BoxRec

There's seems to be two different debates going on here, who has established the better legacy and who was the better fighter. Some people are clearly unable to seperate one from the other.

Who has established the better legacy = Froch
Who would have won if they fought = Calzaghe

Thats my opinion.

Pacquiao is doing everything that Mayweather should have done. The same can be said for Froch, he's doing everything that Calzaghe should have done and deserves the recognition for it.

PS. Calzaghe would never have gone near the super six, neither would he have fought Lucian Bute.

ALI wrote:There's seems to be two different debates going on here, who has established the better legacy and who was the better fighter. Some people are clearly unable to seperate one from the other.

Who has established the better legacy = Froch
Who would have won if they fought = Calzaghe

Thats my opinion.

Pacquiao is doing everything that Mayweather should have done. The same can be said for Froch, he's doing everything that Calzaghe should have done and deserves the recognition for it.

PS. Calzaghe would never have gone near the super six, neither would he have fought Lucian Bute.

100% Agree.

Does anybody seriously think that Calzaghe would have lost to any of the guys that Froch has beaten?

Froch has had a hard run with the title. But the truth is, he has had no other option.
If Calzaghe had been with a poor promoter during his time, he too would have had to walk the same path as Froch has had to.

Lets not get too carried away with Frochs fantastic win last night. What would Calzaghe have done to Abraham if Arthur had plodded after him all night in a similar fashion ..

Froch didn`t really show anything new lastnight. Sadly, neither did Abraham.

I see Froch having a much more demanding fight with with old man Johnson next up. I fully expect Froch to win the decision.
Arthur will probably get stopped against Ward.
The final will see Ward following the Kessler blue print on how to beat Froch.
Ward has too much boxing skills for Froch sadly.

ender77 wrote:Abraham, Kessler, Taylor, Dirrel, Green all top level fighters have had there careers ruined by the super six.

What a load of rubbish!

Top level boxing should constantly be the best fighting the best. I have no interest in four people per division holding a version of the world title and claiming to be the best.

By the way Lucian Bute is losing out on good exposure in the US market by not participating. And he's never gonna get pay parity with the winner of the super-six. Also i seriously doubt that Bute is getting anything like the likes of Froch and Abraham for any of his recent fights. Apparently each fight in the super six is worth a minimum of $1m to each participant (im not sure what the contracts say regarding replacements like Green and Johnson).

liamlion wrote:

ender77 wrote:Abraham, Kessler, Taylor, Dirrel, Green all top level fighters have had there careers ruined by the super six.

What a load of rubbish!

Top level boxing should constantly be the best fighting the best. I have no interest in four people per division holding a version of the world title and claiming to be the best.

By the way Lucian Bute is losing out on good exposure in the US market by not participating. And he's never gonna get pay parity with the winner of the super-six. Also i seriously doubt that Bute is getting anything like the likes of Froch and Abraham for any of his recent fights. Apparently each fight in the super six is worth a minimum of $1m to each participant (im not sure what the contracts say regarding replacements like Green and Johnson).

Butes recent multi-fight deal with Showtime should go some way of addressing some of these set-backs ....

tonyevs wrote:

liamlion wrote:

ender77 wrote:Abraham, Kessler, Taylor, Dirrel, Green all top level fighters have had there careers ruined by the super six.

What a load of rubbish!

Top level boxing should constantly be the best fighting the best. I have no interest in four people per division holding a version of the world title and claiming to be the best.

By the way Lucian Bute is losing out on good exposure in the US market by not participating. And he's never gonna get pay parity with the winner of the super-six. Also i seriously doubt that Bute is getting anything like the likes of Froch and Abraham for any of his recent fights. Apparently each fight in the super six is worth a minimum of $1m to each participant (im not sure what the contracts say regarding replacements like Green and Johnson).

Butes recent multi-fight deal with Showtime should go some way of addressing some of these set-backs ....

