Who has the better record: Froch or Calzaghe

[IRLangmaid25]

Froch has faced pretty much everyone that could be expected of him. Down to an unwillingness to travel/Wazza's milk the WBO safety first approach/bad timing, Joe missed out on some assignments that would have given him a Froch-like 'bring on all-comers' veneer -

Reid 2
Mitchell 2 (he was surely deserving with such a contentious ending)
RJJ (prime)
Ottke
Mundine
Beyer
Green
Froch!!!!!!!
Johnson

Joe faced too many foes of the calibre of

MacIntyre
Pudwill
Salem
Sobot
Thornberry
Sobot
Ashira
Jimenez
Manfredo
Myrkychan (or summat)

And he looked unconvincing in a lot of these.

Maybe Joe would've whooped everyone in the first list. In which case there'd have been much less of a debate. And much less criticism for him for seemingly wasting vast periods of the first 8 years of his title reign. Would he have entered an equivalent Super Six in 1998? By comparison the demands of that tournament epitomised Froch's approach to his own career, wishing to test himself regardless of the risks of losing his '0'.

Maybe those of us in the Froch camp are swayed too much by Carl's attitude next to so many years of general frustration with Joe's career.

You mention that he won while look unconvincing etc. But surely the sign of a great champion in any sport whatever he or she may choose to involve themself in is the ability to win despite not performing at their best, but yet still finding away to win. Because ulitmately the recordbook will just record who got the W and how it came whether it be by points or by knockout that is all that matters, then you focus on the next opponent that comes your way and look to perform better than what you did in your previous outing.

[gobbles]

With hindsight the Lacy win isnt all that too. May be Joe simply ruined the man, but the suspicion has to be there that he really never was all that...time will tell if we think about Bute that way too!

Bute and Lacy is a good comparison. IBF champion, big reputation, unbeaten, unproven

[Jon Saxon]

Hmm Calzaghe beat Kessler Froch couldn't
Calzaghe beat Nard froch never could.

People are getting carried away with last night methinks.


I'm not so sure Froch would even beat Bika.

[Sportofkings]

Hmm Calzaghe beat Kessler Froch couldn't
Calzaghe beat Nard froch never could.

People are getting carried away with last night methinks.


I'm not so sure Froch would even beat Bika.

Thats nonsense to be fair, Bika is a tough, strong competitor but hes lost every time hes stepped up against a world class fighter. Froch would take a clear decision against him, like Bute did.

Anyways, the thread isnt about which boxer is the better fighter, just which on ehas the better record. Im sure most people would agree that Joe would beat Froch if they had ever met.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Hmm Calzaghe beat Kessler Froch couldn't
Calzaghe beat Nard froch never could.

People are getting carried away with last night methinks.


I'm not so sure Froch would even beat Bika.

good god what rot.

[forcefraser]

Taylor is as good a win as Hopkins.

I can't believe no one picked up on this? In what world is Taylor as good of a win as Hopkins?

Taylor - Completely unproven at championship level at 168, his only win there being Jeff Lacy at the time. and he left MW coming off two losses to Kelly Pavlik, one of which was a big KO loss. He since went on to get laid out against Abraham. (Edit) - He also would have beaten Froch too had he simply taken a knee.

Hopkins - The lineal champion at 175, after coming up and beating Tarver. And has since gone on to beat Pavlik and Pascal.

Taylor beat Hopkins twice

Froch has a better resume than Calzaghe in my opinion, little doubt in my mind that Calzaghe would have won a wide decision over Froch had they ever fought.

[forcefraser]

I can't believe no one picked up on this? In what world is Taylor as good of a win as Hopkins?

Taylor - Completely unproven at championship level at 168, his only win there being Jeff Lacy at the time. and he left MW coming off two losses to Kelly Pavlik, one of which was a big KO loss. He since went on to get laid out against Abraham. (Edit) - He also would have beaten Froch too had he simply taken a knee.

Hopkins - The lineal champion at 175, after coming up and beating Tarver. And has since gone on to beat Pavlik and Pascal.

Taylor beat Hopkins twice

Froch has a better resume than Calzaghe in my opinion, little doubt in my mind that Calzaghe would have won a wide decision over Froch had they ever fought.

Taylor did beat Hopkins twice, but that has no bearing on the men Joe and Carl fought. Hopkins was a much better fighter when Joe faced him than the Taylor who faced Froch. Their fights prior to the bout show that, and so do their subsequent bouts. Taylor was a good win, I don't disagree, but Hopkins was the proven fighter at 175 and the man at the weight, Taylor was rebuilding from two big losses with only a win against Lacy on his record.

I know a result is a result, but I`m not convinced that Calzaghe should have got the decision over Hopkins anyway.

Kessler was a great result for Calzaghe and the fight that really showed how good he actually was. However apart from that fight he didn`t treally fight many other top drawer opponents (Lacy was way overhyped, Jones was a shadow of himself, Manfredo??)

