BoxRec

Joe never gave rematches which annoyed me. Hopkins and Reid deserved them

Carl should get credit for that

stevieb_8006 wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:
So did Calzaghe though at the time. Who did he not fight that he should've?

Froch.

Ottke.

Glen Johnson.

Roy jones jnr. The real one

That's without really thinking about it.

Froch was an up and coming youngster - why would've Calzaghe have needed to fight him?

Ottke, Johnson wouldn't have added much to his resume, clear wins.

Roy Jones - yes, the fight was much too late and Jones wasn't the Jones of old but you could argue Calzaghe being past his best as well when you consider he'd had years of knackered hands.

expe wrote:

columbo wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:


Calzaghe beat an unbeaten Kessler when he was at his best. He beat Jeff Lacey who was hailed as the new Tyson and started favourite for the fight even though Joe had been world Champion for years such was Lacy's reputation. Lacy was never the same fighter after Calzaghe beat him.

OK Roy Jones was past his best but Calzaghe did completely dominate the fight.

You are right though you can't really judge by A beat B, the world doesn't work like that. Pascal is a good example, a good fighter who beat Taylor but Pascal is no great.

Lacy was shown to be a complete hype job though to be fair.

If we're calling Lacy a hypejob, then Bute has to be judged by the same standard. As things are, both came over as dangerous opponents, were seen as the favourites, Bute looked like a rabbit in the headlights and you'll struggle to find a better dismantling of a fighter than what Calzaghe did to Lacy. Neither have looked the same since. The two wins are about equal for me.

I dunno. I think Bute's win over Bika was better than anything Lacy did.

Ian1973 wrote:

stevieb_8006 wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:
So did Calzaghe though at the time. Who did he not fight that he should've?

Froch.

Ottke.

Glen Johnson.

Roy jones jnr. The real one

That's without really thinking about it.

Froch was an up and coming youngster - why would've Calzaghe have needed to fight him?

Ottke, Johnson wouldn't have added much to his resume, clear wins.

Roy Jones - yes, the fight was much too late and Jones wasn't the Jones of old but you could argue Calzaghe being past his best as well when you consider he'd had years of knackered hands.

Couldnt the same of been said about Froch fighting Groves though?

Ian1973 wrote:

lillywhite14 wrote:I always find that people gloss over the actual fight that Calzaghe had with Hopkins. Its always a case of 'Joe beat Hopkins' and officially, this is true. In reality? Hopkins had as much claim to the win that night as Joe with Calzaghe barely landing anything of note. Similar case with the Reid fight, the scouser had a real claim for the win that night.

Dirrell is often thrown in Froch's face as a fight that was so close it could have gone either way or that Froch got given a gift.

Imagine two losses on Joes record to Reid and Hopkins. Legacy severely dented. A loss to Dirrell wouldn't massively impact on Froch's legacy IMO.

I think Froch has the better resume and have thought that for quite some time now. Always said that Calzaghe would have beaten him in a fight between the two though.

Don't agree with that at all Calzaghe clearly won both fights IMO. Although there is the odd person that disputes it, I think the general consensus is that both those results were correct.

I followed the Hopkins - Calzaghe fight on here and didnt watch it until a few days later. Come the end of the fight, those doing the RBR on the British scene were generally favouring Hopkins to get the nod.
I have watched it a couple of times and its as close as can be. Joe didn't clearly win anything that night.
Reid? I tend to agree with you, had Joe winning but not by much, but more than the odd one give that fight to Reid.

expe wrote:

stevieb_8006 wrote:Froch has the better resume, and Cazaghe seems a little jealous of it tbh.

Pascal, Taylor, Kessler, Dirrell, Abraham, Johnson, bute, groves easily outstrips reid, lacy, Kessler and Hopkins (I don't even count that version of rjj).

Carls always walked the walk, joe didn't for years and years.

But joe would prob win if they had fought.

You've missed a load of names off Calzaghe's record there, what about Eubank, Mitchell, Brewer and Woodhall?

All were past it.

And brewer, Mitchell had been done by ottke first if I remember rightly, taking a big shine off those wins.

The woodhall results ok, prob on a par with groves tbf

lillywhite14 wrote:

n1ebf wrote:

columbo wrote: Groves would of knocked Woodall out and would of had and would have a very good chance against the other two.

think you're doing Richie Woodhall a bit of a disservice there. Groves is kinda young and not as seasoned as guys like Froch and Woodhall too imo. Might win but I wouldn't assume he'd KO him.

Calzaghe stepped up and fought a defensive/offensive genius in Bernard Hopkins - Froch stepped up and fought an offensive/defensive master in Andre Ward and lost, and lost well.

