BoxRec

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

G0mez wrote:Froch beat a prime Jean Pascal in front of millions in a FOTY and then flew to America to knock out Jermain Taylor in his first defence.

But that pales in comparison, to fighting an ancient Eubank tucked away on a Naz undercard before whooping hall-of-famer Branco Sobot in his first defence.

Jesus.

If a unified 39-0 champion was inexperienced what was Pascal?

An experienced fighter would not fight with a broken hand in the enemies back yard, nor if his friend and manager was laying in an intensive care unit.

Try harder.

ender77 wrote:It is also true that Joe Calzaghe never faced back to back the level of opponents Froch has faced in his last 8 fights.

Joe Calzaghe never faced the level of oponents Froch has, period! What makes Froch's record far superior is that he has faced many elite fighters when they have been in their primes! Something Calzaghe did only once, against Kessler.

Hence the reason Froch is winning this poll by a landslide.

ender77 wrote:

ALI wrote:

ender77 wrote:It is also true that Joe Calzaghe never faced back to back the level of opponents Froch has faced in his last 8 fights.

Joe Calzaghe never faced the level of oponents Froch has, period! What makes Froch's record far superior is that he has faced many elite fighters when they have been in their primes! Something Calzaghe did only once, against Kessler.

Hence the reason Froch is winning this poll by a landslide.

If the title reign of Calzaghe was condensed down to 10 fights rather than 24-0 and 11 yrs as an undefeated world champion it would read thus ;

1 : Chris Eubank wbo title
2 : Robin Reid
3 :Richie Woodhall
4 : Mario Veit
5 : Charles Brewer
6 : Byron Mitchell
7 : Jeff Lacy wbo\ibf
8 : Mikkell Kessler wbo\wba\wbc Linear super middleweight title
9 : Bernard Hopkins Linear light heavy title
10: Roy Jones Jnr

Joe Went 10-0 and was linear world champion at 2 weight divisions

Taking nothing away from Froch but he is 6-2 in world class and was easily outclassed by Ward. Carl Froch for all his achievements is far from being the best in his own division.

Carl will also retire after another 2,3 or 4 fights 2 of which will most likely be further losses. One loss at super-middleweight and a loss in a light heavy domestic fight is my prediction for Froch

Theres no light heavy domestically whos capable of beating froch in my view .

Froch has the better names on his record as far as the actual thread goes .

I voted for Froch. Like many, I would favour Calzaghe to grind out a UD if they had met in their respective primes but what I'm not so sure of is how JC would have coped if faced with the constant stream of top tier opposition that Carl has faced.

damianhucker1 wrote:

ender77 wrote:

ALI wrote: Theres no light heavy domestically whos capable of beating froch in my view .

Froch has the better names on his record as far as the actual thread goes .

.... umm .. I think thats where I come in and say Nathan Cleverly beats Froch when they fight

I do agree though that Froch has better names on his records for todays boxing fans. How some of those names will actually be valued in say 10 years time is another thing ..

The point alot of people miss when it comes to Frochs hard run at s-middle ... is the fact he has had no other option if he wanted to make good money.
Calzaghe did have the option though.
Froch is a very intelligent guy. If he too had an easy option that paid well, he would take it.

If Calzaghe didn`t have the easy option. He too would have done everything Froch has done .. except the two losses of course

I wouldn't be that confident of Calzaghe beating Ward.

stujones wrote:I wouldn't be that confident of Calzaghe beating Ward.

No probs. But alot of people weren`t so confident of Froch beating Bute.

Ward still has alot to prove. He may prove to be great .. but as yet, its too early.

If Calzaghe had had a schedule like Froch's - constantly fighting grade A opposition on the road - he could easily have come unstuck against someone, say of Byron Mitchell's calibre. Fights like that could easily have had a different outcome if Calzaghe had not had his usual luxury of being as fresh as a daisy on home turf.

I was listening to Froch being interviewed on Radio 4 this morning. He was sounding as delusional as ever i.e. I lost to Kessler because of volcano ash, except I really won but it was a home town decision, and I only lost to Ward because of a bad training camp etc etc. It's funny, he doesn't seem to request a rematch with Ward. Fancy that?

I think I'd warm to Froch a lot more if he was a bit more gracious in defeat.

