BoxRec

jameswilson wrote:

tonyevs wrote:Taylor was shot to pieces after the Pavlik fight.
Froch was less than 15seconds from defeat in that fight.
And Abraham at s-middle was a very poor fighter. No work rate at all.
Its also valid to mention that Johnson has always been regarded as a good loser.
Dirrel .... umm? ... Remind me of his achievments again ...
The Pascal win was good. But Hopkins kinda puts that into perspective really..
And the fact an old Kessler still had enough to beat Froch will always be the sticking point for me.

The positive about Froch is that he is tough. Nobody will have an easy night with him as long as he's standing.

Once the Ward fight is over. If Carl hopefully wins, he'll have Bute ... then the division is done. And i see Froch moving up to face Cleverly.
And thats where I see Carl being ground to a halt!
There is absolutely no way he beats Cleverly!!

Did you think Taylor was shot before he fought Froch? Nah you thought he was several levels above Froch back then, and you thought Abraham could KO Froch late on, and afterwards mentioned the way to beat Abraham was really obvious. Any chance you could tell us the obvious way to beat Ward? Also this weeks lottery numbers while you're at it?

I admit hindsight is a wonderful thing ..
The facts do however remain the same.
Are you implying Taylor was at his best .. or close to?
Are you also suggesting Abraham was a good s-middle? or even fought an intelligent fight against Froch .. or even did anything more than plod forward all night?

But .. the worrying part for me in your reply .. is ... do you stalk everybodies old posts
Your OCD or are you just unemployed?

He won't beat Ward, I'm afraid. Skills Win this fight, & Ward is the more skilful, more versatile fighter.

Can someone please explain to me how Nathan Cleverly is a 'world champion'?

He hasn't even beaten a world class fighter yet there are people here referring to him as a world champion as if beating some late sub who rocked him and Tony Bellew are 'world championship' qualifications. My how the standards drop when you discuss a local fighter.

loaded_gloves wrote:Can someone please explain to me how Nathan Cleverly is a 'world champion'?

He hasn't even beaten a world class fighter yet there are people here referring to him as a world champion as if beating some late sub who rocked him and Tony Bellew are 'world championship' qualifications. My how the standards drop when you discuss a local fighter.

.... not sure if you know this?
But anybody nowadays who holds a Worlds title belt .. is a world champion.

Some are worthy of the title .. some aren`t ... but thats a different question altogether

Cleverly being a 'world champ' for his achievements might well be an all time low for boxing, even in the WBO's sordid history.

tonyevs wrote:Taylor was shot to pieces after the Pavlik fight.
Froch was less than 15seconds from defeat in that fight.
And Abraham at s-middle was a very poor fighter. No work rate at all.
Its also valid to mention that Johnson has always been regarded as a good loser.
Dirrel .... umm? ... Remind me of his achievments again ...
The Pascal win was good. But Hopkins kinda puts that into perspective really..
And the fact an old Kessler still had enough to beat Froch will always be the sticking point for me.

The positive about Froch is that he is tough. Nobody will have an easy night with him as long as he's standing.

Once the Ward fight is over. If Carl hopefully wins, he'll have Bute ... then the division is done. And i see Froch moving up to face Cleverly.
And thats where I see Carl being ground to a halt!
There is absolutely no way he beats Cleverly!!

I could counter ever single one of these points but why waste my time

People find it far too easy to discredit Calzaghe's win over Lacy. Calzaghe was supposed to get knocked out. Anyone predicting a Calzaghe win were in a tiny minority. Lacy was an Olympic-level amateur who then started knocking everyone out when he turned pro. The 168lb division wasn't loaded with talent at the time, but he ko'd everyone who was put in front of him.

Then Calzaghe gave him the kind of hiding that mentally destroys someone, and he never came back from it. People point to this as proof that Lacy was never that good anyway. IMO this is revisionist history.

The Lacy win was his best win, by a long shot. Even though it was built up more on hype (Lacey). Great win and a great night for the fans.

Froch won't win. He already got well beaten by the best fighter he fought yet, and Wards even better.

Well Kessler did not bring the level of 'threat', that Lacy did. He was being marketed as a smaller Mike Tyson, a guy who would and could knock down walls. The notion being that if he caught Calzaghe, he would send him to sleep.

I remember watching that and admit, I was suckered by the hype and thought he would connect and 'level' Joe. What it proved was that Joe was a great fighter, a fearless one (he was not a pure boxer) and that Lacy was more style than substance.

froch has already surpassed calzaghe.....he didnt dither around thinking about fighting glencoffe johnson.....he beat a jermaine taylor that was far superior to lacey.....and he beat abraham and kessler (no matter what the judges said it could have gone either way), and dirrel and jean pascal......Calzaghe doesnt even compare.

Kessler was obviously the far superior fighter.

Just because an undefeated American has 20 odd wins and a high KO %, together with a hype train doesn't mean they're any good.

Kessler gave Calzaghe a good fight and made him bring it all out, and subsequently became champion on two more occasions, including taking Froch's unbeaten record.

Lacy laboured like hell with some crap fighters and lost every round to Taylor and a shot Roy Jones, who stopped him.

