BoxRec

A lot people hanging their hat on this win over a "better" Kessler .

Is that the Kessler with a right hand so wrecked he couldn't spar for the lions share of his camp? The worst ever camp he'd had as a professional?

With his manager laid up in a Cardiff intensive care unit following a massive heart attack?

There is not point discussing what Froch 'would have' done. He is doing what Calzaghe should have done. F*** the '0', f*** having home advantage for 98% of your career, fight the best out their and put it on the line. The simple reason why his career took the path it did was purely because Subscribers + SKY + fighting in Wales + PPV + (in the main) rubbish opponents with no chance of winning = Cash for Warren, foremost, then Calzaghe.

Money at the expense of a genuine legacy and that's too late to change. Does Warren care, of course not. Does Calzaghe? He might do, in hindsight (I don't buy all that talk from Joe about 'being content'. It rankles him)

Our other British fighter around at the time Clinton Woods, fought Gonzalez twice (still a force back then), Johnson 3 times (very much a force), Tarver, Cloud and a peak RJJ and he gets surprisingly little respect. Ok he was a LH but Joe could have moved up years ago, in his own words he struggled with the weight for years.

Hence why this topic will come up again and again. Too many doubts, too many 'what ifs', not to mention a resume which is impressive numerically however on closer examination, you can count the true great wins on one hand, and I am being generous.

I'll leave this thread at that, as some either don't or don't want to 'get it'.

I love froch but would he go 46-0 against all of Calzaghes foes ? we already know the answer dont we

LeedsLad wrote:Hopkins won most of the first round of the first Pascal fight.

To score it 10-8 by default is just lazy scoring.

Maybe so, but the fact remains most judges automatically score a round 10-8 even if it is as in that case a flash knockdown against the grain, they shouldn't, but they do.

G0mez wrote:A lot people hanging their hat on this win over a "better" Kessler .

Is that the Kessler with a right hand so wrecked he couldn't spar for the lions share of his camp? k?

Is that same Kessler that scuppered any suggestion there was anything wrong with his hand before of after the calzaghe fight ?

I don't think he will beat Ward either. However Joe and Warren moreso, would not go anywhere near the likes of Ottke, Hopkins or RJJ, if it was not to be in Cardiff.

And how many 'great wins' does Calzaghe have? No more than Froch and Froch is not finished. Anyways, for me I tend to look at who they fought and don't take too kindly to people swerving other fighters, regardless of who they are or their record. You have your opinion mate and that's fine. We just can agree to disagree on this particular topic.

....the only excuses about Kesslers loss to Calzaghe ... seem to come from Froch's fan.

Which is understandable. Kessler beat Froch.
A Kessler exposed by Ward as not being the guy he previously was. Well certainly not the fighter he was before the layoff anyways.
Those are facts - certainly not rumours anyways.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

bengulnaci1 wrote:I don't think he will beat Ward either. However Joe and Warren moreso, would not go anywhere near the like of Ottke, Hopkins or RJJ, if it was not to be in Cardiff.

And how many 'great wins' does Calzaghe have? No more than Froch and Froch is not finished. Anyways, for me I tend to look at who they fought and don't take too kindly to people swerving other fighters, regardless of who they are or their record.

You're the one who brought up the term great wins.

Ottke?

Would you go there? And to criticise a fighter for not travelling to fight Ottke who never set one foot outside of Germany is a joke surely?

As for RJJ and Hopkins, RJJ was a LHW before Joe even won the SMW title. And Hopkins agreed to a fight, then ruined the negotiations.

Laughing at Ottke is one thing. Nobody is proclaiming him to be a great, but as a fellow champion and unbeaten, if your as great as record suggest (Calzaghe), you step up. You got to Germany and knock him out or beat him up. I thought that's what great fighters did. Oh yeah but I can't forget Joe ended his career unbeaten!. Awesome.

Great win is the correct term. Just tell me why Calzaghe is so great? 20 odd defences, unbeaten? One way to look at it. Another is fighting stiffs in his hometown, making decent money and struggling weight for 10yrs because RJJ lived next door.

Super mid is positively stacked compared to the two weight divisions either side of it!

The Dark Destroyer wrote:So you're criticising Calzaghe for not travelling to fight Ottke, why aren't you criticising Ottke for not travelling to fight Joe?

Simply because a lot of people, like yourself laugh at Ottke and his reign yet tend to have a different outlook when it comes to Calzaghe when he did the same thing and did it for longer. Why is that?

Surely, if he is much the superior fighter, a legend, a British legend, he would have nothing to fear fighting abroad against these 'apparent' inferior fighters.

Wasn't Ottke considered number 1 during their stand off?

Joe held the lesser title for much of his career although it has to be said he eventually made the title, as the top fighters do in the modern game.

Calzaghe would have schooled Ottke, I think most of us would agree on that.

Mayweather would have schooled Margarito in 2006.

But it never happened.

Why did he withdraw from 3no Glen Johnson fights?

He risked a lawsuit from Glen over it. Some would say its because he banged-out Jones after Joe's first withdrawal , the 'battle of Britain' double header with Hatton.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:And how many truly great wins does Froch have? Taylor? a truly great win? Not a chance. Dirrel? No, and as Froch said about Kessler, if that fight was anywhere but Nottingham or England Froch wouldn't have gotten that decision by a long way. Abraham? Truly great? No chance. A 42 year old Glen Johnson? No. Pascal? No. And he's going to lose quite badly to Ward.

You sound to me like a Calzaghe fanboy !!

How many truely great wins does Calzaghe have ?

What's your reason for saying he will lose badly ward ? How will he lose badly to Ward ?

I don't think you can see past your love for Calzaghe.