So we have a great win over Kessler and a dubious win over Hopkins and a very dubious win over Reid. It`s not a great resume for a guy with 46 fights unbeaten.

[NazNaci1]

Would Calzaghe have fought let alone beaten Ward in the US? Or Dirrell? I think some people are selling these guys short especially when a fair few don't think Calzaghe beat Reid or Hopkins. So how come Calzaghe beats 'all the guys' Froch has faced? He barely eeked past a spoiling, fouling Hopkins and a fired, aggressive Reid, again, which quite a few disagreed with.

Calzaghe vs Froch, prime for prime is a different matter but this is not the question.

[NazNaci1]

So how come Calzaghe beats 'all the guys' Froch has faced?

Who said that?

Look at like this, Calzaghe would have beaten every fighter Carl has faced and beaten.

Worded differently but not the same, no?

[NazNaci1]

Depends on how want to look at it, DD. If you feel that Reid, for example did not deserve to win vs Calzaghe, then ok, to you, your statement may be accurate. I and probably quite a few others feel that Reid got a raw deal, so to me, I can respectfully disagree.

[NazNaci1]

Fair enough, DD. It was a tight fight. It came down to what you preferred, busy pitty pat, slapping flurries from JC or the harder, more orthadox shots of Reid. I'll see if I can find a decent link for it and throw you a PM, so you can watch it whenever you get some time. It was good fight, to be honest. Probably worthy of watching again.

Out of curiosity, nothing more, how do you feel Calzaghe would have fared vs Dirrell in Cardiff and Ward in Oakland?

[gobbles]

Depends on how want to look at it, DD. If you feel that Reid, for example did not deserve to win vs Calzaghe, then ok, to you, your statement may be accurate. I and probably quite a few others feel that Reid got a raw deal, so to me, I can respectfully disagree.

Right, but Carl didn't fight the same Reid that Joe did, nine years difference I think. I'm saying Joe would have beaten every fighter Carl has faced and beaten. Do you think Froch would have retired the Reid that Calzaghe fought in round five? No way.

People keep mentioning the Reid fight and how close it was, and that Reid should have gotten the decision. It's been so long since I saw it that I need to see it again to really say what I think about it. I don't remember thinking it was any kind of travesty though. I can't find a decent copy of it unfortunately.

The Reid fight wasn't that close. Calzaghe won the first 7 at a canter then broke his hand. Even Reid didn't claim after that he won. Calzaghe was just disappointing that night and because it was a split (a Paul Thomas special) people that want to criticise Joe have built it up into a travesty over the years, which it wasn't.

[Counter-puncher]

I have serious manlove for Calzaghe but Froch's resume's clearly better, for me. though i agree with DD's comments that JC would have beaten all of Froch's victims.

[nobby_nobbins]

If Calzaghe had had a schedule like Froch's, facing top tier opponents in their prime one after the other, often away from home, he would have run the risk of becoming a weary fighter who was more likely to have an off night and suffer a surprise defeat. Enjoying the comforts of home for the majority of his career and only fighting grade "A" opponents occasionally, meant he was usually pretty fresh, hand problems notwithstanding. Froch gets extra credit from me for not padding his record with timewasting fights against no-marks. For Calzaghe, the fights against roadsweepers, even though he won them, go in the deficit column against him.

[whiskey]

Hilarious how people peg a victory over a inexperienced Kessler, shielding a badly broken right hand and his manager dying in an intensive care unit in a Cardiff - as better than anything Froch has achieved.

Hopkins? He lost that fight as clear as day. That horrible cuffing, slapping, mauling effort - which saw him get dropped and his nose broken is another poor argument.

Calzaghe took 13 years to even face a guy who held a f*cking belt !!

[deadpan]

13 years before he met a title holder. That's quite a stat.

[mrbassie]

I notice everyone picking Froch focus on his exploits and almost every pro Calzaghe pick is based on what he would have done.
Interesting.

[JDC]

Johnson ~ Eubank
Kessler ~ Kessler
Dirrell ~ Reid
Taylor ~ Roy Jones Jnr
Bute ~ Lacy
Ward ~ ???
??? ~ Hopkins
Abraham ~ Mitchel
Pascal ~ Bika
Dodson ~ Manfredo Jr
Magee ~ Salem

Objectively, Calzaghe's record still looks better. Froch is way ahead of Calzaghe in terms of consistent quality of opposition over a short period of time, but Froch was a mature fighter when he stepped up.

The Taylor, Dirrell and Abraham comparisons may be a little generous to Calzaghe, but not by enough to offset the losses to Ward and Kessler and the failure to have a win as good as Hopkins on his record.

[tonyevs]

That Froch lost against Kessler and Ward is enough to put him behind Calzaghe.

