BoxRec

ALI wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

kingfinn wrote: 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!

I can only agree. Calzaghe was MORE than happy to take the path of least resistance, and only the fame and money Hatton was garnering seemed to give him the spur.

All that cobblers about being afraid of flying too, how embarrassing, when he was seen sat at ringside in Vegas!

Calzaghe had a perfect opportunity to go stateside after the win over Brewer which was a great performance, I remember Warren started marketing him as the italian dragon, trying to get the italian americans interested, then Calzaghe just went back to doing what he did best, fighting no marks for easy money.


Christ it took him ten years to unify the belts!

ender77 wrote:I respect froch because he relishes the challenge and wants to fight the best.

Froch though has the super six to thank for this, take away the supersix and froch resume wouldnt be that great.


Secondly he would have had to fight Andre Ward in his mandatory defence after
Taylor and IMO froch would currently be a former champ in no mans land like his stablemate Junior Witter.


Froch on the other other hand has alreadly lost once, and IMO will not win the super six and when the super six is over you will see Froch career fade into the wilderness.

The super six is a great idea but realistically it shortens a fighters career at top level,
because its the best vs the best. Abraham, Kessler, Taylor, Dirrel, Green all top level fighters have had there careers ruined by the super six.

The only winner winner from the super six is Lucian Bute, because while all his main competetion beat each other up. He can make easy defences and the same kind of Money. Then when the super six is finished the super fight will happen and he will get a multi million payday.

so in other words bute is the new calzaghe, a guy who fights patsies most his career
while avoiding the hard man, and than beats everyone else when they are hot so he can claim he was the best all along? i think bute isnt that kind of guy. Bute belongs in a super 6 unlike calzaghe



The super 6 does not shorten a fighters career if the super middle one is anything to go by. It was done right. The right mix. Some experienced tough world champs along with the best contenders (bar bute) but hey 6 out of 7 aint bad.
My point is if its done right in terms of who competes it shouldnt shorten a career without adequate compensation and opportunity to win a title. Look at froch hes a champ again

Everyone has benefited it has bought a golden era of sorts back for the hardcore fan and most of its contestants bar taylor and green come out with credit. We are seeing who is good and who isnt. We have had great quality fights. Im all for it. The money has been right and despite it not being on sky the exposure has been fine even in the uk cos its on prime time. I do wish tho it was in hd and didnt have al shhitstein ruining it.

Most of us can seperate the question of better resume and best fighter on his best night.

I say froch has the best resume but calzaghe on his best day beats froch in every department.

Another guy raised a great point many forget how bad froch looked against taylor and how he let himself be lured into brawls too easily which as know calzaghe could brawl with the best.

Yet i know froch had a tremendous amateur career he can really box if he needs to as he showed against aa .

Froch didnt turn pro til 24. I see enough in him to suggest he could continue showing more of what he has and in time it may well transpire he beats joe.

I think when froch destroys the vastly overrated ward and outnouses johnson it will be clear froch would beat joe as well as have a better resume.

One thing id say i laugh at is people talking about calzaghe fighting in a super 6 lol due to the strong finish in his career people forget for most his career calzaghe fought lower level comp and routinely cancelled fights for no reason than minor injuries. He also was lucky to get a ill prepared weight drained eubank and the reid fight could just as easily have gone the other way. Richie woodhall pushed him hard and imo he lost to hopkins. Its also a big no no to me that he ddint fight sven ottke.

People also forget that prior to lacey many of joes biggest wins (brewer, mitchell )
were against guys who ottke beat first.

mugabi wrote:

ender77 wrote:I respect froch because he relishes the challenge and wants to fight the best.

Froch though has the super six to thank for this, take away the supersix and froch resume wouldnt be that great.


Secondly he would have had to fight Andre Ward in his mandatory defence after
Taylor and IMO froch would currently be a former champ in no mans land like his stablemate Junior Witter.


Froch on the other other hand has alreadly lost once, and IMO will not win the super six and when the super six is over you will see Froch career fade into the wilderness.

