BoxRec

palooka wrote:

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.

mate im british and i think calzaghe was very safety first for so many years, carefully managed, he was a good fighter no doubt, better than an average champion no doubt but champions fight the best and joe cannot say he fought the best in his 10 years as champ. 16 poor , easy title fights who as i say other champions would easily defeat too doesnt make you great. Fighting the best from the very start, just like the old timers did, make you great. Even in Joes book he said fighting jones jnr would mean nothing as hes finished why fight him then?

in todays boxing joe would be called a champion who refuses to leave home and fight the best, i always thought the same about abraham, when he went to the super 6 we quickly found out that he was an average champion, same goes to bute when he finally fought someone outside of canada.

Teddy's Toupee wrote:

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.

I have returned from my counterfactual time-travelling. The Nazis won the Second World War and all the post-war champions of European descent have been German. Joe Calzaghe is an ice cream salesman in Italy, and Carl Froch was born into slavery in occupied Poland (renamed Reichgau Wartheland by the victorious Germans. Poland not Carl Froch). Neither ever boxed. So we will never know.

fightscorecollector wrote:

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.

Back at you...total agreement

Anzi 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

Can't believe this post, Froch has too many weaknesses and technical flaws to beat Calzaghe and Froch lost to Dirrell, but he got a home town decision, Bute was over rated and could have been ko'ed earlier in his career, but for a dodgy ref, who saved him, Pascal is just an ordinary fighter, Taylor folds when anyone put's it on him and floored Froch, having him in all sorts of problems, Abraham was only a middleweight, whose stock had fallen, before he met Froch and Ward totally out classed Froch, Calzaghe never lost, Froch has lost and it could of been more, I think Calzaghe would have out boxed Froch.

Well said. Froch would not off put a glove on calzaghe and calzaghe would off schooled ward aswell

G0mez wrote:

SNG wrote:

TheCobra wrote:As for the Calzaghe stuff, we'll just never know. Froch took on the gobby young pretender in Groves. Calzaghe ran off to America to fight old men.

That is literally the most ridiculous summation of the events I've ever read. That gobby young pretender was Froch's mandatory. Froch became Calzaghe's mandatory after he moved up to LHW and fought Hopkins.

He dropped the WBC belt because Carl was mandated for him. But he kept his trinket as Carl was not in their ranking as high (for some really strange reason he was never elevated?? i wonder why)

The July 16th letter from 36-year old Joe Calzaghe to WBO president Paco Valcarcel reads as follows:

Dear Paco,

Further to our phone conversation of today's date I wish to remain as the WBO's super-middleweight champion. Following my proposed contest against Roy Jones Jnr. it is my intention to defend the WBO super-middleweight championship. I am proud to be a WBO champion and thank you, as always, for the opportunities given to me in the past.

Kind regards,
Joe Calzaghe CBE.

What's your point? There weren't many attractive options for Calzaghe at the time, why would he just let his stake in the SMW division disappear? He chose not to move back down and stayed at LHW, where Froch has been quoted as saying he'd never go to fight Joe.

Some people still don't realise just how good Calzaghe was. Some of the stuff in here is really quite mind numbing, the one quote below is my favourite.

"Calzaghe ran off to America to fight old men" - Yep, Hopkins was gone then.

A closed mind can never be educated, it's a pointless excercise trying to do so.

moogie101 wrote: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.

Who exactly did Joe Calzaghe avoid at super-middle? If you mean Roy Jones at light-heavyweight, then by that logic Carl Froch is avoiding Stevenson and Kovalev.

Calzaghe would have been miles too fast of hand and foot for Froch and too busy. It would have been pretty one sided, although Froch would of had his moments. Incidentally, I thought Froch's loss to Ward was pretty one sided. It's funny how he has never seemed keen to fight him again.

I think that will be the one regret for Froch when he retires. He will say what an unbelievable career he had, and someone will say, yep, you were the 2nd best in your division behind Ward, who you never wanted to box again.

big lennox wrote:Calzaghe would have been miles too fast of hand and foot for Froch and too busy. It would have been pretty one sided, although Froch would of had his moments. Incidentally, I thought Froch's loss to Ward was pretty one sided. It's funny how he has never seemed keen to fight him again.

I think that will be the one regret for Froch when he retires. He will say what an unbelievable career he had, and someone will say, yep, you were the 2nd best in your division behind Ward, who you never wanted to box again.

