BoxRec

squiggy wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:Calzaghe 2008 was past his best slightly imo, punch resistance had started to go, seemed to get cut more easy. Ward would be slight favourite imo. I'd also say ward is possibly the more natural at this weight. Ward seems better at 175 than he was at 168 imo. Calzaghe had his whole career bar 2 at 168 so have t say that was his weight.

The Calzaghe around the lacy time I think would have beaten ward at any point of his 168 career. Obviously ward would've had his moments, but he eventually gets out worked and out fought in that fight. Froch said he felt ward faded in there fight. It doesn't bode well for ward being as the Calzaghe tempo was much much higher than frochs

I think Froch was just looking for something that felt better to say than "man, I might have lost every single round."

Fair point

Horse wrote:

SFW wrote:Having a British title means what? 3 steps short of a World title? Calzaghe was top 3 p4p and on his way out looking for big name big $ fights.

In 2004?

SFW wrote:For reasons legit or otherwise Joe didn't make near the $ he should have in his career. Ripped off completely 20+ fights before he even got to Warren. Froch brought absolutely nothing to the table for Joe.. and since Carl didn't want to move up... Calzaghe proved himself long before Carl's name had even made it out of Nottingham, it was like another poster said, 2 different eras.

In 2004 Calzaghe fought: Mger Mkrtchyan & Kabary Salem
In 2005 Calzaghe fought: Mario Veit II & Evans Ashira

Froch was clearly credible enough to be fighting Joe Calzaghe at that stage of his career.

Yes, Froch was a credible oponent, but his chances would have been very slim. No more than 5 %.

ValMar wrote:

Horse wrote:

SFW wrote:Having a British title means what? 3 steps short of a World title? Calzaghe was top 3 p4p and on his way out looking for big name big $ fights.

In 2004?

SFW wrote:For reasons legit or otherwise Joe didn't make near the $ he should have in his career. Ripped off completely 20+ fights before he even got to Warren. Froch brought absolutely nothing to the table for Joe.. and since Carl didn't want to move up... Calzaghe proved himself long before Carl's name had even made it out of Nottingham, it was like another poster said, 2 different eras.

In 2004 Calzaghe fought: Mger Mkrtchyan & Kabary Salem
In 2005 Calzaghe fought: Mario Veit II & Evans Ashira

Froch was clearly credible enough to be fighting Joe Calzaghe at that stage of his career.

Yes, Froch was a credible oponent, but his chances would have been very slim. No more than 5 %.

Froch wasn't a credible opponent. Just because Calzaghe fought some other guys that were of similar ilk, it doesn't make Froch more credible let's be real.

Froch won a vacant British title in 04. Against Damon Hague, who was very poor quality opponent. Froch was not ready for a title shot at this time.

Calzaghe fought some poor opponents during his reign, but this doesn't then make a green Carl Froch a credible fight around 2004.

Calzaghe could have fought Froch really only around the time he fought Roy. If Froch would be willing to move up. Calzaghe went with the shot Roy in a swansong fight. Ticking off fighting at MSG and no doubt getting better money than fighting Froch.

Calzaghe vs Froch, realistically, wasn't on

Was there any clamour at all for Froch to fight Calzaghe between 2004-2007? I certainly don't remember any. Pretty sure the consensus was that they were at totally different stages of their careers and Froch was nowhere near ready for Calzaghe at that time.

Sometimes it's perfectly fine for a fight not to happen. No-one ducked anyone in this case; it was just 2 fighters whose timelines didn't really cross properly.

Ossyrules wrote:Calzaghe vs Froch, realistically, wasn't on

I fail to see why the fight was unrealistic.

Too much risk vs the reward not being considered big enough, for one or both fighters maybe, but clearly not an unrealistic fight to get made around that time.

Boxerbeetle wrote:Was there any clamour at all for Froch to fight Calzaghe between 2004-2007?

Yes.

Horse wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:Calzaghe vs Froch, realistically, wasn't on

I fail to see why the fight was unrealistic.

Too much risk vs the reward not being considered big enough, for one or both fighters maybe, but clearly not an unrealistic fight to get made around that time.

It's easy in hindsight looking at what Froch went on to achieve. However at 2004 he was not ready. As the years went on he bridged the gap. By the time he was worthy, Calzaghe was virtually checking out if boxing

Ossyrules wrote:It's easy in hindsight looking at what Froch went on to achieve. However at 2004 he was not ready. As the years went on he bridged the gap. By the time he was worthy, Calzaghe was virtually checking out if boxing

Froch was clearly good enough to be a Calzaghe opponent from 2004 until the end.