Tell me tho, has he actually fought under this deal yet?

liamlion wrote:

tonyevs wrote:

liamlion wrote: What a load of rubbish!

Top level boxing should constantly be the best fighting the best. I have no interest in four people per division holding a version of the world title and claiming to be the best.

By the way Lucian Bute is losing out on good exposure in the US market by not participating. And he's never gonna get pay parity with the winner of the super-six. Also i seriously doubt that Bute is getting anything like the likes of Froch and Abraham for any of his recent fights. Apparently each fight in the super six is worth a minimum of $1m to each participant (im not sure what the contracts say regarding replacements like Green and Johnson).

Butes recent multi-fight deal with Showtime should go some way of addressing some of these set-backs ....

Tell me tho, has he actually fought under this deal yet?

Well .. no

But I`m thinking, thats something to do with him only signing it about 3weeks ago ...


Thing is. The deal will help him get a shot at the super6 winner ... and without the hard fights inbetween. So it looks a pretty good deal all in all.

tonyevs wrote:

liamlion wrote:

tonyevs wrote: Butes recent multi-fight deal with Showtime should go some way of addressing some of these set-backs ....

Tell me tho, has he actually fought under this deal yet?

Well .. no

But I`m thinking, thats something to do with him only signing it about 3weeks ago ...


Thing is. The deal will help him get a shot at the super6 winner ... and without the hard fights inbetween. So it looks a pretty good deal all in all.

I was really just making the point that during the course of the super-six tournament Bute simply hasnt received the same level of income or exposure that the likes of Carl Froch and Andre Ward have. To that end, Im not sure that it is such a good deal. But thats just my opinion.

ender77 wrote:its been quoted in a number of articles that Butes deal with showtime is for $6 million and that showtime want to ultimatly match bute with the supersix winner.

Yes, but $6m is what the deal is worth should everything go to plan (i understand its a 3 fight deal).

If he hasnt fought under the deal yet, he simply wont have earnt anything other than perhaps a signing on fee.

I don`t really see that Bute has been hurt any by not being in the super6. Some are already saying he is the man to beat at the weight ..

He is making good money in Canada, where he continues to be the bigger attraction than Pascal ... somehow

Boxing can be a cruel game. Some guys like Calzaghe and Bute, can make a fortune with less than demanding opponents ... where as the likes of Pascal and Froch need to do things the hard/riskier way.
But don`t think for one moment they would not have followed the easier route if that avenue was open to them.

tonyevs wrote:Does anybody seriously think that Calzaghe would have lost to any of the guys that Froch has beaten?

Again, somebody else who's having trouble getting to grips with best record over best fighter.

Calzaghe would like'ly have beaten Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell and Abraham, but anyone with half a brain would conclude that he'd never have fought them. Most certainly not while in their primes and back to back like Froch did.

Calzaghe only has Kessler on his record, its the only fight that stands up against what Froch's out their doing now. Lacy was a hype job, pure and simple and should not be mentioned. After that there's only old man Bernard. There's no young, fresh, in their prime world champions that Calzaghe scalped, he avoided them all and would have done exactly the same with Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham and even Froch himself! Some might disagree otherwise, but historical evidence weighs heavily in my favour!

Some might also argue that the likes of Hopkins would school Froch etc, but again thats deviating from the point in question. Its about who has the best record, not about who was the better fighter. I think most knowledgable fans, after last nights magnificent win, would now say that Froch has either equaled Calzaghe's record, or has surpassed it.

tonyevs wrote:Some guys like Calzaghe and Bute, can make a fortune with less than demanding opponents ... where as the likes of Pascal and Froch need to do things the hard/riskier way.
But don`t think for one moment they would not have followed the easier route if that avenue was open to them.

That nonsense is not worthy of a reply

Get with it man!

ALI wrote:There's seems to be two different debates going on here, who has established the better legacy and who was the better fighter. Some people are clearly unable to seperate one from the other.

