BoxRec

thepocketrocket wrote:The only reason Calzaghe is thought of so highly is because he dodged the big names as their peak, so therefore there is no irrefutable evidence he would have got beaten by them.

The likes of Froch and Hatton fought the top guys, and came up short, so it is there in black and white. That makes it easier to say they would loise to this huys and that guy.

Both could have fought average contenders for years, but instead shot for the stars

Hatton also ranks easily above Calzaghe with his decisive stoppage win over Kostya Tszyu alone, the anniversary of which was on thursday.

He also had the bollocks to fight his personal version of a prime roy jones at a weight class above in Floyd Mayweather.

Ricky should receive points for actually trying - rather than be marked down and rated below a man who never had the balls to try until they were not only past their best, but regarded by all as completely shot.

Yes the muppets at the Welsh rags paint it as a huge victory - rather than it be a cynical fight and a financial cluster f*ck.

Only weeks before the 50/50 offer landed - Roy was whoring himself at ringside for Marcus Byer's return following an absence of several years. "Marcus Beyer is a wonderful fighter" he gushed s he looked for his next $20k payday.

Cazlaghe turned down millions of dollars to rematch Hopkins to share half of that with a shot Roy Jones who'd have boxed for a big mac meal at that stage in his career.

G0mez wrote:

thepocketrocket wrote:The only reason Calzaghe is thought of so highly is because he dodged the big names as their peak, so therefore there is no irrefutable evidence he would have got beaten by them.

The likes of Froch and Hatton fought the top guys, and came up short, so it is there in black and white. That makes it easier to say they would loise to this huys and that guy.

Both could have fought average contenders for years, but instead shot for the stars

Hatton also ranks easily above Calzaghe with his decisive stoppage win over Kostya Tszyu alone, the anniversary of which was on thursday.

He also had the bollocks to fight his personal version of a prime roy jones at a weight class above in Floyd Mayweather.

Ricky should receive points for actually trying - rather than be marked down and rated below a man who never had the balls to try until they were not only past their best, but regarded by all as completely shot.

Yes the muppets at the Welsh rags paint it as a huge victory - rather than it be a cynical fight and a financial cluster f*ck.

Only weeks before the 50/50 offer landed - Roy was whoring himself at ringside for Marcus Byer's return following an absence of several years. "Marcus Beyer is a wonderful fighter" he gushed s he looked for his next $20k payday.

Cazlaghe turned down millions of dollars to rematch Hopkins to share half of that with a shot Roy Jones who'd have boxed for a big mac meal at that stage in his career.

It is an argument I tried to have with 'mainstream fans' but have stopped doing because they won't see past the '0' and the fact he 'beat Hopkins and Jones'

As real fans what we want are big fights. The likes of Froch and Hatton gave us those. Calzaghe didn't.

To be fair, Lacy was a big fight at the time. Nobody knew he was useless then. Everyone thought he was a killer.

mickey1975 wrote:To be fair, Lacy was a big fight at the time. Nobody knew he was useless then. Everyone thought he was a killer.

I thought anyone who was getting outboxed at times by Omar Sheika was liable to be garbage on a world stage, but it did correlate with a time Joe was starting to look more fragile.

What has Calzaghe said that shows he is insanely jealous?

Both are/were superb boxers with different styles. Calzaghe didn't fight the very best all the time but he was an impressive champion. I don't imagine he'll have any regrets about his career. He didn't duck Froch, he was on a different level and looking to wind his career down while Froch was building his and showing his ambitions and intentions by mentioning Calzaghe. Styles make fights and some fighters will make very good fighters look clumsy and yet will struggle with others. Calzaghe was 36 years old when he packed in - he'd not been beaten in 19 years amateur and pro. Anyone who doesn't recognise that is very unusual and a sign of great talent is not really thinking straight.

Froch would be a very hard fight for anyone, there's not many who would deal with him easily. He is skilled, strong, determined and has a brilliant mentality. There have been times he's struggled in bouts and there have been times he's lost. I think he'd lose on points to Joe but it would have been a really good fight.

mickey1975 wrote:To be fair, Lacy was a big fight at the time. Nobody knew he was useless then. Everyone thought he was a killer.

That ITV fight was great timing as it attracted all the freshly minted boxing casuals who were riding the Hatton bandwagon.

Prior to that he was regarded as a excuse merchant and little interest was paid in his career which consisted of Chris Eubank and 30 odd eastern europeans not ranked in the top 20 at super middle.

I do agree with the notion that Calzaghe ruined what there was of him. It was an excellent performance by Calzaghe and catapulted him into the boxing stratosphere Stateside.