Only Lacy, Kessler & Hopkins were clearly more credible than Froch was at the time.

Calzaghe would have been a significant favourite at all stages, but Froch would have been a respectable opponent at any time after winning the Commonwealth title.

Horse wrote:

Ossyrules wrote:It's easy in hindsight looking at what Froch went on to achieve. However at 2004 he was not ready. As the years went on he bridged the gap. By the time he was worthy, Calzaghe was virtually checking out if boxing

Froch was clearly good enough to be a Calzaghe opponent from 2004 until the end.

Only Lacy, Kessler & Hopkins were clearly more credible than Froch was at the time.

Calzaghe would have been a significant favourite at all stages, but Froch would have been a respectable opponent at any time after winning the Commonwealth title.

It's rare that a guy hasn't even proved himself as the British champ goes straight in for a world title shot

Horse wrote:

Loki wrote:Where is your evidence? Froch really was only a viable opponent in 2008 after beating Pascal, then Taylor to win a belt. I highly doubt JC v Froch made more financial sense than JC v BHop or RJJ. JC retired in 2008.

No, Froch was a viable opponent from 2004 after the won the British title.

It's not as if Calzaghe was only fighting the crème de la crème throughout most of his reign.

Horse, whilst I agree that Froch would've been a better opponent than Veit, Ashira, Manfredo, Salem etc. That wasn't the original point.

TEO, claims, erroneously, that Calzaghe was offered a career height payday twice against Froch and declined it. Until 2008, Froch v JC would've made sweet FA and from 2003 Calazghe was looking to unify but Ottke, Beyer wouldn't do it and Kessler had only just won the WBA. JC fought Kessler to unify as soon as possible.

So, 2008 wouldve been the only time Froch v JC would've made financial sense. But, JC couldn't make 168 and made way more v BHop and RJJ at 174. Froch would never have gone to 174.

Personally, I'd have loved to see them fight, but there would only be one winner.

Loki wrote:Horse, whilst I agree that Froch would've been a better opponent than Veit, Ashira, Manfredo, Salem etc. That wasn't the original point.

TEO, claims, erroneously, that Calzaghe was offered a career height payday twice against Froch and declined it. Until 2008, Froch v JC would've made sweet FA and from 2003 Calazghe was looking to unify but Ottke, Beyer wouldn't do it and Kessler had only just won the WBA. JC fought Kessler to unify as soon as possible.

So, 2008 wouldve been the only time Froch v JC would've made financial sense. But, JC couldn't make 168 and made way more v BHop and RJJ at 174. Froch would never have gone to 174.

Froch vs Calzaghe would have made more than most of his defences.

I believe the original point was that Froch wasn't a viable opponent until he beat Pascal in 2008, but I'd say he was a viable opponent way before that.

It's just that he wasn't an especially appealing opponent given the somewhat unfavourable risk vs reward ratio for Calzaghe and, to a lesser extent, Froch.

Loki wrote:Personally, I'd have loved to see them fight, but there would only be one winner.

If there was only going to be one winner (I assume you mean Calzaghe), then why didn't Calzaghe take the fight and beat him easily?

The answer is that it was certainly not a forgone conclusion that Calzaghe would have won and Calzaghe wasn't much of a risk taker.

Horse wrote:

Loki wrote:Horse, whilst I agree that Froch would've been a better opponent than Veit, Ashira, Manfredo, Salem etc. That wasn't the original point.

TEO, claims, erroneously, that Calzaghe was offered a career height payday twice against Froch and declined it. Until 2008, Froch v JC would've made sweet FA and from 2003 Calazghe was looking to unify but Ottke, Beyer wouldn't do it and Kessler had only just won the WBA. JC fought Kessler to unify as soon as possible.

So, 2008 wouldve been the only time Froch v JC would've made financial sense. But, JC couldn't make 168 and made way more v BHop and RJJ at 174. Froch would never have gone to 174.

Froch vs Calzaghe would have made more than most of his defences.

I believe the original point was that Froch wasn't a viable opponent until he beat Pascal in 2008, but I'd say he was a viable opponent way before that.

It's just that he wasn't an especially appealing opponent given the somewhat unfavourable risk vs reward ratio for Calzaghe and, to a lesser extent, Froch.

Loki wrote:Personally, I'd have loved to see them fight, but there would only be one winner.

If there was only going to be one winner (I assume you mean Calzaghe), then why didn't Calzaghe take the fight and beat him easily?

The answer is that it was certainly not a forgone conclusion that Calzaghe would have won and Calzaghe wasn't much of a risk taker.

