Really ??expe wrote:Everyone seems to be forgetting Calzaghe's wins over Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Brewer and Mitchell. Add those to the wins over Lacy, Bika, Kessler, Hopkins and Jones and IMO he has the better record.
In total agreement Quix.Quixall wrote:Really ??expe wrote:Everyone seems to be forgetting Calzaghe's wins over Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Brewer and Mitchell. Add those to the wins over Lacy, Bika, Kessler, Hopkins and Jones and IMO he has the better record.
Reid was average at best, Bika was ordinary, Eubank was faded fighter, Woodhall was distinctly average and Brewer nearly got undone by an old Bomber Graham. Hopkins was way past his best and Jones was just gone, completely gone.........
C+ at best put an A for trying ;;-)
Why this fixation on the Dirrell fight ?mickey1975 wrote:If I could be arsed, I could probably find hundreds of articles where he calls it a controversial decision. It wasn't. Dirrell was.
Jean Pascal- only one good win on his record and lost to Hopkins 3 years after the way past his best version calzaghe beat.Quixall wrote:Really ??expe wrote:Everyone seems to be forgetting Calzaghe's wins over Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Brewer and Mitchell. Add those to the wins over Lacy, Bika, Kessler, Hopkins and Jones and IMO he has the better record.
Reid was average at best, Bika was ordinary, Eubank was faded fighter, Woodhall was distinctly average and Brewer nearly got undone by an old Bomber Graham. Hopkins was way past his best and Jones was just gone, completely gone.........
C+ at best put an A for trying ;;-)
Perfect.Trojans44 wrote:Pretty much agree with you. Froch has achieved more and has a better record. But Calzaghe was a much, much better fighter and in my opinion would have beat Froch quite easily.
Well, we can all pick things to pieces can't we, but i would suggest that Pascal, Taylor, Abraham and Bute trump Reid, Bika, Lacy and Brewer. That was my main point.el torro wrote:Jean Pascal- only one good win on his record and lost to Hopkins 3 years after the way past his best version calzaghe beat.Quixall wrote:Really ??expe wrote:Everyone seems to be forgetting Calzaghe's wins over Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Brewer and Mitchell. Add those to the wins over Lacy, Bika, Kessler, Hopkins and Jones and IMO he has the better record.
Reid was average at best, Bika was ordinary, Eubank was faded fighter, Woodhall was distinctly average and Brewer nearly got undone by an old Bomber Graham. Hopkins was way past his best and Jones was just gone, completely gone.........
C+ at best put an A for trying ;;-)
Arthur Abraham- top middleweight, poor super middle who has lost 4 times at the weight
Jermain Taylor- top middleweight, poor super middle who got KO'd in 2 of his 3 fights at the weight
Lucien Bute- over hyped the same way Lacy was
i suppose if we want to be ultra critical we should say that Calzaghe and Froch have one victory each against a top class super middle
It's not a fixation, its very relevant though in a thread where people are holding two of Joe's wins against him!Quixall wrote:Why this fixation on the Dirrell fight ?mickey1975 wrote:If I could be arsed, I could probably find hundreds of articles where he calls it a controversial decision. It wasn't. Dirrell was.
Look at Calzaghe's fight with Hopkins. The first six rounds are like this imo. Hopkins wins the first four rounds and drops Calzaghe aswell. The other two rounds look fairly even. In the second half of the fight, Calzaghe wins four of the rounds, hopkins wins one and the other is even. So, on that level, Hopkins wins the fight. But he didn't win the fight, the scoring went to Calzaghe. The other thing is that Calzaghe slapped his punches. That is not a criticism of Calzaghe, but it's what he did and he looked busy, often with out landing properly. All the real quality work came from Hopkins. Yet Calzaghe gets the decision. I have watched that fight at least four times, but initially i listened to it on Radio 5 live. Duke McKenzie was co-commentating that night and in the last round he stated that Calzaghe needed a stoppage to win. When the bell went, and i am para-phrasing now, but McKenzie said " Joe just didn't do enough in the fight, he started too slowly " and it was the lament of a guy who clearly thought that it was just the formalities to go through for Hopkins to get his name called out as the winner. So for all the talk of Dirrell with Carl and getting bad decisions, Calzaghe on the night of his biggest fight lost in the eyes of quite a lot of people, even Calzaghe fans, as i was at the time of the fight. What is worse, a sceptical decision against a run of the mill fighter or a sceptical decision in teh biggest and so supposed defining fight of your career.