Who has established the better legacy = Froch
Who would have won if they fought = Calzaghe
Thats my opinion.

Pacquiao is doing everything that Mayweather should have done. The same can be said for Froch, he's doing everything that Calzaghe should have done and deserves the recognition for it.

PS. Calzaghe would never have gone near the super six, neither would he have fought Lucian Bute.

I agree, think Joe was probably a better fighter but Froch is building a better legacy.

Max Molyneux wrote:Calzaghe wouldn't leave doubts about the Dirrell fight and was able to beat Kessler. Froch would badly lose to Joe and still has the better record.

He left a few doubts after the Robin Reid fight

Pat Butcher wrote:

ALI wrote:There's seems to be two different debates going on here, who has established the better legacy and who was the better fighter. Some people are clearly unable to seperate one from the other.

Who has established the better legacy = Froch
Who would have won if they fought = Calzaghe
Thats my opinion.

Pacquiao is doing everything that Mayweather should have done. The same can be said for Froch, he's doing everything that Calzaghe should have done and deserves the recognition for it.

PS. Calzaghe would never have gone near the super six, neither would he have fought Lucian Bute.

I agree, think Joe was probably a better fighter but Froch is building a better legacy.

Froch is also about to fight Glen Johnson, a man many feel Calzaghe avoided. If Froch wins, it will only further stregnthen the arguement that his record is a better one.

ALI wrote:

tonyevs wrote:Does anybody seriously think that Calzaghe would have lost to any of the guys that Froch has beaten?

Again, somebody else who's having trouble getting to grips with best record over best fighter.

Calzaghe would like'ly have beaten Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell and Abraham, but anyone with half a brain would conclude that he'd never have fought them. Most certainly not while in their primes and back to back like Froch did.

Calzaghe only has Kessler on his record, its the only fight that stands up against what Froch's out their doing now. Lacy was a hype job, pure and simple and should not be mentioned. After that there's only old man Bernard. There's no young, fresh, in their prime world champions that Calzaghe scalped, he avoided them all and would have done exactly the same with Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham and even Froch himself! Some might disagree otherwise, but historical evidence weighs heavily in my favour!

Some might also argue that the likes of Hopkins would school Froch etc, but again thats deviating from the point in question. Its about who has the best record, not about who was the better fighter. I think most knowledgable fans, after last nights magnificent win, would now say that Froch has either equaled Calzaghe's record, or has surpassed it.

If Lacy was a "hype job" then surely its fair to call Abraham one.Dirrell and Froch both exposed AA and Lacy looked just as explosive as AA pre-Calzaghe.

mickey1975 wrote:

ALI wrote:

tonyevs wrote:Does anybody seriously think that Calzaghe would have lost to any of the guys that Froch has beaten?

Again, somebody else who's having trouble getting to grips with best record over best fighter.

Calzaghe would like'ly have beaten Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell and Abraham, but anyone with half a brain would conclude that he'd never have fought them. Most certainly not while in their primes and back to back like Froch did.

Calzaghe only has Kessler on his record, its the only fight that stands up against what Froch's out their doing now. Lacy was a hype job, pure and simple and should not be mentioned. After that there's only old man Bernard. There's no young, fresh, in their prime world champions that Calzaghe scalped, he avoided them all and would have done exactly the same with Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham and even Froch himself! Some might disagree otherwise, but historical evidence weighs heavily in my favour!

Some might also argue that the likes of Hopkins would school Froch etc, but again thats deviating from the point in question. Its about who has the best record, not about who was the better fighter. I think most knowledgable fans, after last nights magnificent win, would now say that Froch has either equaled Calzaghe's record, or has surpassed it.

If Lacy was a "hype job" then surely its fair to call Abraham one.Dirrell and Froch both exposed AA and Lacy looked just as explosive as AA pre-Calzaghe.

Thats an irritional comparison, to call it harsh would be putting it mildly!