To be fair he went after Kessler after taking a battering in Denmark (competetive, but still took a LOT of punishment). Calzaghe - for all his ducking and dodging - was a serious opponent for anybody. You didn't whack Joe in the face all night, like several fighters have done to Carl Froch.
Even tho Carl beat Kessler at Wembley, Kessler had regressed a bit and hadn't fought in a year I read the other day. And now people are on about Froch Kessler III, and guess what - Kessler hasn't even fought in ages again!

fightscorecollector wrote:

palooka wrote:

fightscorecollector wrote:
prime for prime, joe might win 2 rounds vs jones jnr

No argument from me there.

in todays boxing joe would be called a champion who refuses to leave home and fight the best, i always thought the same about abraham, when he went to the super 6 we quickly found out that he was an average champion, same goes to bute when he finally fought someone outside of canada.

That Bute win seems to have a little bit of the air of the Jeff Lacy win about it for me - only I reckon Lacy was better. Lacy had some formiddable strengths by all accounts - formiddable shots anyway - it just so happened that they were of virtually no use to him against an elite level man like Calzaghe.
Bute seemed to offer absolutely nothing against Carl, even tho his record looked awesome.

Anzi 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

Can't believe this post, Froch has too many weaknesses and technical flaws to beat Calzaghe and Froch lost to Dirrell, but he got a home town decision, Bute was over rated and could have been ko'ed earlier in his career, but for a dodgy ref, who saved him, Pascal is just an ordinary fighter, Taylor folds when anyone put's it on him and floored Froch, having him in all sorts of problems, Abraham was only a middleweight, whose stock had fallen, before he met Froch and Ward totally out classed Froch, Calzaghe never lost, Froch has lost and it could of been more, I think Calzaghe would have out boxed Froch.

bit harsh that. I'd be inclined not to say that about someone who's beaten Hopkins not once, but twice.

n1ebf wrote:

big lennox wrote:Calzaghe would have been miles too fast of hand and foot for Froch and too busy. It would have been pretty one sided, although Froch would of had his moments. Incidentally, I thought Froch's loss to Ward was pretty one sided. It's funny how he has never seemed keen to fight him again.

I think that will be the one regret for Froch when he retires. He will say what an unbelievable career he had, and someone will say, yep, you were the 2nd best in your division behind Ward, who you never wanted to box again.

To be fair he went after Kessler after taking a battering in Denmark (competetive, but still took a LOT of punishment). Calzaghe - for all his ducking and dodging - was a serious opponent for anybody. You didn't whack Joe in the face all night, like several fighters have done to Carl Froch.
Even tho Carl beat Kessler at Wembley, Kessler had regressed a bit and hadn't fought in a year I read the other day. And now people are on about Froch Kessler III, and guess what - Kessler hasn't even fought in ages again!

I honestly sometimes wonder if you have ever watched a fight? I missed Froch-Kessler at wembley, was it a good fight?

Its really sad that Calzaghe and father are just hell bent on trying to tell everyone that Froch is terrible, rather than give him any dues whatsoever. They are like Jehovah's knocking on doors practically to tell everyone how bad he is. Their bitterness knows no bounds. They no they did everything in their power to prevent the fight - and his fans/apologists come up with every single excuse under the sun. They cannot bring themselves to support the guy and wish him luck. The speed at which he talks, that's body language right there that the excuses are coming thick and fast. Self praise is no praise and he cannot shut up about Hopkins, whom he was gifted against and never rematched.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZIjfujINxo

Let it go pal, it's Joes personality. He's narcissistic, but was a good fighter. But we will never know what would have happened because THEY NEVER FOUGHT.

Joe is struggling with the fact the no-one is overly interested in him now his career is over. He's only ever really interviewed now to give his opinion on Froch, which obviously grates on him.

I have to be honest, what puts me off Joe is that he considers his unbeaten record the Holy Grail. I forget which famous trainer said it, but he said something along the lines that an unbeaten record was meaningless, it just meant you hadn't faced the best yet. And that's so true of Joe. His best win is Hopkins, who in my opinion was beaten more decisively by Jermain Taylor. Joe keeps harping on about Froch losing twice, but so what - Kessler was in Denmark and avenged and Ward was in America. How many fights did Joe have outside the UK? And in fairness to Ward, he is way better than anyone Joe fought at the time he fought them.

