BoxRec

columbo wrote:

expe wrote:

SNG wrote: Prime Kessler? Who beat Froch...

To be honest Froch lost to a past his prime Kessler, then beat an even further past it version.

I dont think he was past his prime when he beat Froch. He lost to Ward but Ward is brilliant.

Ward messed Kessler's eyes up badly with all the headbutting though. He wasn't shot by any stretch of the imagination, but he was past his prime, which was around the time of the Andrade and Beyer fights and it was his 45th fight, unless you're a defensive master, after that many fights it starts to get to you, most modern fighters start to slide as they pass 40-45 fights.

ttornado wrote:

ArtOfWar wrote:but when he did fight half decent opponents they were coming off losses.

At the time I thought Hopkins was a faded fighter, but what his done since shows that was a very good win for Calzaghe.

He was faded and is even more gone now. He's just exceptionally smart in a boxing ring. I was also talking about guys like Woodhall, Reid and Mitchell. Good names but Calzaghe fought them all coming off losses.

RJP wrote:So much revisionism on here yet again.

Whilst Calzaghe plumped up his record fighting the Tocker Pudwill and Peter Manfredis of the boxing world, Froch has got on his bike and fought anyone, anywhere.

The biggest names on Calzaghe's record were Eubank, Jones Jr and Hopkins, at least two of whom were well past his prime.

The bottom line for me is that Froch has proven his willingness to take on anyone, anywhere. Whereas Calzaghe's title reign was a carefully managed exercise of caution, pragmatism and calculation.

Both great British fighters; Joe clearly the more naturally gifted; Froch in the truest sense of the word the better champion.

RJP

Don't let a select few who constantly machine-gun these threads with 15-20 replies of the same old tripe, bury the actual truth like you say it.

There is no actual debate with these sorts. Best just to ignore them than try and pick out those who actually know what they're talking about.

G0mez wrote:
There is no actual debate with these sorts. Best just to ignore them than try and pick out those who actually know what they're talking about.

But there is debate!
Calzaghe's best win: Hopkins (who has gone on to be a unified LH champ)
is better than
Froch's best win: Taylor or AA (both haven't shown much since)

While the body of the Froch resume is better the apex of the Calzaghe resume is higher.

Is that machine gunning?!

There are a boat load of people who did not think for one minute that Calzaghe beat Hopkins, that he didn't land a single meaningful punch in the entire fight.

GBP put a bumper offer together for a rematch, due to the controversy, and Calzaghe said no chance (another problem I have with Calzaghe, he was selfish and never gave anyone a rematch)

I recall David Haye and Duke McKenzie both saying from ringside, that they couldn't possibly see how they gave it to Joe Calzaghe.

Obviously the jerks always get presented with the above facts and say "Err but Froch err didn't beat Dirrell !" as some sort of side-step of the facts. Hopkins flattened Joe in the first round and "didn't even have a cut lip" as he pointed to his unmarked face in the post-fight press conference.

'I ain't ever gonna let no white boy beat me.' was a comment that many agreed, probably hurt him that night.

Hopkins was carefully selected at that point in time as many felt he was now ripe for taking out, in an otherwise weak division. I remember Enzo bragging how they was putting Hopkins on the retirement horse and they would slap the horse's arse and see him sail off into the sunset. Hopkins just smirked and told them they would be in for a very rude awakening - and by god they did.

"Trust me ! trust me ! trust me !!!!" was all Enzo could mutter has they had a complete and utter meltdown in the corner after round after round Joe was second best. Credit to the excellent Dean Powell that night, he'd steadied the ship and told Joe he'd needed to work his arse off for every round. They knew they were losing, but thankfully the judges saved their skin.

Joe had a very fragile confidence, and that fright, when he finally stepped up - convinced him to turn it in. Because beforehand he was also saying he'd fight on until he 40 unless I imagined it.

G0mez wrote:There are a boat load of people who did not think for one minute that Calzaghe beat Hopkins, that he didn't land a single meaningful punch in the entire fight.

A bit like Carl and the much worse Dirrell then?

G0mez wrote:There are a boat load of people who did not think for one minute that Calzaghe beat Hopkins, that he didn't land a single meaningful punch in the entire fight.

