BoxRec

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:No doubt in my mind that Froch has by far the better resume, but Calzaghe would have absolutely dominated Froch if they ever fought.

This.

columbo wrote:

Sklar wrote:Groves has still got some work to do to prove himself, mate. He's lost twice to a Carl Froch who is past his best. Who has he beaten beyond the prospect stage other than a geriatric road warrior? Time will tell with him.

Who says Froch is past his best though? I mean beyond the age next to his name. He doesnt really look any worse to me from 5 or so years ago.

Froch has always been crap technically.

Who remembers that lame slow uppercut he used to throw? Never landed outside of British Level.

The mans tough, but he is technically rubbish.

expe wrote: He's nowhere near as big as Groves, he used to be a welterweight for gods sake, there's always been talk of him moving down to 11st to fight Mayweather, there's no way Groves could make middleweight, let alone light middleweight and Martinez has never weighed more than 11st 5 1/2, he's not going to move up at 39. One of his knees has gone completely,

we'll see how the knee holds up next weekend.
Groves is bit taller but Martinez has a slight reach advantage. So not massive difference in size.
The talk is of Mayweather at a catch weight for a middle weight title so 156/157.

Poll's not even close.

G0mez wrote:Poll's not even close.

short memories.

SMALL AXE1 wrote:

columbo wrote:

Sklar wrote:Groves has still got some work to do to prove himself, mate. He's lost twice to a Carl Froch who is past his best. Who has he beaten beyond the prospect stage other than a geriatric road warrior? Time will tell with him.

Who says Froch is past his best though? I mean beyond the age next to his name. He doesnt really look any worse to me from 5 or so years ago.

Froch has always been crap technically.

Who remembers that lame slow uppercut he used to throw? Never landed outside of British Level.

The mans tough, but he is technically rubbish.

I think his boxing IQ is better than people give him credit for but yeah his technique isnt great. He's always been slow as shit though, for aslong as i can remember watching him anyway.

Sklar wrote:I think Joe avoided a Froch fight because he viewed it as a no win situation. Carl wasn't bringing too much money to the table at the time and Joe knows a dangerous fighter when he sees one. Does that equate to a duck? Depends on your perspective, I suppose.

Will Froch duck DeGale?

Can't choose. Calzaghe beat stonger opponents when they were ageing, while Froch has beaten weaker opponents in their primes.

I maybe lean towards Calzaghe for beating a still-live (albeit faded) Eubank. Had Calzaghe fought and beaten Hopkins a few years prior, I'd definitely pick him. He also beat the best version of Kessler. Froch was no more effective against an older Johnson than Woods was, and I'd have picked Calzaghe to beat Woods back then.

On the flipside, a number of Froch's wins have been more emphatic than most of Calzaghe's later fights.

last time we did this, it was conclusive that froch had the better resume

since then Calzaghe hasn't had any fights.

so i don't see how it may have changed

Froch, easily. Even before the Groves fights

Froch resume is a bit better but there is no question that Calzaghe would have beaten him if they fought in my opinion

I also think Froch's resume has alot of decent names but very few standout wins

Pascal, Taylor, Dirrrell, Abraham, Johnson, Ward, Bute, Kessler, Groves

Pascal- Good win

Tayor- completely unproven at SMW and lost 3 out of 4 at the weight

Dirrell- Many people say that was the worst decsiioon in super 6, even the commentators had Dirrelll winning. Since, he hasn't done a thing and he as green at the time

Abraham- Decent win. Has been very patchy at SMW but is now a world champion.

Johnson- 167 years old. Didn't stop him so a points win doesnt mean much

Ward- Lost decisively and curiously doesnt seem to want to right that wrong

Bute-Good win on paper, and Froch was underdog. Done nothign since and basically lost to Andrade first time out. Time will tell how good Bute was

Kessler- Lost first time, beat him 2nd time. Kessler clearly not what he once was when they last fought

Groves- When they first foght was announced Froch was 2/7 to win. Beating Groves conclusively is what he should have done the first time. Losing to him would have harmed his legacy, beating him does nothing for it imo

G0mez wrote:Poll's not even close.

I bet if a who would win poll was created it would be even more one sided, in Calzaghe's favour

ttornado wrote:

G0mez wrote:Poll's not even close.

short memories.

The poll is accurate. Froch runs away with it if we're talking about resumes. He's fought a far higher standard of opponent overall and under much more testing conditions ie on the road & opponents in or close to their prime.

