite being shut out. Incomparable.[/quote]

That's the icing on the cake

[banjo]

Ha I am Scottish but the point of this thread is it full of English people who think Froch is better basically because Joe is Welsh. If Joe was English this Legacy question would not be hear fact

He was born in England and has a Sardinian father, he's about as Welsh as I am.

[SamWise72]

Ha I am Scottish but the point of this thread is it full of English people who think Froch is better basically because Joe is Welsh. If Joe was English this Legacy question would not be hear fact

I am comfortable levelling the same criticism at Benn and Eubank. Benn in particular tested himself to his limit, but he didn't go after the biggest fights. It feels more like a criticism of Joe because he so easily outclassed most of his opponents, but wouldn't step up. Benn stepped up til he was going life and death and losing some. I wish he'd faced Jones, but I know what the result would have been.

Now cue someone saying it's because Benn and Eubank are black, and if they were english and white, there would not be the same questions etc etc. I just don't see anyone in my lifetime who tried so hard to face the best apart from perhaps Lennox Lewis. Herol Graham also tried to face the best, but they didn't want to know him :)

[martinmrts]

never mind the legacy, which made the most money ?

[nh1]

Simply put Froch has the better record now, but Joe was the better fighter. Even now Froch may not be able to handle Hopkins.

In a nutshell.

[loaded_gloves]

Ha I am Scottish but the point of this thread is it full of English people who think Froch is better basically because Joe is Welsh. If Joe was English this Legacy question would not be hear fact

Please don't project your own bigotry onto all of us.

[lillywhite14]

Ha I am Scottish but the point of this thread is it full of English people who think Froch is better basically because Joe is Welsh. If Joe was English this Legacy question would not be hear fact

I'm English and think Jimmy Wilde is the best fighter from British shores.

[fasteddie]

unbeaten records mean shit when you have fought a who's who of boxing and countless old men,the wbo was and is the easiest meanful world title to win especially if bunny was your manager,if he won the wbc or wba back in 97 and held it for that amount of time it would have more meaning to it but he didnt want to defend the meaningful titles,abit like naz did. when you have a record like mayweather and a title cabinet like him then you can say you are the best of your time if not all. but as for the title of this post froch has the better class of opponent all that is missing on it is a win against ward, and remember this,in the super 6 ward was the only fighter who boxed all his matches on home turf.

[fist]

As most have said, Froch has fought the better level of opponents, but Calzaghe was the better fighter.

In terms of legacy, I think Joe still pips it. I believe he will be remembered in history for longer than Carl Foch will be, mainly down to his unbeaten record and that being such a rare thing in boxing.

All this nonsense of people belittling the other fighter's CV in order to big up your favourite fighter is quite pathetic, it's so easy to pick apart anyone's resume, I'd rather look at the positives. And for those suggesting anyone who sides with Calzaghe "must be from the Valleys", fvck you and your stupid ideals of all Welshmen being so stupid that they blindly follow another Welshman no matter how good/bad he is. If you want to take that viewpoint, take a look at yourselves and your preference of Carl Foch.

As a big fan of Calzaghe, nobody was more frustrated with his career than me but to rubbish his whole CV is more than a little harsh. At the time of his retirement he had cemented his standing as the number 1 SMW, beat the consensus number 1 LHW and was rated by most as either number 3 or 4 P4P. Froch has never been near any of those feats yet. All these points increase Joe's legacy.

I'd also like to point out that both careers have gone along different paths due to different circumstances. Froch has never been in a position where he can sit on a belt picking up regular cash at home, so we will never know if he would have made that choice, and similarly with Calzaghe, he was never forced to go to the lions den or into a super 6 tournament due to not having any TV backing so we will never know if he would have had the balls to do so. Froch has shown tremendous will to be as good as he can be, but he also didn't really have much choice IMO.

Good points.

[superpunchout]

As far as standard of competition goes, I struggle to think of any British fighter ever who can match the run of Carl Froch so I don't consider it a slight against Joe Calzaghe to suggest that his resume doesn't even come close.

The trail that Froch has blazed through the SMW division in recent years is not only bloody spectacular in it's own right but it almost seems like a proverbial finger up to decades of traditional British matchmaking (and I do think that Mick Hennessy deserves some of the credit for setting the ball rolling) .

However, I also believe that Calzaghe's achievements are unfairly derided because of the more conventional path he took before his phenomenal indian summer (Lacy-Jones period). In addition, however much his prior opposition has been slated it was still enough to stand him in good stead for when he did eventually did meet other A-list talent.

