BoxRec

Posted: **27 Jun 2009, 18:57**

Autobarn wrote:
The-Artist wrote:How anyone can think Froch would stand a chance against Joe is beyond me. It'll be such a dominant points victory it would be unreal. If Froch doesn't put Joe down early doors like Hopkins and RJJ, then it'll be a 10 point margin. If he does then Joe still gets up and wins by a wide margin. Froch keeps his guard down and throws big on the back foot, but he won't have a clue how to deal with the amount of punches coming his way. It won't happen but i'd love Joe to take this fight, it won't be 3 rounds as Joe predicts but it'll be an easy night. But then if it did happen, Joe will massacre him, then maybe Froch will take on Kessler, Kessler will soundly beat him and we'll be back to square one with no one giving Calzaghe credit- saying Froch was just overhyped etc! I really hope Froch fights Kessler, because there's so many people on Boxrec who don't seem to rate Kessler, but he'll beat Froch pretty soundly imo. If its not Kessler then let the talk of a fight with Hopkins be true, as Hopkins vs Froch will pretty much be a re-run of Hopkins vs Kessler.
blimey, who has Joe massacred?

Joe was in manufactured fights and you could even see it in the masterclasses.

the opponents usually had "clipped wings" coming into the fight & still he got jolted with big shots from brewer, woodhall, reid. joe doesn't have great stamina and skill when the opponent goes for it. at the end of the jones fight, final min, jones lands a body shot, joe on the run, showboating as false bravado to cover up that he has little gas left. a good accurate shot and he's on the run: he comes across as a sneaky guy always avoiidng the big questions.

joe was having his head snapped back by reid and woodhall. what do you think an unbeaten in his prime froch would do?

froch v pascal was an absolute test of strength, 2 unbeaten guys with something to prove, coming up to world class, a head first clash kind of like lewis-vitali (another fight where both looked tired quite early). it's better and more honest than most of joe's world class fights. froch-as-limited kind of makes me laugh, when he's ground down 2 of the slickest fighters between middle and light heavy. 2 styles that joe was kept well away from.

Another crack smoker!!!

Posted: **27 Jun 2009, 19:03**

do you honestly think pascal and taylor are better names than hopkins,kessler and lacey?

Posted: **27 Jun 2009, 19:04**

yeah complete bullshit that post weren't it.

Posted: **27 Jun 2009, 19:08**

froch is a good fighter.

but no more than that.

i see him losing to any number of the better fighters out there.

guys like dirrell, kessler, abraham, pavlik, hopkins, would all be too good for froch.

no way would calzaghe have needed a last second big finish to pull himself out of it against taylor.

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 03:09**

If Taylor was able to KD Froch and outbox him then imagine what the Elvis of the 12stone division would of done to Froch!

Calzaghe could do a moonwalk and still outbox Froch. Froch is a lucky puncher mostly.

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 04:20**

Max Molyneux wrote:If Taylor was able to KD Froch and outbox him then imagine what the Elvis of the 12stone division would of done to Froch!

Calzaghe could do a moonwalk and still outbox Froch. Froch is a lucky puncher mostly.

Calzaghe is the proverbial bully that you see in films. he comes along, picks on somebody, the guy is about to hit him, and 2 guys come from the sides. the 2 guys pull the man's jacket over his arms, and hold him there while super hard man (joe) hits him, as he's immobile.

the sports network matchmaking that joe cashzaghe got is the boxing equivalent.

it's debatable whether calzaghe ouboxed the great robin reid

froch as lucky puncher - pathetic.

Joe can't KD anyone. Joe can do a moonwalk on a badly cut 40 yo and that just shows his lack of sportsmanship and class. Even then, he ran at the end of the fight, when Jones hurt him. Ran like a true legend!

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 04:21**

kingfinn wrote:
Autobarn wrote:
The-Artist wrote:How anyone can think Froch would stand a chance against Joe is beyond me. It'll be such a dominant points victory it would be unreal. If Froch doesn't put Joe down early doors like Hopkins and RJJ, then it'll be a 10 point margin. If he does then Joe still gets up and wins by a wide margin. Froch keeps his guard down and throws big on the back foot, but he won't have a clue how to deal with the amount of punches coming his way. It won't happen but i'd love Joe to take this fight, it won't be 3 rounds as Joe predicts but it'll be an easy night. But then if it did happen, Joe will massacre him, then maybe Froch will take on Kessler, Kessler will soundly beat him and we'll be back to square one with no one giving Calzaghe credit- saying Froch was just overhyped etc! I really hope Froch fights Kessler, because there's so many people on Boxrec who don't seem to rate Kessler, but he'll beat Froch pretty soundly imo. If its not Kessler then let the talk of a fight with Hopkins be true, as Hopkins vs Froch will pretty much be a re-run of Hopkins vs Kessler.
blimey, who has Joe massacred?