Froch has beaten a higher level of foe and he has done it almost always when they were at their absolute peak (Bute,Abraham,Dirrel,Pascal) as well as Johnson and Taylor

Wheras most of Calzaghes very best wins were over guys who were past their best in Jones,Eubanks, Hopkins. The Jones jnr win in particular means nothing. Wheras the Hopkins one wasnt even a win in my eyes. Kessler and Lacey are not imo better than Bute or Dirrel.

And Frochs loss to Kessler was the closest of fights that a rematch may correct.

Ive always felt b4 Saturday night though that Joe would be too good for carl and in a match at their absolute best (calzaghe 2006 v Froch) it would always be the faster Joe in a barnburner.

But Froch has proved time and time again, he finds a way to win, against guys who just look that much better than him..

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

ALI wrote:

ender77 wrote:It is also true that Joe Calzaghe never faced back to back the level of opponents Froch has faced in his last 8 fights.

Joe Calzaghe never faced the level of oponents Froch has, period! What makes Froch's record far superior is that he has faced many elite fighters when they have been in their primes! Something Calzaghe did only once, against Kessler.

Hence the reason Froch is winning this poll by a landslide.

I could argue that Pascal was not yet in his prime, the same goes for Dirrell and Ward, and you could say Abraham was above his prime division, Johnson was way passed his best, so too was Taylor. Who does that leave? Bute.

You could argue those points, but then you would be clutching at straws.....

mugabi wrote:Froch has beaten a higher level of foe and he has done it almost always when they were at their absolute peak (Bute,Abraham,Dirrel,Pascal) as well as Johnson and Taylor

Wheras most of Calzaghes very best wins were over guys who were past their best in Jones,Eubanks, Hopkins. The Jones jnr win in particular means nothing. Wheras the Hopkins one wasnt even a win in my eyes. Kessler and Lacey are not imo better than Bute or Dirrel.

And Frochs loss to Kessler was the closest of fights that a rematch may correct.

Ive always felt b4 Saturday night though that Joe would be too good for carl and in a match at their absolute best (calzaghe 2006 v Froch) it would always be the faster Joe in a barnburner.

But Froch has proved time and time again, he finds a way to win, against guys who just look that much better than him..

Calzaghe beat Hopkins in the middle of his greatest wins (either side of Calzaghe). He also totally outboxed Kessler who Froch was life and death with. It was Kesslers body shots that meant that Froch could not perform to his best not volcanic dust. Jermaine Taylor had been knocked out already by Pavlik and outboxed by him, Dirrel I thought edged Froch, Ward wiped the floor with him and Abraham was a career middleweight. So no, I don't think his record is better and nor do I think he would have beaten Calzaghe. I watched the Ward fight again last night and I suspect there is a reason why there won't be a rematch with him.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

ALI wrote:

The Dark Destroyer wrote: I could argue that Pascal was not yet in his prime, the same goes for Dirrell and Ward, and you could say Abraham was above his prime division, Johnson was way passed his best, so too was Taylor. Who does that leave? Bute.

You could argue those points, but then you would be clutching at straws.....

You don't think there is an argument that Ward and Dirrell were not in their primes yet when they fought Froch? Pascal is a thinner argument as both were untested, but he's since done nothing at 168, his 175 exploits speak well for Froch, though. Abraham is clearly not having the best of his career at this weight, no-one is clutching at straws there. Johnson is clearly not an elite 168er, and Taylor was passed his prime, his previous and subsequent fights show that.

Oh well, with that then i guess Froch should have instead been fighting the Pudwell's and McIntyre's of his time!

who needs to make comparisons?

totally different fighters, styles, attitudes and even eras.

cazlaghe's era was one of alphabet soup, whereas froch's is one of world class opposition seemingly every fight (since his 1st title bout). joe was a aprt of the system whereas froch has had to go for it, gamble and rebound by going for the jugular.

no wonder one has the unbeaten record and another has defeats. the way froch has rebounded from defeats has been magnificent. you'd have to say his wins over abraham and bute - former or current title holders - has been every bit as impressive as joe's vs lacy & kessler (althouhg kessler beat froch).

Calzaghe is simply a class apart from Froch. I like Froch, he is intense man, but his true level was shown against Kessler & Ward... just not quiet there vs Kessler and truelly outclassed by Ward.

