BoxRec

Posted: **26 Nov 2013, 07:49**

I think it's been said before... But Froch has had more tv backing than anyone, BBC1 covered him right from the Amatuers through the early pro days, then Sky brought him through his domestic and European title days and then over to ITV1 for his hometown world title challenge. Throw in Primetime and SBO and you have more or less got a full house. It's just his very unlikeable personality that put most viewers off. They can't all be wrong...

Posted: **26 Nov 2013, 08:08**

Not sure what is so unlikeable about him, personally. He is a bit blunt but is not nasty or malicious.

He speaks his mind and is usually brutally honest. Tyson Fury is what I would call unlikeable but, obviously people can hold their own opinions.

Posted: **26 Nov 2013, 08:20**

NazNaci1 wrote:Not sure what is so unlikeable about him, personally. He is a bit blunt but is not nasty or malicious.

He speaks his mind and is usually brutally honest. Tyson Fury is what I would call unlikeable but, obviously people can hold their own opinions.

I think Fury is far more likeable. Froch is smug, smarmy, arrogant and doesn't like anyone questioning him. Groves never said one thing wrong in the build up, yet incensed Froch just by sticking up for himself and replying with a few facts.

Posted: **26 Nov 2013, 08:26**

I'm not aware of any sane person that thinks Froch could beat Joe any more than about 1 in 20 times, but he's far from "average". If Calzaghe had Froch's balls and ambition, the only question mark over his #1 P4P rating for the period would be Jones, and they would have fought and settled that. Joe was a great athlete, but he was not a man concerned with reaching the top. Froch has gone as far as he can go, exceeded his limitations a couple of times even, and been beaten because he was concerned with meeting the best. We'll never know how good Calzaghe was because he preferred to cash checks in Wales than fight live opponents. For my money, pre hand trouble, he was potentially an all time great.

Posted: **26 Nov 2013, 08:44**

mickey1975 wrote:
NazNaci1 wrote:Not sure what is so unlikeable about him, personally. He is a bit blunt but is not nasty or malicious.

He speaks his mind and is usually brutally honest. Tyson Fury is what I would call unlikeable but, obviously people can hold their own opinions.
I think Fury is far more likeable. Froch is smug, smarmy, arrogant and doesn't like anyone questioning him. Groves never said one thing wrong in the build up, yet incensed Froch just by sticking up for himself and replying with a few facts.

Well, I don't like Fury for exactly the same reasons and he has proved nothing! Not to mention his act is so old and tired, seen it all before.

As for Groves sticking up for himself, yup, I have no issue with that but 'replying with a few facts'? They were his (and maybe others) opinions. But 'facts'? So for Froch to get upset with him, to me, was fair enough. I do not dislike Froch for that.

Personally, can't see what the problem is. Fury talks crap, is hardly original in anything and some like that. Groves talks 'facts' which is debatable and that seems to be ok. Yet Froch, states his own opinion, stands by what he says and some don't like that?

Double standards, geographic differences? No idea, but each to their own, fella

Posted: **26 Nov 2013, 08:55**

expe wrote: I'm not knocking him going on the road, just pointing out it wasn't the rough, rugged mountain road with steep edges that it's made out to be. Joe didn't have to go on the road because he was better supported and more attractive for TV, added to being uneasy when flying, especially transatlantic after 9/11.

Calzaghe did go on the road at times and of 46 fights, only 18 were in Wales. The purse bids for the Mark Delaney fight went against him and plenty of fighters would have gone in a different direction, but he went to Essex and took him out. Reid was closer to home than him, as was Woodhall, he went to Veit's backyard for the rematch and Hopkins and Jones Jr were on the road. So, while he fought at home more than Carl, he didn't always have home advantage, although he didn't go to anywhere hostile apart from Delaney.

Do you actually expect people to swallow that load of tripe that you wrote ?

"But he went to Essex and took him out"

I will leave it there.

Posted: **26 Nov 2013, 09:02**

The facts were... Froch accused Groves of having no respect, George pointed out that Froch had been reprimanded by the board for saying he wanted to kill Kessler. Froch went mad. He pointed out Carl has had such a tough run of opponents because he signed up for the S6, it's not like he sought them out. He wouldn't dream of seriously trying to get the Ward fight on now so makes negative comments regarding him as a way of excusing him avoiding him. Fury is Fury, the guy is comical, if you take everything he says seriously then...

Posted: **26 Nov 2013, 09:03**

G0mez wrote:
expe wrote: I'm not knocking him going on the road, just pointing out it wasn't the rough, rugged mountain road with steep edges that it's made out to be. Joe didn't have to go on the road because he was better supported and more attractive for TV, added to being uneasy when flying, especially transatlantic after 9/11.

Calzaghe did go on the road at times and of 46 fights, only 18 were in Wales. The purse bids for the Mark Delaney fight went against him and plenty of fighters would have gone in a different direction, but he went to Essex and took him out. Reid was closer to home than him, as was Woodhall, he went to Veit's backyard for the rematch and Hopkins and Jones Jr were on the road. So, while he fought at home more than Carl, he didn't always have home advantage, although he didn't go to anywhere hostile apart from Delaney.
Do you actually expect people to swallow that load of tripe that you wrote ?

"But he went to Essex and took him out"

I will leave it there.

But he did! I remember it well and it was a very hostile crowd.

Posted: **26 Nov 2013, 09:18**

mickey1975 wrote:The facts were... Froch accused Groves of having no respect, George pointed out that Froch had been reprimanded by the board for saying he wanted to kill Kessler. Froch went mad. He pointed out Carl has had such a tough run of opponents because he signed up for the S6, it's not like he sought them out. He wouldn't dream of seriously trying to get the Ward fight on now so makes negative comments regarding him as a way of excusing him avoiding him. Fury is Fury, the guy is comical, if you take everything he says seriously then...

