BoxRec

G0mez wrote:

expe wrote: Did the BBC and the Guardian report false stories? Were they lying? Why did your remove them from the quote, was it because they didn't suit your lies? I'll add RTE and the Telegraph in as well then.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/boxing/2005/031 ... -calzaghe/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2356845 ... fence.html

Remove what quotes? you see it says "edited" when someone changes their post. But hey, you continue with your agenda you sad little spotty teenager.

I can see you now, mashing your keyboard with your vitriolic google-search powered responses. You've already posted 20 plus times on this thread, attacking everyone.

One of the biggest reasons people say this forum is going down the pan, is that there are too many you's and not enough me's.

All the great and interesting debaters have left. Because turnips sign up and machine gun every thread with 20-30 posts of the same old shite, over and over.

You only quoted part of the post, leaving out the links to the BBC and Guardian articles showing that the WBO refused to sanction the fight.

Don't think I've attacked anyone on this thread, I've definitely disputed a few things and provided the evidence to back it up, but I haven't had a go at anyone without backing up what I'm saying with something credible.

Everyone should be like you, that does make you sound arrogant I have to say, a forum where everyone mainly just posted memes(although some of them are pretty funny), wouldn't be much good. The same can be said if everyone was like me, there would be a lot of arguing and threads would go on forever, it would be a complete mess and a waste of time. Far, far better to have varied viewpoints and posting styles, not just on here, but in life generally, makes things more interesting, be shite if everyone agreed with each other and all posts were met with unanimous approval.

doesn't matter expe - you're still a c unt

palooka wrote:

columbo wrote:The forum should be made invitation only or something then. That way only the people who are deemed worthy can be allowed in.

we'd still sneak in somehow, like gatecrashing question time

palooka wrote:doesn't matter expe - you're still a c unt

expe wrote: Don't think I've attacked anyone on this thread, I've definitely disputed a few things and provided the evidence to back it up, but I haven't had a go at anyone without backing up what I'm saying with something credible.

Everyone should be like you, that does make you sound arrogant I have to say, a forum where everyone mainly just posted memes(although some of them are pretty funny), wouldn't be much good. The same can be said if everyone was like me, there would be a lot of arguing and threads would go on forever, it would be a complete mess and a waste of time. Far, far better to have varied viewpoints and posting styles, not just on here, but in life generally, makes things more interesting, be shite if everyone agreed with each other and all posts were met with unanimous approval.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/4226934.stm

Bitter every time someone upstages him.

You've probably got a good point and I imagine that Calzaghe is a touch jealous, it used to be him in the limelight etc.

He did box more than a few 'average' world ranked boxers and he was a fantastic boxer.

He wasn't a bottler and if he were he'd have surely been found out. Carl is a mate of yours and he's beaten some really good men - there's not been one who was supposed to give him a really good hiding though - it's easy to say Lacy is no good and never was - at the time he was the new big destroyer and Calzaghe was in for it. If Joe had been afraid he'd have been found out.

With the money thing - going for bigger purses etc - isn't DeGale the mandatory now and I doubt if he'd be boxed if a massive money bout could be made in Vegas.

How do you think a bout between the 2 (in their primes) would have gone?

palooka wrote:
How do you think a bout between the 2 (in their primes) would have gone?

Froch would be destroyed in around 30 seconds by a hadouken uppercut.

Is everyone happy now?

Viktor Vaughn wrote:
I've come riding in on my white horse. The plan is to shack up at the Saloon—it's called The Last Chance, naturally—engage in sins of the flesh with the local whores then stagger into the street armed only with increasingly surreal sexual analogies.

I just hope I can fit it all in and clear the blockage without getting my stick too dirty.

You've come on your horse ? your next username should be Kenneth Pinyan !

nitro5912 wrote:Joe fought those who were placed infrint of him and its an impressive list even if some were past there best.

Carl fought the best but has fights like dirrell where it was a split and should have gone against him, he was bossed by Taylor for 12rds but pulled a punch out. He lost to a Kessler that joe had beaten and beat a Kessler who had been beat up by ward, had a lay off due to his eye injury and wasnt te same.

Carl has impressive reading fighting those at the top of te game when they did. But how would they face up to joes opponents? Would Taylor beat Hopkins? Would buts beat a prime Kessler? Does Glenn Johnson beat jeff lacy?

I like both but for joe is streets ahead in terms of skill and ability but Carl is a tough cookie and has the ability to dig deep. Shame they weren't at there peak together. Great fight

I reckon Taylor would beat Hopkins, after all he actually did beat him twice!

Bute wouldn't beat a prime Kessler. Pascal might though. That win looks better and better as time goes on.

G0mez wrote:

palooka wrote:
How do you think a bout between the 2 (in their primes) would have gone?

