Super Joe put to shame!!!

[oliverfennell]

Some guys like Calzaghe and Bute, can make a fortune with less than demanding opponents ... where as the likes of Pascal and Froch need to do things the hard/riskier way.
But don`t think for one moment they would not have followed the easier route if that avenue was open to them.

That nonsense is not worthy of a reply

Get with it man!

Well, it's purely speculation either way, isn't it. But Froch's pre-title record didn't really show great matchmaking hunger. Obviously he gets full credit for his matches since then, but as others have posited, how might it have gone if not for the Super 6?

[dekker88]

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?

pbf - we know how he picks his opponents....JMM came up in weight and floyd still cheated him at the scales...mosley is an old man and not the dominant force in the ww division....not even an alphabet champ....hatton also went up in weight to fight him...and DLH had to drain to face him....as for baldomir - - Froch has a better 5 fight resume.

hopkins - he lost the only 'equal' fight he had against calzaghe....i don't give any credit to his victories over a shot Roy Jones or a blown up Pavlik fighting out of his normal division for the first time nor a blown up winky wright....ornelas is a nothing fight also. so zero credit to hopkins. froch beats this hands down.

Marquez - credit where it's due - a better resume than Froch.

Bradley - puh-lease!! campbell is shot and the rest were not and won't ever be world class. Froch has a better resume.

Pascal - has doen very well but let's not forget he lost to froch so for that reason - Froch has a better resume.

Dawson - double headers against an ageing tarver and aged johnson do not add up to a great resume...he lost the other fight to Pascal...who Froch beat - Froch wins again.


Cotto - lost 2 of his last 5...and 1 win against the dosmetic level micheal jennings - not even close - Froch wins.

so with the exception of marquez i'd say you're speaking the ancient language of total bollocks.

[oliverfennell]

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. Most certainly not while in their primes and back to back like Froch did.

Calzaghe only has Kessler on his record, its the only fight that stands up against what Froch's out their doing now. Lacy was a hype job, pure and simple and should not be mentioned. After that there's only old man Bernard. There's no young, fresh, in their prime world champions that Calzaghe scalped, he avoided them all and would have done exactly the same with Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham and even Froch himself! Some might disagree otherwise, but historical evidence weighs heavily in my favour!

Some might also argue that the likes of Hopkins would school Froch etc, but again thats deviating from the point in question. Its about who has the best record, not about who was the better fighter. I think most knowledgable fans, after last nights magnificent win, would now say that Froch has either equaled Calzaghe's record, or has surpassed it.

If Lacy was a "hype job" then surely its fair to call Abraham one.Dirrell and Froch both exposed AA and Lacy looked just as explosive as AA pre-Calzaghe.

Thats an irritional comparison, to call it harsh would be putting it mildly!

Abraham may have been exposed as being a bit one dimensional, but he's no Jeff Lacy. He held over 10 defences of his IBF title and has beaten the likes of Eastman, Miranda (twice) and Taylor.

Eastman and Miranda lost every time they stepped up to world level and if people want to say Taylor was shot vs Froch, then what was he vs AA? (And even then he outboxed AA for long stretches)

[dekker88]

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.

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.

other than bute and ward who has froch not fought that he shoulda done to be though of as one of the elite at SM? i'm thinkin the same way calzaghe didnt fight toney, rjj at his peak, hopkins at his peak or sven ottke?

[oliverfennell]

Calzaghe also never faced Lucas, Beyer or Ottke, or gave Robin Reid a rematch. I could pick out more names, Mundine for instance.

Ottke was more infamous for ducking than Calzaghe ever was, and Mundine??! He's probably engaging in the worst spell of matchmaking of any world class fighter at the moment. No way either of them would have fought Calzaghe even if offered it.

[dekker88]

Calzaghe also never faced Lucas, Beyer or Ottke, or gave Robin Reid a rematch. I could pick out more names, Mundine for instance.

Ottke was more infamous for ducking than Calzaghe ever was, and Mundine??! He's probably engaging in the worst spell of matchmaking of any world class fighter at the moment. No way either of them would have fought Calzaghe even if offered it.

the point is that there were plenty of fighters that JC could be accused of avoiding regardless of the veracity of those claims or talkin about who avoided who.....with froch he's nearly taken on everyone decent in the division already and has no 'gimme' defences since winning the title.

[oliverfennell]

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.

Of course it can. Pascal obviously is A-class, as is Kessler, but Froch lost to him. Abraham is about the same as Lacy and Dirrell is unproven. Taylor was an excellent win but very flawed in its execution.

Anyway, we can go round and round about levels of opposition and quality of wins, but everyone ask yourselves this:

If Calzaghe has beaten Dirrell, Abraham and Taylor, would he be afforded the same level of respect for beating them as Froch is receiving? Of course he wouldn't. People would be bending over backwards to pick holes in the wins.

[tonyevs]

Something that gets over looked is that in the early part of Calzaghes career he was just as willing to take the risks.
He went into Delaneys back yard, he was eager to get in with Steve Collins at a time when Collins had dismantled Eubank and Benn and was being (in some peoples eyes) avoided by Jones/Toney.