The super six is a great idea but realistically it shortens a fighters career at top level,
because its the best vs the best. Abraham, Kessler, Taylor, Dirrel, Green all top level fighters have had there careers ruined by the super six.

The only winner winner from the super six is Lucian Bute, because while all his main competetion beat each other up. He can make easy defences and the same kind of Money. Then when the super six is finished the super fight will happen and he will get a multi million payday.

so in other words bute is the new calzaghe, a guy who fights patsies most his career
while avoiding the hard man, and than beats everyone else when they are hot so he can claim he was the best all along? i think bute isnt that kind of guy. Bute belongs in a super 6 unlike calzaghe



The super 6 does not shorten a fighters career if the super middle one is anything to go by. It was done right. The right mix. Some experienced tough world champs along with the best contenders (bar bute) but hey 6 out of 7 aint bad.
My point is if its done right in terms of who competes it shouldnt shorten a career without adequate compensation and opportunity to win a title. Look at froch hes a champ again

Everyone has benefited it has bought a golden era of sorts back for the hardcore fan and most of its contestants bar taylor and green come out with credit. We are seeing who is good and who isnt. We have had great quality fights. Im all for it. The money has been right and despite it not being on sky the exposure has been fine even in the uk cos its on prime time. I do wish tho it was in hd and didnt have al shhitstein ruining it.

Most of us can seperate the question of better resume and best fighter on his best night.

I say froch has the best resume but calzaghe on his best day beats froch in every department.

Another guy raised a great point many forget how bad froch looked against taylor and how he let himself be lured into brawls too easily which as know calzaghe could brawl with the best.

Yet i know froch had a tremendous amateur career he can really box if he needs to as he showed against aa .

Froch didnt turn pro til 24. I see enough in him to suggest he could continue showing more of what he has and in time it may well transpire he beats joe.

I think when froch destroys the vastly overrated ward and outnouses johnson it will be clear froch would beat joe as well as have a better resume.

One thing id say i laugh at is people talking about calzaghe fighting in a super 6 lol due to the strong finish in his career people forget for most his career calzaghe fought lower level comp and routinely cancelled fights for no reason than minor injuries. He also was lucky to get a ill prepared weight drained eubank and the reid fight could just as easily have gone the other way. Richie woodhall pushed him hard and imo he lost to hopkins. Its also a big no no to me that he ddint fight sven ottke.

People also forget that prior to lacey many of joes biggest wins (brewer, mitchell )
were against guys who ottke beat first.

So as it stands, Calzaghe beats Froch in every department, but if Froch beats Johnson, it'd then be clear that Froch beats Calzaghe?

Come on man....

what a run of opponents from froch. pascal, taylor, dirrell, kessler and abraham. and glen johnson next. few bnritish fighters get that kind of competition.

encouraging to see improvement from froch. it long frustrated me that he seemed to neglect strategy. especially with him jabbing pascal so well.

of course, in taking on these foes, he is under big pressure to win all, giving calzaghe supporters plenty of opportunity to rag him.

I think it's pretty clear that Calzaghe would be a heavy favourite against Froch, prime for prime, but that Froch has the better record.

Carl has fought better fighters, I can't really see much of an argument to suggest he has not.

If Carl beats Johnson and then wins the Supr 6 final, then it won't even be worth comparing the two fighters records. If he can achieve this then I would love to see Kessler come over to England for a rematch. I think if Carl can stick to a gameplan he can stop him. Then finish against Pascal for the WBC Light Heavyweight Title...if Carlsberg did Boxing careers!

Good post Terry, generally agree. I aint sure Froch has ALREADY got a better resume than Joe. Heading that way for sure and yes, credit for him for taking them on the spin. The fact we can debate it when Joe was a champion for 10 years and Froch a champion for less than 2 - says something about each fighters attitude... although at the moment, I just give Joe the edge in terms of resume. We can nit pick and over analyse Froch's recent opponents as we all have done for Joe's "better" opponents over the years (Lacy never that good, Kessler "green", Eubank past it, Mitchell lost to Ottke - etc etc etc).

