BoxRec

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Deserter wrote:

apophenic wrote: no chance. benn's one of my favorite all time but i don't see him as having the technical nouse to break calzaghe down...

x2

Calzaghe was tough enough to outlast Benn, and would have stopped him.

dont agree on his night benn woudl have torn calzaghe a new one.

at this level its all about who turns up at this level.

the benn that fought mclellen would have any super middle in histroy fits you honestly think the guy that struglled with sakio bika the way he did would have beat the benn that turned up for the g man fight..not a fackin chance in hell


The same way as the hatton that fought zoo would have given any light welter fits

the calzaghe that fought kessler etc etc etc

J wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Deserter wrote: x2

Calzaghe was tough enough to outlast Benn, and would have stopped him.

dont agree on his night benn woudl have torn calzaghe a new one.

at this level its all about who turns up at this level.

the benn that fought mclellen would have any super middle in histroy fits you honestly think the guy that struglled with sakio bika the way he did would have beat the benn that turned up for the g man fight..not a fackin chance in hell


The same way as the hatton that fought zoo would have given any light welter fits

the calzaghe that fought kessler etc etc etc

Don't think Benn could have coped with the handspeed and movement. He'd have just walked into shots all night. Calzaghe was guilty of fighting down to the level of his oppionents some times, but I dont think he would have done that against Benn.

Benn was extremely lucky that the referee kept interfering that night, otherwise McClellan would have torn him to bits.

Benn syhowed huge balls that night, but I personally believe McClellan was robbed of victory by a ref who seemed intent on making the fight last a few more rounds. Watch it again, and tell me why i t is that he keeps on separating the two of them when CMClellan has him in trouble, and won't let the G-Man punch.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

kamicazze wrote:Yeah but with lennox many of his fights were name fighters not in their prime when he fought them. However for us looking back we see the names and think wow he fought that guy. So if we were to look back on Froch's record in say 20 years time and he had these names on his record then i think he would be on par if not better than lennox. Of course Lennox did have a massive name in Tyson which Cobra cannot match.

Errr. No. Lennox cleaned out the heavyweight division, with the exception of Bowe and perhaps Byrd, Ruiz, the two latter of which had zero chance of winning, who else could he have fought. Tyson showed little desire to fight Lennox until he was near the tail end of his career and wanted the money.

Froch would have to go on a pretty amazing run to overtake Lewis.

Scrap Byrd and Ruiz not his generation - but replace with Moorer.

stujones wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

kamicazze wrote:Yeah but with lennox many of his fights were name fighters not in their prime when he fought them. However for us looking back we see the names and think wow he fought that guy. So if we were to look back on Froch's record in say 20 years time and he had these names on his record then i think he would be on par if not better than lennox. Of course Lennox did have a massive name in Tyson which Cobra cannot match.

Errr. No. Lennox cleaned out the heavyweight division, with the exception of Bowe and perhaps Byrd, Ruiz, the two latter of which had zero chance of winning, who else could he have fought. Tyson showed little desire to fight Lennox until he was near the tail end of his career and wanted the money.

Froch would have to go on a pretty amazing run to overtake Lewis.

Scrap Byrd and Ruiz not his generation - but replace with Moorer.

Don't think Moorer was really ready at the time Lennox was in his pomp, and then he got beat by Foreman.

Don't remember any great calls for them to face one another, Moorer was never seen as a serious threat.

stujones wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

kamicazze wrote:Yeah but with lennox many of his fights were name fighters not in their prime when he fought them. However for us looking back we see the names and think wow he fought that guy. So if we were to look back on Froch's record in say 20 years time and he had these names on his record then i think he would be on par if not better than lennox. Of course Lennox did have a massive name in Tyson which Cobra cannot match.

Errr. No. Lennox cleaned out the heavyweight division, with the exception of Bowe and perhaps Byrd, Ruiz, the two latter of which had zero chance of winning, who else could he have fought. Tyson showed little desire to fight Lennox until he was near the tail end of his career and wanted the money.

Froch would have to go on a pretty amazing run to overtake Lewis.

Scrap Byrd and Ruiz not his generation - but replace with Moorer.