Abraham may have been exposed as being a bit one dimensional, but he's no Jeff Lacy. He held over 10 defences of his IBF title and has beaten the likes of Eastman, Miranda (twice) and Taylor.

abraham is a wprld class fighter, and will come again he bwas beaten by a much better fighter in froch hes still a top fighter

So happy Carl won, really thought he was going under the cosh late on.....

I think JC would outpoint Froch but then I thought Arthur was going to get to him so what do i know...

ALI wrote: Thats an irritional comparison, to call it harsh would be putting it mildly!

Abraham may have been exposed as being a bit one dimensional, but he's no Jeff Lacy. He held over 10 defences of his IBF title and has beaten the likes of Eastman, Miranda (twice) and Taylor.

Exactly, whilst Lacy had beaten no real top world class fighters before facing Calzaghe.
Calzaghe in my opinion would have beaten Taylor, Pascal etc. But the fact of the matter is he didn't. You can't give him credit for something he didn't do. He made a staggering 21 defences of his title. But I count 13 of those defences as meaningless wins:

Branko Sobot
Juan Carlos Gimenez Ferreyra
Rick Thornberry
Omar Sheika
Mario Veit x2
Will McIntyre
Miguel Angel Jimenez
Tocker Pudwill
Mger Mkrtchyan
Evans Ashira
Peter Manfredo Jnr.


6 defences against "good fighters" in their primes, two fights against faded greats in Jones and Eubank(greatish for Eubank ). I'll give Calzaghe Hopkins. The old master was still performing when Calzaghe got to him. Ah eff it Calzaghe was just that good. He was a great. But he could have had such a better legacy.

ALI wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:

ALI wrote: Again, somebody else who's having trouble getting to grips with best record over best fighter.

Calzaghe would like'ly have beaten Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell and Abraham, but anyone with half a brain would conclude that he'd never have fought them. Most certainly not while in their primes and back to back like Froch did.

Calzaghe only has Kessler on his record, its the only fight that stands up against what Froch's out their doing now. Lacy was a hype job, pure and simple and should not be mentioned. After that there's only old man Bernard. There's no young, fresh, in their prime world champions that Calzaghe scalped, he avoided them all and would have done exactly the same with Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham and even Froch himself! Some might disagree otherwise, but historical evidence weighs heavily in my favour!

Some might also argue that the likes of Hopkins would school Froch etc, but again thats deviating from the point in question. Its about who has the best record, not about who was the better fighter. I think most knowledgable fans, after last nights magnificent win, would now say that Froch has either equaled Calzaghe's record, or has surpassed it.

If Lacy was a "hype job" then surely its fair to call Abraham one.Dirrell and Froch both exposed AA and Lacy looked just as explosive as AA pre-Calzaghe.

Thats an irritional comparison, to call it harsh would be putting it mildly!

Abraham may have been exposed as being a bit one dimensional, but he's no Jeff Lacy. He held over 10 defences of his IBF title and has beaten the likes of Eastman, Miranda (twice) and Taylor.

Well Abraham obviously a middleweight and his only success as a super-midd was a washed up Taylor. Forch, after all, looks enormous next to him

Eastman and Miranda were no better than most Lacy fought and were not Super-Middles.As for the likes of Elcock....
By the way.great performance by Froch.I was really impressed with him and suprised if i am honest that he could stick to a gameplan like that for 12 rounds.Think he is very much up against it if he faces Ward in the final,though.

... and out all the Calzaghe haters crawl. Yep - you can tell Froch has just fought.

And Calzaghe still seems to steal Froch's glory by the amount of the bitter haters out there...

tonyevs wrote:... and out all the Calzaghe haters crawl. Yep - you can tell Froch has just fought.

And Calzaghe still seems to steal Froch's glory by the amount of the bitter haters out there...

Very true.Why cant people just support Froch without slagging Calzaghe off?