But then mediocrity was promptly resumed with Peter Manfredo, which added to his list of cuffing, slapping ugly stoppages against opponents far smaller with no chance in completely uncompetitive mismatches.

Calzaghe wouldn't lose a round against Froch, whatever nonsense some people write. Way too quick, threw way too many punches, way too adaptable, way too good.

As for his jealousy of Froch, when you retire an unbeaten world champion there's bugger all to be jealous about.

Ian1973 wrote:Calzaghe wouldn't lose a round against Froch, whatever nonsense some people write. Way too quick, threw way too many punches, way too adaptable, way too good.

As for his jealousy of Froch, when you retire an unbeaten world champion there's bugger all to be jealous about.

Hit the nail on the head, I agree 100%.

mickey1975 wrote:To be fair, Lacy was a big fight at the time. Nobody knew he was useless then. Everyone thought he was a killer.

He was not useless then, met a great in form Calzaghe, Lacy had looked great before the Calzaghe fight, I think that fight destroyed all his confidence, he was never the same afterwards.

G0mez wrote:

Referee O'Connor has made some strange decisions in his time.

Ian1973 wrote:Calzaghe wouldn't lose a round against Froch, whatever nonsense some people write. Way too quick, threw way too many punches, way too adaptable, way too good.

As for his jealousy of Froch, when you retire an unbeaten world champion there's bugger all to be jealous about.

I think he's somewhat jealous of the event last saturday. Also Froch has probably made more money than him now.

Ian1973 wrote:Calzaghe wouldn't lose a round against Froch, whatever nonsense some people write. Way too quick, threw way too many punches, way too adaptable, way too good.

As for his jealousy of Froch, when you retire an unbeaten world champion there's bugger all to be jealous about.

Well said Ian

I can think of 80,000 little reasons and around 14 million big reasons why he is releasing jealous comments only the day after the British boxing event in decades.

Carl appears in the newspaper on merit. Joe appears in the newspapers to have a pop at people, getting busted for cocaine or described as a obsessive weirdo by ex missus.

It's only a matter of time before he's blown his money on..... err..... acting lessons.

I am a huge Calzaghe fan but I think he has let himself down with this piece in the mail.

Froch and calazghe are both great champions simple as that.

It's pointless arguing who would have beaten who.

And pointless arguing about who fought better fighters.

Let's just celebrate them both

Ian1973 wrote:Calzaghe wouldn't lose a round against Froch, whatever nonsense some people write. Way too quick, threw way too many punches, way too adaptable, way too good.

As for his jealousy of Froch, when you retire an unbeaten world champion there's bugger all to be jealous about.

All of this

Anzi wrote: Froch lost to Dirrell, but he got a home town decision

This just isn't true. Sick to death of hearing this one. It would have been a crazy decision to give this fight to Dirrell, who tried to win a world title on the back foot landing 3 punches a round.

Froch stalked him all night, tried to make the fight, tried to make ANY sort of fight, Dirrell was embarassing and is an embarassment to the sport of boxing with his negative style, his whining and moaning and his pullouts in later fights. The guy is a joke and he did NOT beat Froch and would not have been a worthy world title winner in any of his fights, I'm just not having it, absolute bollocks that people still bring this one up on Froch's record.

As for the Calzaghe stuff, we'll just never know. Froch took on the gobby young pretender in Groves. Calzaghe ran off to America to fight old men.

Whoever would have won is probably irrelevant, fact is Calzaghe had a more protected career, so we'll never really know.

I have a ton of respect for the career of Calzaghe and what he did, but by the end he had weak hands and was being put down in fights. A fight with Froch was definitely no foregone conclusion as people on here constantly try and make out.

different kinds of careers, different eras. I don't care who would've won. froch is a worthy heir, and I love his recklessness and fierce competitiveness in a harder era. what you say about froch-ward, maybe would've been said about calzaghe-jones if they had fought 5 years earlier.

with froch coming to pro boxing later, and with his opportunity being staggered somewhat (couldn't even get EBU title shot, waited ages for WBC shot & had to beg for big jermain taylor defense) there is an anxiousness and a willingness that we've seen with very few brits on the world scene. what we put up with in calzaghe, i.e. the "cherry picked" fights & proving himself late, we would not have put up with again with froch.

you have to say both did an excellent job keeping at super middle - joe grinding down all those years, and froch seemingly keeping his weight under control at all times.

froch does give rounds away whereas joe used to put many "in the bank", but joe has those lapses where he can be hurt - see endings to eubank, brewer, Kessler fights - and lacks the spectacular finishes of froch's best work i.e. taylor, groves 2 & bute. right at the end where joe gets careless or tosses it off, is also when froch can be deadly.

bear in mind froch's career is not over yet. we've only just seen his very best. the man is keen to test himself and from the mistakes we are seeing the best work.

also benn - whom I hope gets voted in the IBHOF - is a valid fighter to compare froch with; both have been in absolutely savage contests & neither allows defeats to get them down.