Calzaghe only got lazy because he could. Sad truth is (for Froch anyways) that Froch hasn`t got the oppurtunity to take a similar route.
Where would Froch get his big pay days if he wasn`t in the super6? the tv companies don`t want to know him even now after his great run of last fights.
He would be a world champion fighting for peanuts .. on a Tyson Fury fight card infront of half empty seats on non-televised shows ..
Just ask John Murray what its like to be with a poor promoter..

[oliverfennell]

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?

pbf - we know how he picks his opponents....JMM came up in weight and floyd still cheated him at the scales...mosley is an old man and not the dominant force in the ww division....not even an alphabet champ....hatton also went up in weight to fight him...and DLH had to drain to face him....as for baldomir - - Froch has a better 5 fight resume.

hopkins - he lost the only 'equal' fight he had against calzaghe....i don't give any credit to his victories over a shot Roy Jones or a blown up Pavlik fighting out of his normal division for the first time nor a blown up winky wright....ornelas is a nothing fight also. so zero credit to hopkins. froch beats this hands down.

Marquez - credit where it's due - a better resume than Froch.

Bradley - puh-lease!! campbell is shot and the rest were not and won't ever be world class. Froch has a better resume.

Pascal - has doen very well but let's not forget he lost to froch so for that reason - Froch has a better resume.

Dawson - double headers against an ageing tarver and aged johnson do not add up to a great resume...he lost the other fight to Pascal...who Froch beat - Froch wins again.


Cotto - lost 2 of his last 5...and 1 win against the dosmetic level micheal jennings - not even close - Froch wins.

so with the exception of marquez i'd say you're speaking the ancient language of total bollocks.

Well Hagler asked for levels of opponent, not just wins. As for the analysis, there's always a bright side and a dark side to any result and opponent and thus all arguments can be shaped around them. Perfect case in point:

Dawson - double headers against an ageing tarver and aged johnson do not add up to a great resume...

Tarver was a world champ and definitely top 3 at the very least at the time of the first fight, yet you can pick holes in the win by pointing out his age. Fine. Johnson proved he was still top class in giving Dawson hell in the first fight, and proved he's still top class by KOing Allan Green in his last fight, yet you can pick holes in the win by pointing out his age. Fine. However he is next in line for Froch and people are already using him as part of their praise for Froch. That's fine, because regardless of age, Johnson is world class. But you can't discredit other guys' wins over him based on his age, then hail him as a great opponent for Froch when he's even older!

[dekker88]

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

pbf - we know how he picks his opponents....JMM came up in weight and floyd still cheated him at the scales...mosley is an old man and not the dominant force in the ww division....not even an alphabet champ....hatton also went up in weight to fight him...and DLH had to drain to face him....as for baldomir - - Froch has a better 5 fight resume.

hopkins - he lost the only 'equal' fight he had against calzaghe....i don't give any credit to his victories over a shot Roy Jones or a blown up Pavlik fighting out of his normal division for the first time nor a blown up winky wright....ornelas is a nothing fight also. so zero credit to hopkins. froch beats this hands down.

Marquez - credit where it's due - a better resume than Froch.

Bradley - puh-lease!! campbell is shot and the rest were not and won't ever be world class. Froch has a better resume.

Pascal - has doen very well but let's not forget he lost to froch so for that reason - Froch has a better resume.

Dawson - double headers against an ageing tarver and aged johnson do not add up to a great resume...he lost the other fight to Pascal...who Froch beat - Froch wins again.


Cotto - lost 2 of his last 5...and 1 win against the dosmetic level micheal jennings - not even close - Froch wins.

so with the exception of marquez i'd say you're speaking the ancient language of total bollocks.

Well Hagler asked for levels of opponent, not just wins. As for the analysis, there's always a bright side and a dark side to any result and opponent and thus all arguments can be shaped around them. Perfect case in point:

Dawson - double headers against an ageing tarver and aged johnson do not add up to a great resume...

Tarver was a world champ and definitely top 3 at the very least at the time of the first fight, yet you can pick holes in the win by pointing out his age. Fine. Johnson proved he was still top class in giving Dawson hell in the first fight, and proved he's still top class by KOing Allan Green in his last fight, yet you can pick holes in the win by pointing out his age. Fine. However he is next in line for Froch and people are already using him as part of their praise for Froch. That's fine, because regardless of age, Johnson is world class. But you can't discredit other guys' wins over him based on his age, then hail him as a great opponent for Froch when he's even older!

well allen green was never very good but the road warrior is a bit of an anomaly....and for the record if froch beats him by anything other than KO it means very little to me in the greater scheme of things.

[Tykemania]

Something that gets over looked is that in the early part of Calzaghes career he was just as willing to take the risks.
He went into Delaneys back yard, he was eager to get in with Steve Collins at a time when Collins had dismantled Eubank and Benn and was being (in some peoples eyes) avoided by Jones/Toney.

Its actually interesting to wonder how Calzaghe's career might have turned out if he had fought RJJ or Toney in their peak. I don't know about others, but I am pretty sure that Jones would have beaten him, possibly Toney as well - but weould he have become a greater fighter, and certainly faced greater opposition in the long run if the 0 had gone?