There would be no super 6 if Joe Calzaghe was around, not there would be no Joe Calzaghe in the Super 6. It would simply not sell without the "man" in the tournament. Thats was the selling point of the Super 6 it was too find out who the man is. Although, Bute is doing rather well without the Super 6 at the moment.

I'm not sure Froch had the rough end of the draw out of all of the original 6 contenders. There is no way Froch would have got the Dirrell decision out in the USA and that first win creates alot of momentum for the rest of the tourney. I would say Kessler had the toughest draw really cause he was playing catch up and lost the first bout (wouldn't his fight with Taylor/Green been in the US also). Of course there was no second chance for Johnson so he had it pretty tough also. Froch was guarenteed a place in the semi finals win, lose or draw last week - and that was based on a "controvesial" decision win in his home town. Which highlights the importance of that first round.

Out of the three "survivors" of the Super 6 then he has had it the toughest, and Wards had it by far the easiest. Glad Froch won, really am.... he warrants his place in the semi final and warrants 2nd seading. Had he lost on Sat, then he would have been a pretty lucky boy to still be in the tournament.

stujones wrote: 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.

Well, I'm afraid I'm going to stick with what I (and it has to be said, the vast majority of fans in the arena, including the normally boorishly patriotic American mate I went along with) saw that night and maintain that Froch won comfortably. You are, of course, entitled to a different opinion - thats what makes these forums interesting - but I'm happy with mine!

I really struggle to see how anyone can argue Joe fought better fighters or has the better record(surely that's based purely on the '0')

I can't see it. Alas, for the Dirrell-Froch fight, read Reid-Calzaghe. Robin won that fight IMO. Imagine how different Joes record would look if Reid got the nod that night.

Eubank was old, Kessler is the best name on Joes record and even though Joe won that night it wasn't as clear as the judges had it.

Take the best 5 names on each record and compare them.
Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Kessler, Abraham. Sorry but Joes record cannot throw up 5 fighters that match them.

yiddo14 wrote:I really struggle to see how anyone can argue Joe fought better fighters or has the better record(surely that's based purely on the '0')

I can't see it. Alas, for the Dirrell-Froch fight, read Reid-Calzaghe. Robin won that fight IMO. Imagine how different Joes record would look if Reid got the nod that night.

Eubank was old, Kessler is the best name on Joes record and even though Joe won that night it wasn't as clear as the judges had it.

Take the best 5 names on each record and compare them.
Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Kessler, Abraham. Sorry but Joes record cannot throw up 5 fighters that match them.

FACT.

Jones Jr
Hopkins
Kessler
Mitchell
Eubank

Those 5 NAMES are better FACT

If we can be hyper critical, as we have all been regarding Joe's career then there are faults with all of those fighters mentioned.

Dirrell was "green" - if people argue then Kessler was green when he fought Joe - then what about Dirrell who hadn't fought anyone remotedly world class before Froch. Kessler was a green unified champion according to some.

Abraham - hasn't beaten a geniune Super Middle yet. Lost his previous fight.

Taylor - hasn't beaten a geniune Super Middle yet.

Pascal, as Dirrell, very green - didn't win in world class untill after Froch which was at a different weight.

Kessler - lost his previous fight was called "faded" before... and anyway, beat Froch. Peter Buckley has the best resume in world boxing if we start including defeats.

We can all state after the event that Lacy was a no good fighter, over hyped to the extreme... and yes, he was... but he held wins in world class at the time of the Calzaghe fight.

The fact that you can only struggle to name five names in Joe's 10 year championship career to match what Froch has done in 2 years says alot about the problems of Joe's legacy.