Ruiz was Stu, though not yet as a champion. He suffered badly for the Tua derailment, but he was on the same Night of the Young Heavyweights show in Atlantic City as Tua (beating Ruiz), Briggs and Golota, and all three fought Lewis ... Golota was a pretty big win for Lewis too when you look at it, he gave Bowe fits twice and Bowe was definitely regarded as top drawer until those fights.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

J wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Calzaghe was tough enough to outlast Benn, and would have stopped him.

dont agree on his night benn woudl have torn calzaghe a new one.

at this level its all about who turns up at this level.

the benn that fought mclellen would have any super middle in histroy fits you honestly think the guy that struglled with sakio bika the way he did would have beat the benn that turned up for the g man fight..not a fackin chance in hell


The same way as the hatton that fought zoo would have given any light welter fits

the calzaghe that fought kessler etc etc etc

Don't think Benn could have coped with the handspeed and movement. He'd have just walked into shots all night. Calzaghe was guilty of fighting down to the level of his oppionents some times, but I dont think he would have done that against Benn.

Benn was extremely lucky that the referee kept interfering that night, otherwise McClellan would have torn him to bits.

Benn syhowed huge balls that night, but I personally believe McClellan was robbed of victory by a ref who seemed intent on making the fight last a few more rounds. Watch it again, and tell me why i t is that he keeps on separating the two of them when CMClellan has him in trouble, and won't let the G-Man punch.

as said depends onj whch man turnsup on the night...calzaghe punches like a featherwieght compared to gm an also..and we can deal with ifs n buts n maybes but claaghe never dealt withttr type of adversity that benn did.

so what happens if been took him to the smae place he took g man...jc drowns thats what.

I remember that bill. Golota against the Kronk guy, Darnell Nicholson?

orbtastic wrote:I remember that bill. Golota against the Kronk guy, Darnell Nicholson?

That's him, poor sod got bit by the big Polish headcase. Great show that went under the radar as Tyson-Bruno II was either on the same night or the night before or after it, can't remember — except watching a closed circuit broadcast in one of the AC casinos and feeling embarrassed as all the yanks laughed at Bruno's non show.

MachoMan09 wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

J wrote: dont agree on his night benn woudl have torn calzaghe a new one.

at this level its all about who turns up at this level.

the benn that fought mclellen would have any super middle in histroy fits you honestly think the guy that struglled with sakio bika the way he did would have beat the benn that turned up for the g man fight..not a fackin chance in hell


The same way as the hatton that fought zoo would have given any light welter fits

the calzaghe that fought kessler etc etc etc

Don't think Benn could have coped with the handspeed and movement. He'd have just walked into shots all night. Calzaghe was guilty of fighting down to the level of his oppionents some times, but I dont think he would have done that against Benn.

Benn was extremely lucky that the referee kept interfering that night, otherwise McClellan would have torn him to bits.

Benn syhowed huge balls that night, but I personally believe McClellan was robbed of victory by a ref who seemed intent on making the fight last a few more rounds. Watch it again, and tell me why i t is that he keeps on separating the two of them when CMClellan has him in trouble, and won't let the G-Man punch.

The fight against McClellan was a showcase of Benn's tenacity but it didn't confirm his greatness. Benn was very good but he was never great.

he was great as far i was concerned. Gman win..icing barkely in US still better achievements still now than anything on JC's stay at home record.

including squeeking past hopkins cos i dont think he wont that fight either.

opinions opinions.

King Geedorah wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:

orbtastic wrote:I remember that bill. Golota against the Kronk guy, Darnell Nicholson?

That's him, poor sod got bit by the big Polish headcase. Great show that went under the radar as Tyson-Bruno II was either on the same night or the night before or after it, can't remember — except watching a closed circuit broadcast in one of the AC casinos and feeling embarrassed as all the yanks laughed at Bruno's non show.

You shoulda stood at home. Sky showed the bill as part of their Bruno-Tyson PPV. Thank christ for small mercies.

Ordered a pizza, struggled to stay awake, watched Bruno getting iced then said "Won't get fooled again."

Spot the regret.

No King, that was one of the rare 'nice' shows I've been at. High quality but low key, no other British press in AC because they were all on Bruno duty, an entertaining low stress evening where it was easy to just sit back and enjoy. Definitely worth the trip.

Glyn Leach wrote:

stujones wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote: Errr. No. Lennox cleaned out the heavyweight division, with the exception of Bowe and perhaps Byrd, Ruiz, the two latter of which had zero chance of winning, who else could he have fought. Tyson showed little desire to fight Lennox until he was near the tail end of his career and wanted the money.

Froch would have to go on a pretty amazing run to overtake Lewis.

Scrap Byrd and Ruiz not his generation - but replace with Moorer.