[Pongsaklek]

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

Calzaghe UD still though.

x2

And why does Calzaghe have to even be brought up?

Let's enjoy Froch's performance, and the fact we have another world class super middle doing the business.

Getting sick of the negativity on here from some posters.

Because a lot of Calzaghe fans talked about what a loudmouth farmer bum Froch was compared to the great Joe Calzaghe, and how he dared to even mention the great Calzaghe´s name. Now his 168 pound resume shits all over Joe´s.

[mickey1975]

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

Calzaghe UD still though.

x2

And why does Calzaghe have to even be brought up?

Let's enjoy Froch's performance, and the fact we have another world class super middle doing the business.

Getting sick of the negativity on here from some posters.

Because a lot of Calzaghe fans talked about what a loudmouth farmer bum Froch was compared to the great Joe Calzaghe, and how he dared to even mention the great Calzaghe´s name. Now his 168 pound resume shits all over Joe´s.

Except he has not.He LOST to a faded Kessler.How people can gloss over that is beyond me.

[stujones]

DLH didn't have to drain to fight Mayweather - it was at 154.

[Finn]

DLH didn't have to drain to fight Mayweather - it was at 154.

He'd fought at middle weight 2 fights before, but i agree i dont think he was weight drained, maybe if he hadnt gone up a weight beforehand he may have had the edge to beat PBF though considering how close the fight was.

[Finn]

DLH didn't have to drain to fight Mayweather - it was at 154.

He'd fought at middle weight 2 fights before, but i agree i dont think he was weight drained, maybe if he hadnt gone up a weight beforehand he may have had the edge to beat PBF though considering how close the fight was.

People make too big a deal of weight sometimes on here, DLH clearly wasn't weight drained in his fight with PBF. Barely being able to land a glove on PBF was the edge.

u must have watched a different fight because the one i watched was very close.

[Finn]

People make too big a deal of weight sometimes on here, DLH clearly wasn't weight drained in his fight with PBF. Barely being able to land a glove on PBF was the edge.

u must have watched a different fight because the one i watched was very close.

21% of DLH's landed to PBF's 43% according to compubox.

and yet he only lost by two rounds in a split decision - compubox dopesnt say how good the shots landed were.

[banjo]

DLH didn't have to drain to fight Mayweather - it was at 154.

He'd fought at middle weight 2 fights before, but i agree i dont think he was weight drained, maybe if he hadnt gone up a weight beforehand he may have had the edge to beat PBF though considering how close the fight was.

People make too big a deal of weight sometimes on here, DLH clearly wasn't weight drained in his fight with PBF. Barely being able to land a glove on PBF was the edge.

That's very true, my way of discounting Floyds win over Oscar though is down to the FACT(because it's true) that Oscar was several years past his best, had boxed less than 6 rounds in almost 3 years and even that fight was against somebody made to order.

He won it fairly but no way would I rank it as big a win as some people do.

[Finn]

21% of DLH's landed to PBF's 43% according to compubox.

and yet he only lost by two rounds in a split decision - compubox dopesnt say how good the shots landed were.

No it doesn't, I didn't claim it did. I said he could barely put a hand on him, and he missed 79% of his shots didn't he? Also, all the cards didn't have him up by 2, Giampa had him up by 4 which is a much better card, that fight wasn't half as close as people say it was.

i watched it it was close - how many punches did de la hoya throw?

[Finn]

No it doesn't, I didn't claim it did. I said he could barely put a hand on him, and he missed 79% of his shots didn't he? Also, all the cards didn't have him up by 2, Giampa had him up by 4 which is a much better card, that fight wasn't half as close as people say it was.

i watched it it was close - how many punches did de la hoya throw?

527 and landed 122. PBF threw 481 and landed 207.

do you consider landing 122 shots as - "Barely being able to land a glove on PBF"?

[Finn]

i watched it it was close - how many punches did de la hoya throw?

527 and landed 122. PBF threw 481 and landed 207.

do you consider landing 122 shots as - "Barely being able to land a glove on PBF"?

When you throw 500+ shots and your opponent makes you miss 80% of them I do.[/quote]

why dont you share the stats for mayweathers last 5 fights (landed on him).

[Finn]

i watched it it was close - how many punches did de la hoya throw?

527 and landed 122. PBF threw 481 and landed 207.

do you consider landing 122 shots as - "Barely being able to land a glove on PBF"?

When you throw 500+ shots and your opponent makes you miss 80% of them I do.[/quote]

why dont you share the stats for mayweathers last 5 fights (landed on him).[/quote]

What do they have to do with DLH-PBF?[/quote]

i cant be bothered to drag this one out.

your Barely being able to land a glove on PBF statement was silly.

DLH landed 122, PBF landed 207 (and thats only counted when landed cleanly past the guard) the difference isnt that massive when you consider the punch power of each fighter and you havent broken the figures into jab / power puch which compubox does (in theory).

Thats IF you considered compubox an accurate measurement of jabs and power punches landed = which most dont- and i certainly dont!!!! and why i was asking the question about the other results.

However i think most people would agree the fight was close.