BoxRec

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 09:56**

G0mez wrote:I can think of 80,000 little reasons and around 14 million big reasons why he is releasing jealous comments only the day after the British boxing event in decades.

Carl appears in the newspaper on merit. Joe appears in the newspapers to have a pop at people, getting busted for cocaine or described as a obsessive weirdo by ex missus.

It's only a matter of time before he's blown his money on..... err..... acting lessons.

Do you 'hate' Calzaghe? Has he done anything to you? He's got his life to lead and made mistakes, maybe even Carl will make a mistake one day.

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 09:56**

TheCobra wrote:
Anzi wrote: Froch lost to Dirrell, but he got a home town decision
This just isn't true. Sick to death of hearing this one. It would have been a crazy decision to give this fight to Dirrell, who tried to win a world title on the back foot landing 3 punches a round.

Froch stalked him all night, tried to make the fight, tried to make ANY sort of fight, Dirrell was embarassing and is an embarassment to the sport of boxing with his negative style, his whining and moaning and his pullouts in later fights. The guy is a joke and he did NOT beat Froch and would not have been a worthy world title winner in any of his fights, I'm just not having it, absolute bollocks that people still bring this one up on Froch's record.

I think everyone unbiased observer thinks that Dirrell won that fight. Froch tried to make a fight of it but do you think he succeded? Dirrell horrendous, ugly style should have got him the victory if you judge fights on punches landed on the opponent and your opponents punches defended. If you award rounds in fights based on preferred styles, personalities and how much fighters moan when they aren't fighting, pulling out of fights etc you may have a point.

I think it's been summed up neatly already. Joe = better boxer, Carl = better career. Calzaghe would do a Ward like job on Froch every time (not in style just dominance).

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 10:04**

Shirow wrote:I think everyone unbiased observer thinks that Dirrell won that fight. Froch tried to make a fight of it but do you think he succeded? Dirrell horrendous, ugly style should have got him the victory if you judge fights on punches landed on the opponent and your opponents punches defended. If you award rounds in fights based on preferred styles, personalities and how much fighters moan when they aren't fighting, pulling out of fights etc you may have a point.

Dirrell was appalling against Froch. It's disgusting that so many people think he deserved the win.

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 10:07**

Shirow wrote:
TheCobra wrote:
Anzi wrote: Froch lost to Dirrell, but he got a home town decision
This just isn't true. Sick to death of hearing this one. It would have been a crazy decision to give this fight to Dirrell, who tried to win a world title on the back foot landing 3 punches a round.

Froch stalked him all night, tried to make the fight, tried to make ANY sort of fight, Dirrell was embarassing and is an embarassment to the sport of boxing with his negative style, his whining and moaning and his pullouts in later fights. The guy is a joke and he did NOT beat Froch and would not have been a worthy world title winner in any of his fights, I'm just not having it, absolute bollocks that people still bring this one up on Froch's record.
I think everyone unbiased observer thinks that Dirrell won that fight. Froch tried to make a fight of it but do you think he succeded? Dirrell horrendous, ugly style should have got him the victory if you judge fights on punches landed on the opponent and your opponents punches defended. If you award rounds in fights based on preferred styles, personalities and how much fighters moan when they aren't fighting, pulling out of fights etc you may have a point.

I think it's been summed up neatly already. Joe = better boxer, Carl = better career. Calzaghe would do a Ward like job on Froch every time (not in style just dominance).

I judged the Dirrell-Froch fight on a number of factors - having watched boxing for many years, such things as punches landed, power punches, workrate. Spoiling tactics and other negative things also make me tend to look badly on a boxer and try to score for positive work if it is happening.

In an untidy contest where not many clean punches are landing, workrate and positivity become key and this is why Froch won that fight. People talk like Froch didn't lay a glove on him, but he did, it was a very scrappy, close fight. It certainly wasn't some diabolical robbery/hometown decision, just cos Dirrell bitched and moaned let's not revise history, he tried to win a world title landing 3 punches a round then moaned when he didn't get it his way.

There's a lot of revisionists on Carl Froch's career, trying to put his career down, probably the same people who wanted and expect Groves to beat him, he's never been given the credit he deserves and people are still doing the same to this day - it's just good that he keeps winning, winning is the only answer to 'hater' type people.

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 11:04**

Anzi wrote:
Ian1973 wrote:Calzaghe wouldn't lose a round against Froch, whatever nonsense some people write. Way too quick, threw way too many punches, way too adaptable, way too good.

As for his jealousy of Froch, when you retire an unbeaten world champion there's bugger all to be jealous about.
Hit the nail on the head, I agree 100%.

Exactly,someone with sense at last

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 11:11**

Whilst I agree with questioning Calzaghe's legacy as he avoided a lot of top guys & only fought the real names on his resume when they appeared past their prime & easier options, that doesn't change the fact that he was a very talented boxer.

But I think you're getting caught up with the hype of his recent performance to assume Froch would have beat him. Calzaghe's hand speed would have left Froch confused & bewildered & losing a very clear points decision.

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 11:14**

mugabi wrote:I'm sick of the myth that sheep on here peddle that calzaghe would have beaten Froch in a fight.

