BoxRec

gobbles wrote:
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?

Firstly, do you think one of the most devastating defeats anyone has ever seen on these shores compares with a points loss in America ?

Ward is not fighting anyone fast because he is in dispute with Goosen. You know that.

The Chavez talk last time was a ruse for a Groves rematch. Don't be so sure it's not another tactical play

gobbles wrote:
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?

That he fought them in the first place?

Calzaghe was the number one guy in both divisions,Froch isn't and as there is only one common opponent worth mentioning,Kessler,then the answer is obvious to me,Calzaghe

G0mez wrote:

gobbles wrote:
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?

Firstly, do you think one of the most devastating defeats anyone has ever seen on these shores compares with a points loss in America ?

Ward is not fighting anyone fast because he is in dispute with Goosen. You know that.

The Chavez talk last time was a ruse for a Groves rematch. Don't be so sure it's not another tactical play

Yes, because it's a defeat and people going on endlessly that Khan ducked a Prescott rematch, when there was, in reality, no reason for him to have it once Prescott lost to Mitchell. Ward, on the other hand, is still there and the one man to hold an unavenged win over Froch.
And 12 months ago, when Ward was over for the Kessler fight, he made it clear he was happy to come to Britain to face Froch, but there was never an offer. He wasn't in dispute with Goossen then.
I don't blame Carl for not facing him. As a risk/reward ratio, there are better fights for him. But when we are chucking around accusations of ducking fighters, let's see the whole picture. And if Carl doesn't fight Degale, how is that different from Calzaghe not fighting Froch. The only way it is different is that Degale is a much bigger name than Froch was then.

Controversial wrote:Froch's run of opponents is pretty impressive, not many fighters in the world can match it

Jean Pascal (undefeated)
Jermaine Taylor
Andre Dirrell (undefeated)
Mikkel Kessler (loss)
Arthur Abraham
Glen Johnson
Andre Ward (undefeated, loss)
Lucien Bute (undefeated)
Yusuf Mack (weakest opponent)
Mikkel Kessler
George Groves (undefeated)
George Groves

Joe Calzaghe and Nigel Benn's would be better, impressive all the same.

Froch lost twice and he hasn't fought at LH either so Calzaghe

Hopkins would beat Froch now.
Calzaghe would have beaten Ward IMO .
Froch's record is of a better quality overall though.

G0mez wrote: Joe is the undisputed "mythical" champion who is 263-0 in fantasy fights with people he could have actually fought but he ducked.

Absolutely spot on. Judge fighters on who they were willing to fight, not on what hypothetically might have happened had they hypothetically had it in them to 'step up.'

Calzaghe was a supremely gifted boxer which, to my mind, makes his almost entirely risk averse career all the more frustrating.

What I like about Froch is that, win or lose, he gave the public the answers in the ring.

Viktor Vaughn wrote:I can’t see Ward coming over here for a fight. People don’t always follow through on what they say.

You'd be lucky to get Ward to fight outside CA.

Final round wrote:Hopkins would beat Froch now.
Calzaghe would have beaten Ward IMO .
Froch's record is of a better quality overall though.

I'm not sure about that mate. I like Hopkins but I feel Froch may start to land at some point. Lord knows he's willing to catch a few himself in order to get in so he can start to land. I could see Hopkins trying to tie him and losing on points...you never know.

Final round wrote:Hopkins would beat Froch now.
Calzaghe would have beaten Ward IMO .
Froch's record is of a better quality overall though.

Good post.

Ward would be Calzaghes toughest fight though and im not sure Calzaghe would win.

Hopkins beats Carl now for me and certainly the Hopkins that fought Joe beats Carl as well. In fairness, I gave Hopkins the fight over Joe by one point though.

Froch's record is by far better than Joes though. He's beaten Kessler about as easily as Joe (although he did lose to Kessler). Bute is a better win than Lacy. Abraham, Dirrell (he got the win), Groves, Pascal, Taylor all very good wins. His record surpasses Joes easily.

dragons wrote:

Controversial wrote:Froch's run of opponents is pretty impressive, not many fighters in the world can match it

Jean Pascal (undefeated)
Jermaine Taylor
Andre Dirrell (undefeated)
Mikkel Kessler (loss)
Arthur Abraham
Glen Johnson
Andre Ward (undefeated, loss)
Lucien Bute (undefeated)
Yusuf Mack (weakest opponent)
Mikkel Kessler
George Groves (undefeated)
George Groves

Joe Calzaghe and Nigel Benn's would be better, impressive all the same.

dragons wrote:

Controversial wrote:Froch's run of opponents is pretty impressive, not many fighters in the world can match it

Jean Pascal (undefeated)
Jermaine Taylor
Andre Dirrell (undefeated)
Mikkel Kessler (loss)
Arthur Abraham
Glen Johnson
Andre Ward (undefeated, loss)
Lucien Bute (undefeated)
Yusuf Mack (weakest opponent)
Mikkel Kessler
George Groves (undefeated)
George Groves

Joe Calzaghe and Nigel Benn's would be better, impressive all the same.

