BoxRec

cocka09 wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

cocka09 wrote:....
Plus he beat Dirrell you mong

Only in imagination of Brits including local judges.

I'm not a Brit.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ikorolev is looking dumber than bnov right now

[/quote]

Only in imagination of Brits including local judges.[/quote]

I'm not a Brit.[/quote]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ikorolev is looking dumber than bnov right now [/quote]

Local judges?

judge: Alejandro Rochin 113-114, Massimo Barrovecchio 115-112, Daniel Van de Wiele 115-112

Yeah, they are real English sounding names right?

You really do talk out of your arse.

You seem obsessed with nationality, and seem to have a particular hard-on for British fighters, well, I hate to break it to you, but not everyone shares your obsession.

cocka09 wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

cocka09 wrote:....
Plus he beat Dirrell you mong

Only in imagination of Brits including local judges.

I'm not a Brit.

Whatever. People with brains know that Dirrell won.

i thought Dirrell won but he ran and made the fight close. Dirrell beat himself that night.

hurricanemitch14 wrote:i thought Dirrell won but he ran and made the fight close. Dirrell beat himself that night.

I kind of agree - he turned the judges against him by running and also throwing himself to the floor. I actually had Dirrell winning by 1 point, because Froch landed so little.

You do have to wonder however, had he not employed those tactics, would Froch have put it on him and smashed him up - Dirrell did everything possible to avoid standing still long enough to allow Froch to land anything, including bending below the waist, wrestling and diving all over the place.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

hurricanemitch14 wrote:i thought Dirrell won but he ran and made the fight close. Dirrell beat himself that night.

I kind of agree - he turned the judges against him by running and also throwing himself to the floor. I actually had Dirrell winning by 1 point, because Froch landed so little.

You do have to wonder however, had he not employed those tactics, would Froch have put it on him and smashed him up - Dirrell did everything possible to avoid standing still long enough to allow Froch to land anything, including bending below the waist, wrestling and diving all over the place.

None of us know.....Froch was hurt in the fight u cant help but think if Dirrell had his confidence what could have happened. Froch very well could have clocked him if he didnt run....i know ive seen Froch come back and drill his opp.

ikorolev wrote:

ikorolev wrote:

cocka09 wrote:....

Only in imagination of Brits including local judges.

I'm not a Brit.

Whatever. People with brains know that Dirrell won.

Firstly, you said only Brits count it as a win for Froch! Secondly the records show a win for Froch, that's how it will be remembered. For example, everyone is aware that Greb beat Tunney once. But if you read articles about their third encounter, it states that Greb was quite clearly robbed! Point being, that in years to come it will be the record that matters, not the opinion of some goat on Boxrec.

tiny_acres wrote:This is the type of crap that kills me.Where a 38 year old fighter who is ready to retire
has to fight some younger stud for his last fight.People thinking that a fighter needs to be
knocked out to ride off into the sunset.
Freaking unbelievable.Yeah lets sacrifice an old semi-retired guy to GGG.

second that. carl doesn't have to do this.
but him actually NOT being joe calzaghe
makes it not unlikely that he wants to know
it one more time.

in any case, carl froch is a great one and he
brought the spirit of old back into a game
that is today dominated by management tactics.

man wrote:

tiny_acres wrote:This is the type of crap that kills me.Where a 38 year old fighter who is ready to retire
has to fight some younger stud for his last fight.People thinking that a fighter needs to be
knocked out to ride off into the sunset.
Freaking unbelievable.Yeah lets sacrifice an old semi-retired guy to GGG.

second that. carl doesn't have to do this.
but him actually NOT being joe calzaghe
makes it not unlikely that he wants to know
it one more time.

in any case, carl froch is a great one and he
brought the spirit of old back into a game
that is today dominated by management tactics.

I agree. I would respect the hell out of him if he decided to officially retire. However, if he took the 3G challenge, win, lose or draw it will be legendary. If he managed to beat 3G, it would be hard to make a rational argument for Calzaghe being greater than Froch.

What a pointless thread. Like froch is gonna lose any sleep over a tweet when he's shining his belts, spending his millions and bouncing his glamour model wife off the walls of his mansion.

stevieb_8006 wrote:What a pointless thread. Like froch is gonna lose any sleep over a tweet when he's shining his belts, spending his millions and bouncing his glamour model wife off the walls of his mansion.

Cordingley is most def a hot slice.

Tanzio wrote:

man wrote:

tiny_acres wrote:This is the type of crap that kills me.Where a 38 year old fighter who is ready to retire
has to fight some younger stud for his last fight.People thinking that a fighter needs to be
knocked out to ride off into the sunset.
Freaking unbelievable.Yeah lets sacrifice an old semi-retired guy to GGG.

second that. carl doesn't have to do this.
but him actually NOT being joe calzaghe
makes it not unlikely that he wants to know
it one more time.

in any case, carl froch is a great one and he
brought the spirit of old back into a game
that is today dominated by management tactics.

I agree. I would respect the hell out of him if he decided to officially retire. However, if he took the 3G challenge, win, lose or draw it will be legendary. If he managed to beat 3G, it would be hard to make a rational argument for Calzaghe being greater than Froch.

Anyone putting either Froch or Calzaghe in a "great" category needs to watch some boxing and smarten up. Froch is a really good boxer but will never be considered "great". I consider his side piece "great" but his career has been very good. He got beat handedly by a really good boxer in Ward, not a great boxer. You Brit's really are something else.

caldo2025 wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

man wrote: second that. carl doesn't have to do this.
but him actually NOT being joe calzaghe
makes it not unlikely that he wants to know
it one more time.

in any case, carl froch is a great one and he
brought the spirit of old back into a game
that is today dominated by management tactics.

