Joe Calzaghe : Has Froch's leagacy now overtaken Joe's ?

[expe]

Joe beat an inexperienced Kessler, in his hometown and a Kessler who was carrying an injury. Ward's win over a more seasoned, better, stronger Kessler was more impressive. Froch also fought a better version of Kessler than Joe did, but that's my opinion.

A bit embarrasing that a long standing champion would not travel to put the younger guys in their places but insisted that they come to him and give him another advantage. But that's just me.

As for beating the No1 guy. That is a debateable statement, in itself. Many though he lost that one. Hopkins lost twice to Taylor and once to Dawson, too and Ward and Froch beat those guys respectively. We can go around in knots here.....

How was Kessler inexperienced? He was 28 years old, had already fought away from home, admittedly not in front of 54,000 people, but how do you prepare for that? He was an unbeaten, 39-0, unified champion, how much more experience did he need?

Well fighting against Mundine in Australia hardly compares, does it? Or an early career win in the US? What does factor in is that fact that he was harbouring an injured right hand, still relatively inexperienced and had to travel into Calzaghe's backyard purely because Calzaghe did not want to travel. It's all well and good brushing over this again and again but Calzaghe would not travel, not unless he felt 100% sure he would win. Veit, being one example. The fact he felt both Hopkins and Jones Jnr were ready to be taken also bears this out.

The Kessler who fought Ward and Froch twice is a stronger, more mature and experienced fighter. Ward handled Kessler easier than Calzaghe did and that was a Kessler who could hardly use his right hand. Call me old fashioned but if Calzaghe's legacy is better then why does it contain so many, many non descript opponents, and why do some many laud his win over Kessler. I agree it was but the guy had every advantage possible. Every single one.

Lloyd Honeyghan, for example, defeating Don Curry in the US smashes anything Calzaghe has done. Froch has consistently fought better opponents, in hostile surroundings, taken risks aplenty and yet some place Calzaghe winning againast an injured Kessler, in his own backyard, in front of his own fans as better than anything Froch has done to date. Amazing. As for beating Hopkins, well, some thought he won, others did not. Not point using that one. Lacy got slapped around by a horrendously faded Jones and RJJ himself was so far removed from his prime, where Calzaghe spent 10yrs avoiding him (and killing himself making SMW, in his own words).

I will leave it there, as I and others have been repeating ourselves in various posts. No sense in doing it anymore. Some think Froch, some believe Calzaghe. That's the way it is and will always be, I'd imagine.

I'll agree to disagree on the Calzaghe-Froch debate, but on Kessler, like I said, nothing can prepare you for what he faced against Calzaghe, how many fighters can sell 50,000+ tickets? Only Ricky Hatton and possibly Sergio Martinez in recent memory. The only way Kessler was more experienced against Ward was because he fought Calzaghe and losing an 0 can have a big effect on a fighter.

[banjo]

Anyone who says jc could of beat rjj on his day is utterly clueless he wouldn't of got past the first round!

Yet David Telesco lasted the distance? I think Joe would have been beaten handily but stopped in one? Nah.

[SamWise72]

Stopped in one is nonsense. Calzaghe wouldn't, IMO have beaten Jones, but he would have given him a harder fight than almost anyone else. He had the hand speed to be able to land on Jones when others couldn't, though Jones' feet would have carried him away from a lot of it. Also, Joe could maintain a fast pace, which was not to Roy's liking. Roy hit harder and punched faster than anyone Joe ever faced, and would certainly (in my mind) have won, but first round? No. I think Joe would be stopped, because Roy would want to stop being put under pressure.

[fasteddie]

Hopkins was the no1 guy at light heavy when joe fought him making joe the no1 guy when he beat him ward needs to step up and do the same

ward beat the no.1 lh guy at sm tho,he didnt just beat him he dissmantled him. hopkins beat tarver at lh thats it,so why does this make him the no.1 lh??? joe calzaghe fought kessler when he was undefeated ye but i dont think that counts for extra points.

[fasteddie]

Joe beat kessler when he was unbeaten it carrys more weight just as mayweather beating hatton counts for more than pac mans win. There was no blue print to beat kessler before joe did, everyone else had failed. Personally think joe shoukd be ranked above wards as he moved upa weight and beat the no1 guy at light heavyweight which is something ward has not done.

so you think a ten round stoppage when you spent most of the fight on your back foot carrying more weight than a 2 round knock out with 3 knockdowns in?? i would strongly disagree,pac mans defeat of hatton was a bigger statement than a mayweather win over him.

[fasteddie]

Hopkins was the no1 guy at light heavy when joe fought him making joe the no1 guy when he beat him ward needs to step up and do the same

As I said, that was debatable. I thought both Reid and Hopkins beat him. Did he offer either a rematch? He got the W but, for me and a lot of others, he did not 'win'.

I would argue Ward has stepped up more than Joe has and Ward is not even close to being done, yet.

i agree with everythin you say here bengulanaci

[fasteddie]

Anyone who says jc could of beat rjj on his day is utterly clueless he wouldn't of got past the first round!