Hopkins was Frochs Ward, and he outboxed him like noone has ever outboxed B-Hop. And he beat a prime, unbeaten Kessler.

everyone goes on about how good froch was in his last fight but how good is bute realy, ?? also a fighter coming foward hands down chin up is not the to stay a champion, last week froch fought like a street fighter not a boxer ? but is that so bad somtimes.

desperados wrote:Calzaghe is simply a class apart from Froch. I like Froch, he is intense man, but his true level was shown against Kessler & Ward... just not quiet there vs Kessler and truelly outclassed by Ward.

Hopkins was Frochs Ward, and he outboxed him like noone has ever outboxed B-Hop. And he beat a prime, unbeaten Kessler.

I assume u mean Calzaghe outfoxed Hopkins like no one ever had?

Might want to watch Roy Jones against Hopkins first time round! Also, Jermain Taylor beat Hopkins more convincingly than Joe did, he also beat a younger Hopkins too before...oh yeah, that's it...getting knocked out by Froch!

yiddo14 wrote:

desperados wrote:Calzaghe is simply a class apart from Froch. I like Froch, he is intense man, but his true level was shown against Kessler & Ward... just not quiet there vs Kessler and truelly outclassed by Ward.

Hopkins was Frochs Ward, and he outboxed him like noone has ever outboxed B-Hop. And he beat a prime, unbeaten Kessler.

I assume u mean Calzaghe outfoxed Hopkins like no one ever had?

Might want to watch Roy Jones against Hopkins first time round! Also, Jermain Taylor beat Hopkins more convincingly than Joe did, he also beat a younger Hopkins too before...oh yeah, that's it...getting knocked out by Froch!

the stats speak for themselves, Joe landed more on BHop than anyone ever had. Taylor was a good win for Froch but your talking about a middlewieght taylor. Guy never even held a belt at 168 and was KO'd by abraham.

The fact is, Froch has met 2 better men. 46 tried, and 46 failed with Joe.

You genuinely think Calzaghe beat Hopkins more convincingly than Roy Jones did all them years ago?

Punch stats don't tell the whole story as you know. Hopkins arguably beat Joe. I would say Taylor, with his two wins over Hopkins, did a more convincing job, possibly Dawson too. Jones jnr clearly did.

Let me guess, much worse versions?

No but I will say the version of Jones Hopkins fought first time round would have pissed all over any version of Hopkins so I shouldn't really bother with that comparison. That Roy would have stood Joe ( and pretty much anyone! ) on his head, Joe knew it too, pretty much said the same when asked early in his career about Roy.

The Hopkins Joe fought clan be compared to the one Taylor and Dawson fought though. Taylor faced the best version IMO. Pascal ran Hopkins almost as close as Joe did.

I'm unsure about who's got the better resumes. I mean, Froch has fought everyone but he's had losses when he's stepped up (if you consider Bute was overrated).

Besides that, I just want to say that Carl Froch gives me something I've never really had the pleasure of feeling - in a diluted country, ran by idiots, he makes me proud to be British.

Win or lose, the whole of the country should be proud of the warrior that is Carl Froch.

Ha! I don't mind how multi-cultural the country is, but I'm definitely not proud of the divides its created.

yiddo14 wrote:You genuinely think Calzaghe beat Hopkins more convincingly than Roy Jones did all them years ago?

Punch stats don't tell the whole story as you know. Hopkins arguably beat Joe. I would say Taylor, with his two wins over Hopkins, did a more convincing job, possibly Dawson too. Jones jnr clearly did.

you gotta be kidding. Calzaghe schooled him, Hopkins had nothing to give except try and up his 'fouling game', and for hopkins, thats really saying somthing. He even resorted to pretending he had ben fouled to buy time. Chad Dawson didn't outbox make a fool out of Hopkins like Joe did, he simpy ground out the rounds in what was a boring clinch fest. I recognise that BHop isn't an undefeated guy, but he is an all time great and a master of ring craft on a par with Floyd Mayweather, and Joe figured him out like Joe does. Like he figured out Kessler. You can't say the same about Froch, who has been outboxed by Taylor, Dirrel, Kessler and whitewashed against Ward.

Calzaghe refused rematches of his closest fights - Reid and Hopkins. Ottke defended the IBF title 10+ times during Joes reign, and even had the WBA title for his last few fights. Calzaghe didn't fight Beyer, Mundine, Froch, younger Jones, younger Hopkins. I think Calzaghe would have beaten all of these guys (bar maybe younger Hopkins and younger Jones), but for whatever reason these fights didn't happen and that affects his legacy. He's an undefeated champion with a couple of good wins and a heavily padded record.