I don't think you can really say - oh well "Dirrell vs Froch is the same as Calzaghe vs Reid" for a number of reasons. 1) Even those who think Reid won will state it was tight - don't get that same viewpoint with Dirrell vs Froch. 2) Joe wasn't in his own back yard. 3) Froch didn't have the preperation problems that Joe had. 4) Reid was an experienced former world champion - Dirrell has no major world honour to his name yet.

Whilst I don't think Joe has a 5 fights as good as Froch's (but again, why is the loss being considered a positive). I think he has 3 opponents that more than match up to Froch's five. Eubank wasn't at his best, but I am sure he would have won this Super 6 - he would have boxed Abraham's brains off. Hopkins was a better fighter in 2008 than he is now and Kessler is a much better fighter when he fought Joe than now.... What Joe then has though is a further 4-5 decent fighters who, whilst not as good Froch's remaining two are a good bit better than Froch's pre Pascal victims. The likes of Reid, Woodhall, Brewer, Mitchell, Lacy etc. This is where I give Joe the edge..... but Froch has much more time on his side and if he wins the Super 6 - he beats Joe on Resume. ... but you shouldn't say - well he fought but he lost to and still argue its better than anything Joe did.

dekker88 wrote:

yiddo14 wrote:I really struggle to see how anyone can argue Joe fought better fighters or has the better record(surely that's based purely on the '0')

I can't see it. Alas, for the Dirrell-Froch fight, read Reid-Calzaghe. Robin won that fight IMO. Imagine how different Joes record would look if Reid got the nod that night.

Eubank was old, Kessler is the best name on Joes record and even though Joe won that night it wasn't as clear as the judges had it.

Take the best 5 names on each record and compare them.
Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Kessler, Abraham. Sorry but Joes record cannot throw up 5 fighters that match them.

FACT.

God, I hate people who write "Fact" when it's clearly an opinion.

Almost as much as I hate it when people say "I thought Robin won that fight" when even Robin didn't think he won that fight. Just because one judge, Paul Thomas, thought he won, the other two had Calzaghe a big winner. I though Joe - who was stilly pretty young - won the first seven rounds clearly that night, but broke his hand and had to fiddle his way through the rest.

Froch was brilliant on Saturday and showed a side to him we had never seen before. Had he been patient like that against Dirrell, he wouldn't have looked so terrible that night.

But realistically, as much as it is dumb to review Froch's career until it is over, the same with his opponents too. Who would have thought 18 months that Pascal would have moved on so well. And likewise, what will we be saying of Dirrell in two years time? After all, unlike people like Mitchell, Brewer, Woodhall etc - he hasn't won a title yet.

When Kessler got beat by Ward, all the Calzaghe haters came on here and wrote much the same as they have on this thread. Yet Kessler came back and beat Froch.

Why not appreciate Froch now, rather than force him into pointless comparisons? Much as Calzaghe took years to get out of the shadow of Eubank and Benn, Froch is now out of Calzaghe's shadow. And these comparisons only put him back in it.

Gobbles -here here... and you know I aint no Super Joe fan and I aint trying to voice my opinion to be awkard (as some people have suggested I do).

I just think we need a bit of perspective on it.

gobbles wrote: Why not appreciate Froch now, rather than force him into pointless comparisons? Much as Calzaghe took years to get out of the shadow of Eubank and Benn, Froch is now out of Calzaghe's shadow. And these comparisons only put him back in it.

Thats a fair point - I like/liked both fighters, for what its worth, and see different merits in them both. Calzaghe's legacy is best summed up by saying that he fought within his own narrow parameters (was never willing to risk getting jobbed) but never looked like losing his "0", whilst Froch's legacy will be a lot different if his next six fights involved going 5/1 or 6/0 against Johnson, Ward, Bute, DeGale, Pascal and Dawson from how it would be if he gets sparked by Johnson next time out, or goes 2/6 say.