Calzaghe was blasted on every forum going up until he fought Lacy, and rightly so. Not only was the majority of his title reign spent fighting subpar opposition, but when he did fight half decent opponents they were coming off losses.

Only at the end did he step up and really test himself.

Froch's run of opponents is pretty impressive, not many fighters in the world can match it

Jean Pascal (undefeated)
Jermaine Taylor
Andre Dirrell (undefeated)
Mikkel Kessler (loss)
Arthur Abraham
Glen Johnson
Andre Ward (undefeated, loss)
Lucien Bute (undefeated)
Yusuf Mack (weakest opponent)
Mikkel Kessler
George Groves (undefeated)
George Groves

ttornado wrote:The Hopkins win alone places Calzaghe higher.
But if Froch could beat Ward...

Calzaghe struggled against Hopkins. One win cannot decide the argument.

brian13 wrote:

ttornado wrote:The Hopkins win alone places Calzaghe higher.
But if Froch could beat Ward...

Calzaghe struggled against Hopkins. One win cannot decide the argument.

And won. Calzaghe's win over Kessler is better than any of Froch's wins and if it wasn't for the IBF trying to push Stieglitz on him as a mandatory, would have unified all 4 belts, Bernard Hopkins is the only man to do that, then he moved up in weight and beat the lineal champion.

Froch obviously

Controversial wrote:Froch's run of opponents is pretty impressive, not many fighters in the world can match it

Jean Pascal (undefeated)
Jermaine Taylor
Andre Dirrell (undefeated)
Mikkel Kessler (loss)
Arthur Abraham
Glen Johnson
Andre Ward (undefeated, loss)
Lucien Bute (undefeated)
Yusuf Mack (weakest opponent)
Mikkel Kessler
George Groves (undefeated)
George Groves

Joe Calzaghe's record is better than Carl Froch's due to having defended his world title 21 times over 10 years, and beating some 10 world champions along the way. Carl was offered the chance to fight Joe back in the day but swerved it (as verified by Barry Hearn), Steve Collins retired rather than fight him, and Roy Jones Jnr avoided him back in the day also. You can only fight those willing to fight you!
Joe is the longest reigning Super Middleweight World Champion of all time, undefeated and is now a Hall of famer! He beat the then undefeated Mikkel Kessler, froch lost!
Three of Joe's opponents are still active today,
Bernard Hopkins (Current World Champion)
Sakio Bika (Current World Champion) I wonder if Froch would fight him to get a WBC title?
Jeff Lacy
Talking of records, George Groves was only British Champion, never a World Champion and Carl struggled in the first outing, although no question of the rematch. Unless he secures a massive fight in the USA he's finishing his career by beating a British Champion, twice! Not good for any legacy!

ArtOfWar wrote:but when he did fight half decent opponents they were coming off losses.

At the time I thought Hopkins was a faded fighter, but what his done since shows that was a very good win for Calzaghe.

So much revisionism on here yet again.

Whilst Calzaghe plumped up his record fighting the Tocker Pudwill and Peter Manfredis of the boxing world, Froch has got on his bike and fought anyone, anywhere.

The biggest names on Calzaghe's record were Eubank, Jones Jr and Hopkins, at least two of whom were well past his prime.

The bottom line for me is that Froch has proven his willingness to take on anyone, anywhere. Whereas Calzaghe's title reign was a carefully managed exercise of caution, pragmatism and calculation.

Both great British fighters; Joe clearly the more naturally gifted; Froch in the truest sense of the word the better champion.

RJP wrote:
The biggest names on Calzaghe's record were Eubank, Jones Jr and Hopkins, at least two of whom were well past his prime.

Prime Kessler? Who beat Froch...

And who Froch also beat.

RJP wrote:And who Froch also beat.

A far more faded one after several lay offs...

SNG wrote:

RJP wrote:
The biggest names on Calzaghe's record were Eubank, Jones Jr and Hopkins, at least two of whom were well past his prime.

Prime Kessler? Who beat Froch...

To be honest Froch lost to a past his prime Kessler, then beat an even further past it version.

expe wrote:

SNG wrote:

RJP wrote:
The biggest names on Calzaghe's record were Eubank, Jones Jr and Hopkins, at least two of whom were well past his prime.

Prime Kessler? Who beat Froch...

To be honest Froch lost to a past his prime Kessler, then beat an even further past it version.

I dont think he was past his prime when he beat Froch. He lost to Ward but Ward is brilliant.