Now I get it; you're a Cobra fanboy. I like Froch, a tough chap. I remember seeing him live at York Hall early 2000s. I'd stack him to beat most of the other British SMWs from the golden era barring Eubank.

But, that wasn't the original post. It was whether offers were made and a career high payday. Please read it. JC, as I recall, had to face a long line of WBO mandatories e.g Veit etc to keep his belt. Froch v JC circa 2005 would've made peanuts and Joe would've lost his bargaining chip, ergo, his belt.

The Germans had the others hostage.

In terms of JC v Froch, although a very tough fighter, Froch was simply too slow and JC was clearly the better boxer. He probably would've boxed his ears off, all wrong for Froch IMO. It would've ended similar to Froch's loss to Ward.

Horse wrote:

Loki wrote:Horse, whilst I agree that Froch would've been a better opponent than Veit, Ashira, Manfredo, Salem etc. That wasn't the original point.

TEO, claims, erroneously, that Calzaghe was offered a career height payday twice against Froch and declined it. Until 2008, Froch v JC would've made sweet FA and from 2003 Calazghe was looking to unify but Ottke, Beyer wouldn't do it and Kessler had only just won the WBA. JC fought Kessler to unify as soon as possible.

So, 2008 wouldve been the only time Froch v JC would've made financial sense. But, JC couldn't make 168 and made way more v BHop and RJJ at 174. Froch would never have gone to 174.

Froch vs Calzaghe would have made more than most of his defences.

I believe the original point was that Froch wasn't a viable opponent until he beat Pascal in 2008, but I'd say he was a viable opponent way before that.

It's just that he wasn't an especially appealing opponent given the somewhat unfavourable risk vs reward ratio for Calzaghe and, to a lesser extent, Froch.

Loki wrote:Personally, I'd have loved to see them fight, but there would only be one winner.

If there was only going to be one winner (I assume you mean Calzaghe), then why didn't Calzaghe take the fight and beat him easily?

The answer is that it was certainly not a forgone conclusion that Calzaghe would have won and Calzaghe wasn't much of a risk taker.

The "if he'd beat him so easily why not take the fight" really isn't a point that holds too much weight

I agree Calzaghe wasn't a real risk taker though

Loki wrote:

Horse wrote:

Loki wrote:Horse, whilst I agree that Froch would've been a better opponent than Veit, Ashira, Manfredo, Salem etc. That wasn't the original point.

TEO, claims, erroneously, that Calzaghe was offered a career height payday twice against Froch and declined it. Until 2008, Froch v JC would've made sweet FA and from 2003 Calazghe was looking to unify but Ottke, Beyer wouldn't do it and Kessler had only just won the WBA. JC fought Kessler to unify as soon as possible.

So, 2008 wouldve been the only time Froch v JC would've made financial sense. But, JC couldn't make 168 and made way more v BHop and RJJ at 174. Froch would never have gone to 174.

Froch vs Calzaghe would have made more than most of his defences.

I believe the original point was that Froch wasn't a viable opponent until he beat Pascal in 2008, but I'd say he was a viable opponent way before that.

It's just that he wasn't an especially appealing opponent given the somewhat unfavourable risk vs reward ratio for Calzaghe and, to a lesser extent, Froch.

Loki wrote:Personally, I'd have loved to see them fight, but there would only be one winner.

If there was only going to be one winner (I assume you mean Calzaghe), then why didn't Calzaghe take the fight and beat him easily?

The answer is that it was certainly not a forgone conclusion that Calzaghe would have won and Calzaghe wasn't much of a risk taker.

Now I get it; you're a Cobra fanboy. I like Froch, a tough chap. I remember seeing him live at York Hall early 2000s. I'd stack him to beat most of the other British SMWs from the golden era barring Eubank.

But, that wasn't the original post. It was whether offers were made and a career high payday. Please read it. JC, as I recall, had to face a long line of WBO mandatories e.g Veit etc to keep his belt. Froch v JC circa 2005 would've made peanuts and Joe would've lost his bargaining chip, ergo, his belt.

The Germans had the others hostage.

In terms of JC v Froch, although a very tough fighter, Froch was simply too slow and JC was clearly the better boxer. He probably would've boxed his ears off, all wrong for Froch IMO. It would've ended similar to Froch's loss to Ward.

I agree that Calslappy would have likely outclassed Froch at that time, but Froch has fought others that were supposed to outclass him and it did not work out that way.

I agree with Mr. Ed. The Froch fight was absolutely a viable option and it would have been a successful promotion.