Joe was in manufactured fights and you could even see it in the masterclasses.

the opponents usually had "clipped wings" coming into the fight & still he got jolted with big shots from brewer, woodhall, reid. joe doesn't have great stamina and skill when the opponent goes for it. at the end of the jones fight, final min, jones lands a body shot, joe on the run, showboating as false bravado to cover up that he has little gas left. a good accurate shot and he's on the run: he comes across as a sneaky guy always avoiidng the big questions.

joe was having his head snapped back by reid and woodhall. what do you think an unbeaten in his prime froch would do?

froch v pascal was an absolute test of strength, 2 unbeaten guys with something to prove, coming up to world class, a head first clash kind of like lewis-vitali (another fight where both looked tired quite early). it's better and more honest than most of joe's world class fights. froch-as-limited kind of makes me laugh, when he's ground down 2 of the slickest fighters between middle and light heavy. 2 styles that joe was kept well away from.

Another crack smoker!!!

another cock smoker fooled by shit matchmaking.

why is boxing fvcked so badly? cos of fighters who sucked it dry while contributing as little as possible in the way of excitement and competitive world class action. yeah sure joe had to be good to keep winning, he got out with his money (some) and his record, but never rematched the guys that many felt beat him. shame joe didn't have a big punch, so he could settle the debate convincingly in the fight.

froch's world title fights have been classics and they've been intense and competitive. without fighters like froch, british boxing really isn't worth it.

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 04:31**

mickey1975 wrote:do you honestly think pascal and taylor are better names than hopkins,kessler and lacey?

outrageous, eh?

pascal just won the WBC light heavy title in a classic before over 13,000 fans.

taylor was the undisputed middleweight champ and had moved up as weight drain was hurting his performances.

froch was also willing to step up to fight well regarded denis inkin, who messed him about and who also was joe's top contender (joe didn't fight too many of them, i think we established 3 or 4 mandatories in 9 years).

let's try this out: now, didn't Taylor beat Lacy and Hopkins?

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 04:56**

hitman_hatton1 wrote:froch is a good fighter.

but no more than that.

i see him losing to any number of the better fighters out there.

guys like dirrell, kessler, abraham, pavlik, hopkins, would all be too good for froch.

no way would calzaghe have needed a last second big finish to pull himself out of it against taylor.

why not add pascal and taylor, too?

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 07:50**

Calzaghe sucks balls.

I've only revisited one of his fights in it's entirety , that's when i replayed the Hopkins fight to a mate who's a casual fan who cared for neither fighter... and before the verdict i paused the sky+ box and said "what you reckon, who do you think wins?"

"Hopkins, no doubt. He put him down and Joe couldn't land nothing of note" he replied.

I pressed play and then watched his face - "No f****** way did he deserve to win that, he was slapping his arms all the way, apart from when he was climbing off the deck. Absolute Joke! even his dad was congratulating Roach on the f****** win !! ".

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 08:08**

joes biggest wins... RJJ, Kessler, Hopkins, Lacy

froch biggest wins... Pascal, Taylor.

1. RJJ and Hop were 40+ years old and both put Calzaghe down. Hopkins was a VERY close fight.

2. Who has Kessler beaten? Could he beat Taylor or Pascal? I'm not sure.

3. Lacy was pummelled by Taylor who Froch beat.

To be honest, I think Froch already has a better resume than Calzaghe.

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 08:23**

Joe - semi contact pro, suspect competition

Froch - full contact pro, fierce competition

like chalk and cheese, as enzo cashzaghe might say

i don't feel sory for joe. greed, titles, money, cynicism. poor re-watch value, apart from lacy and kessler fights.

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 09:36**

There are some crazy bitter rambling fools on this thread

Froch's a good fighter and I hope he can retain his belt for a while, but the hardest fights out their are in my opinion, beyond him in terms of ability. The Froch / Calzaghe debate is non-existant, in that Joe was levels above Froch in many ways - movement, speed, skill, stamina...

Froch may improve a little but he is too far into his pro career to suddenly develop the raw talent he needs to be able to get rid of the likes of Kessler and Hopkins.

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 09:40**

Autobarn wrote:Joe - semi contact pro, suspect competition

Froch - full contact pro, fierce competition

like chalk and cheese, as enzo cashzaghe might say

i don't feel sory for joe. greed, titles, money, cynicism. poor re-watch value, apart from lacy and kessler fights.

Agreed. The fact that its arguable that their resumes are comparable at this stage of Frochs career really says it all about Calzaghe.

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 13:59**

I think Joe lost to BHOP. And not to give him a rematch was bad news.

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 14:01**

Dioufy wrote:I think Joe lost to BHOP. And not to give him a rematch was bad news.

Well it was real close. Personally I had it to BHop by one round. But I can tell you that Calzaghe was 4/1 on betfair just before the cards were announced so anyone who says Calzaghe won by miles should consider that.