Andypittcov wrote:Jones Jr
Hopkins
Kessler
Mitchell
Eubank

Those 5 NAMES are better FACT

all pretty much over the hill when joe faced em other than kessler...with the possible exception of b-hop.

didnt mitchell actually have a drug problem when he fought too?

eubank was shot by the time he faced Joe....certainly nowhere near the fighter he had been 5 years earlier.

i'm a jc fan...and always have been since his very early days but it's disingenuous to pretend that Joe ever had a run of fights that anywhere near compares with Frochs over the last 2 years.

stujones wrote:If we can be hyper critical, as we have all been regarding Joe's career then there are faults with all of those fighters mentioned.

Dirrell was "green" - if people argue then Kessler was green when he fought Joe - then what about Dirrell who hadn't fought anyone remotedly world class before Froch. Kessler was a green unified champion according to some.

Abraham - hasn't beaten a geniune Super Middle yet. Lost his previous fight.

Taylor - hasn't beaten a geniune Super Middle yet.

Pascal, as Dirrell, very green - didn't win in world class untill after Froch which was at a different weight.

Kessler - lost his previous fight was called "faded" before... and anyway, beat Froch. Peter Buckley has the best resume in world boxing if we start including defeats.

We can all state after the event that Lacy was a no good fighter, over hyped to the extreme... and yes, he was... but he held wins in world class at the time of the Calzaghe fight.

The fact that you can only struggle to name five names in Joe's 10 year championship career to match what Froch has done in 2 years says alot about the problems of Joe's legacy.

I don't think you can really say - oh well "Dirrell vs Froch is the same as Calzaghe vs Reid" for a number of reasons. 1) Even those who think Reid won will state it was tight - don't get that same viewpoint with Dirrell vs Froch. 2) Joe wasn't in his own back yard. 3) Froch didn't have the preperation problems that Joe had. 4) Reid was an experienced former world champion - Dirrell has no major world honour to his name yet.

Whilst I don't think Joe has a 5 fights as good as Froch's (but again, why is the loss being considered a positive). I think he has 3 opponents that more than match up to Froch's five. Eubank wasn't at his best, but I am sure he would have won this Super 6 - he would have boxed Abraham's brains off. Hopkins was a better fighter in 2008 than he is now and Kessler is a much better fighter when he fought Joe than now.... What Joe then has though is a further 4-5 decent fighters who, whilst not as good Froch's remaining two are a good bit better than Froch's pre Pascal victims. The likes of Reid, Woodhall, Brewer, Mitchell, Lacy etc. This is where I give Joe the edge..... but Froch has much more time on his side and if he wins the Super 6 - he beats Joe on Resume. ... but you shouldn't say - well he fought but he lost to and still argue its better than anything Joe did.

good post.

gobbles wrote:

dekker88 wrote:

yiddo14 wrote:I really struggle to see how anyone can argue Joe fought better fighters or has the better record(surely that's based purely on the '0')

I can't see it. Alas, for the Dirrell-Froch fight, read Reid-Calzaghe. Robin won that fight IMO. Imagine how different Joes record would look if Reid got the nod that night.

Eubank was old, Kessler is the best name on Joes record and even though Joe won that night it wasn't as clear as the judges had it.

Take the best 5 names on each record and compare them.
Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Kessler, Abraham. Sorry but Joes record cannot throw up 5 fighters that match them.

FACT.

God, I hate people who write "Fact" when it's clearly an opinion.

Almost as much as I hate it when people say "I thought Robin won that fight" when even Robin didn't think he won that fight. Just because one judge, Paul Thomas, thought he won, the other two had Calzaghe a big winner. I though Joe - who was stilly pretty young - won the first seven rounds clearly that night, but broke his hand and had to fiddle his way through the rest.

Froch was brilliant on Saturday and showed a side to him we had never seen before. Had he been patient like that against Dirrell, he wouldn't have looked so terrible that night.

But realistically, as much as it is dumb to review Froch's career until it is over, the same with his opponents too. Who would have thought 18 months that Pascal would have moved on so well. And likewise, what will we be saying of Dirrell in two years time? After all, unlike people like Mitchell, Brewer, Woodhall etc - he hasn't won a title yet.