Added together?

G0mez wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:Calzaghe.

Froch needs to fight and beat Hopkins to even compare. People said Hopkins was past his best when Calzaghe beat him but look at him now.

If they ever met, Joe wins every road, he'd make Froch look out of his depth.

Froch beat Pascal who sparked Dawson whom utterly dominated Hopkins.

Froch also knocked out Jermain Taylor, again who beat Hopkins twice.

So following your logic, Calzaghe needs to defeat Taylor, Pascal and Dawson to even compare to Froch.

Hope this helps.

Plus the fact Gomez,that Hopkins floored and beat champagne but got robbed. The result notwithstanding Hopkins the old Fox revealed the kryptonite to totally nullify Joe those first six rounds.just tie up one hand and he can't do his trademark two punch flurries.he becomes the proverbial one legged man in an arse kicking contest.Joe knew it too so retired

mugabi wrote:

G0mez wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:Calzaghe.

Froch needs to fight and beat Hopkins to even compare. People said Hopkins was past his best when Calzaghe beat him but look at him now.

If they ever met, Joe wins every road, he'd make Froch look out of his depth.

Froch beat Pascal who sparked Dawson whom utterly dominated Hopkins.

Froch also knocked out Jermain Taylor, again who beat Hopkins twice.

So following your logic, Calzaghe needs to defeat Taylor, Pascal and Dawson to even compare to Froch.

Hope this helps.

Plus the fact Gomez,that Hopkins floored and beat champagne but got robbed. The result notwithstanding Hopkins the old Fox revealed the kryptonite to totally nullify Joe those first six rounds.just tie up one hand and he can't do his trademark two punch flurries.he becomes the proverbial one legged man in an arse kicking contest.Joe knew it too so retired

So the only way to beat him is to foul?

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.

Do you believe that, on the balance of probabilities, prime for prime Froch beats Calzaghe? Yes or no

mugabi wrote:

G0mez wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:Calzaghe.

Froch needs to fight and beat Hopkins to even compare. People said Hopkins was past his best when Calzaghe beat him but look at him now.

If they ever met, Joe wins every road, he'd make Froch look out of his depth.

Froch beat Pascal who sparked Dawson whom utterly dominated Hopkins.

Froch also knocked out Jermain Taylor, again who beat Hopkins twice.

So following your logic, Calzaghe needs to defeat Taylor, Pascal and Dawson to even compare to Froch.

Hope this helps.

Plus the fact Gomez,that Hopkins floored and beat champagne but got robbed. The result notwithstanding Hopkins the old Fox revealed the kryptonite to totally nullify Joe those first six rounds.just tie up one hand and he can't do his trademark two punch flurries.he becomes the proverbial one legged man in an arse kicking contest.Joe knew it too so retired

Shame for Hopkins it wasn't a six round fight. Guess he had run out of kryptonite when he was rolling around on the floor trying to get a point deducted for a perfectly legal body shot.

Was that one of about six punches Joe landed that night?

Lol, some of the posts in this topic are just comical.

Makes entertaining reading even though most of the drivel is probably best treated with the contempt it deserves and ignored.

RJP wrote:

G0mez wrote: Joe is the undisputed "mythical" champion who is 263-0 in fantasy fights with people he could have actually fought but he ducked.

Absolutely spot on. Judge fighters on who they were willing to fight, not on what hypothetically might have happened had they hypothetically had it in them to 'step up.'

Calzaghe was a supremely gifted boxer which, to my mind, makes his almost entirely risk averse career all the more frustrating.

What I like about Froch is that, win or lose, he gave the public the answers in the ring.

Exactly. It's amazing how many psychics you find on boxing forums. What Calzaghe could have done is irrelevant. What he did do is all that matters and what he did do is go through his career fighting carefully matched opponents.

Froch on the other hand has the best list of opponents in boxing over the last 4 or 5 years. He may not always win, but it's about stepping up in the first place.