Its easy and predictable to say Kessler had broken hand etc .... of which Kessler has not mentioned as a reason for the defeat
But Kessler had not looked good since his lay off. And was coming off a loss to Ward .... Froch had a fantastic oppurtunity to have beaten Kessler.
And his loss to Ward is still yet to be really judged. How good/bad is Ward going to turn out to be?

[gobbles]

Johnson ~ Eubank
Kessler ~ Kessler
Dirrell ~ Reid
Taylor ~ Roy Jones Jnr
Bute ~ Lacy
Ward ~ ???
??? ~ Hopkins
Abraham ~ Mitchel
Pascal ~ Bika
Dodson ~ Manfredo Jr
Magee ~ Salem

Objectively, Calzaghe's record still looks better. Froch is way ahead of Calzaghe in terms of consistent quality of opposition over a short period of time, but Froch was a mature fighter when he stepped up.

The Taylor, Dirrell and Abraham comparisons may be a little generous to Calzaghe, but not by enough to offset the losses to Ward and Kessler and the failure to have a win as good as Hopkins on his record.

The Eubank-Johnson comparison is outrageous, likewise Pascal-Bika the otherway

[gobbles]

Hilarious how people peg a victory over a inexperienced Kessler, shielding a badly broken right hand and his manager dying in an intensive care unit in a Cardiff - as better than anything Froch has achieved.

Hopkins? He lost that fight as clear as day. That horrible cuffing, slapping, mauling effort - which saw him get dropped and his nose broken is another poor argument.

Calzaghe took 13 years to even face a guy who held a f*cking belt !!

Wasn't Ward the first guy with a Belt that Froch faced? Unless you count Adamu.

[JDC]

Johnson ~ Eubank
Kessler ~ Kessler
Dirrell ~ Reid
Taylor ~ Roy Jones Jnr
Bute ~ Lacy
Ward ~ ???
??? ~ Hopkins
Abraham ~ Mitchel
Pascal ~ Bika
Dodson ~ Manfredo Jr
Magee ~ Salem

Objectively, Calzaghe's record still looks better. Froch is way ahead of Calzaghe in terms of consistent quality of opposition over a short period of time, but Froch was a mature fighter when he stepped up.

The Taylor, Dirrell and Abraham comparisons may be a little generous to Calzaghe, but not by enough to offset the losses to Ward and Kessler and the failure to have a win as good as Hopkins on his record.

The Eubank-Johnson comparison is outrageous, likewise Pascal-Bika the otherway

Then it's balanced

[stujones]

Johnson ~ Eubank
Kessler ~ Kessler
Dirrell ~ Reid
Taylor ~ Roy Jones Jnr
Bute ~ Lacy
Ward ~ ???
??? ~ Hopkins
Abraham ~ Mitchel
Pascal ~ Bika
Dodson ~ Manfredo Jr
Magee ~ Salem

Objectively, Calzaghe's record still looks better. Froch is way ahead of Calzaghe in terms of consistent quality of opposition over a short period of time, but Froch was a mature fighter when he stepped up.

The Taylor, Dirrell and Abraham comparisons may be a little generous to Calzaghe, but not by enough to offset the losses to Ward and Kessler and the failure to have a win as good as Hopkins on his record.

The Eubank-Johnson comparison is outrageous, likewise Pascal-Bika the otherway

Then it's balanced

No, its not balanced really - Magee is former British and European champion and holds an interim version of the world title and has made a half decent defence against Markussen. Kabery Salam couldn't beat Mario Veit..... place Veit in there would be closer.

The Taylor, Dirrell and Abraham ones are generous to Calzaghe. At to the Magee one and the Pascal one... then it is 5 that are generous to Calzaghe. There are only 11 total.

[big lennox]

The bottom line is that I think Calzaghe would have of beaten everybody on Froch's record, including Froch. Froch lost to Kessler because of Kessler's sustained body punching attack, not because of a delayed 1.5hr flight to Denmark, and he was beaten by Ward simply because Ward is bl*ody brilliant and I think would beat him in any country. His handspped, accuracy, shot selection and strength (he was able to out muscle Froch) means, to my mind at least, that he is a better fighter.No shame in that.

I feel bad saying this as Froch has just had a big win and deserves to be celebrated. I think his result flattered to decieve a bit because Bute looked alarmingly vulnerable, but Froch went into the fight not knowing that with the odds stacked against him. In terms of the Calzaghe argument, Froch lost most of the 12 rounds against Taylor, had real problems with Dirrel and was out manouvered by Ward. Fighters with speed and movement seem to cause him real problems and Calzaghes handspeed and workrate would have been too much, I beleive, for a comfortable but at times tough points victory.

[whiskey]

Froch beat a prime Jean Pascal in front of millions in a FOTY and then flew to America to knock out Jermain Taylor in his first defence.

But that pales in comparison, to fighting an ancient Eubank tucked away on a Naz undercard before whooping hall-of-famer Branco Sobot in his first defence.

Jesus.