Yet David Telesco lasted the distance? I think Joe would have been beaten handily but stopped in one? Nah.

dont know why you say nah,if a rjj tens years on from his prime with slower reflexes and slower speed dropped joe in one,and joe got up on unsteady legs,off a forearm btw,then what would a prime rjj do with knuckles and the speed of a cat? i wouldnt say nah when he got caught in this one.

[Final round]

Joe believes he had himself declined by the time he fought Jones that I why he retired,that and the fact he seemed sick to death of the sport.
Yes Joe went down from a forearm, then he got straight back up again but what would RJJ's Forearm have done to him in his prime? Beheaded him probably! that forearm was a monster back in the day...

[Newport Daz]

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/sport/ ... ts/?ref=mr

It seems Joe thinks it's a joke that Carl considers his legacy superior than his own. Joe seems somewhat deluded

[Final round]

Calzaghe has a point.

[stevieb_8006]

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/sport/ ... ts/?ref=mr

It seems Joe thinks it's a joke that Carl considers his legacy superior than his own. Joe seems somewhat deluded

as I wrote earlier, the fact that joe never really strove for greatness seems to be eating him up a little in retirement. He's seemed a little jealous of carl for a while now. Ultimately, if carls so awful, why didn't he take the fight.

Look, they are both class fighters, legends in fact. But carls put his balls on the line travelling away from home against top names. Joe moaned about flying and injuries. Its a bit of a case of reaping what you sow, no point crying now.

[lillywhite14]

Calzaghe has a point.

He does, in parts. It isn't up to Carl to decide where he fits and he certainly isn't Britain's greatest ever.

Some of what he says, defending his own record of mediocre opposition, Bute being barely above domestic level and the Clev thing ( I remember him saying similar things about Enzo when the Hye thing was going on ) is bullshit though.

[youngrell]

bengulnaci1 - you clearly have a massive dislike of Calzaghe which is clouding your judgment slightly.

Now I'm not saying you can't possibly believe Froch has the better legacy, that is your opinion and nobody will change that. But, your constant discrediting of Calzaghe and his opponents does not enhance Froch's legacy at all. Your opinion that Kessler was inexperienced fighting Joe is laughable, it is almost universally agreed that Kessler was at his peak when he fought Calzaghe, and your constant mentioning of the Reid and Hopkins decisions (of which the majority agree were correct) also shows some bitterness.

Let it go man, just be happy that you think Froch has the better legacy, no need to criticise Joe at every turn in order to back up your opinion.

[DMA1987]

"He was fortunate to beat Taylor and many, many people don’t think he beat Dirrell."

Replace Taylor with Reid and Dirrell with Hopkins. Then he goes on to slate Bute, when the exact same (maybe more-so) could be said of his opponent in Jeff Lacy.

Shouldn't go there Joe

Though this self hype thing from Froch does irk me slightly. I think Calzaghe may have been better but it's his own fault that this is up for discussion at all. And if Froch carries on much longer Calzaghe's legacy will definitely be surpassed beyond question, and he won't have anybody to blame but himself tbh.

And if it came to a choice between the two, I would pick a Froch fight every time - which I think is an important factor when judging the legacy of a boxer.

[SNG]

"He was fortunate to beat Taylor and many, many people don’t think he beat Dirrell."

Replace Taylor with Reid and Dirrell with Hopkins.

Dirrell the unproven SMW with one of the best fighters of his generation?

[DMA1987]

"He was fortunate to beat Taylor and many, many people don’t think he beat Dirrell."

Replace Taylor with Reid and Dirrell with Hopkins.

Dirrell the unproven SMW with one of the best fighters of his generation?

Absolutely. That quote could apply directly to Joe. Love how you let the Taylor/Reid example stand.

[forcefraser]

Calzaghe beat an undefeated prime kessler, Froch didn`t. That speaks voløumes for me.

Joe was lucky to get teh decision ocver Hopkins and Read, but Froch was lucky against Dirrell.

For me Froch`s best win was against Pascal.

[SNG]

Absolutely. That quote could apply directly to Joe. Love how you let the Taylor/Reid example stand.

I do have problems with the Taylor Reid example, Taylor has never done anything at SMW and was retired at the top level by another MW, Reid was an actual world champion at SMW, but it doesn't stand out half as much as your Dirrell/Hopkins comparison.

[DMA1987]

Absolutely. That quote could apply directly to Joe. Love how you let the Taylor/Reid example stand.

I do have problems with the Taylor Reid example, Taylor has never done anything at SMW and was retired at the top level by another MW, Reid was an actual world champion at SMW, but it doesn't stand out half as much as your Dirrell/Hopkins comparison.

Ok mate, you're going off at a completely different angle here.

The point is - If you have been extremely lucky yourself to get two decisions, then you shouldn't point out two 'lucky' victories of others as a way to prove yourself better.

It was an article full of Joe being a Hypocrite.

[SNG]

Absolutely. That quote could apply directly to Joe. Love how you let the Taylor/Reid example stand.