Speaking of unfair (because it's based on something that never has been/will be proven), conventional wisdom holds that Joe Calzaghe would have beaten Carl Froch if they had ever fought. In spite of everything Froch has done in boxing it never seems to be enough to remove this perception. Does this perception, as immaterial as it might be, have any bearing on their mutual legacies?

[NazNaci1]

Speaking of unfair (because it's based on something that never has been/will be proven), conventional wisdom holds that Joe Calzaghe would have beaten Carl Froch if they had ever fought. In spite of everything Froch has done in boxing it never seems to be enough to remove this perception. Does this perception, as immaterial as it might be, have any bearing on their mutual legacies?

No. As you clealrly state, it is based on something that is not and never will / can proven.

Fight records, list of opposition, circumstances can and should, however, be taken into consideration.

[Quixall]

Yes but that is not what we are debating here, is it. Being objective on who is the better fighter, based on opinion and refusing to debate the question at hand is a cop out, mate. If you don't / can't debate who has the better legacy, better to stay out of thread, rather than try to justify an argument about a topic we are not discussing, purely because its an easier one to defend. That is poor.

For me, Joe should have 2 losses on his record for starters. I could also pull him up on his unwillingness to test himself and happy to take the money in Cardiff. I could also go on about his last two fights, which he thought would be easy and the fact Hopkins, I believed and still do, should have won and worst yet, fighting a shot to pieces RJJ, who Joe and W@rren spent 10 years avoiding, will always reflect badly on him. Hype and bias aside, history will record it this way, whether some like it or not.

I think it is very relevant in the context that I think the notion of Froch having a better resume or somehow took more risks, is a bit of a distraction from the core point about who the better fighter is, which for me is integral to legacy. Particularly as I think the argument itself is flawed one for all the reasons I mentioned. Frochs career path reflects a fighter who has won and lost belts and failed to dominate, like many of the other good champs and challangers that were left and up and coming when Joe left SMW, thus leaving scope for the unique Super 6.

So for me, it is a relevant point, that Froch's legacy has not overtaken Joes, which was the Subject at hand. If you dont agree or dont think it relevant to this thread you can always opt to not reply. Will leave that with you.

There is no "core" point Fist. The thread is about legacy and that alone. I stated at the outset that Calzaghe was the better boxer and most people agree with that, so your posts are pointless really, because you are essentially off topic or driving the debate down a different road in order for you to quanitfy your opinions.

[Quixall]

Yes but that is not what we are debating here, is it. Being objective on who is the better fighter, based on opinion and refusing to debate the question at hand is a cop out, mate. If you don't / can't debate who has the better legacy, better to stay out of thread, rather than try to justify an argument about a topic we are not discussing, purely because its an easier one to defend. That is poor.

For me, Joe should have 2 losses on his record for starters. I could also pull him up on his unwillingness to test himself and happy to take the money in Cardiff. I could also go on about his last two fights, which he thought would be easy and the fact Hopkins, I believed and still do, should have won and worst yet, fighting a shot to pieces RJJ, who Joe and W@rren spent 10 years avoiding, will always reflect badly on him. Hype and bias aside, history will record it this way, whether some like it or not.

I think it is very relevant in the context that I think the notion of Froch having a better resume or somehow took more risks, is a bit of a distraction from the core point about who the better fighter is, which for me is integral to legacy. Particularly as I think the argument itself is flawed one for all the reasons I mentioned. Frochs career path reflects a fighter who has won and lost belts and failed to dominate, like many of the other good champs and challangers that were left and up and coming when Joe left SMW, thus leaving scope for the unique Super 6.

So for me, it is a relevant point, that Froch's legacy has not overtaken Joes, which was the Subject at hand. If you dont agree or dont think it relevant to this thread you can always opt to not reply. Will leave that with you.

To you and only you, it appears to be a relevant point. Froch having a better resume and taken more risk and is not a distraction but a vindication regarding the question at hand.

Who is the better fighter, prime for prime, has very little to do with legacy. Legacy is what you leave behind. Joe had challenges he could have pushed to take but he refused to go down that road. Froch on the other hand by choice or otherwise has pursued this and has picked up a defeat or two. He has avenged one and the only other one is against a fighter Calzaghe would never have travelled to America to fight. Not to mention that Ward, for me, would be more than a handful for Joe.

In a way I admire your insistence regarding this but again, your clouding this argument because it suits you to do so. That's up to you. As I said, history will view things pretty much they way I have laid it out. That is the way it is and will always be so. Whether you want to accept that or not, that is up to you. Whether you wish to tell me again that Joe was a better fighter, well guess what, I agree. Legacies are different though and Joe falls short.

You have answered for me Ben, good post