GBP put a bumper offer together for a rematch, due to the controversy, and Calzaghe said no chance (another problem I have with Calzaghe, he was selfish and never gave anyone a rematch)

I recall David Haye and Duke McKenzie both saying from ringside, that they couldn't possibly see how they gave it to Joe Calzaghe.

Obviously the jerks always get presented with the above facts and say "Err but Froch err didn't beat Dirrell !" as some sort of side-step of the facts. Hopkins flattened Joe in the first round and "didn't even have a cut lip" as he pointed to his unmarked face in the post-fight press conference.

'I ain't ever gonna let no white boy beat me.' was a comment that many agreed, probably hurt him that night.

Hopkins was carefully selected at that point in time as many felt he was now ripe for taking out, in an otherwise weak division. I remember Enzo bragging how they was putting Hopkins on the retirement horse and they would slap the horse's arse and see him sail off into the sunset. Hopkins just smirked and told them they would be in for a very rude awakening - and by god they did.

"Trust me ! trust me ! trust me !!!!" was all Enzo could mutter has they had a complete and utter meltdown in the corner after round after round Joe was second best. Credit to the excellent Dean Powell that night, he'd steadied the ship and told Joe he'd needed to work his arse off for every round. They knew they were losing, but thankfully the judges saved their skin.

It was close and scrappy. Joe marginally outworked him. Most agreed with a Calzaghe win.

I agree that Froch still has the better record by far.

Froch has the better overall record, but I have little doubt that prime for prime Calzaghe beats Froch 9 times out of 10.

Calzaghe was sufficiently good enough not to get hustled by Hopkins - and even then it was close. If Hopkins could have dealt with Joe with his fists then he'd have done it. He couldn't do so he spoilt like hell. It was an awful spectacle largely because Hopkins couldn't beat Joe in a fight. He also faked that shot to the balls at one point, which was blatant and embarrassing. It was a good win that was by Calzaghe - you only have to look at the number who have tried and failed and who are still trying.

SNG wrote:

G0mez wrote:There are a boat load of people who did not think for one minute that Calzaghe beat Hopkins, that he didn't land a single meaningful punch in the entire fight.

A bit like Carl and the much worse Dirrell then?

You walked right into that one. Perhaps read the full post I put up and then come back and write "err I wrote my reply as a parody to what you said".

n1ebf wrote:Calzaghe was sufficiently good enough not to get hustled by Hopkins - and even then it was close. If Hopkins could have dealt with Joe with his fists then he'd have done it. He couldn't do so he spoilt like hell. It was an awful spectacle largely because Hopkins couldn't beat Joe in a fight. He also faked that shot to the balls at one point, which was blatant and embarrassing. It was a good win that was by Calzaghe - you only have to look at the number who have tried and failed and who are still trying.

forcefraser wrote:Froch has the better overall record, but I have little doubt that prime for prime Calzaghe beats Froch 9 times out of 10.

Agreed forecefraser

Care to dispute this Gomez?

Didn't Carl himself say that if it went to points he would have lost. And not much chance of him stopping Joe now is there

G0mez wrote: Hopkins was carefully selected at that point in time as many felt he was now ripe for taking out, in an otherwise weak division. I remember Enzo bragging how they was putting Hopkins on the retirement horse and they would slap the horse's arse and see him sail off into the sunset. Hopkins just smirked and told them they would be in for a very rude awakening - and by god they did.

What Hopkins showed in that fight and since is that he wasn't done when he fought Calzaghe.
Which Froch win is better than Calzaghe's win over Hopkins?

How you rate their records comes down to what bias you give to the best comparative win in each fighters resume.

expe wrote:

columbo wrote:

expe wrote: To be honest Froch lost to a past his prime Kessler, then beat an even further past it version.

I dont think he was past his prime when he beat Froch. He lost to Ward but Ward is brilliant.

Ward messed Kessler's eyes up badly with all the headbutting though. He wasn't shot by any stretch of the imagination, but he was past his prime, which was around the time of the Andrade and Beyer fights and it was his 45th fight, unless you're a defensive master, after that many fights it starts to get to you, most modern fighters start to slide as they pass 40-45 fights.