It's why Mike Tyson isn't Lewis's best win, despite being the biggest name Lennox beat.

I certainly think that Calzaghe ducked Froch at the end of his career, at a stage when he could have beaten him, but Calzaghe didn't fancy it. After the Jones fight, which took nothing out of Calzaghe, a fight could have easilt been made and Froch repeated the offer of a fight after he beat Jermain Taylor.

People are looking at this all wrong for me.

Forget the opponents, who beat who and what not, who would have won had they met. For me its a simple answer. Calzaghe by a big UD

Calzaghe could not only match Carls heart, he was quicker, greater stamina and threw far to many pucnhes. Carl would have been outworked. Whilst there is debate about whos resume is better, im sure there is not much debate on who would have won had they met.

Lets also not forget that Joe was world champion for 10 years and even as an old, end of carrer boxer had the bo**cks to get in with a prime Kessler and an always dangerous Hopkins and beat them both. Froch may beat Ward, I hope he does although I wouldnt bet on it, but even if he does, to emulate Joe is still, for me, not there. Joe was an All time British great. Maybe the All time British great and a HOF'er. Froch is good and his resume is mighty impressive, but he is still some way off for me

Cardiff-Lad1 wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:Cleverly being a 'world champ' for his achievements might well be an all time low for boxing, even in the WBO's sordid history.

I wish you'd remove your cock from anything other than UK boxers. It's getting boring with your continual slating of British boxers.

I just judge boxers on their opponents and achievements, I don't accept shitty 'world champs' just because they happen to be British and well connected promoter-wise. Why anybody would view things your way is unfathomable to me.

It's based more on my appreciation of old school boxers who fought in brutal eras when titles didn't come so cheap.

loaded_gloves wrote:I just judge boxers on their opponents and achievements, I don't accept shitty 'world champs' just because they happen to be British and well connected promoter-wise. Why anybody would view things your way is unfathomable to me.

It's based more on my appreciation of old school boxers who fought in brutal eras when titles didn't come so cheap.

Much like my viewpoint on the sport. It might be wrong but that's the way I look at it.

bengulnaci1 wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:I just judge boxers on their opponents and achievements, I don't accept shitty 'world champs' just because they happen to be British and well connected promoter-wise. Why anybody would view things your way is unfathomable to me.

It's based more on my appreciation of old school boxers who fought in brutal eras when titles didn't come so cheap.

Much like my viewpoint on the sport. It might be wrong but that's the way I look at it.

To look at sport and boxers in any other way borders on the moronic. If we want a deep, satisfying, competitive sport we need it to be a meritocracy, damnit!!

tonyevs wrote:

jameswilson wrote:

tonyevs wrote:Taylor was shot to pieces after the Pavlik fight.
Froch was less than 15seconds from defeat in that fight.
And Abraham at s-middle was a very poor fighter. No work rate at all.
Its also valid to mention that Johnson has always been regarded as a good loser.
Dirrel .... umm? ... Remind me of his achievments again ...
The Pascal win was good. But Hopkins kinda puts that into perspective really..
And the fact an old Kessler still had enough to beat Froch will always be the sticking point for me.

The positive about Froch is that he is tough. Nobody will have an easy night with him as long as he's standing.

Once the Ward fight is over. If Carl hopefully wins, he'll have Bute ... then the division is done. And i see Froch moving up to face Cleverly.
And thats where I see Carl being ground to a halt!
There is absolutely no way he beats Cleverly!!

Did you think Taylor was shot before he fought Froch? Nah you thought he was several levels above Froch back then, and you thought Abraham could KO Froch late on, and afterwards mentioned the way to beat Abraham was really obvious. Any chance you could tell us the obvious way to beat Ward? Also this weeks lottery numbers while you're at it?

I admit hindsight is a wonderful thing ..
The facts do however remain the same.
Are you implying Taylor was at his best .. or close to?
Are you also suggesting Abraham was a good s-middle? or even fought an intelligent fight against Froch .. or even did anything more than plod forward all night?

But .. the worrying part for me in your reply .. is ... do you stalk everybodies old posts
Your OCD or are you just unemployed?

I don't think Taylor was at his very best against Froch, he was probably at his best when he beat Hopkins twice. But you didn't use the words (in this thread) not at his best or close to his best. You said he was shot to pieces. And I am disagreeing with that. Roy Jones Jr, was shot when he fought Calzaghe. Danny Williams, was shot when he fought Chisora. Taylor was throwing lots of good shots against Froch, and Froch beat him by taking them and coming back and forcing Taylor to tire. Froch didn't take a 12 round pounding in the fight, he didn't lose 11.5 rounds. He was losing going into the last, but on my scorecard and on the scorecard of pretty much all the ringside pundits and commentators, Froch would have either won or drawn the fight with the knockdown in the last and a further knockdown (which with Taylor keeling forward with his eyes shut, it's reasonable to assume he would have been put down again with 10 seconds left.)