Calzaghes biggest wins were against either shot (Eubanks,Jones jnr) fighters or past their best (Hopkins) and in bhops case I'll go to the grave knowing calzaghe lost that fight.lacey was American hype.kessler wasn't as good as the version that fought Froch.

Yet listen to Joe brag "how he conquered america and the world and was the no 1 fighter at sm and lh" the fact is two fading 40 something's dropped him on his area,he never conquered america.he didn't fight Jones jnr or tarver or Taylor at their peak.he denied Reid's rematch and yes I had robin winningthat

Froch on the other hand is a guy who has a record far far superior to Joe.he's beaten American speedsters (dirrel and taylor),punchers (Abraham), and guys like ,bute,pascal and the same Glen johnson Joe pulled out of fighting,unlike Joe ,carl has taken on the best anywhere.

Yet listen to calzaghe s sour grapes in today's daily mail.fact is if calzaghe s career had been at its peak during 1987-1995 or 2009-2014 he would have been schooled by froch,ward, and others.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/boxing ... elite.html

The same people bleating joe would beat Carl are the same who were saying groves did to Carl in the first fight what Joe would have done,and the same who thought Bute would do what "calzaghe would have done" when will these people learn

You can say what you like about Eubank,but i can't ever remember him being described as shot,even the scraps with Carl Thompson he was more that competative and when have you ever seen Calzaghe 'schooled' by anyone lol

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 11:17**

They are both very gifted fighters but in different ways, Calzaghe found a way to win all his bouts and often didn't get hit hard through a fight. Carl has been in some really good bouts and has earned his money the hard way - he must have taken a lot more hammer than Joe and that's not a good thing for him and his family in the coming years.

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 11:18**

bigjack wrote:
mugabi wrote:I'm sick of the myth that sheep on here peddle that calzaghe would have beaten Froch in a fight.

Calzaghes biggest wins were against either shot (Eubanks,Jones jnr) fighters or past their best (Hopkins) and in bhops case I'll go to the grave knowing calzaghe lost that fight.lacey was American hype.kessler wasn't as good as the version that fought Froch.

Yet listen to Joe brag "how he conquered america and the world and was the no 1 fighter at sm and lh" the fact is two fading 40 something's dropped him on his area,he never conquered america.he didn't fight Jones jnr or tarver or Taylor at their peak.he denied Reid's rematch and yes I had robin winningthat

Froch on the other hand is a guy who has a record far far superior to Joe.he's beaten American speedsters (dirrel and taylor),punchers (Abraham), and guys like ,bute,pascal and the same Glen johnson Joe pulled out of fighting,unlike Joe ,carl has taken on the best anywhere.

Yet listen to calzaghe s sour grapes in today's daily mail.fact is if calzaghe s career had been at its peak during 1987-1995 or 2009-2014 he would have been schooled by froch,ward, and others.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/boxing ... elite.html

The same people bleating joe would beat Carl are the same who were saying groves did to Carl in the first fight what Joe would have done,and the same who thought Bute would do what "calzaghe would have done" when will these people learn
You can say what you like about Eubank,but i can't ever remember him being described as shot,even the scraps with Carl Thompson he was more that competative and when have you ever seen Calzaghe 'schooled' by anyone lol

I've seen some shite on here before, I've posted some of it, but the suggestion that Carl Froch would school Joe Calzaghe tops the lot, top trolling with this one, more bites than bnovelist gets.

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 11:49**

palooka wrote:
Do you 'hate' Calzaghe? Has he done anything to you? He's got his life to lead and made mistakes, maybe even Carl will make a mistake one day.

Myself, Joe and your mum were in a complicated love triangle.

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 11:52**

Horse wrote:
Shirow wrote:I think everyone unbiased observer thinks that Dirrell won that fight. Froch tried to make a fight of it but do you think he succeded? Dirrell horrendous, ugly style should have got him the victory if you judge fights on punches landed on the opponent and your opponents punches defended. If you award rounds in fights based on preferred styles, personalities and how much fighters moan when they aren't fighting, pulling out of fights etc you may have a point.
Dirrell was appalling against Froch. It's disgusting that so many people think he deserved the win.

amen. after two fights in which he was swooning like Vincent price dirrell has disappeared, whereas look at froch now, in big fights, 80,000 at Wembley, sky box office and maybe HBO PPV next...

I also scored that for froch, I watched it weeks after the event, didn't follow any hype, judged it soberly and had no problem with froch vs a fighter using all his gifts to hide in the ring.

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 11:56**

G0mez wrote:
palooka wrote:
Do you 'hate' Calzaghe? Has he done anything to you? He's got his life to lead and made mistakes, maybe even Carl will make a mistake one day.
Myself, Joe and your mum were in a complicated love triangle.

You're a bad man if you lived to tell the tale

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 12:18**

Anzi wrote:
mickey1975 wrote:To be fair, Lacy was a big fight at the time. Nobody knew he was useless then. Everyone thought he was a killer.
He was not useless then, met a great in form Calzaghe, Lacy had looked great before the Calzaghe fight, I think that fight destroyed all his confidence, he was never the same afterwards.