I'd probably say that based on his win against Hopkins and his handling of Mikkel Kessler, that Calzaghe just pips him. Yes Froch had a good victory over Kessler too, but I understand he took a bit of a shellacking himself in the process, whereas Calzaghe didn't even get his hair messed up.

The Ward that beat Froch would have beat the Hopkins that Joe fought though, with a bit to spare too. So hardly the same thing. Hopkins arguably won against Joe too. If we want to compare Hopkins to a Froch opponent, then Dirrell comes to mind. Controversial decision etc etc

Kessler claims he was injured going in to his fight with Joe. As for it being an easy nights work? Nope. Joe pulled away over the last 4/5 rounds but before that Kessler was neck and neck and posing a few problems. The scorecard was typically British.
On a head to head though, Calzaghe did a better job on Kessler than Froch though, no doubt.

Lil, how would you of seen Groves doing against Woodhall?

Froch was an up and coming youngster - why would've Calzaghe have needed to fight him?

Ottke, Johnson wouldn't have added much to his resume, clear wins.

Roy Jones - yes, the fight was much too late and Jones wasn't the Jones of old but you could argue Calzaghe being past his best as well when you consider he'd had years of knackered hands.[/quote]
Couldnt the same of been said about Froch fighting Groves though?[/quote]


Yes, absolutely, no argument with that.

It's hard to know at this stage what Groves adds to Froch's resume though. I suppose it depends on what Groves goes on to achieve. I have my doubt that Groves will go on to achieve anything at world level now. I may be wrong!

These three quote things are a nightmare!!

columbo wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:

Froch was an up and coming youngster - why would've Calzaghe have needed to fight him?

Ottke, Johnson wouldn't have added much to his resume, clear wins.

Roy Jones - yes, the fight was much too late and Jones wasn't the Jones of old but you could argue Calzaghe being past his best as well when you consider he'd had years of knackered hands.

Couldnt the same of been said about Froch fighting Groves though?

Exactly. And I can't believe your saying they 'would have' been clear wins. We don't know that. Grove 1 'should have been' a clear win for froch.

Also, froch was mandatory and his big domestic rival (like groves). It would have been worthwhile.

Ian1973 wrote:Froch was an up and coming youngster - why would've Calzaghe have needed to fight him?

Ottke, Johnson wouldn't have added much to his resume, clear wins.

Roy Jones - yes, the fight was much too late and Jones wasn't the Jones of old but you could argue Calzaghe being past his best as well when you consider he'd had years of knackered hands.

Couldnt the same of been said about Froch fighting Groves though?[/quote]


Yes, absolutely, no argument with that.

It's hard to know at this stage what Groves adds to Froch's resume though. I suppose it depends on what Groves goes on to achieve. I have my doubt that Groves will go on to achieve anything at world level now. I may be wrong![/quote]
Groves unless he falls apart completely psychologically will become a world champion im sure of it. He'd beat Abraham, Stieglitz and have a very good chance against Bika IMO.

Ian1973 wrote:These three quote things are a nightmare!!

Haha it so is! We are all tripping over each other.

stevieb_8006 wrote:

expe wrote:

stevieb_8006 wrote:Froch has the better resume, and Cazaghe seems a little jealous of it tbh.

Pascal, Taylor, Kessler, Dirrell, Abraham, Johnson, bute, groves easily outstrips reid, lacy, Kessler and Hopkins (I don't even count that version of rjj).

Carls always walked the walk, joe didn't for years and years.

But joe would prob win if they had fought.

You've missed a load of names off Calzaghe's record there, what about Eubank, Mitchell, Brewer and Woodhall?

All were past it.

And brewer, Mitchell had been done by ottke first if I remember rightly, taking a big shine off those wins.

The woodhall results ok, prob on a par with groves tbf

They were beaten by Ottke on split decisions in Germany, little chance of getting anything out there with the judges in his pocket and that was a fight or two earlier.

If they were past it, why do Taylor, Kessler and Johnson count towards Froch's? Could even include Abraham in that since he'd already lost to Dirrell and he's nowhere near as good a super middleweight as he was at middleweight.

Pascal has gone on to become a pretty damn good win for Froch.

Perhaps Groves can become something similar in time?

I think that size difference was a massive factor in the Abraham fight. Froch hurt him every time he touched him so much so that Abraham, who can whack, seemed to go completely into his shell. Also, I reckon that win over Bute is similar, he's another one that can dish it out well but whereas you'd expect him to be able to take a few, he couldn't stand up to it. None of which is Froch's fault btw.

expe wrote: They were beaten by Ottke on split decisions in Germany, little chance of getting anything out there with the judges in his pocket and that was a fight or two earlier.

If they were past it, why do Taylor, Kessler and Johnson count towards Froch's? Could even include Abraham in that since he'd already lost to Dirrell and he's nowhere near as good a super middleweight as he was at middleweight.

