BoxRec

Well he was calling out Calzaghe - who has only just retired, surely Calzaghe is a bigger name than Kessler?

[[/size]

gobbles wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:

winkveron wrote:Well okay maybe not a lot of hate threads but a lot of posts seem to give Haye & Froch stick for going after the biggest fights

Anyone doing that needs sectioning

If Froch was going after the biggest fights, he'd be going after Kessler. He isn't

He is, Mick's been in contact with team Kessler they reckon it could happen by the end of the year. Taylor will more than suffice for now though. He's certainly a step up from the Giminez's, Sheikha, McIntyres, Pudwills, Mgers, Salems.......

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Well he was calling out Calzaghe - who has only just retired, surely Calzaghe is a bigger name than Kessler?

There is one thing calling out fighters when you know they won't fight you. IF Taylor come off, I take my hat off to him. If he fights Kessler, I'll believe it when I see it.
As for "Mick says", Mick says he offered Calzaghe £5million, which was a completely bogus offer made through the press rather than in writing to Calzaghe.

gobbles wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Well he was calling out Calzaghe - who has only just retired, surely Calzaghe is a bigger name than Kessler?

There is one thing calling out fighters when you know they won't fight you.

Why would Carl know that Calzaghe wouldn't fight him? to suggest that's the only reason that Carl was calling him out is just plain wrong imo

Chambers2 wrote:

gobbles wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Well he was calling out Calzaghe - who has only just retired, surely Calzaghe is a bigger name than Kessler?

There is one thing calling out fighters when you know they won't fight you.

Why would Carl know that Calzaghe wouldn't fight him? to suggest that's the only reason that Carl was calling him out is just plain wrong imo

Problem was, Calzaghe was at one level, Froch was fighting people like Tatevosyan on Sky or Magee at York Hall. People always go on about, "why didn't Calzaghe go after the matches", why didn't Froch go after the matches that would make the Calzaghe fight happen. He never fought for the European title, which would have pushed him up in the world rankings, and he only got the WBC No 1 ranking because Charlie Giles campaigned for him at the WBC. Indeed, he got more in the position of trying to protect his rating over the past few years. When the IBF stripped Calzaghe, why didn't he go after that?
Instead he sat at home, only fighting on Hennessy shows against hand-picked opposition until he boxed for a vacant title. I like Froch as a fighter, but he has tons to prove and comparing what he has achieved to what Calzaghe, Hatton or Haye have achieved at the moment is ridiculous.

jayc wrote:This forum is genuinely turning into a bit of a joke. Every time i log on someone is knocking Calzaghe, Haye, Hatton etc. What does a british fighter have to do to actually win some respect around here? I just don't understand it. Is it just the British nature to pick faults wherever we can? I watched the Urango fight at the weekend and found it quite amusing that a guy people knocked Hatton for fighting won a world title fairly easily. People also knock him for hammering Paulie, the guy who was number 2 in the division. Mental. The same goes for Calzaghe who has completely dominated his division in the past couple of years and then moved up and beaten the best guy at the weight above, who afterwards came back to destroy the 'next big thing' in Pavlik. People spend so much time critiscising british fighters for fighting shite opponents and then what do we do when a Brit is preparing to challenge one of the best fighters in the world? Jennings v Cotto anyone? How many times do i have to read that Jennings shouldn't be fighting Cotto? They cant win either way can they.

Very much agreed.. Far to much bashing of our own happens when we should be behind them!

Given there is always room for opinion and criticism, however, I feel it's often taken to the extreme where we seem to dislike our own fighters. Puzzling.

gobbles wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Well he was calling out Calzaghe - who has only just retired, surely Calzaghe is a bigger name than Kessler?

There is one thing calling out fighters when you know they won't fight you. IF Taylor come off, I take my hat off to him. If he fights Kessler, I'll believe it when I see it.
As for "Mick says", Mick says he offered Calzaghe £5million, which was a completely bogus offer made through the press rather than in writing to Calzaghe.

Re Froch and the EBU title. It does seem hard for Brits to get shots at this title sometimes. I thought he faced Tatevosyan instead - TKO2 of a guy who held a W over then-current EBU champ Gogiya. Maybe Froch can fit in the Murat-Sanavia 2 winner, bash up the Euro champ sometime in the next year?

Given how slow his career has been, he'd probably still be waiting for a shot and almost certainly would have been on a plane to Germany given how difficult & influential those big time promoters are to deal with (Inkin debacle etc) with title fights being so lucrative over there.

Harcore fans want to see things like Haye-Mormeck, Haye-Macca (following a string of EBU wins incl Gurov and Fragomeni), Froch-Pascal, Froch-Taylor. This attitude is a breath of fresh air given how UK boxing has been marred by mismatches for "world" titles in the past decade plus. Fighters like Hatton and Calzaghe did hold onto silly belts for a long time and this does piss ppl off.

gobbles wrote: Problem was, Calzaghe was at one level, Froch was fighting people like Tatevosyan on Sky or Magee at York Hall. People always go on about, "why didn't Calzaghe go after the matches", why didn't Froch go after the matches that would make the Calzaghe fight happen. He never fought for the European title, which would have pushed him up in the world rankings, and he only got the WBC No 1 ranking because Charlie Giles campaigned for him at the WBC. Indeed, he got more in the position of trying to protect his rating over the past few years. When the IBF stripped Calzaghe, why didn't he go after that?
Instead he sat at home, only fighting on Hennessy shows against hand-picked opposition until he boxed for a vacant title. I like Froch as a fighter, but he has tons to prove and comparing what he has achieved to what Calzaghe, Hatton or Haye have achieved at the moment is ridiculous.