When Kessler got beat by Ward, all the Calzaghe haters came on here and wrote much the same as they have on this thread. Yet Kessler came back and beat Froch.

Why not appreciate Froch now, rather than force him into pointless comparisons? Much as Calzaghe took years to get out of the shadow of Eubank and Benn, Froch is now out of Calzaghe's shadow. And these comparisons only put him back in it.

Terrific post.

Here we have a warrior in Froch, the WBC champ coming off a superb victory, terrific attitude, credit to the sport...

...as was Calzaghe. Terrific boxer, has RETIRED unbeaten, and beaten some good guys along the way.

Also, having met them both, they are very nice guys outside of the ring and would find a lot of this quite sad and pointless. I know many lads and lasses on here have met them too and feel the same way. Lovely blokes...

Both are British, both should be lauded and applauded.

Instead we have the usual debate, when there is no real argument or need for one.

We have talk of two different men, one of which is no longer even competitive, and bickering over who has the best CV

Together with the initial statement that Froch puts "Super Joe to shame"

Pathetic really.

Let's just enjoy Froch, and leave Calzaghe to enjoy his retirement.

Hagler2002 wrote:Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Kessler, Abraham is some run of fights, certainly makes better reading than Joe's only one decent win on his record against a young and green Kessler.

That right there is Boxrec revisionism at its finest.

Hagler2002 wrote:

sg1985 wrote:Kessler was green now? Come on.

Yes green, show me the unification and world level opponents he'd been in with before he fought 'Super Joe'

Show me the unification and world level opponents Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, and Abraham had been in with before they fought 'The Cobra'.

(NB Froch's run has been superb, but I'm just playing at your own game. Whatever criticisms one may have with Calzaghe, the Kessler win is the one from which nobody can detract anything)

hurlock wrote:calzaghe wasnt a world player like froch 2x wbc real deal world champ

It's simple to me; Froch has had the better career, but Calzaghe is quite clearly the better fighter. It's probably the same as Pacquaio and Mayweather, whereas Manny's had the better career but Floyd is the better fighter. I personally prefer the better career, so that's why I rate Manny and Carl a helluva lot.

Hagler2002 wrote:

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

Calzaghe UD still though.

How is it a troll post? Show me a fighter in the world today apart from Pacquiao with a better level of opponent in their last five fights?

Mayweather, Hopkins, Marquez, Lopez, Bradley, Pascal, Dawson, Cotto?

Boxing fans tend to go overboard in the aftermath of a big win, only to retract all praise later.

That was a fine, fine performance against Abraham, but people are getting carried away.

Trust me, while today it's "Froch is better than Calzaghe", in a couple of years it will be "What did Froch ever do? Beat a washed-up, overhyped smaller man in AA?".

Mark my words.

oliverfennell wrote:Boxing fans tend to go overboard in the aftermath of a big win, only to retract all praise later.

That was a fine, fine performance against Abraham, but people are getting carried away.

Trust me, while today it's "Froch is better than Calzaghe", in a couple of years it will be "What did Froch ever do? Beat a washed-up, overhyped smaller man in AA?".

Mark my words.

Anyone fancy Abraham to beat Ward? That'll be three defeats in a row

ALI wrote: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.

Like he didn't fight Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Brewer, Mitchell, Kessler, Lacy or Hopkins? I'm not saying they were the very best of the best, nor am I excusing Calzaghe's weaker challengers, but they stack up as well as Froch's run.

ALI wrote:Lacy was a hype job, pure and simple and should not be mentioned. After that there's only old man Bernard.

Was Lacy any worse than Abraham, though? If he'd enjoyed Abraham's matchmaking, he'd have entered the JC fight with a similarly "proven" record. And I'd even say that despite the beating he took off Calzaghe, he still showed more talent, strategy and desire than Abraham showed against Froch.

As for Hopkins, he was old, sure, but the division leader. I'd say form counts for more than age.

If I was to discount any of Calzaghe's marquee name victims, it would be Jones before Lacy or Hopkins.