I do have problems with the Taylor Reid example, Taylor has never done anything at SMW and was retired at the top level by another MW, Reid was an actual world champion at SMW, but it doesn't stand out half as much as your Dirrell/Hopkins comparison.

Ok mate, you're going off at a completely different angle here.

The point is - If you have been extremely lucky yourself to get two decisions, then you shouldn't point out two 'lucky' victories of others as a way to prove yourself better.

It was an article full of Joe being a Hypocrite.

I thought you were comparing the fighters themselves, like Froch's alleged gift against Dirrell is the same as Calzaghe's alleged gift against Hopkins despite the massive difference in quality of opponent. I see what you were saying now.

[stujones]

I think Hopkins should have got the nod vs Joe in a close(ish) one - although Chunk Giampa's (I think) card was one of the worst I have ever heard... how can Joe win that fight by 5. Reid vs Calzaghe was too close to call IMO (and Calzaghe clearly shouldn't have fought that night).

Dirrell vs Froch was one of the worst decisions in a British ring IMO.... disgraceful commentating that night also. If I remember Rawling and McKenzie scored the fight to Dirrel by 3. When Froch named got called, did they mention - "robbery"..... no they talked about justice cause Dirrel ran..... Don't score the fight to Dirrel by 3 if he ran....mind you Rawling did describe Haye's effort vs Klitchsko as "brave".

It would be interesting to have read had Dirrell got the nod how many people would have said "robbery".

[NazNaci1]

bengulnaci1 - you clearly have a massive dislike of Calzaghe which is clouding your judgment slightly.

Now I'm not saying you can't possibly believe Froch has the better legacy, that is your opinion and nobody will change that. But, your constant discrediting of Calzaghe and his opponents does not enhance Froch's legacy at all. Your opinion that Kessler was inexperienced fighting Joe is laughable, it is almost universally agreed that Kessler was at his peak when he fought Calzaghe, and your constant mentioning of the Reid and Hopkins decisions (of which the majority agree were correct) also shows some bitterness.

Let it go man, just be happy that you think Froch has the better legacy, no need to criticise Joe at every turn in order to back up your opinion.

No, I do not dislike him at all. I simply find his accomplishments and his fans who laud these accomplishments, overrated. It's almost as if no one is allowed to even be considered superior, in anyway. Let alone anyone from the UK. It's fine to disagree with me but if we talk about legacies and 'stepping up', Calzaghe has left plenty of scope for his accomplishments to be debated.

They have all been covered in this thread, so no point listing them all again. Reid and Hopkins? The point is that plenty thought Joe lost 2 fights, whether you agree with that or not does not make is less accurate and, in my opinion cases can be made that Calzaghe should have 2 losses on his record. Same applies to Froch vs Dirrell. He lost that one, too, in my opinion. That was the point in mentioning them. In those fights, he never was interested in offering a return, in particular to Reid. Joe was all about ending his career undefeated, at all costs. He had a couple of scares did not want to know. That says a lot.

It's just bitterness from his fans that cannot accept that a) Froch does have a better legacy and b) As Yiddo also pointed out, so does Ward. It's not a crime, its just the way it is.

'Let it go' ? Let what go? The fact I can offer another viewpoint? Surely that is the point. Realistically evaluating Calzaghe's record is not the same as 'diminishing it'. The same applies to Froch.

[fasteddie]

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/sport/ ... ts/?ref=mr

It seems Joe thinks it's a joke that Carl considers his legacy superior than his own. Joe seems somewhat deluded

errm,am i missing something here?? since when has a ring magazine belt been a world title???? joe calzaghe is eating sour grapes end of story and carl froch is a 100 times more value for money than joe calslappy. when joe was fighting kessler kessler hurt joe and he went on the back foot and didnt wanna know for the rest of the fight,when carl got hurt by kessler what did he do?? stood his ground and fired shots back which hurt kessler so for me froch is value for money over calzaghe by a country mile-note im saying more value for money.

[Final round]

Carl is always value for money and never fails to get in a tear up that's true but sadly for him it doesn't make him the best SMW in the world. Calzaghe also moved up and beat the best at a higher weight which Carl seems reluctant to do. Tbf I was hoping Joe would have fought Dawson instead of RJJ as I thought he would have won that but ..

[fasteddie]

Carl is always value for money and never fails to get in a tear up that's true but sadly for him it doesn't make him the best SMW in the world. Calzaghe also moved up and beat the best at a higher weight which Carl seems reluctant to do. Tbf I was hoping Joe would have fought Dawson instead of RJJ as I thought he would have won that but ..

all this "he beat the best at LH" he beat hopkins who only had one fight at LH previous to that fight against tarver in another bore fest hopkins fight,imo dawson was the best LH at that time and also for me,to be the best at a weight you got to have more than one fight at a weight,even if you beat the world rated best at that weight cause as we all know styles make fights. joe fought hopkins and rjj at LH at a combined age of 83-84 these two wasnt the best at LH.