So if that was the case, was he past his prime when he fought Calzaghe then?

ttornado wrote:

G0mez wrote:
There is no actual debate with these sorts. Best just to ignore them than try and pick out those who actually know what they're talking about.

But there is debate!
Calzaghe's best win: Hopkins (who has gone on to be a unified LH champ)
is better than
Froch's best win: Taylor or AA (both haven't shown much since)

While the body of the Froch resume is better the apex of the Calzaghe resume is higher.

Is that machine gunning?!

Unified champion against Shumenov isnt saying much either though. He lost to Campillo.

Froch's resume is definitely more consistent, but Calzaghe would have still won a shutout against him. No question who the better fighter was IMO.

I dont think Many would of picked Froch to beat Calzaghe. Still think Ward would of beaten Calzaghe though.

columbo wrote:I dont think Many would of picked Froch to beat Calzaghe. Still think Ward would of beaten Calzaghe though.

That would have been an interesting one. Maybe not a great watch, but fascinating all the same. At his peak I`d have gone for Calzaghe to outwork him..

Ward is obviously a great fighter but far too inactive. He has not really been in trouble in any of his fights apart from a scare or too early in his career. he just negates the other fighters work and grinds them down.

Not many around now who would trouble Ward, although if he was to move up and fight Kovalev I`d have to go with the mighty Russian.

columbo wrote: Unified champion against Shumenov isnt saying much either though. He lost to Campillo.

Still more than Taylor has managed since Froch beat him

forcefraser wrote:

columbo wrote:I dont think Many would of picked Froch to beat Calzaghe. Still think Ward would of beaten Calzaghe though.

That would have been an interesting one. Maybe not a great watch, but fascinating all the same. At his peak I`d have gone for Calzaghe to outwork him..

Ward is obviously a great fighter but far too inactive. He has not really been in trouble in any of his fights apart from a scare or too early in his career. he just negates the other fighters work and grinds them down.

Not many around now who would trouble Ward, although if he was to move up and fight Kovalev I`d have to go with the mighty Russian.

Good post, I agree with all of that.

Think people forget the lack of Nasim Richardson for the Hopkins fight with Calzaghe.... It seemed to be one of the few times that Roach did not want to be there himself. The corner during the rounds were one in which there was no urgency, all felt he was ahead comfortably.

Roach said so post fight.... was very strong in his opinion that he cannot see how the judges gave it to Joe.... then bizarrely a few weeks later calls for Hopkins to retire because he thinks he already shows signs of neurological damage.

For me a huge difference between the Hopkins of 2014 and the Hopkins who fought Joe was the corner.... Hopkins just didn't gel with Roach.

lefthook82 wrote:

forcefraser wrote:Froch has the better overall record, but I have little doubt that prime for prime Calzaghe beats Froch 9 times out of 10.

Agreed forecefraser

Care to dispute this Gomez?

Didn't Carl himself say that if it went to points he would have lost. And not much chance of him stopping Joe now is there

Joe is the undisputed "mythical" champion who is 263-0 in fantasy fights with people he could have actually fought but he ducked.

Joe Calzaghe beat Chris Eubank at 25, Bernard Hopkins at 36.
From whatever era you are, that is a high level of performance over an incredible period of time. OK, so some of the opponents were poor, but to claim he ducked Glen Johnson, as some do, is just idiotic.

G0mez wrote:

lefthook82 wrote:

forcefraser wrote:Froch has the better overall record, but I have little doubt that prime for prime Calzaghe beats Froch 9 times out of 10.

Agreed forecefraser

Care to dispute this Gomez?

Didn't Carl himself say that if it went to points he would have lost. And not much chance of him stopping Joe now is there

Joe is the undisputed "mythical" champion who is 263-0 in fantasy fights with people he could have actually fought but he ducked.

Of course, Carl could try and avenge his loss to Andre Ward, who is willing to come to Britain to face him.
Will he? Does that count as ducking? Because many on here would say Amir Khan ducked a rematch with Breidis Prescott? What's the difference?

.