BoxRec

kevo wrote:

WelshJack wrote:won a MD against Johnson then 18 months later Groves schools him

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:

kevo wrote:

WelshJack wrote:won a MD against Johnson then 18 months later Groves schools him

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.

I am sounding like I hate Froch but I actually like him as I do every British boxer (except Khan) and hope he goes on and beats Ward. I am biased anyway so my opinion isn't very valid

Pat Butcher wrote:

Quixall wrote:

fist wrote:Froch is a fabulous fighter, but I feel Calzaghe was more successful and a better boxer. Joe fought all those put in front of him, including an in prime undefeated Kessler, at a time when critics were speculating (wrongly) that Calzaghe would duck him. Of course he wouldn't, he was a fighter and wanted to be the best. His success made him undisputed. Something Froch has not achieved yet. And its the latter and his two losses, which of course have provided the motivation to challange big names reguarly in recent years. Calzaghes dominance prevented such a scattering of supposed big names. Plus the fact that Joe retired and left an array of belts amongst some good boxers led to the unique Super Six, which Froch would have been insane not to be involved in, just as all the participants would have been. Calzaghe was never in that situation, partly because he dominated and ended up undisputed. Froch fought Bute because he was chasing a belt. Froch fought Kessler for a second time cos he wanted a belt and to avenge his loss. Joe was never in these situations because he kept winning. I also think as much as the comeback against Taylor was good, you cant ignore just how superior a declining Taylor was for much of the fight.

Kessler is seen as an example of Froch chasing big names, yet Calzaghe risked his titles and zero when Kessler was at his peak and undefeated. Johnson does not hugely enhance Froch's record and most other big names were part of the Super 6.

My point being that as much as Froch is a great fighter and deserves lots of respect, he is not as good as Calzaghe, and the argurments about opposition are misleading and relative to an indivual's successes and failures - remember, Lacy for example was one of the 'big' names just as some of Froch's opponents get referenced, until Calzaghe destroyed him - Joes dominance negated the weight of the name in a sense, because many backtracked and simply categorised Lacy as overhyped. What is less subjective is that Calzaghe won all belts.

Some good points fist. I think it's down to how you view it personally, what you think counts in terms of being a fighter that is recognised and respected. First off, i and most people would agree that Calzaghe was the more skillful boxer. I agree that Taylor was outboxing Froch and dominated much of the fight before running out of gas, but that in a large part was down to what Carl did and he still had to finish the job. He did that and credit to him for it. Froch is also a lot better and more experienced fighter than when he faced Taylor. I agree that teh super six tournament came at a good time for Froch and he would have joined whatever the circumstances. What the super six did, was to give Froch world level fights against genuine world title holders in back to back fights over a two year period. Regardless of anything else, having constant big fights and no interim fights has to be respected, regardless of how and why the super six tourmament came about.

I think Calzaghe gains great credit for beating Kessler when he was in his prime years and undefeated. I also think that he perhaps viirtually ended the career of Jeff Lacy. Prior to that fight, Lacy was seen as someoen who was going to blast Joe to pieces. Was Lacy over hyped or was Joe that good that he damaged Lacy beyond a point at which he could return as the fighter he should have been. I am inclined to think he was over-hyped. Dirrel was nothing special and Johnson over the hill, though awkward. For me, its the activity in the super six, plus the wins over Bute and Kessler and a still very dangerous Jermaine Taylor that makes me say that Froch has got the better leagacy. I said in a previous post that Carl's Dirrell and Johnson were Joes's Bika and Jones. Carl's Taylor was Joe's Hopkins and it could be said that Carl's Bute was Joe's Lacy. All subjective of course, but for me its the sustained activity over a short period of time against genuine world title holders that makes me give the nod to Froch and not Calzaghe.

I pretty much agree with all of that Quixall. I like both fighters and think a prime Joe would have beaten a prime Froch. As far as legacy goes I think Froch wins, constant top level opposition and fighting anywhere boosts Froch's record for me. I know Froch had to take more riskier fights like away against Taylor and joining Super 6 to progress but whatever the reason, he did it and deserves credit for it.

If Calzaghe had taken more risks and constantly chased better opposition then he would also get the credit but he never. It's a shame too, because Joe could have fought Pavlik while he was highly rated and beaten him, he could have been the first to beat Dawson and he could have beaten Froch too. Imagine those 3 wins on Calzaghe's record, there'd be no (repeated) debate. When Froch retires there will will be few questions becasue of his desire to push himself and fight the best. If more boxers had his attitude it would be a better sport.

mickey1975 wrote:

TheCobra wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:Was Carl determined to build a legacy or forced into it? The super six made most of the fights compulsory! As soon as he got to call the shots with a powerful promoter and TV network we got Mack! If your going to hold Reid against Joe, you have to hold Dirrell against Carl. Far, far worse decision.