Yeah thank god we caught that before it escalated with you thinking i liked lacy and he was a half decent fighter.. :PQuixall wrote: Ahh. glad you have confirmed what i thought you meant........lol
As for that person, Woooooow, you've gotta love em
Not really Eubank, undefeated Kessler , Hopkins in the US (Froch would lose now) and Bika is in top 10 at super middleweight still just to name a fewliamlion wrote:Froch definitely has the better and more meaningful fight résumé.
Calzaghe's win over a shot Roy Jones and a razor thin victory against Hopkins don't intoxicate me.
Reid should have got the W against Joe, as should have Hopkins in mine and plenty others opinion. Eubank fought Joe on like 2 weeks notice and was way past his prime. Kessler had to come to the UK as Joe wasn't going to travel. Bika is average and a full level below world class. Want me go on?WelshJack wrote:Not really Eubank, undefeated Kessler , Hopkins in the US (Froch would lose now) and Bika is in top 10 at super middleweight still just to name a fewliamlion wrote:Froch definitely has the better and more meaningful fight résumé.
Calzaghe's win over a shot Roy Jones and a razor thin victory against Hopkins don't intoxicate me.
Hopkins in the US and Joe got decision let us go through some of Froch's shaky moments losing to Taylor who is poor and ended it in last round won a MD against Johnson then 18 months later Groves schools him and not forgetting blaming an ash cloud for a loss.bengulnaci1 wrote:Reid should have got the W against Joe, as should have Hopkins in mine and plenty others opinion. Eubank fought Joe on like 2 weeks notice and was way past his prime. Kessler had to come to the UK as Joe wasn't going to travel. Bika is average and a full level below world class. Want me go on?WelshJack wrote:Not really Eubank, undefeated Kessler , Hopkins in the US (Froch would lose now) and Bika is in top 10 at super middleweight still just to name a fewliamlion wrote:Froch definitely has the better and more meaningful fight résumé.
Calzaghe's win over a shot Roy Jones and a razor thin victory against Hopkins don't intoxicate me.
This is Johnson how many years after Calzaghe backed out and Taylor 4 years before the Froch fight yes how is he doing now? End of the day who would win Froch or Calzaghe? I know who Froch picks do you?bengulnaci1 wrote:The same Taylor who TWICE beat Hopkins? That Taylor? The one Froch KO'd, in the US. That one? Oh and Johnson? The beast at SMW, who was booked to fight Joe not once but THREE times and Joe backed out each and everytime? The same Johnson who KO'd RJJ way before Joe got to him to milk an appallingly bad win? That Johnson?
And ah yes Kessler. The same Kessler who had to come to the UK as poor old Joe would simply not travel. The young, inexperienced guy, with the busted right hand and still he gave Joe a decent fight. That Kessler?
We could also look at Reid. Who beat beat Calzaghe to many people. Did he give Robin a rematch? No, of course not. Reid then goes on, some years later and loses inside the distance to Froch. Should I count that, going by your thinking? No. Why because I can see things for what they are and do not need to dress it up in some BS way.
I would answer this WelshJack kid, but your doing a good enough jobbengulnaci1 wrote:The same Taylor who TWICE beat Hopkins? That Taylor? The one Froch KO'd, in the US. That one? Oh and Johnson? The beast at SMW, who was booked to fight Joe not once but THREE times and Joe backed out each and everytime? The same Johnson who KO'd RJJ way before Joe got to him to milk an appallingly bad win? That Johnson?
And ah yes Kessler. The same Kessler who had to come to the UK as poor old Joe would simply not travel. The young, inexperienced guy, with the busted right hand and still he gave Joe a decent fight. That Kessler?