Lacy bust his rotator cuff early in a fight with Vitaly Tsypko after the Calzaghe fight, that's what did him in at the top level.

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 12:37**

I'm not really bothered about who, according to people's personal preferences, would win in a hypothetical Calzaghe vs Froch boxing match. But to say, as some have, that Froch wouldn't win a round is a bit mean-spirited. I do remember Sakio Bika giving Joe quite a torrid time and winning some rounds. Is Froch worse than Bika?

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 12:56**

Teddy's Toupee wrote:I'm not really bothered about who, according to people's personal preferences, would win in a hypothetical Calzaghe vs Froch boxing match. But to say, as some have, that Froch wouldn't win a round is a bit mean-spirited. I do remember Sakio Bika giving Joe quite a torrid time and winning some rounds. Is Froch worse than Bika?

Yep, deluded fan worship.

Jones knocked him down with a wrist and Hopkins floored him too.

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 13:17**

zero wrote:
Teddy's Toupee wrote:I'm not really bothered about who, according to people's personal preferences, would win in a hypothetical Calzaghe vs Froch boxing match. But to say, as some have, that Froch wouldn't win a round is a bit mean-spirited. I do remember Sakio Bika giving Joe quite a torrid time and winning some rounds. Is Froch worse than Bika?
Yep, deluded fan worship.

Jones knocked him down with a wrist and Hopkins floored him too.

And was he hurt by either of those? Two flash knockdowns in his final two fights don't really prove much, except that he retired at the right time.

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 13:21**

expe wrote:
zero wrote:
Teddy's Toupee wrote:I'm not really bothered about who, according to people's personal preferences, would win in a hypothetical Calzaghe vs Froch boxing match. But to say, as some have, that Froch wouldn't win a round is a bit mean-spirited. I do remember Sakio Bika giving Joe quite a torrid time and winning some rounds. Is Froch worse than Bika?
Yep, deluded fan worship.

Jones knocked him down with a wrist and Hopkins floored him too.
And was he hurt by either of those? Two flash knockdowns in his final two fights don't really prove much, except that he retired at the right time.

Froch would have hurt him.

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 13:25**

zero wrote:
expe wrote:
zero wrote: Yep, deluded fan worship.

Jones knocked him down with a wrist and Hopkins floored him too.
And was he hurt by either of those? Two flash knockdowns in his final two fights don't really prove much, except that he retired at the right time.
Froch would have hurt him.

He actually has to hit him to hurt him, name me one time in his career that Calzaghe looked like his legs had gone. He went down 4 times in 46 fights for fucks sake, Groves aside, Froch isn't really a one punch banger and by his own admission, stood no chance of winning if the fight went to points, how is he meant to knock out a fighter he can't catch clean and has a great chin?

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 13:46**

Ffs, the question being answered is whether Froch would win a round, Carl isn’t some fecking numptee.

I would favour Calzaghie or the distance. I have posted this many times.

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 13:48**

thepocketrocket wrote:The only reason Calzaghe is thought of so highly is because he dodged the big names as their peak, so therefore there is no irrefutable evidence he would have got beaten by them.

The likes of Froch and Hatton fought the top guys, and came up short, so it is there in black and white. That makes it easier to say they would lose to this guy and that guy.

Both could have fought average contenders for years, but instead shot for the stars

nail on head

sobat, Gimminez, thornberry, starie, shieka, veit x2, mcintyre, brewer (shot), jiminez, pudwill, mchtichayn, salem, ashira, manfedo, jones jnr (shot)

thats 16 title fights that are against terrible opponents......eubank, benn, froch or anyone decent beat all of them

vs eubank , chris had a week to lose 7lbs

vs hopkins I had bernard winning by a point

lacy, hopkins and kessler are his best wins, for a champion of 10 years it is a very poor list.

The fact is joe sat on his title for years watching hamed go to the states fight the best win and lose, then hatton win and lose, during that time joe fought sub par opposition with the exception of guys like woodhall, reid, bika, average champions who again benn eubank and froch would beat.

Hopkins, Jones jnr, Johnson, Tarver, ottke, should have been fought during joes reign. Froch at the end.

Froch can say he has fought everyone, just like the old timers

Can Joe Calzaghe say the same?? for a guy who was 46-0 , its funny how Boxing News do not even have him in the top 100 fighters of all time.....Joe simply didnt have enough names on his record to justify a place.

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 13:58**

Carl would win more than one round but not more than 6.

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 14:02**

Froch won about two rounds against Ward.

Is Calzaghe better than Ward?

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 14:02**

palooka wrote:Carl would win more than one round but not more than 6.

prime for prime, joe might win 2 rounds vs jones jnr

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 14:03**

fightscorecollector wrote:
palooka wrote:Carl would win more than one round but not more than 6.
prime for prime, joe might win 2 rounds vs jones jnr

No argument from me there.

Posted: **07 Jun 2014, 14:11**

palooka wrote:Carl would win more than one round but not more than 6.

I will invent a counterfactual time machine to answer this question once and for all.

BoxRec

calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control

Re: calzaghes jealousy is out of control