I also do not think that the man called horse is a Froch fanboy.

Loki wrote:

Horse wrote:

Loki wrote:Horse, whilst I agree that Froch would've been a better opponent than Veit, Ashira, Manfredo, Salem etc. That wasn't the original point.

TEO, claims, erroneously, that Calzaghe was offered a career height payday twice against Froch and declined it. Until 2008, Froch v JC would've made sweet FA and from 2003 Calazghe was looking to unify but Ottke, Beyer wouldn't do it and Kessler had only just won the WBA. JC fought Kessler to unify as soon as possible.

So, 2008 wouldve been the only time Froch v JC would've made financial sense. But, JC couldn't make 168 and made way more v BHop and RJJ at 174. Froch would never have gone to 174.

Froch vs Calzaghe would have made more than most of his defences.

I believe the original point was that Froch wasn't a viable opponent until he beat Pascal in 2008, but I'd say he was a viable opponent way before that.

It's just that he wasn't an especially appealing opponent given the somewhat unfavourable risk vs reward ratio for Calzaghe and, to a lesser extent, Froch.

Loki wrote:Personally, I'd have loved to see them fight, but there would only be one winner.

If there was only going to be one winner (I assume you mean Calzaghe), then why didn't Calzaghe take the fight and beat him easily?

The answer is that it was certainly not a forgone conclusion that Calzaghe would have won and Calzaghe wasn't much of a risk taker.

Now I get it; you're a Cobra fanboy. I like Froch, a tough chap. I remember seeing him live at York Hall early 2000s. I'd stack him to beat most of the other British SMWs from the golden era barring Eubank.

But, that wasn't the original post. It was whether offers were made and a career high payday. Please read it. JC, as I recall, had to face a long line of WBO mandatories e.g Veit etc to keep his belt. Froch v JC circa 2005 would've made peanuts and Joe would've lost his bargaining chip, ergo, his belt.

The Germans had the others hostage.

In terms of JC v Froch, although a very tough fighter, Froch was simply too slow and JC was clearly the better boxer. He probably would've boxed his ears off, all wrong for Froch IMO. It would've ended similar to Froch's loss to Ward.

I don't envision how Froch beats Calzaghe

I'm not a Froch fan, but I respect his achievements. I'd favour Benn and eubank to beat him though also

Loki wrote:Now I get it; you're a Cobra fanboy. I like Froch, a tough chap. I remember seeing him live at York Hall early 2000s. I'd stack him to beat most of the other British SMWs from the golden era barring Eubank.

But, that wasn't the original post. It was whether offers were made and a career high payday.

This was the original point that started our back and forth:

Horse wrote:

Loki wrote:Where is your evidence? Froch really was only a viable opponent in 2008 after beating Pascal, then Taylor to win a belt. I highly doubt JC v Froch made more financial sense than JC v BHop or RJJ. JC retired in 2008.

No, Froch was a viable opponent from 2004 after the won the British title.

It's not as if Calzaghe was only fighting the crème de la crème throughout most of his reign.

I was never involved in the discussion about whether Calzaghe was offered a career high payday to fight Froch.

Loki wrote:Please read it. JC, as I recall, had to face a long line of WBO mandatories e.g Veit etc to keep his belt. Froch v JC circa 2005 would've made peanuts and Joe would've lost his bargaining chip, ergo, his belt.

Are you sure about that?

Who are all of these WBO mandatories he had to fight?

Loki wrote:The Germans had the others hostage.

In terms of JC v Froch, although a very tough fighter, Froch was simply too slow and JC was clearly the better boxer. He probably would've boxed his ears off, all wrong for Froch IMO. It would've ended similar to Froch's loss to Ward.

Calzaghe should have fought him then.

Horse wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:Was there any clamour at all for Froch to fight Calzaghe between 2004-2007?

Yes.

There was never a clamour for Froch to fight Calzaghe apart from Froch calling him to ask for a fight just before Calzaghe's last two fights. Calzaghe said he would fight if the money was right. Which it wasn't as no one else was interested in the fight at that time.

By the time Froch had reached world level by virtue of a credible performance in the super 6 Calzaghe was long retired.

They were never destined to fight.

ewenhay wrote:There was never a clamour for Froch to fight Calzaghe apart from Froch calling him to ask for a fight just before Calzaghe's last two fights. Calzaghe said he would fight if the money was right. Which it wasn't as no one else was interested in the fight at that time.

By the time Froch had reached world level by virtue of a credible performance in the super 6 Calzaghe was long retired.

They were never destined to fight.