Good points tbf. I would also like to point out that Carl travelled tho.

stevieb_8006 wrote:Joe never gave rematches which annoyed me. Hopkins and Reid deserved them

Carl should get credit for that

Whilst I agree that Hopkins technically deserved a rematch with Calzaghe due to the closeness of the fight, thank God it didn't happen, don't think I could have faced watching another 12 rounds between those 2. Watching their first fight was like being trapped in a time warp, never known 12 rounds go so slowly, bloody painful to watch!

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:

stevieb_8006 wrote:Joe never gave rematches which annoyed me. Hopkins and Reid deserved them

Carl should get credit for that

Whilst I agree that Hopkins technically deserved a rematch with Calzaghe due to the closeness of the fight, thank God it didn't happen, don't think I could have faced watching another 12 rounds between those 2. Watching their first fight was like being trapped in a time warp, never known 12 rounds go so slowly, bloody painful to watch!

It was awful

I'm a bit of a fan of Hopkins but I don't know why because in that fight he was a complete cheat and I didn't like him at all. Feigning a punch in the balls at one point, crying to the ref and generally holding and spoiling throughout. Guess he was playing to his strengths.

stevieb_8006 wrote:

expe wrote: They were beaten by Ottke on split decisions in Germany, little chance of getting anything out there with the judges in his pocket and that was a fight or two earlier.

If they were past it, why do Taylor, Kessler and Johnson count towards Froch's? Could even include Abraham in that since he'd already lost to Dirrell and he's nowhere near as good a super middleweight as he was at middleweight.

Good points tbf. I would also like to point out that Carl travelled tho.

Calzaghe did eventually go to America and went to Germany to fight Veit, but that's the same as travelling to fight me in my living room. I think the two are pretty similar resume wise, for me Calzaghe maybe nicks it by beating the better version of Kessler, as well as going up in weight, to go with his longevity, but there's certainly a very good argument for Froch having the better resume, but if the two ever met in the ring, Calzaghe would have beaten the shit out of it, wouldn't have stopped him though, unless McCracken decided he'd seen enough late on and pulled him out, but I couldn't ever see that happening, getting beat up for an extra round or two would be preferable for Carl, getting stopped would hurt him far more than anything he'd take late on.

Ian1973 wrote:So did Calzaghe though at the time. Who did he not fight that he should've?

Kelly Pavlik, Chad Dawson, Winky Wright, Glen Johnson, Jermain Taylor, just off the top of my head.

"up and coming youngster" ? - sorry that's not right. Carl was the undefeated British & Commonwealth champion, but he was also installed as the #1 mandatory challenger to the WBC title.

Letter sent by the WBC to Carl Froch

To: MR. CARL FROCH

Dear champion:

The WBC Board of Governors has reviewed the situation concerning your case and the two unfortunate cancellations of the final elimination fights that were scheduled to determine the mandatory contender of the super middleweight division of the WBC.

The WBC has voted unanimously to appoint you as mandatory contender of the division.

We would like to wish you the best of luck and once again congratulate you for your exemplary loyalty to the World Boxing Council.

Sincere regards,

Jose Sulaiman Ch.


c.c. Hennessy Sports
WBC Board of Governors
British Boxing Board of Control
allegedly


And guess who vacated 2 hours after the message was sent out ? Joe Calzaghe , along the lines of "moving up to Light Heavyweight"

And then when the WBO heard this, they stripped Calzaghe of his WBO version of the super middleweight title. Which resulted in Calzaghe writing back that he "was a proud WBO champion and would come back to defend it back at super middleweight." making himself look a complete hypocrite in the process. He still boxed for another year after the duck.

After the Jermain Taylor fight, which was only 5 months after he fought Roy Bones Jr, he was telephoned about a possible multi-million pound fight with Froch and he said he didn't want to fight Carl Froch - and Hennessy / Froch agreed to leave him alone after that to make his own name.

Shortly afterwards he then sought out Robin Reid about fighting him again instead under his own Calzaghe Promotions banner, but it fizzled out.

After Joe fought Hopkins at LHW.

n1ebf wrote:I'm a bit of a fan of Hopkins but I don't know why because in that fight he was a complete cheat and I didn't like him at all. Feigning a punch in the balls at one point, crying to the ref and generally holding and spoiling throughout. Guess he was playing to his strengths.

He took every advantage he could, Cortez played the complete opposite of the Hatton-Mayweather fight and allowed all the holding, but I don't blame Hopkins for that, it's up to the referee to stop him. He was caught low, admittedly not with the sort of force that warranted a 5 minute rest, but he was tiring and saw a chance for a breather, Joe has to take some of the blame for that because he should have known Hopkins would have taken that opportunity when presented and Cortez too for not telling him to man up and get on with it.

The Hopkins win alone places Calzaghe higher.
But if Froch could beat Ward...