BoxRec

expe wrote:

bengulnaci1 wrote:

rio wrote: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.

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

rio wrote: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

rio wrote: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.

bengulnaci1 wrote:

rio wrote: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.

banjo wrote:

hurlock wrote: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.

Newport Daz wrote: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 wrote:Calzaghe has a point.

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

DMA1987 wrote:

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

Replace Taylor with Reid and Dirrell with Hopkins.

SNG wrote:

DMA1987 wrote:

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

SNG wrote:

DMA1987 wrote: 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 wrote:

SNG wrote:

DMA1987 wrote: 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.

youngrell wrote: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.

Newport Daz wrote: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 wrote: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 ..