Ruiz was Stu, though not yet as a champion. He suffered badly for the Tua derailment, but he was on the same Night of the Young Heavyweights show in Atlantic City as Tua (beating Ruiz), Briggs and Golota, and all three fought Lewis ... Golota was a pretty big win for Lewis too when you look at it, he gave Bowe fits twice and Bowe was definitely regarded as top drawer until those fights.

Depends on the definition - I remember that bill like it was yesterday - it was the night of the young heavies, Lewis' generation of Heavies were on the that week (Lewis vs Mercer, Holyfield vs Czyz etc).

I would classify Tua, Ruiz, Rahman, Golota, Klitchsko, Byrd, Michael Grant, Briggs, etc etc etc as the next generation. Lewis' generation was Bruno, Mercer, Tyson, Holyfield, Akinwande, McCall, Foreman (albeit past it), Morrison etc.

We're talking opposition Stu. It doesn't matter what generational bracket any of us might put them in, they were Lewis's challengers and so his contemporaries. And not just in name, as Jones was vs Calzaghe for instance. Lewis may have fought opponents who turned pro later than him, but they still constitute his level of opposition - and if anything, it's a plus that he fought them when they were fresh and largely unbeaten. They weren't novices, Grant aside maybe. Golota twice all but beat Lewis's Olympic final opponent. They belonged in that era whether or not they were a few years younger than Lennox.

if he beats ward, bute. moves up beats hopkins, and either pascal or dawson then he could be thought of

Adamj1987 wrote:if he beats ward, bute. moves up beats hopkins, and either pascal or dawson then he could be thought of

What would beating Pascal again prove Adam? It's not as though he's the world's leading 175 pounder, is he. Frochy has already beaten the best Pascal IMO. If it was anything like the first fight it'd be fun to watch, but don't see how a 2nd win could improve Frochy's legacy.

King Geedorah wrote:

joelouis1234 wrote:

IRLangmaid25 wrote: It did not to me Crusader when I heard Eddie Hearn make this claim in the video that I put up, although he won the Commonwealth and a Lonsdale outright, wins the World title against a future world title holder in Jean Pascal beats two former world champions in Jermain Taylor and Arthur Abraham abet their titles came down at Middleweight. To me when I digested Hearn's comments the case was not as strong at all. However it can change depending on what occurs in the Super Six.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken anybody,but isn't true to say that Arthur Abraham is a natural middleweight whilst Carl Froch is a natural super middleweight.If so wouldn't that taint the significance of the win in conversations of stature?Also I'm not too sure if Carl Froch has beaten the equivalents of the likes of Tyson and Vitaly Klitchko in his weight category?I guess a win over Andre Ward might even things up a little though,although I wouldn't see that as being a stroll in the park.

Not really. Felix Sturm is seen as a natural middleweight but drops 15-20lbs to make the weight. Abraham dropped a few bit at middle and SMW. Froch is in and around 168 in-between fights.

There is not real natural at any weight as they all trim down to a lower division barring the odd exception, Anthony Crolla springs to mind at the minute.

I read an interview with Carl Froch in Ring Magazine a while back and he says that he is normal walk around is 170lbs but as he has got older it is has gone up to 175lbs-177lbs, I remember reading somewhere Abraham normally weighs in at 180lbs after rehydriation since he stepped up to Super Middle, as Froch he has always fought at Super Middleweight as he usually came around 166 1/2 to 167 3/4, so he has been very disciplined and has only ever been as high and 172lb very early in his career and that is it.

I'd have Carl Froch above Calzaghe everyday of the week, twice on Tuesdays and thrice on the May day bank holiday. Calzaghe didn't have enough BIG fights to be truly Great IMO

I can't put Carl above Sir Lennox though

To me, for Carl to be truly in that race, he needs to get past Johnson, beat Ward, then beat the winner of the proposed Bute-Kessler match — and if that's Bute and Kessler puts on a credible showing, Carl will have to beat both of them. Then he can say he's cleaned out his own division, which is essential to his claim.

As things stand, I don't see there being much point in him fighting any light-heavy aside from Hopkins — he's the only one with any stature and starpower. Trouble is, by the time Carl has fought all those super middles, Hopkins will likely be 50 and surely he will have retired/deteriorated beyond credibility by then.

Frochy's got a hard job on his hands IMO.

King Geedorah wrote:It was put into focus on Ringside last night that Carl needs revenge of Kessler to match Calzaghe. I am not a huge fan of Joe, as Jim and a few others know, but dues are dues. He beat a much better version of Kessler with relative ease and showed far more adaptability than Carl. Dirrell pushed Carl hard using a very basic variation on the southpaw style. Joe would tie him in knots in my consistently low key opinion.