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 14:08**

I had J.C by 2 rounds but it was so close some of the rounds were incredibly close

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 14:14**

Autobarn wrote:
The-Artist wrote:How anyone can think Froch would stand a chance against Joe is beyond me. It'll be such a dominant points victory it would be unreal. If Froch doesn't put Joe down early doors like Hopkins and RJJ, then it'll be a 10 point margin. If he does then Joe still gets up and wins by a wide margin. Froch keeps his guard down and throws big on the back foot, but he won't have a clue how to deal with the amount of punches coming his way. It won't happen but i'd love Joe to take this fight, it won't be 3 rounds as Joe predicts but it'll be an easy night. But then if it did happen, Joe will massacre him, then maybe Froch will take on Kessler, Kessler will soundly beat him and we'll be back to square one with no one giving Calzaghe credit- saying Froch was just overhyped etc! I really hope Froch fights Kessler, because there's so many people on Boxrec who don't seem to rate Kessler, but he'll beat Froch pretty soundly imo. If its not Kessler then let the talk of a fight with Hopkins be true, as Hopkins vs Froch will pretty much be a re-run of Hopkins vs Kessler.
blimey, who has Joe massacred?

Joe was in manufactured fights and you could even see it in the masterclasses.

the opponents usually had "clipped wings" coming into the fight & still he got jolted with big shots from brewer, woodhall, reid. joe doesn't have great stamina and skill when the opponent goes for it. at the end of the jones fight, final min, jones lands a body shot, joe on the run, showboating as false bravado to cover up that he has little gas left. a good accurate shot and he's on the run: he comes across as a sneaky guy always avoiidng the big questions.

joe was having his head snapped back by reid and woodhall. what do you think an unbeaten in his prime froch would do?

froch v pascal was an absolute test of strength, 2 unbeaten guys with something to prove, coming up to world class, a head first clash kind of like lewis-vitali (another fight where both looked tired quite early). it's better and more honest than most of joe's world class fights. froch-as-limited kind of makes me laugh, when he's ground down 2 of the slickest fighters between middle and light heavy. 2 styles that joe was kept well away from.

I gotta agree

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 14:45**

Froch- Calzaghe arguments are about as old and boring as, well the last old and boring arguments, like Hatton- Witter. Yaaaawn.

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 16:45**

TheCobra wrote:Froch- Calzaghe arguments are about as old and boring as, well the last old and boring arguments, like Hatton- Witter. Yaaaawn.

Obviously the people posting don't agree so take that attitude out of the thread mate.

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 18:52**

mickey1975 wrote:do you honestly think pascal and taylor are better names than hopkins,kessler and lacey?

Hopkins was passed it. Anyway you want to look at it. Not to mention it was a Close SD than could have gone either way.

That said, Taylor is leagues better than Kessler AND Lacy put together.

Considering Taylor was his 1st title defence, and Kessler and lacy were Joe's "Career defening" bouts, whatever rubbish that means

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 19:08**

observer1 wrote:
mickey1975 wrote:do you honestly think pascal and taylor are better names than hopkins,kessler and lacey?
Hopkins was passed it. Anyway you want to look at it. Not to mention it was a Close SD than could have gone either way.

That said, Taylor is leagues better than Kessler AND Lacy put together.

Considering Taylor was his 1st title defence, and Kessler and lacy were Joe's "Career defening" bouts, whatever rubbish that means

the way this post is going,we best look at what pavlik did to taylor(who was in turn beaten easily by hopkins,in turn narrowly by calzaghe,etc..).that is bullshit about leagues,mate.joe and carl are both great british boxers,but i will have to ask myself in a couple of years(or more,before you start) if he can equal joes record,wich is a lot better than people on here make out(eubank,reid,brewer,mitchell,to name just a few unmentioned)

Posted: **28 Jun 2009, 21:16**

lirva wrote:
TheCobra wrote:Froch- Calzaghe arguments are about as old and boring as, well the last old and boring arguments, like Hatton- Witter. Yaaaawn.
Obviously the people posting don't agree so take that attitude out of the thread mate.

All these threads always just become observer and autobarn slagging Joe off. Always happens.

Posted: **29 Jun 2009, 07:31**

lirva wrote:
Dioufy wrote:I think Joe lost to BHOP. And not to give him a rematch was bad news.
Well it was real close. Personally I had it to BHop by one round. But I can tell you that Calzaghe was 4/1 on betfair just before the cards were announced so anyone who says Calzaghe won by miles should consider that.

I think he out-boxed him. Yeah, he didn't throw much but what he did throw, he connected. I could probably count on one hand the amount of clean shots Joe landed. And before the 12th, Joe was 5/1 going into the fight, and not forgetting that Enzo was telling Joe he needed a KO to win.

Posted: **29 Jun 2009, 07:56**

observer1 wrote:
mickey1975 wrote:do you honestly think pascal and taylor are better names than hopkins,kessler and lacey?
Hopkins was passed it. Anyway you want to look at it. Not to mention it was a Close SD than could have gone either way.

That said, Taylor is leagues better than Kessler AND Lacy put together.

Considering Taylor was his 1st title defence, and Kessler and lacy were Joe's "Career defening" bouts, whatever rubbish that means

Not sure that he's better than Kessler at all mate. Not at 168.

BoxRec

Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe

Re: Eubank: Froch couldn't hold candle to Calzaghe