Froch was calling Calzaghe out for years and it was talked about as a possible fight by fans for years.

Horse wrote:

ewenhay wrote:There was never a clamour for Froch to fight Calzaghe apart from Froch calling him to ask for a fight just before Calzaghe's last two fights. Calzaghe said he would fight if the money was right. Which it wasn't as no one else was interested in the fight at that time.

By the time Froch had reached world level by virtue of a credible performance in the super 6 Calzaghe was long retired.

They were never destined to fight.

Froch was calling Calzaghe out for years and it was talked about as a possible fight by fans for years.

It was never a realistic fight. Calzaghe was looking to retire and wanted to fight in Vegas and madison square garden at Light heavyweight. Froch was British super middle champ. They were in totally different places almost an entire generation apart.

ewenhay wrote:It was never a realistic fight. Calzaghe was looking to retire and wanted to fight in Vegas and madison square garden at Light heavyweight. Froch was British super middle champ. They were in totally different places almost an entire generation apart.

It was a realistic fight.

In 2004 Calzaghe fought: Mger Mkrtchyan & Kabary Salem
In 2005 Calzaghe fought: Mario Veit II & Evans Ashira
In 2006 Calzaghe fought: Jeff Lacy & Sakio Bika
In 2007 Calzaghe fought: Peter Manfredo Jr & Mikkel Kessler
In 2008 Calzaghe fought: Bernard Hopkins & Roy Jones Jr


Froch wasn't good enough to fight Calzaghe in the last 5 years of his career?

Apart from the bolded 3 fighters, Froch was arguably a more credible opponent than all of the others at the time.

Calzaghe would beat recent Andre ward

Horse wrote:

ewenhay wrote:It was never a realistic fight. Calzaghe was looking to retire and wanted to fight in Vegas and madison square garden at Light heavyweight. Froch was British super middle champ. They were in totally different places almost an entire generation apart.

It was a realistic fight.

In 2004 Calzaghe fought: Mger Mkrtchyan & Kabary Salem
In 2005 Calzaghe fought: Mario Veit II & Evans Ashira
In 2006 Calzaghe fought: Jeff Lacy & Sakio Bika
In 2007 Calzaghe fought: Peter Manfredo Jr & Mikkel Kessler
In 2008 Calzaghe fought: Bernard Hopkins & Roy Jones Jr


Froch wasn't good enough to fight Calzaghe in the last 5 years of his career?

Apart from the bolded 3 fighters, Froch was arguably a more credible opponent than all of the others at the time.

And Froch was being served the likes of a shot robin reid in 2007, who was well past his best.

Froch wasn't an option for Calzaghe worth considering till 2008. By which point he was checking out with hopkins and jones jr

There careers didn't over lap for the fight to happen.

Horse wrote:

ewenhay wrote:It was never a realistic fight. Calzaghe was looking to retire and wanted to fight in Vegas and madison square garden at Light heavyweight. Froch was British super middle champ. They were in totally different places almost an entire generation apart.

It was a realistic fight.

In 2004 Calzaghe fought: Mger Mkrtchyan & Kabary Salem
In 2005 Calzaghe fought: Mario Veit II & Evans Ashira
In 2006 Calzaghe fought: Jeff Lacy & Sakio Bika
In 2007 Calzaghe fought: Peter Manfredo Jr & Mikkel Kessler
In 2008 Calzaghe fought: Bernard Hopkins & Roy Jones Jr


Froch wasn't good enough to fight Calzaghe in the last 5 years of his career?

Apart from the bolded 3 fighters, Froch was arguably a more credible opponent than all of the others at the time.

With the benefit of hindsight Froch was a credible opponent but at the time wasn't viewed as one as he hadn't beaten anyone of note and very few people were interested in watching it to make it financially viable

Ossyrules wrote:And Froch was being served the likes of a shot robin reid in 2007, who was well past his best.

And Calzaghe's lesser opponents in the last 5 years of his career were doing what?

Ossyrules wrote:Froch wasn't an option for Calzaghe worth considering till 2008. By which point he was checking out with hopkins and jones jr

But Evans Ashira was an option worth considering?

Ossyrules wrote:There careers didn't over lap for the fight to happen.

There was over 6.5 years of career overlap, with Froch being a credible opponent for about 5 of those years.

Plenty of time to get the fight made.

ewenhay wrote:With the benefit of hindsight Froch was a credible opponent but at the time wasn't viewed as one as he hadn't beaten anyone of note and very few people were interested in watching it to make it financially viable

No, there was interest at the time and Froch was credible at the time.