We could also look at Reid. Who beat beat Calzaghe to many people. Did he give Robin a rematch? No, of course not. Reid then goes on, some years later and loses inside the distance to Froch. Should I count that, going by your thinking? No. Why because I can see things for what they are and do not need to dress it up in some BS way.
Possibly not.WelshJack wrote:If Froch fought Calzaghe's fights and vice versa would Froch be 46-0 I think not.
I agree Froch will have a better legacy depending on his next fight, but do you think that is Calzaghe's fault or F.W i'm not too sure and i'm from Cardiff don't compare me to some of the clowns from therelillywhite14 wrote:Possibly not.WelshJack wrote:If Froch fought Calzaghe's fights and vice versa would Froch be 46-0 I think not.
This has no bearing on it though does it? We are talking legacy not myth.
Don't confuse who was the better fighter with who has the stronger legacy. Calzaghe was better, he didnt show it enough against the best though.
Put it this way, if Froch was around back in the early 00s he would have gone to Germany to fight Ottke, he would have gone to the States to fight Toney and Jones and anyone else that wanted it.
By contrast if Calzaghe was around today he would probably have avoided the super 6 and refused to travel to fight Ward, Kessler in Denmark etc and would still be sitting at home feasting on the leftovers!
Prime for prime Calzaghe would beat Froch.
Legacy wise? Froch has done more.
Why can't people differentiate between the two? I swear you have a few on here, seemingly from the valleys, who would still bang on about Calzaghe having a better legacy even if Carl knocked out Ward, Hopkins, Dawson and then stepped up and switched Wlads light off
Exactly Lilliwhite, exactlylillywhite14 wrote:Possibly not.WelshJack wrote:If Froch fought Calzaghe's fights and vice versa would Froch be 46-0 I think not.
This has no bearing on it though does it? We are talking legacy not myth.
Don't confuse who was the better fighter with who has the stronger legacy. Calzaghe was better, he didnt show it enough against the best though.
Put it this way, if Froch was around back in the early 00s he would have gone to Germany to fight Ottke, he would have gone to the States to fight Toney and Jones and anyone else that wanted it.
By contrast if Calzaghe was around today he would probably have avoided the super 6 and refused to travel to fight Ward, Kessler in Denmark etc and would still be sitting at home feasting on the leftovers!
Prime for prime Calzaghe would beat Froch.
Legacy wise? Froch has done more.
Why can't people differentiate between the two? I swear you have a few on here, seemingly from the valleys, who would still bang on about Calzaghe having a better legacy even if Carl knocked out Ward, Hopkins, Dawson and then stepped up and switched Wlads light off
All subjective tho isn't it?WelshJack wrote:Not really Eubank, undefeated Kessler , Hopkins in the US (Froch would lose now) and Bika is in top 10 at super middleweight still just to name a fewliamlion wrote:Froch definitely has the better and more meaningful fight résumé.
Calzaghe's win over a shot Roy Jones and a razor thin victory against Hopkins don't intoxicate me.
Hopkins will do the same v Froch but it will be the worst fight ever unless Froch can hopefully KO him and now Froch has two belts he will not travel for his next fight like he used to to look for these chances and why should he just like any world champion with two of the belts.liamlion wrote:All subjective tho isn't it?WelshJack wrote:Not really Eubank, undefeated Kessler , Hopkins in the US (Froch would lose now) and Bika is in top 10 at super middleweight still just to name a fewliamlion wrote:Froch definitely has the better and more meaningful fight résumé.
Calzaghe's win over a shot Roy Jones and a razor thin victory against Hopkins don't intoxicate me.
For example Eubank took the fight on how many days notice? He also massively cut weight having been due to fight Mark Prince at light-heavy on the same bill. The name is impressive but the reality and the circumstances of the actual victory are less so.
I think Hopkins made Calzaghe look very ordinary.
Calzaghe's victory over Kessler was impressive and for me it was his standout performance. That and his fight against Lacy. But for me those type of fights against live, hungry world champions were very rare. Froch doesn't avoid such challenges but instead seeks then out.
It was an MD on paper only, no way he deserved a draw in that fight. And let's not forget GJ had retired prior to the Groves fight being announced.WelshJack wrote:won a MD against Johnson then 18 months later Groves schools him