Take your point King G. Even if Bute gives Kessler the mother of all pastings (and I don't think he would), there would still be unfinished business in the Khan-Prescott fashion. But for Khan that would be a step backwards now and what I'm trying to say is that if Kessler, who is getting old in boxing years, lost and looks bad against Bute, then logic would dictate go for the man who looked good in that fight if you want to enhance your reputation. There comes a stage where rematches becomes pointless, treading water affairs, Hopkins-Jones II being the extreme example. Fights like that and Leonard-Duran III, for instance, are designed as moneyspinners, they don't actually mean anything. If Froch can get to Kessler before the Dane looks on the fade then the match will be worthwhile, but after that point it becomes questionable IMO.

King Geedorah wrote:It was put into focus on Ringside last night that Carl needs revenge of Kessler to match Calzaghe. I am not a huge fan of Joe, as Jim and a few others know, but dues are dues. He beat a much better version of Kessler with relative ease and showed far more adaptability than Carl. Dirrell pushed Carl hard using a very basic variation on the southpaw style. Joe would tie him in knots in my consistently low key opinion.

X 2 - even though I am in an admittedly massive minority in the scoring of Kessler vs Calzaghe - I still feel Kessler vs Calzaghe was close, but a far worst Kessler beat Froch clear.

So did Dirrell IMO, but thats another matter.

Froch is still away from Joe, Froch has had 2 close ones. One in which he was 14 seconds from defeat and the other which, a majority of global fans, feel he lost. Joe had two very controvesial ones - Reid and Hopkins.... but then Hopkins has just done a number on Froch's best win to date and Reid was most definitely an off night. 2 (and for my money 3) close ones in a 12 year reign.... yes lots of crap in the reign, isn't bad going. Froch has had 2 close shaves and a loss in a 2 year reign at world class.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

stujones wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote: Errr. No. Lennox cleaned out the heavyweight division, with the exception of Bowe and perhaps Byrd, Ruiz, the two latter of which had zero chance of winning, who else could he have fought. Tyson showed little desire to fight Lennox until he was near the tail end of his career and wanted the money.

Froch would have to go on a pretty amazing run to overtake Lewis.

Scrap Byrd and Ruiz not his generation - but replace with Moorer.

Don't think Moorer was really ready at the time Lennox was in his pomp, and then he got beat by Foreman.

Don't remember any great calls for them to face one another, Moorer was never seen as a serious threat.

moorer lost a unification to holyfield in about 1997 or 1998. so the thing was for the winner, not the loser, to fight lewis. no point whatsoever for lewis v moorer.the man can't fight absolutely everyone.

Glyn Leach wrote:

kamicazze wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:I think the key word is could. Hearn isn't saying Froch is, or will become, he's saying could become. And maybe he can, but he'd have to go some to beat Lewis, simply because the opposition doesn't currently appear to be out there for him to earn such an accolade against — that's why I'd rank Lewis ahead of Calzaghe, strength of opposition. But like Lewis, and unlike Calzaghe, Froch has achieved an awful lot fighting away from home and that puts him in good stead by my personal criteria.

I disagree with the part of the opposition not being available. His potential matches list as Johnson, Ward, Pavlik, Sergio Martinez, Kessler, Bute, Pascal, Degale/Groves, Paul Williams, Chad Dawson, Tavoris Cloud, Zsolt Erdei, nathan Cleverley, Bernard Hopkins, and he could possibly go to cruiseweight and fight Antonio tarver, Roy Jones Jr, and Danny Green. The opposition is definately out there for him.

Pavlik is shot and discredited. Kessler has beat Froch and been beaten by Calzaghe and Ward. He has already beaten Pascal, who has lost twice to Hopkins (in most people's eyes). Martinez is excellent, but he's come up from light-middle, that's the knock against him. Ward and Bute are on his level, fighters wanting to become bigger, move onto the next level. Williams is too small and hardly invincible. Clev, DeGale, Groves are all below his level, he has done far more than any of them so what would fighting them achieve? The light-heavyweight selection is interesting, but there's hardly a Holyfield, Ruddock, even a faded Tyson level name in that bunch — which is not to say beating Hopkins wouldn't be an achievement, even though he'd be close to 50 by the time he fought Froch. I won't even go into your cruiserweight corpse selection, a fight against any of them would be a discredit to the sport with the possible exception of Green, who means nothing outside Australia. Frochy needs big names at their best. Genuine world stars. That's what would take him to the best-ever level. Sadly for him, none of those you mention qualify.

if froch gets to the final and faces ward, and wins, then that could be a famous win.

certainly doesn't harm a brit's career, beating an american, with olympic credentials to boot, whom american TV seem to be in love with.

that fight could count for a lot. reckon some of those names could be an option for froch, should he lose to ward. then i'd expect bute's promoters to come calling,. wouldn't put it past clev's promoter to try and build his man's career on a rebounding froch, either.