He got to the point where he was mandatory for Joes WBC title, what more do you want. If a severely faded RJJ was good enough for Joe why wasn't a prime Carl. Which was the tougher fight there? He was fighting people like Salem, Ashira, Manfredo and Bika when Froch was a viable and a more dangerous challenger than all 4.

Obviously Carl hasn't won as much as Calzaghe, Hatton and Haye and I've never said such. I'm commending Froch for his willingness to challenge himself by fighting the best, him and Haye are trying to remove the dispicable 'risk/reward ratio' term from British Boxing. That's why I like and admire them, not for their achievements to date. Carls had 24 fights and he's been matched aggressively on the whole IMO even considering his injuries, pullouts and bad luck he's still be brought along at a decent pace IMO and he's not content to sit on his belt, he wants the BIGGEST and best fights

Chambers2 wrote:

gobbles wrote: Problem was, Calzaghe was at one level, Froch was fighting people like Tatevosyan on Sky or Magee at York Hall. People always go on about, "why didn't Calzaghe go after the matches", why didn't Froch go after the matches that would make the Calzaghe fight happen. He never fought for the European title, which would have pushed him up in the world rankings, and he only got the WBC No 1 ranking because Charlie Giles campaigned for him at the WBC. Indeed, he got more in the position of trying to protect his rating over the past few years. When the IBF stripped Calzaghe, why didn't he go after that?
Instead he sat at home, only fighting on Hennessy shows against hand-picked opposition until he boxed for a vacant title. I like Froch as a fighter, but he has tons to prove and comparing what he has achieved to what Calzaghe, Hatton or Haye have achieved at the moment is ridiculous.

He got to the point where he was mandatory for Joes WBC title, what more do you want. If a severely faded RJJ was good enough for Joe why wasn't a prime Carl. Which was the tougher fight there? He was fighting people like Salem, Ashira, Manfredo and Bika when Froch was a viable and a more dangerous challenger than all 4.

Obviously Carl hasn't won as much as Calzaghe, Hatton and Haye and I've never said such. I'm commending Froch for his willingness to challenge himself by fighting the best, him and Haye are trying to remove the dispicable 'risk/reward ratio' term from British Boxing. That's why I like and admire them, not for their achievements to date. Carls had 24 fights and he's been matched aggressively on the whole IMO even considering his injuries, pullouts and bad luck he's still be brought along at a decent pace IMO and he's not content to sit on his belt, he wants the BIGGEST and best fights

Well,obviously it was a decision of US TV. HBO turned down Froch with a title, how much interest would they have had in him before the title. HBO didn't want Calzaghe until after he beat Lacy.

And you can't say Froch has been matched aggressively when he has the likes of Westerman, Barney,Groenewald and Hague on his record since he was in titleclass (I woudn't include Rybacki as he was a late sub, although so was Pudwill, who is constantly used as a stick to beat Joe).
I am just shocked at the lack of respect to such a good and successful boxer on here.

Joes a great boxer there's no doubt, I probably should be saying that more than I am to get my true feelings across. He's had a very good career, but I feel it could have been alot better if he'd been matched more aggressively, that way there wouldn't be any need for this debate. I also feel that Joe suffered from being in the wrong division at the wrong time, in terms of him having a plethora of quality opponents to choose from (not JC's fault), but in saying that he didn't make too much effort to force fights with some of the bigger names that were about (JC's fault). I also think that Joe suffered by not having the luxury of terrestrial TV (not JC's fault) and British boxing as a whole suffered after ITV pulled the plug post Gerald McClellan.

The RJJ fight was a cynically made match to finish his career and that grips my shit abit, Pavlik, Froch or Dawson were all far more credible opponents

Joes an excellent boxer who's kept his high standards up in the ring right to the end of his very long career (barring the inevitable comeback), he's had to change his style as he's picked up hand injuries along the way, but it's made him a more effective boxer in terms of getting results imo. The Kessler win is the highlight of his career for me closely followed by the Lacy performance which was truly breathtaking, which I love reminding the yanks of Next Tyson my arse

gobbles wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:
Boxing was BIGGER in the UK in the 90s, but British boxers have been enjoying a greater success rate at top level the last year or two. At one point last year we had SEVEN world champions, including three undisputed/linear. The days of Benn and co were great, but in the whole decade only Lewis and Naz were widely considered number one in their divisions. Benn, Eubank, Bruno etc never were, despite their enormous fame.

The biggest problem is that newspapers, until the power influence of Sky, gives little coverage to anything but football now. Football is easy, football is safe. British boxing is bigger and better than it was in the Nineties in terms of shows, money and the number of people watching boxing live. However, the TV viewing figures are much smaller.

However, it must be remembered than that is the case with everything now. In the early nineties there were four TV channels and Sky was in its infancy. Now there are hundreds of channels, that splits the audience. It is worth remembering that the first Audley-Danny fight had ITV's second biggest sporting audience of the year, even beating Chelsea v Liverpool in the Champions League semi-final. The audience is there, there is no need to be completely negative.

I'm not being! I was supporting the argument that British boxing is better now than in the 90s.

I wonder how Joe will be regarded in, say, a decade's time.

Eubank is fondly remembered now, but he went through much the same WBO path as Joe - if not worse - and didn't even TRY to get the big non-domestic fights. I know Calzaghe is generally accepted as being better than Eubank, but the point is that historically Eubank is remembered for his fights with Benn and Watson more than his Giminezes, Schommers, Storeys, etc, and is generally well liked by boxing fans.

I just wish for myself they would be busier.
No reason for all this one fight every six months stuff