Dark Destroyer is not someone I would call a fanboy, Quix. Some rate Calzaghe higher than others. Ditto for Froch. It is partially my fault as the debate got derailed, somewhat and should have really stayed on topic.

Does Froch equal Calzaghe, if he beats Ward? Well I think he is probably thereabouts already. Some won't agree and that's what forums are about.

I think Froch is up against it, though. I will be pulling for him but its going to be tough. Anyways on with tonight's fights....

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

Quixall wrote:

The Dark Destroyer wrote:And how many truly great wins does Froch have? Taylor? a truly great win? Not a chance. Dirrel? No, and as Froch said about Kessler, if that fight was anywhere but Nottingham or England Froch wouldn't have gotten that decision by a long way. Abraham? Truly great? No chance. A 42 year old Glen Johnson? No. Pascal? No. And he's going to lose quite badly to Ward.

You sound to me like a Calzaghe fanboy !!

How many truely great wins does Calzaghe have ?

What's your reason for saying he will lose badly ward ? How will he lose badly to Ward ?

I don't think you can see past your love for Calzaghe.

Don't use words like fanboy or say things like the last line, you're not a twelve years old girl and it sounds really childish.

This post was in response to someone saying they could count Calzaghe's truly great wins on one hand. I was pointing I can count Carl's on no hands. As for Ward, I want Froch to win as I'm a fan of his. But I'd genuinely be surprised if he won more than two or three rounds, Ward is going to win this fight dominantly in my opinion.

Oooo So sorry Dark Destroyer

Well, a more adult response would be to suggest that you appeared to be blinded by your support for Calzaghe, but i concede that i may have not realised that your post was a response to someone else on a slightly different issue. However, you do seem to be rather disparaging towards Carl Froch and i personally see very little between their legacy's, if Froch prevails against Ward. My only seperation point would be the Kessler fight, where Calzaghe has the advantage over Froch. Taylor wasn't in his best form when he fought Froch, but it was still a good win and i equate that fight with Calzaghe's over Hopkins, a fight that i believe Hopkins won, but the jusdges saw differently. The rest of the opponents sort of match up, Bika, Eubank, Lacy, Jones for Dirrel, Pascal, Johnson and Abraham. I think the Ward fight will be difficult for Froch, he has to work at distance, be sharp to the counter, mix up Ward and always work everything from a strong jab whilst impoing himself through power shots aswell. I would say it was a 50-50 fight. I also would fancy Calzaghe to beat Froch if they fought at their prime years.

Debates can always bring out the idiot in us and i apologise if i upset you. We always get on well and the debates are always good

Calzaghe irritated me with his opponent selection and a large part of his reign was non discript

However his longetivity is something that Froch can not compete with.

I admire Froch for the way that he has stepped up to the plate so frequently, however with the exception of Abraham none of his top level wins have been emphatic.

Taylor was on his way to victory before the late round stoppage, which although exciting stuff does not detract from the fact that he was outsped, outthought and outboxed for large chunks of the fight.

Pascal was a toe to toe barnburner, however Hopkins twice had the Canadians number ( I thought BHop won the first fight as well).

Calzaghe did step up to the plate against Lacy and nobody could do such an effective demolition job. The fight is similar to when Lewis beat Michael Grant in so far as it was supposed to be a major test and because it was far more one sided than anyone imagined, credit is not given.

The only blots on Calzaghe's career was his period where he wasted his career on fighters like Pudwell, Veit and Slalom, forget any BS about Mandatory's, he had names that he could have persued instead. The fight with Ottke never meaterialised and I suspect that both camps are too blame for that.

However to my mind the issue is not how frequently they competed at world level but how well they won. By applying this criteria Calzaghe is still streets ahead of Froch. However from a boxing fans perspective Froch is giving far more to the sport than Joe ever did.

FROCH LOST TO KESSLER

CALZAGHE BEAT KESSLER

THIS HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

allahsnackbar wrote:FROCH LOST TO KESSLER

CALZAGHE BEAT KESSLER

THIS HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

It CeRtAiNlY dOeS

Of course it has to be taken into account, but it shouldn't be the be all and end all when it comes to assessing their careers.

this thread shows that calzaghe was too happy fighting wbo bums for years when there is a discussion about frochs last 5 fights...yes his 5 fight run = calzaghes years as champion.

calzaghe would never face the guys froch has done in that order and mostly away from home

allahsnackbar wrote:FROCH LOST TO KESSLER

CALZAGHE BEAT KESSLER

THIS HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

Many people though Robin Reid and Hopkins both beat him (I thought Reid did). shall we take that into account. Or that Hopkins barely lost a razor thin decision to Calzaghe and Taylor beat Hopkins twice and Froch knocked Taylor out?

See what I'm saying.

You can do and why not? I also thought Dirrell beat Froch which only goes to show one thing that the judges decision is final. However it does not mean it is right verdict and should not be used to evaluate and form a final opinion, surely?

Ward beat Kessler more clearly and convincingly than Calzaghe, are we to assume he beats Calzaghe? Taylor beat Hopkins more convincingly than Calzaghe and he did it twice, does that mean he beats Calzaghe? Of course not. A one handed Kessler lost in Wales to Calzaghe. A fit Kessler won a tight verdict in his hometown vs Froch. There are some different intangibles there and not as cut and dry as A beats B, B beats C, so A beats C.

What do you think about the resume thing, DD? Surprising and somewhat startling about the differences in the respective level of opponents? Good match-making? Good promotion? Or just minimal risk for maximum profit? Either way, ultimately, Calzaghe proved he was great fighter, he just needed to be let off the leash a lot, lot sooner and move up in weight maybe, don't you think?

Dirrell beat Froch but Reid/Hopkins didn't beat Calzaghe?

Hell, I suppose Evander Holyfield beat Lewis too