Stepping up against a tough opponent and losing is more credable than saying you are better than someone, but not fighting them or waiting till they are past it.

Ian1973 wrote:Lol, some of the posts in this topic are just comical.

Makes entertaining reading even though most of the drivel is probably best treated with the contempt it deserves and ignored.

Some of its tongue in cheek but I'm sure you were being serious when you wrote that Forch had to bet Hopkins to 'even compare'

That's as bad as anything I've seen in this thread!

The fact the clear majority of people who have voted on here take Froch's resume over Joes suggests he has done more than enough to merely 'compare' with Joe.

ArtOfWar wrote:

RJP wrote:

G0mez wrote: Joe is the undisputed "mythical" champion who is 263-0 in fantasy fights with people he could have actually fought but he ducked.

Absolutely spot on. Judge fighters on who they were willing to fight, not on what hypothetically might have happened had they hypothetically had it in them to 'step up.'

Calzaghe was a supremely gifted boxer which, to my mind, makes his almost entirely risk averse career all the more frustrating.

What I like about Froch is that, win or lose, he gave the public the answers in the ring.

Exactly. It's amazing how many psychics you find on boxing forums. What Calzaghe could have done is irrelevant. What he did do is all that matters and what he did do is go through his career fighting carefully matched opponents.

Froch on the other hand has the best list of opponents in boxing over the last 4 or 5 years. He may not always win, but it's about stepping up in the first place.

Stepping up against a tough opponent and losing is more credable than saying you are better than someone, but not fighting them or waiting till they are past it.

I always find those struggling to put forward a case for Joe to "easily have the better record" always resort to an entirely different question...

'Yeah but what would happen if Carl and Joe fought prime for prime'

Joe would win. Thing is, I only think one of the two would be bang up for making the fight happen!

Joe was supremely talented, more so than Froch. As mentioned above though, there are still questions left regarding how good he actually was. Its a shame. He should have sought out the big names and top, top fighters back when he was in his pomp. Joe should have been a big name in boxing stateside years before the Hopkins fight.
One word springs to mind when talking Joe Calzaghe... ( no, not 'fanboys' ) unfulfilled.

lillywhite14 wrote:
I always find those struggling to put forward a case for Joe to "easily have the better record" always resort to an entirely different question...

'Yeah but what would happen if Carl and Joe fought prime for prime'

Joe would win. Thing is, I only think one of the two would be bang up for making the fight happen!

Joe was supremely talented, more so than Froch. As mentioned above though, there are still questions left regarding how good he actually was. Its a shame. He should have sought out the big names and top, top fighters back when he was in his pomp. Joe should have been a big name in boxing stateside years before the Hopkins fight.
One word springs to mind when talking Joe Calzaghe... ( no, not 'fanboys' ) unfulfilled.

I don't think that's fair. Joe didn't put his foot down with Warren over a steady stream of poor opponents, but he never avoided anyone. Wilfried Sauerland refused to go near him with Otke, Hopkins agreed to the fight when he was a middleweight and then backed off. Who else was there for him to fight?

During the 11 years Calzaghe was WBO champion, this is a list of other super-middleweight champions: Robin Reid, Sugarboy Malinga, Richie Woodhall, Markus Beyer, Glenn Catley, Dingaan Thobela, Davey Hilton, Eric Lucas, Danny Green, Cristian Sanavia, Mikkel Kessler, Frankie Liles, Byron Mitchell, Bruno Girard, Anthony Mundine, Manny Siaca, Sven Otke, Charles Brewer, Jeff Lacy, Alejandro Berrio.

Which of that lot would have improved his legacy?

Facing a guy like Jones in his prime will have meant moving up a division, going to America for peanuts and giving up 4 options. That was never going to happen with Warren in charge. Jones was also on HBO, while Calzaghe/Warren was on Showtime. But that was the curse of the WBO title - it was easy for others to ignore.

Froch has the better opposition on his record - obviously. But the sport is about hitting and trying not to get hit. Not really in the same ballpark as Calzaghe on that front is he?
Have I imagined that Carl Froch once defeated Rob McCracken in a fight? possibly in the BBC days? off to check :>

n1ebf wrote:Froch has the better opposition on his record - obviously. But the sport is about hitting and trying not to get hit. Not really in the same ballpark as Calzaghe on that front is he?
Have I imagined that Carl Froch once defeated Rob McCracken in a fight? possibly in the BBC days? off to check :>

WTF have you been smoking