Signing up for S6 is a fact. Not wanting to re-match Ward is an opinion. As for 'killing' Kessler, are we supposed to take that seriously? The Board had to show they were on the ball but yeah, Froch blowing up about that was not needed and exactly what George wanted.

Fury? It's not about taking him serious, his act is not particularly entertaining, for me. Naz was, Eubank was...Fury ain't. That's my personal opinion, though and some, like you, like him. Fair enough.

If we are going to judge people, let's at least do it using the same rules.

Posted: **26 Nov 2013, 09:19**

That's like Man United going to Wrexham for an FA Cup 3rd round game.

Posted: **26 Nov 2013, 09:21**

lillywhite14 wrote:That's like Man United going to Wrexham for an FA Cup 3rd round game.

Mickey Thomas, anyone

Posted: **26 Nov 2013, 09:34**

NazNaci1 wrote:
lillywhite14 wrote:That's like Man United going to Wrexham for an FA Cup 3rd round game.
Mickey Thomas, anyone

Ah, lovely memory.

Posted: **26 Nov 2013, 11:14**

NazNaci1 wrote:
mickey1975 wrote:The facts were... Froch accused Groves of having no respect, George pointed out that Froch had been reprimanded by the board for saying he wanted to kill Kessler. Froch went mad. He pointed out Carl has had such a tough run of opponents because he signed up for the S6, it's not like he sought them out. He wouldn't dream of seriously trying to get the Ward fight on now so makes negative comments regarding him as a way of excusing him avoiding him. Fury is Fury, the guy is comical, if you take everything he says seriously then...
Signing up for S6 is a fact. Not wanting to re-match Ward is an opinion. As for 'killing' Kessler, are we supposed to take that seriously? The Board had to show they were on the ball but yeah, Froch blowing up about that was not needed and exactly what George wanted.

Fury? It's not about taking him serious, his act is not particularly entertaining, for me. Naz was, Eubank was...Fury ain't. That's my personal opinion, though and some, like you, like him. Fair enough.

If we are going to judge people, let's at least do it using the same rules.

Froch was lecturing GG on respect and holding up his and Kesslers rivalry as a shining example of how proud warriors conduct themselves. George merely pointed out he got into trouble for threatening to kill his "mate" and Carl went mad! Touched a nerve? The truth hurts.

Posted: **26 Nov 2013, 11:53**

mickey1975 wrote:
NazNaci1 wrote:
mickey1975 wrote:The facts were... Froch accused Groves of having no respect, George pointed out that Froch had been reprimanded by the board for saying he wanted to kill Kessler. Froch went mad. He pointed out Carl has had such a tough run of opponents because he signed up for the S6, it's not like he sought them out. He wouldn't dream of seriously trying to get the Ward fight on now so makes negative comments regarding him as a way of excusing him avoiding him. Fury is Fury, the guy is comical, if you take everything he says seriously then...
Signing up for S6 is a fact. Not wanting to re-match Ward is an opinion. As for 'killing' Kessler, are we supposed to take that seriously? The Board had to show they were on the ball but yeah, Froch blowing up about that was not needed and exactly what George wanted.

Fury? It's not about taking him serious, his act is not particularly entertaining, for me. Naz was, Eubank was...Fury ain't. That's my personal opinion, though and some, like you, like him. Fair enough.

If we are going to judge people, let's at least do it using the same rules.
Froch was lecturing GG on respect and holding up his and Kesslers rivalry as a shining example of how proud warriors conduct themselves. George merely pointed out he got into trouble for threatening to kill his "mate" and Carl went mad! Touched a nerve? The truth hurts.

Froch seemed to think that Groves was there to big him up! Froch dismissed Groves as a domestic level challenger and that he would level him. Though I can admire how single minded and gung ho Froch is I really dislike how he comes across - he shows very little humour and is not willing to credit his opponents to the value of their effort; he has some excellent credentials as a fighter and they stand without him reiterating how awesome he is every chance he gets.

Enzo was a fantastic trainer but in Joe he had an excellent student - he was a very very good champion and though Joe v Froch would have had its moments Joe would have won quite comfortably - on points but he'd have looked good doing it.

Posted: **26 Nov 2013, 13:31**

I remember not that long ago most people were critical of Calzaghae's resume and there were far more people questioning his achievements...what's made people suddenly change to thinking he's an ATG?

Genuine question BTW.

Posted: **26 Nov 2013, 16:16**

I think you will find that those who are critical of Joe and his resume are still of the same opinion.

Posted: **26 Nov 2013, 16:59**

milpool wrote:I remember not that long ago most people were critical of Calzaghae's resume and there were far more people questioning his achievements...what's made people suddenly change to thinking he's an ATG?

Genuine question BTW.

Been undefeated helps. There is no 'blueprint'.

BoxRec

Enzo Calzaghe

Re: Enzo Calzaghe

Re: Enzo Calzaghe

Re: Enzo Calzaghe

Re: Enzo Calzaghe

Re: Enzo Calzaghe

Re: Enzo Calzaghe

Re: Enzo Calzaghe

Re: Enzo Calzaghe

Re: Enzo Calzaghe

Re: Enzo Calzaghe

Re: Enzo Calzaghe

Re: Enzo Calzaghe

Re: Enzo Calzaghe

Re: Enzo Calzaghe

Re: Enzo Calzaghe

Re: Enzo Calzaghe

Re: Enzo Calzaghe