This post is just utter negative bullshit. Froch can't win in some people's eyes.

Bute and Kessler were 2 well-known world champions in the division. Mack was one gimme fight in a run of about 10 non-gimmes. Moan moan moan, that's all some British fight fans do. Enjoy Froch while he's here, was the same with Hatton, all some people could do was be negative, well he's gone now and who did we have to replace him for big fights and excitment in the British game, apart from Froch?

He had no title when he faced Bute, so was in no position to sit back and defend anything. I loved Hatton, and respect Froch, just dont get too carried away. He is clearly number two in the division, and pound for pound number one in the hypocrite rankings. He never shut up about a dodgy decision in the super 6 against Kessler (which was fair) and never mentions the true robbery (Dirrell).

Quixall wrote:

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.

Really ??

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 ;;-)

fist wrote:

Quixall wrote:

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.

Really ??

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 ;;-)

Hmmm, calling Bika ordinary does not quite do justice to the bloke - he was a rough, difficult fighter at that stage IMO. Eubank was still a strong warrior and Reid was not average, he is an ex world champion and in 1990s was a good fighter, his WBC belt should earn him more respect. Hopkins was still as tricky as ever and Kessler was in his prime. I also dont buy the Lacy being overrated argument - he was a young strong challanger whom like most fighters was way below Calzaghes level, even though many people did not think this would be the case before the fight. Calzaghe schooled him with a masteclass.

I think your being a little creative in your criticism of all these fighters. Its arguably an easier target to talk about to what extent Johnson was a threat to Froch, or how well Froch performed for 12 rounds against a faded Taylor.

Also, who were all these big SMW names Joe was apparently avoiding? The likes of Ward and Bute only started fighting around 2003 / 2004! The main threat was a two belt undefeated champ in his prime - Kessler - he fought and beat him.

fist wrote:Good points.

Quixall wrote:Fist,

Calzaghe just wasn't in the type of fights that Carl has been and on such a regulae basis. Look at who Froch has fought. Taylor, Abraham, Johnson, Kessler twice, Bute, Ward, Pascal. These are significant fighters and only Johnson could be seen as an easy fight. Froch fought back to back fights in the super six and didn't have any easy interim fights and this was over a period of two years. He travelled out of his own back yard for these fights. Apart from Johnson, who was over the hill, they were all highly rated world champions, live and in their prime years. Calzaghe has Bika, lacy, Kessler and the faded Eubank and Hopkins, plus a completely shot Jones. In my opinion, the two legacies just don't compare. Calzaghe was the better fighter, but Froch has made far more of his career than Calzaghe. Whether Froch was around at the right time and opportunities arrived at particular times that never opened up for Joe, who knows, but Froch's career is more was built upon fighting more "live" fighters than was the case with Calzaghe and over a much shorter time frame.

fist wrote:

Quixall wrote:Fist,

Calzaghe just wasn't in the type of fights that Carl has been and on such a regulae basis. Look at who Froch has fought. Taylor, Abraham, Johnson, Kessler twice, Bute, Ward, Pascal. These are significant fighters and only Johnson could be seen as an easy fight. Froch fought back to back fights in the super six and didn't have any easy interim fights and this was over a period of two years. He travelled out of his own back yard for these fights. Apart from Johnson, who was over the hill, they were all highly rated world champions, live and in their prime years. Calzaghe has Bika, lacy, Kessler and the faded Eubank and Hopkins, plus a completely shot Jones. In my opinion, the two legacies just don't compare. Calzaghe was the better fighter, but Froch has made far more of his career than Calzaghe. Whether Froch was around at the right time and opportunities arrived at particular times that never opened up for Joe, who knows, but Froch's career is more was built upon fighting more "live" fighters than was the case with Calzaghe and over a much shorter time frame.