I agree. I would respect the hell out of him if he decided to officially retire. However, if he took the 3G challenge, win, lose or draw it will be legendary. If he managed to beat 3G, it would be hard to make a rational argument for Calzaghe being greater than Froch.

Anyone putting either Froch or Calzaghe in a "great" category needs to watch some boxing and smarten up. Froch is a really good boxer but will never be considered "great". I consider his side piece "great" but his career has been very good. He got beat handedly by a really good boxer in Ward, not a great boxer. You Brit's really are something else.

I recognize that gaffe in your beer gut at the end of that long fishing line.

Calzaghe < Froch (if Carl defeats 3G)

I'd like to see Froch face GGG/Kovalev/Stevenson.

But i find it laughable that Dan thinks Joe Calzaghe would take on tougher opposition than Froch.

Frochs opposition is twice as good as Calzaghes/

I'd like to see Froch face GGG/Kovalev/Stevenson.

But i find it laughable that Dan thinks Joe Calzaghe would take on tougher opposition than Froch.

Frochs opposition is twice as good as Calzaghes/

Calzaghe did move up and faced Hopkins and RJJ. Froch is hesitant to face a MW at 168 in his home town.

Also, Calzaghe handily beat Kessler, while Froch had two even fights with him.

ikorolev wrote:Calzaghe did move up and faced Hopkins and RJJ. Froch is hesitant to face a MW at 168 in his home town.

Also, Calzaghe handily beat Kessler, while Froch had 3 even fights with him.

Hahahahaha. When was the third Kessler fight? Was that off the record?

Also, moving up to fight that version of RJJ was akin to fighting a human sized pile of mash potato

The subject is incorrect. Froch made HIMSELF look like a fool when after his stupid twit and Loefler's response, he went silent again.

ikorolev wrote:Also, Calzaghe handily beat Kessler, while Froch had two even fights with him.

Don't know about handily. It was a close fight where Calzaghe altered the game plan mid fight to pull ahead. For me his best performance but let's not pretend it was an easy night

caldo2025 wrote: Anyone putting either Froch or Calzaghe in a "great" category needs to watch some boxing and smarten up. Froch is a really good boxer but will never be considered "great". I consider his side piece "great" but his career has been very good. He got beat handedly by a really good boxer in Ward, not a great boxer. You Brit's really are something else.

Calzaghe was great. Froch was very good.

punchoutsb wrote:

caldo2025 wrote: Anyone putting either Froch or Calzaghe in a "great" category needs to watch some boxing and smarten up. Froch is a really good boxer but will never be considered "great". I consider his side piece "great" but his career has been very good. He got beat handedly by a really good boxer in Ward, not a great boxer. You Brit's really are something else.

Calzaghe was great. Froch was very good.

Calzaghe is not even close to great. Froch and Calzaghe may be great "European" boxers but not great world boxers. Calzaghe may be undefeated but he retired without even testing himself. He chose to retire right when the weight class was becoming plentiful for talent. His record is perfect but the level of opposition has to be considered and it's not favorable for Calzaghe and his legacy. Sorry.

caldo2025 wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

caldo2025 wrote: Anyone putting either Froch or Calzaghe in a "great" category needs to watch some boxing and smarten up. Froch is a really good boxer but will never be considered "great". I consider his side piece "great" but his career has been very good. He got beat handedly by a really good boxer in Ward, not a great boxer. You Brit's really are something else.

Calzaghe was great. Froch was very good.

Calzaghe is not even close to great. Froch and Calzaghe may be great "European" boxers but not great world boxers. Calzaghe may be undefeated but he retired without even testing himself. He chose to retire right when the weight class was becoming plentiful for talent. His record is perfect but the level of opposition has to be considered and it's not favorable for Calzaghe and his legacy. Sorry.

He chose to retire when he was past his best, having beaten three future hall of famers decisively in his final three bouts. He was a dominant champion and the best super middleweight of all time. And great.

He chose to retire when he was past his best, having beaten three future hall of famers decisively in his final three bouts. He was a dominant champion and the best super middleweight of all time. And great.

Crazy Talk. Roy Jones Jr and Bhop were well past their prime so those wins aren't noteworthy. Good boxer, not Great.

caldo2025 wrote:

He chose to retire when he was past his best, having beaten three future hall of famers decisively in his final three bouts. He was a dominant champion and the best super middleweight of all time. And great.

Crazy Talk. Roy Jones Jr and Bhop were well past their prime so those wins aren't noteworthy. Good boxer, not Great.

You can say that about Jones, but I don't agree about Hopkins.

Past his best perhaps, but he went on to achieve a lot more after the fight with Calzaghe - so that win (as disputed as it may be) - can't be just written off.

Bernard won several world title fights following that fight.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

caldo2025 wrote:

He chose to retire when he was past his best, having beaten three future hall of famers decisively in his final three bouts. He was a dominant champion and the best super middleweight of all time. And great.

Crazy Talk. Roy Jones Jr and Bhop were well past their prime so those wins aren't noteworthy. Good boxer, not Great.

You can say that about Jones, but I don't agree about Hopkins.

Past his best perhaps, but he went on to achieve a lot more after the fight with Calzaghe - so that win (as disputed as it may be) - can't be just written off.

Bernard won several world title fights following that fight.

I can't argue with that point, you're right.