Again, Joe is on about being a first ballot HOF'er, but who's to say Froch won't be. If he beats Chavez Jr in America and retires, who would bet against Froch being a first ballot? I wouldn't, the Yanks rate him very highly, far more highly than they rated Joe for the majority of his career.

Joe was a brilliant fighter, just one that never dared to be great. It obviously bothers him that Froch has probably made more money than him and has been in bigger fights than him. That's not Froch's fault. Joe needs to look in the mirror to see where that fault lies.

Newport Daz wrote:Joe is struggling with the fact the no-one is overly interested in him now his career is over. He's only ever really interviewed now to give his opinion on Froch, which obviously grates on him.

I have to be honest, what puts me off Joe is that he considers his unbeaten record the Holy Grail. I forget which famous trainer said it, but he said something along the lines that an unbeaten record was meaningless, it just meant you hadn't faced the best yet. And that's so true of Joe. His best win is Hopkins, who in my opinion was beaten more decisively by Jermain Taylor. Joe keeps harping on about Froch losing twice, but so what - Kessler was in Denmark and avenged and Ward was in America. How many fights did Joe have outside the UK? And in fairness to Ward, he is way better than anyone Joe fought at the time he fought them.

Again, Joe is on about being a first ballot HOF'er, but who's to say Froch won't be. If he beats Chavez Jr in America and retires, who would bet against Froch being a first ballot? I wouldn't, the Yanks rate him very highly, far more highly than they rated Joe for the majority of his career.

Joe was a brilliant fighter, just one that never dared to be great. It obviously bothers him that Froch has probably made more money than him and has been in bigger fights than him. That's not Froch's fault. Joe needs to look in the mirror to see where that fault lies.

Good post

is it exclusively Joe's fault that he never fought Roy when Roy was disposing of them left right and centre. Joe had just the WBO for ages didn't he? Won the IBF after fighting Lacy? where were the other belts. It sounds like he should have chased a unification fight earlier in his career but was anybody banging on Cardiff castle looking for his WBO? From what I remember the German was only doing something similar over there - where you needed a knockout to get a draw. I read that it's Joe's fault he never fought RJJ (and a few others). That sounds a bit simplistic to me (having said that, I've no doubt whatsoever that Froch would have probably gone and had a fight with Jones Jr. in his Oregon back yard, with predictable results - but he'd have still done it).

danal2 wrote:Froch better career, but Joe really would have beat him clearly, I'm sure of that

This

120-108

Mick Hennessey put Carl on the right path, then Eddie jumped in.

Here's a question that should sort some of this out.

Calzaghe fought a supposedly "past it" 42 year old Hopkins.
Does anyone fancy Froch to beat Hopkins at Light heavy weight at the age of 49?
I'd take Bernard on points personally!

The fact is, we can compare Froch and Calzaghes record, opponents, where they fought, who they lost to and how ballsy they were in selecting opponents. The bottom line is, I watched both men fight their entire careers and Joe wins prime for prime, Joe would have won comfortably in 2008 (at which point Carl hadn't reached his prime IMHO)

davie wrote:Here's a question that should sort some of this out.

Calzaghe fought a supposedly "past it" 42 year old Hopkins.
Does anyone fancy Froch to beat Hopkins at Light heavy weight at the age of 49?
I'd take Bernard on points personally!

The fact is, we can compare Froch and Calzaghes record, opponents, where they fought, who they lost to and how ballsy they were in selecting opponents. The bottom line is, I watched both men fight their entire careers and Joe wins prime for prime, Joe would have won comfortably in 2008 (at which point Carl hadn't reached his prime IMHO)

I don't see HOW Froch can beat Hopkins. Froch won't be able to bully Hopkins and Hopkins would take away Froch's strengths. It's an easy fight to call to be honest because neither guy would stop the other and Hopkins is way too smart for Froch to win a decision. If the bookies priced up Hopkins points at odds against, it'd be time to lump on big.

Ian1973 wrote:

davie wrote:Here's a question that should sort some of this out.

Calzaghe fought a supposedly "past it" 42 year old Hopkins.
Does anyone fancy Froch to beat Hopkins at Light heavy weight at the age of 49?
I'd take Bernard on points personally!