On the Abraham point, yeah like you say we are both acting with hindsight. Before the fight I was backing Froch to out-throw Abraham. Now this aint a suprise I'v supported Carl since he turned pro. If this makes me a nut-hugger then fine. But I'm just supporting a boxer. In my opinion you just look to put certain boxers wins and achievments down, pretty much all of Froch's wins have come with some caveat or 'yeah but.....'.

It didn't take me 20 seconds to find your old post about Taylor, and probably took me another 30 to find your one on Abraham. I didn't have to find the thread, I just used the 'search users old posts' facility. We can get a decent debate going here I used a little bit of sarcasm I didn't call you a shit pudendum or anything like that so no need to get personal and accuse me of being unemployed (I'm in the military), or some OCD dweeb.

30. Richie Woodhall Andre Ward
29. Omar Sheika Glen Johnson
28. David Starie Arthur Abraham
27. Rick Thornberry Mikkel Kessler
26. Robin Reid Andre Dirrell
25. Juan Ferreyra Jermain Taylor
24. Branko Sobot Jean Pascal
23. Chris Eubank Albert Rybacki
22. Luciano Torres Robin Reid
21. Tyler Hughes Sergei Tatevosyan
20. Carlos Christie Tony Dodson
19. Pat Lawlor Brian Magee
18. Warren Stowe Dale Westerman
17. Mark Delaney Ruben Groenwald
16. Anthony Brooks Matthew Barney
15. Guy Stanford Henry Porras
14. Stephen Wilson Damon Hague
13. Nick Manners Mark Woolnough
12. Tyrone Jackson Charles Adamu
11. Robert Curry Dmitri Adamovich
10. Bobbie Joe Edwards Alan Page
9. Frank Minton Vage Koccharyan
8. Trevor Ambrose Michael Monaghan
7. Mark Lee Dawson Varuz Davytan
6. Karl Barwise Valery Odin
5. Darren Littlewood Mike Duffield
4. Martin Rosamond Paul Bonson
3. Spencer Alton Darren Covill
2. Paul Mason Ojay Abrahams
1. Paul Hanlon Michael Pinnock

Would calzaghe have beaten all of froch's opponents? Most people would say yes. Would froch have beaten all of calzaghes opponents? No. He wouldn't beat hopkins and he wouldn't have beaten that version of kessler (nor did he beat an inferior version).

People discredit joe's win over lacy because lacy did nothing after he lost to calzaghe. Shouldn't we wait to see how some of carls victims do in the future before we consider them to be great victories? If dirrel goes on to be a dominant world champion then of course it reflects well on carl, but what if he never wins a world title? What if abraham retires having been outclassed in 3 of his 4 fights at supermiddle? would they really be great wins?

Both great fighters, and we could compare opponents and achievements all day long, but for me, Calzaghe is the better figter; more stamina, broader skill range, faster, relentless, great movement. That is not to diminish Froch's ability and ultimately unless Joe returns and fights Froch its all subjective anyway. Only thing I'd add is a point about the Froch / Taylor fight; great that Froch managed to pull off the win, but Taylor completely outboxed him.

el torro wrote:Would calzaghe have beaten all of froch's opponents? Most people would say yes. Would froch have beaten all of calzaghes opponents? No. He wouldn't beat hopkins and he wouldn't have beaten that version of kessler (nor did he beat an inferior version).

People discredit joe's win over lacy because lacy did nothing after he lost to calzaghe. Shouldn't we wait to see how some of carls victims do in the future before we consider them to be great victories? If dirrel goes on to be a dominant world champion then of course it reflects well on carl, but what if he never wins a world title? What if abraham retires having been outclassed in 3 of his 4 fights at supermiddle? would they really be great wins?

I personally think that Calzaghe didn't beat Hopkins...........

10-8 in the first round, Hopkins practically dominated the first 5 rounds, then a couple of close rounds and Calzaghe came on strong in the last 4 or 5 rounds. I was very suprised at that decision and i can remember listening to the radio 5 live commentary team and they were all "So what did Joe get wrong in this fight............" after the final bell had sounded. Kessler is the only thing that Calzaghe has over Froch and before you say it, no, i'm not impressed with unbeaten records and yes, i do think Calzaghe was a very very good fighter !!

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

Quixall wrote:I certainly think that Calzaghe ducked Froch at the end of his career, at a stage when he could have beaten him, but Calzaghe didn't fancy it. After the Jones fight, which took nothing out of Calzaghe, a fight could have easilt been made and Froch repeated the offer of a fight after he beat Jermain Taylor.

Calzaghe retired after Jones. It's okay saying a fight could be made, of course it could, but Joe retired and do you honestly think beating Froch after Pascal would have meant much? You're thinking about Froch as he's looked at now, he was held in a very different regard back then and didn't offer Calzaghe anything financially or to add to his legacy. Joe wasn't even fighting in the same weight class either, he struggled to make 168 for years so the fight would have had to be at 175, a completely new weight for Froch. Chad Dawson would have been a more credible opponent back then.

I can't believe people actually think Calzaghe ducked Froch.

I will agree with that.................

but it's not "people" saying it, it's me saying it !!

if froch wins such an important fight, ward, then he'll be in the pantheon of british greats, as is calzaghe.

Froch passed Calzaghe a long long time ago