Froch would be destroyed in around 30 seconds by a hadouken uppercut.

Is everyone happy now?

I thought you'd have a real opinion

I think you can pick apart any fighters resume, and sometimes you just have to say each record is outstanding and leave it at that. I think for me Calzaghe always found a way to win, and he could change his tactics when he needed to and Froch is the less adaptable of the two.

Calzaghe the better fighter and IMO would have won a hard fought victory on points. A shade too quick for Carl and with a good chin.

Joe has he best win (Hopkins) but carl has fought a larger number if better fighters.

Both British legends and both should be celebrated as such.

Shame we have to debate this in some way

Wrists wrote:Calzaghe the better fighter and IMO would have won a hard fought victory on points. A shade too quick for Carl and with a good chin.

Joe has he best win (Hopkins) but carl has fought a larger number if better fighters.

Both British legends and both should be celebrated as such.

Shame we have to debate this in some way

Froch got the better resume but Calzaghe is a far better boxer in my opinion

Andre Ward aside, I think Cazaghe would have had a field day with limited Abrahams, and stamina-suspect, Taylor and Pascal. Not to mention fragile Bute. Froch on the other hand may well gave ended up having his ears boxed off by lesser Brits such as Woodhall and Reid. Perhaps even Glen Catley could have edged him in a war. (Yes I know Catley never faced Calzaghe, but at his peak he was a handful.)

polecateddy wrote:Andre Ward aside, I think Cazaghe would have had a field day with limited Abrahams, and stamina-suspect, Taylor and Pascal. Not to mention fragile Bute. Froch on the other hand may well gave ended up having his ears boxed off by lesser Brits such as Woodhall and Reid. Perhaps even Glen Catley could have edged him in a war. (Yes I know Catley never faced Calzaghe, but at his peak he was a handful.)

Calzaghe stopped Catley in the ABA final. Froch is far, far better than Catley

Calzaghe would have won a one-sided decision, for my money. Just way too fast, varied in his attack and adaptable for Carl.

No fornicating way would Woodhall of beaten Froch!

Bobbyptsd wrote:Calzaghe would have won a one-sided decision, for my money. Just way too fast, varied in his attack and adaptable for Carl.

THIS.

Dont get me wrong, Froch is quality but...

Taylor outboxed Froch
First fight v Groves didnt cover Carl in glory
Andre Ward beat him relatively handily
Glen Johnson gave him issues
Kessler beat him first time out
Dirrell perplexed him with his style and boxing ability
Pascal gave him all he could handle

Okay, we can all pick faults with someones record, but Froch has depended on his fitness, strength and wildly out gunning and out swinging too many opponents. Joe had his close calls too, but when it mattered if plan A didnt work he had a B and a C.

You can only beat whats in front of you, Joe did, Carl didnt.

Was the 31 year old kessler who had lost 2 in his last 4 when he beat Froch in 2010 better than the 27 year old undefeated (39-0) kessler that lost to Joe in 2007?

If we're talking records on paper

Hopkins - went on to continue his path to greatness
Jones jnr - legend, won his 2 before joe and his 2 after
kessler - undefeated went on to beat Froch
eubank - shock as young man beats old legend
Woodhall - Retired former WBC champ
Bika - now WBC
Lacy - fav going into fight, hoe ruined his career
Veit - undefeated going in, next big thing in germany

Notable mentions reid, mitchell, brewer.

Wales wrote:If we're talking records on paper

Hopkins - went on to continue his path to greatness
Jones jnr - legend, won his 2 before joe and his 2 after
kessler - undefeated went on to beat Froch
eubank - shock as young man beats old legend
Woodhall - Retired former WBC champ
Bika - now WBC
Lacy - fav going into fight, hoe ruined his career
Veit - undefeated going in, next big thing in germany

Notable mentions reid, mitchell, brewer.

Froch would have lost to Eubank, and Hopkins for a start
Hopkins would still beat him now IMO

I bet people are still arguing about this tonight when the boxing is on.

Froch. He has never hidden from the best. Calzaghe, by and large, waited until the end of his career.

Kessler and Lacy were Calzaghe's big fights. When he fought Jones Jr and Eubank, they were both ancient. I may give him Hopkins, in retrospect, because Nard has gone on to win several big fights since Calzaghe. But even then, Joe waited until Hopkins was pretty old before giving him a fight.

Froch will fight anybody, and travel to do so.

columbo wrote:Calzaghe was the better overall fighter but Froch clearly overall has the better resume IMO.

^ This.

palooka wrote:I bet people are still arguing about this tonight when the boxing is on.

You Brits will be arguing about this in 2024.

"You're just reading Calzaghe's record on the hologram generator, you aren't even bothering to attend his fights on YouReality"