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

[Quixall]

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

All your arguments go out of the window, because with that statement you have just shown up your own agenda !!

[Quixall]

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!!

Oh the irony, if only you could take the blinkers off for a minute and see it. Talk about self awareness lol

[Quixall]

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.

So you think that Taylor, Abraham and Kessler were washed up ?? Hmmm

Reid isn't worth mentioning and i agree with you about Johnson. Dirrel was a poor performance. His best performance was at the weekend, not against Pascal.

[Quixall]

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.

[Quixall]

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.

I personally don't think much weight will be given to an unbeaten record. If he had faced a prime Jones, Hopkins or a Toney even and remained unbeaten, then yes, i would agree with you, but his record is a bit dull with some half exploded fireworks at the end. I don't think Calzaghe will be remembered at all outside of this country and that alos applies to Froch, but both will be remembered here in the UK.

[Quixall]

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

Final round, this post you write literally sums up this debate. You perfectly describe Calzaghe when talking of Pavlik and this is why a lot of people go for Froch in terms of Legacy, because that is the sort of challenge Froch would have gone for, no question.

[Quixall]

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 :)

Slightly off topic, but i was thinking the other day how unbelievable it was that Lennox and Bowe never fought in the pro ranks. How was that allowed to happen ?? I am sure it was Bowe who didn't want the fight, but it should have happenned.

Anyway, back to Froch lol.

[banjo]

He faced his Jones

Nah, Andre Ward hasn't failed a piss test, Wards better than that.

[Quixall]

He faced his Jones

Nah, Andre Ward hasn't failed a piss test, Wards better than that.

Even Calzaghe didn't face "his Jones" more a shadow of the shadow of THE Jones Jr...............

How can Ward be made equal to a late 30's slow, sluggish Jones ? Who also put Calzaghe down !! A prime Jones would have taken on Calzaghe and Ward on the same night and then finished off with a basket ball game

[banjo]

A prime Jones was suspicious.

[Pug1]

A prime Jones was suspicious.

How so?

[SamWise72]

He faced his Jones

Nah, Andre Ward hasn't failed a piss test, Wards better than that.

Even Calzaghe didn't face "his Jones" more a shadow of the shadow of THE Jones Jr...............

How can Ward be made equal to a late 30's slow, sluggish Jones ? Who also put Calzaghe down !! A prime Jones would have taken on Calzaghe and Ward on the same night and then finished off with a basket ball game

You've missed my point. Calzaghe DIDN'T face Jones til Jones was long gone and no threat. Froch did face his Jones, in that he fought the very best at the weight, and maybe the P4P best at the top of his game, and he wants to come back for more even though he lost. Calzaghe didn't face the Jones he needed to cement his legacy.

[banjo]

Have people forgotten he and Richard Hall failed a test after their fight?

[Quixall]

Sam,

I get you now and i totally agree

[Pug1]

Have people forgotten he and Richard Hall failed a test after their fight?

Sample A failed for both fighters, but sample B was clear for both fighters.

[banjo]

Have people forgotten he and Richard Hall failed a test after their fight?

Sample A failed for both fighters, but sample B was clear for both fighters.

Fair enough.

[expe]

Have people forgotten he and Richard Hall failed a test after their fight?

Sample A failed for both fighters, but sample B was clear for both fighters.

That's even more suspicious, what are the chances of the test being wrong once, let alone twice?

[Quixall]

Let's not turn this thread into a debate about Roy Jones and testing

[fist]

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.

Its not off topic at all, for me this all relates to legacy.

[Pat Butcher]

What risks? Super 6 was an obvious route if he wanted to have a chance of being the best. Fighting Bute was not some crazy risk, it was a challange for a belt when he did not have one. FIghting Kessler was not some crazy risk - he had previously lost and had the chance of another belt and lots of money. These types of risks were not available to Joe because he beat everyone - his dominance negated the notion that there were loads of big names out there. Kessler of course, was a big name then, and for a time many said Joe would duck the fight, yet he put his zero and belt on the line to fight an undefeated Kessler in his prime, as big a risk as Froch ever took. My point is this comparison of resume and risk is pointless - it is all relative to their successes and failures. Most relevant point is that everyone pretty much gives Froch respect for his achievements, but acknowleges that he is not as good as Calzaghe was, he has not unified, and is not the best in his division.

Entering super 6 had it's risks. Dirrell and Ward were 2 top dangerous prospects that would have been avoided withhout S6. Abraham was regarded a dangerous opponent and Kessler was in it. Entering meant no ducking, just facing who you were drawn against. Before the tournament Froch had the WBC belt and 2 good fights behind him so he could have sat back and earnt some easier money fighting the likes of Green/Bika/Magee/Miranda etc and could have dictated home venues for these fights too. He put his belt on the line to fight the best and and lost control over match making and venues for fights. I think that classes as a risk.

After S6 his first fight was Bute - highly rated even if he doesn't turn out to be that good (we'll see after Pascal fight). Yeah Froch had no belt and had a lot to gain but there were easier options - Stieglitz held a belt and Froch had a big enough name to earn easy money. Instead he chose possibly the highest profile fight against the highest rated SMW he hadn't faced.

Even before S6 fighting Taylor was risky. He had a belt and could have made a few defences and padded his record. He chased Taylor and went to the US to fighht him. Taylor ended up getting in shape and looked good in the fight and the risk nearly cost Froch big time.

They're the risks I'm talking about. I'm a Calzaghe fan too as well as Froch. Legacy isn't just numbers on a record. To me it includes the actual performances, risks, circumstances of each fight and what a fighter is remembered for. Froch is known for fighting anyone and everyone, having guts and determination. Part of his legacy is shaming other boxers for staying in their comfort zones. Once Froch got to world level he just fought world level fighters with the exception of Mack. Johnson was a bit past it too but not a bad fight in the run he's had and was also a semi in S6.

Joe's legacy is all about his 0. He's got a great record and his best win (imo Kessler) is better than any single win for Froch. Only problem is Joe had a belt for 10 years but mainly stayed comfy and didn't pursue big fights like Froch. So for that I'll go with Froch for best legacy - what he's leaving behind for boxing.

[Pug1]

Froch takes it based on the fights he has taken and when he took them.
Calzaghe could have been so much more.

[SamWise72]

Exactly. We'll never know how good Joe was, because he was never tested to the limit, and he didn't fight anyone who was likely to do it.

[Giancarlo]

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

[polecateddy]

An interesting point I think is that it's impossible to say with a great deal of certainty that Joe would have beaten all of Carl's opponents or visa versa. Which in itself a sign of the quality in the opposition.

[banjo]

It is very easy to pick apart fight records I mean take Roy Jones Jr. as an example, the best victory on his record was over James Toney, Bernard Hopkins was yet to hit his peak and Mike McCallum must have been in his 40's and his light heavyweight reign was no more spectacular than Joe Calzaghes super middleweight reign, a couple of old champions, gatekeeper level opponents and the occasional pudding. Yet people automatically go "one of the greatest of all time" Jones was certainly a showman but its not like he took on every opponent available himself is it?