& let's not take joe's win over Hopkins for granted, given hopkins' subsequent light heavyweight title wins over pascal, cloud & shumenov.

TheCobra wrote:As for the Calzaghe stuff, we'll just never know. Froch took on the gobby young pretender in Groves. Calzaghe ran off to America to fight old men.

That is literally the most ridiculous summation of the events I've ever read. That gobby young pretender was Froch's mandatory. Froch became Calzaghe's mandatory after he moved up to LHW and fought Hopkins.

I wonder what people would be saying now if Calzaghe had not fought Hopkins and fought Froch at the time instead, I mean that unproven British champion must have been a very attractive option along side Hopkins, the two weight world champion and recognised number one light heavy weight. What on earth was Joe thinking?

Why can't people just deal with the fact their careers didn't cross at the right time. Carl was completely unproven at a time when Calzaghe was having mega fights against the likes of Kessler and Hopkins.

G0mez wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:To be fair, Lacy was a big fight at the time. Nobody knew he was useless then. Everyone thought he was a killer.

That ITV fight was great timing as it attracted all the freshly minted boxing casuals who were riding the Hatton bandwagon.

Prior to that he was regarded as a excuse merchant and little interest was paid in his career which consisted of Chris Eubank and 30 odd eastern europeans not ranked in the top 20 at super middle.

I do agree with the notion that Calzaghe ruined what there was of him. It was an excellent performance by Calzaghe and catapulted him into the boxing stratosphere Stateside.

But then mediocrity was promptly resumed with Peter Manfredo, which added to his list of cuffing, slapping ugly stoppages against opponents far smaller with no chance in completely uncompetitive mismatches.

I almost forgot this diabolical fight. but this is what I mean when I compare froch's high contact fights with joe's semi contact fights.

SNG wrote:

TheCobra wrote:As for the Calzaghe stuff, we'll just never know. Froch took on the gobby young pretender in Groves. Calzaghe ran off to America to fight old men.

That is literally the most ridiculous summation of the events I've ever read. That gobby young pretender was Froch's mandatory. Froch became Calzaghe's mandatory after he moved up to LHW and fought Hopkins.

He dropped the WBC belt because Carl was mandated for him. But he kept his trinket as Carl was not in their ranking as high (for some really strange reason he was never elevated?? i wonder why)

The July 16th letter from 36-year old Joe Calzaghe to WBO president Paco Valcarcel reads as follows:

Dear Paco,

Further to our phone conversation of today's date I wish to remain as the WBO's super-middleweight champion. Following my proposed contest against Roy Jones Jnr. it is my intention to defend the WBO super-middleweight championship. I am proud to be a WBO champion and thank you, as always, for the opportunities given to me in the past.

Kind regards,
Joe Calzaghe CBE.

Autobarn wrote: I almost forgot this diabolical fight. but this is what I mean when I compare froch's high contact fights with joe's semi contact fights.

Haha they didn't call him Joe Calslappy for nothing!

TheCobra wrote:

Anzi wrote: Froch lost to Dirrell, but he got a home town decision

This just isn't true. Sick to death of hearing this one. It would have been a crazy decision to give this fight to Dirrell, who tried to win a world title on the back foot landing 3 punches a round.

Froch stalked him all night, tried to make the fight, tried to make ANY sort of fight, Dirrell was embarassing and is an embarassment to the sport of boxing with his negative style, his whining and moaning and his pullouts in later fights. The guy is a joke and he did NOT beat Froch and would not have been a worthy world title winner in any of his fights, I'm just not having it, absolute bollocks that people still bring this one up on Froch's record.

Dirrell wobbled Froch really bad at one stage as well, he had to hold on for dear life.

columbo wrote:

Ian1973 wrote:Calzaghe wouldn't lose a round against Froch, whatever nonsense some people write. Way too quick, threw way too many punches, way too adaptable, way too good.

As for his jealousy of Froch, when you retire an unbeaten world champion there's bugger all to be jealous about.

I think he's somewhat jealous of the event last saturday. Also Froch has probably made more money than him now.

You could say that about all past champions i.e Mayweather made more then Sugar Ray Leonard, Ali a fraction of that, but on the event side, Wembley will take some beating.

I remember people calling Froch Jealous, before he got to world level, when he had a go at Calzaghe, who at the time was top of the world, funny how things change.