The fact is, we can compare Froch and Calzaghes record, opponents, where they fought, who they lost to and how ballsy they were in selecting opponents. The bottom line is, I watched both men fight their entire careers and Joe wins prime for prime, Joe would have won comfortably in 2008 (at which point Carl hadn't reached his prime IMHO)

I don't see HOW Froch can beat Hopkins. Froch won't be able to bully Hopkins and Hopkins would take away Froch's strengths. It's an easy fight to call to be honest because neither guy would stop the other and Hopkins is way too smart for Froch to win a decision. If the bookies priced up Hopkins points at odds against, it'd be time to lump on big.

My point exactly!

In regards to all-time best super-middles, Calzaghe effectively has two rivals in Roy Jones and now Andre Ward. Both the American's had/have incredible abilities, but neither ever had to cope with the work-rate, handspeed and skills that Calzaghe brought to the table. It's also too easy to use the Joe's, Hopkins fight as some kind of baseline. In truth Calzaghe's left hand was a mess by then and he couldn't even spar. The peak version of the Welshman would have been years earlier, when he still retained some punching pop. I would think Joe against either American would have been v close, and if Froch could get close scorecards against Ward, then surely Calzaghe gets the decision. I'm more reluctant to pick Joe over a peak Jones, as Roy was pretty much out of this world at his own peak. All in all, I think Calzaghe is in another league to Froch. Although when Joe see's Froch getting 12 million pound purses perhaps he has a right to be a little envious.

davie wrote:Here's a question that should sort some of this out.

Calzaghe fought a supposedly "past it" 42 year old Hopkins.
Does anyone fancy Froch to beat Hopkins at Light heavy weight at the age of 49?
I'd take Bernard on points personally!

The fact is, we can compare Froch and Calzaghes record, opponents, where they fought, who they lost to and how ballsy they were in selecting opponents. The bottom line is, I watched both men fight their entire careers and Joe wins prime for prime, Joe would have won comfortably in 2008 (at which point Carl hadn't reached his prime IMHO)

It's not a fact or an answer - it's conjecture.

The tangible data available - complete truth - is their respective records and not "oh but i think perhaps he'd have won"

The records are there is black and white. One is littered with fighters that are completely unknown and without merit and the ones that are familiar were all fought 'on the way down' in their careers. The other is a list of capable young men in their primes, often unbeaten and with good records home and abroad.

Froch overtook Joe a couple of years ago and still has more fights ahead.

The bottom line is Joe's best win on paper, Bernard, is actually viewed as a fight he lost by at least half of the people that watched it.

Froch has beaten guys that have beaten Hopkins better. I'd say that Pascal's draw was more deserving of a win than the cuffing, slapping horrible spectacle that Joe put on. He had Hopkins down and in trouble with solid shots in the first half.

Since then Chad Dawson routed Hopkins and both Pascal and Ward stopped Dawson. Not even mentioning Taylor's double over him.

Even though you've just mentioned it? Let it go, they've both had superb careers, nobody can argue with Carl's record or Joes 0.

Ian1973 wrote:

davie wrote:Here's a question that should sort some of this out.

Calzaghe fought a supposedly "past it" 42 year old Hopkins.
Does anyone fancy Froch to beat Hopkins at Light heavy weight at the age of 49?
I'd take Bernard on points personally!

The fact is, we can compare Froch and Calzaghes record, opponents, where they fought, who they lost to and how ballsy they were in selecting opponents. The bottom line is, I watched both men fight their entire careers and Joe wins prime for prime, Joe would have won comfortably in 2008 (at which point Carl hadn't reached his prime IMHO)

I don't see HOW Froch can beat Hopkins. Froch won't be able to bully Hopkins and Hopkins would take away Froch's strengths. It's an easy fight to call to be honest because neither guy would stop the other and Hopkins is way too smart for Froch to win a decision. If the bookies priced up Hopkins points at odds against, it'd be time to lump on big.

whilst 12 rounds would be a likely outcome, I believe Froch is hard enough to stop Hopkins on a good night, and Hopkins is clever enough to stop Carl too, on his best night. Like I say, the distance would suit both men better. If Froch hits a 49yr old with one or two good head shots I would expect Bernard to be in a bit of trouble. Doubt it would happen as Hopkins is too clever tho. Also if Hopkins was younger I could see him really mixing up his attacks to head and body and getting a stoppage against Froch, that's how good he was. At 49 tho I don't think his style is as it was.