King Geedorah wrote:I do like Michael Moorer. But if a past it Foreman can burn his kipper by removing his sun glasses then Lewis would have twisted his melon with the Zen Rastafari calm and mysticism. Lewis would have found this a dangerous one and acted accordingly.

If Froch goes Johnson, Ward and Hopkins then he’ll have done well for himself and his resume will be impress but you only have to watch them fight to see that Lewis had more to his overall game than ‘The Cobra’ and is ahead of him on the British ATG list.

As David Haye himself sez, “There is no shame being second to Lennox Lewis.” Haye was referring to the heavyweight rankings, natch.

i agree. but it is interesting ppl mentioning byrd and moorer. lewis never fought a southpaw, and it would have been interesting seeing what would have happened. that said, southpaws haven't made much nimpact in the history of the heavyweight division, so who cares...

Autobarn wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

stujones wrote: Scrap Byrd and Ruiz not his generation - but replace with Moorer.

Don't think Moorer was really ready at the time Lennox was in his pomp, and then he got beat by Foreman.

Don't remember any great calls for them to face one another, Moorer was never seen as a serious threat.

moorer lost a unification to holyfield in about 1997 or 1998. so the thing was for the winner, not the loser, to fight lewis. no point whatsoever for lewis v moorer.the man can't fight absolutely everyone.

Moorer was was champion when Lewis wasn't when he regained the IBF belt. Moorer was seen for a moment as the #1 Heavyweight, when Lewis held the WBC title (first reign). When Moorer boxed Holyfield's head off in the first fight he was seen as very very credible champion.... Forget about the heart problem issue that Holyfield claimed after - Moorer boxed his brains off. He also gave Holyfield alot of problems in fight 2 when in absolutely disgraceful shape for a champion. I was actually thinking at the time, who is this JOKE trainer who is claiming this is the shape he wanted MM to be in beat Holyfield for protection around the body! Off course, it was Freddie Roach.

I would have thought Lewis would have been way to big for the generally weaked chinned Moorer, but it was definately a very credible fight and Moorer was far more worthy than many of Lewis' opponents. Moorer was a geniune two time world champion during Lewis' pomp OFF course it was an important fight.

More important than the likes of Mavorvic, Akinwande, Mercer, Botha, Morrison etc etc.

Yes, it might be comparable to Joe Calzaghe not fighting Marcus Beyer, but again if a fighter has reigned twice during your reign - then off course you should consider him "of your generation" and a necessary in order for you to clean up.

There was Foreman also, but I'm glad that one didn't take place.

Glyn Leach wrote:I think the key word is could. Hearn isn't saying Froch is, or will become, he's saying could become. And maybe he can, but he'd have to go some to beat Lewis, simply because the opposition doesn't currently appear to be out there for him to earn such an accolade against — that's why I'd rank Lewis ahead of Calzaghe, strength of opposition. But like Lewis, and unlike Calzaghe, Froch has achieved an awful lot fighting away from home and that puts him in good stead by my personal criteria.

Were he to beat Johnson, Ward, Kessler, Hopkins or Dawson.

He'd pissed all over Calzaghe's and Lewis's resume would need serious debate alongside.

Taylor, Dirrell, Kessler, Pascal, Abraham, Johnson, Ward, Kessler and Dawson.

King Geedorah wrote: Bute is a southpaw but not quite as mercurial as Joe Calzaghe was and lacked that switch of angle. What he does do well is dig to the body with hooks and uppercuts. I feel that the Calzaghe fight truly turned when he hurt Kessler with a right to the body. So maybe Bute does have the tools. Maybe..

yes, and yes.

i personally think that stylewise Bute is a bit of a 'mare for the stiff Kessler. i don't think kessler likes lefties, I don't think he likes fluid movers, and I don't think he exactly loves it to the body. = problems, vs Bute.

not sure what you said about Bute - Kessler but I'd fancy the Romanian, quite strongly.