Super 6 was made up of what was left after Joe went. All of whom were below his level. Super 6 could not have existed cos he was undisputed which is more impressive than taking part in a tourament of people who have not unified! Main threat was a two belt undefeated champ - Kessler - who Joe fought and beat. Key point is who was the better SMW - Calzaghe. He is the best SMW after Calzaghe, Ward.

fist wrote:Key point is who was the better SMW

bengulnaci1 wrote:

fist wrote:Key point is who was the better SMW

Why are we returning to this? Ah yes, because having failed to argue with any success about legacies, switching tact onto 'Who is the better SMW', is a topic where you might have more joy

Let's make it clear, Joe was the more gifted fighter but Froch's legacy (the orignal question) is superior.

fist wrote:We will have to agree to disgagree on the extent to which certain names on each boxers resume are ordinary, rubbish or great etc.

Ultimately, Calzaghe was a much more talented and rounded boxer, who dominated the division in his time, holding at one point or other all belts, and ending with WBA, WBC, WBO and the Ring titles. The up and coming challangers and ex champs have put on some good shows since, but only one who I think who stands above the rest currently is Ward.

Quixall wrote:

bengulnaci1 wrote:

fist wrote:Key point is who was the better SMW

Why are we returning to this? Ah yes, because having failed to argue with any success about legacies, switching tact onto 'Who is the better SMW', is a topic where you might have more joy

Let's make it clear, Joe was the more gifted fighter but Froch's legacy (the orignal question) is superior.

This is it

bengulnaci1 wrote: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.

fist wrote:

bengulnaci1 wrote: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.

daviddee wrote:Firstly I don't dislike Froch.. The fact is he has never been number 1 in his division.. I will repeat that again for the complete idiots NEVER No1!!!! As for Jones and Hopkins both past their prime maybe but both would have best Froch. If Froch fights Hopkins you will find that out.. Froch has done really well is really over rate by twats!! As for Jeff Lacy before the Calzaghe many boxing experts were saying he is the real deal p4p king. Joe derailed that and destroyed him. Froch's defining fight is Bute who was never tested and as soon as he stepped up to World Level he got stopped.. Cleverley is faster stronger and walks through punches at light heavy weight will sit and trade with everyone that's why he would beat Froch probably got just as good a chin but Clev too fast and too clever. As for Groves he is far more talented that Froch. I believe he's a bigger puncher as well only way Froch could beat Groves is by KO and couldn't see that happening.. Before any of you idiots say how good Froch is go watch the Ward fight again!!

daviddee wrote:I've not said Lacy was as good as Ward but was talked of in the same way. Jones Jnr was offered to fight Calzaghe years before and turned it down. Cleverley beats Froch because he's faster stronger and can trace just as well as Froch! People jump on the flavour of the month and that is Froch at the minute.. I don't disagree with the records although I think people are harsh on Calzaghe just look at how many world champions or ex World Champions he fought!! Yes and win. If Taylor is a defining fight for Froch then it shows exactly he had lost that fight until right at the end!! Like I have said when he retires he will be flavour of the month for about a year then everyone will forget about him and it will be Calzaghe with the LEGACY

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.

bengulnaci1 wrote:

fist wrote:Good points.

No, no there not. They are as one sided and bias as you can get. If Dirrell was a 'true robbery' what does that make Reid - Calzaghe or Hopkins - Calzaghe? Dirrell should have won but it was a close, messy, poor fight. See that, that is an opinion. Passing it off as fact won't wash. I also think Reid and Hopkins beat Joe, so to me, he should have 2 losses on that padded record anyways. And I wont even go into to how Joe killed himself making SMW, for 10 years (which he admits) when moving up to LHW would have made sense. RJJ was undisputed champ then, so getting brutalised by Jones did not obviously appeal.

LEts stay in Cardiff some more and milk those defences......and people are comparing legacies??????

bengulnaci1 wrote:

fist wrote:

bengulnaci1 wrote: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.

To you and only you, it appears to be a relevant point. Froch having a better resume and taken more risk and is not a distraction but a vindication regarding the question at hand.

Who is the better fighter, prime for prime, has very little to do with legacy. Legacy is what you leave behind. Joe had challenges he could have pushed to take but he refused to go down that road. Froch on the other hand by choice or otherwise has pursued this and has picked up a defeat or two. He has avenged one and the only other one is against a fighter Calzaghe would never have travelled to America to fight. Not to mention that Ward, for me, would be more than a handful for Joe.

In a way I admire your insistence regarding this but again, your clouding this argument because it suits you to do so. That's up to you. As I said, history will view things pretty much they way I have laid it out. That is the way it is and will always be so. Whether you want to accept that or not, that is up to you. Whether you wish to tell me again that Joe was a better fighter, well guess what, I agree. Legacies are different though and Joe falls short.