BoxRec

"Carl Froch has not matched my legacy and doesnt have the ability to go to america and beat Andre Ward" http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/boxi ... ot-7211666

Wales Online having a general dig aswell http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/boxi ... he-7214317

Good find.

Some amusingly haphazard logic in the Wales Online piece.

'Calzaghe has the best trainer of all' being the topper.

fair enough comments by calzaghe , froch always used to have little digs at joe when he was fighting so i doubt that calzaghe is a fan of froch . plus he must be a bit pissed that froch has earned £10,000,000 in the last 6 months

good stuff, Joe coming across as classy as ever

looks written by a bit of a knob head tbh. I was always a fan of JC, but don't ask me why cos he sounds like an idiot. I just always admired his style, despite people constantly saying negative stuff about him.

...went out there and defeated 2 legends in the space of 7 months says it all quite frankly.

it's another case of if he believed it that much he would keep it to himself and not feel the need to draw parallels.

This is exactly the kind of quality boxing journalism that Wales Online is known for.

What do you expect from them, should they say Froch is an international superstar and the greatest warrior in boxing history? Some of the reasons are laughable, but there's little doubt as to who the better fighter is.

And Joe is right, if Froch wants to conquer America, he should be after the Ward fight, not Chavez, I don't blame him for going for the payday, but he will claim he's conquered the US by beating Chavez, when he won't have done. And he's right as well about the legacy, 11 years as a world champion, 2 weight world champion, held all 4 belts, 3 of them simultaneously, lineal champion and number one in the division at both weights, fought in Las Vegas and at MSG, won at a higher level than Froch and was seen as top 5 P4P in the world, possibly even top 3. He has every right to feel he's achieved more compared to a fighter that's never been number 1 in the division, never unified the titles, only fought at one weight, was beaten by a lesser version of a man he beat, was beaten easily with one hand by the best fighter he's fought and he would have beaten with ease if they had ever met.

expe wrote:What do you expect from them, should they say Froch is an international superstar and the greatest warrior in boxing history? Some of the reasons are laughable, but there's little doubt as to who the better fighter is.

And Joe is right, if Froch wants to conquer America, he should be after the Ward fight, not Chavez, I don't blame him for going for the payday, but he will claim he's conquered the US by beating Chavez, when he won't have done. And he's right as well about the legacy, 11 years as a world champion, 2 weight world champion, held all 4 belts, 3 of them simultaneously, lineal champion and number one in the division at both weights, fought in Las Vegas and at MSG, won at a higher level than Froch and was seen as top 5 P4P in the world, possibly even top 3. He has every right to feel he's achieved more compared to a fighter that's never been number 1 in the division, never unified the titles, only fought at one weight, was beaten by a lesser version of a man he beat, was beaten easily with one hand by the best fighter he's fought and he would have beaten with ease if they had ever met.

That's a pretty good synopsis, Calzaghe was the better boxer/fighter and Froch is involved in some very good fights - he is very good television whereas Joe wasn't (always).

palooka wrote:

expe wrote:What do you expect from them, should they say Froch is an international superstar and the greatest warrior in boxing history? Some of the reasons are laughable, but there's little doubt as to who the better fighter is.

And Joe is right, if Froch wants to conquer America, he should be after the Ward fight, not Chavez, I don't blame him for going for the payday, but he will claim he's conquered the US by beating Chavez, when he won't have done. And he's right as well about the legacy, 11 years as a world champion, 2 weight world champion, held all 4 belts, 3 of them simultaneously, lineal champion and number one in the division at both weights, fought in Las Vegas and at MSG, won at a higher level than Froch and was seen as top 5 P4P in the world, possibly even top 3. He has every right to feel he's achieved more compared to a fighter that's never been number 1 in the division, never unified the titles, only fought at one weight, was beaten by a lesser version of a man he beat, was beaten easily with one hand by the best fighter he's fought and he would have beaten with ease if they had ever met.

That's a pretty good synopsis, Calzaghe was the better boxer/fighter and Froch is involved in some very good fights - he is very good television whereas Joe wasn't (always).

Joe weaker competition though mate bar Hopkins and Jones and the latter were well past their sell by date. Dawson beat Hopkins more convincingly than Joe did. Calzaghe beat and protected a padded record for years against subpar or past it opposition. Im not convinced Joe would of still had his 0 if he'd of fought Ward. Dont get me wrong Joe would of beaten Froch, im not disputing that part of it.

palooka wrote:

expe wrote:What do you expect from them, should they say Froch is an international superstar and the greatest warrior in boxing history? Some of the reasons are laughable, but there's little doubt as to who the better fighter is.

And Joe is right, if Froch wants to conquer America, he should be after the Ward fight, not Chavez, I don't blame him for going for the payday, but he will claim he's conquered the US by beating Chavez, when he won't have done. And he's right as well about the legacy, 11 years as a world champion, 2 weight world champion, held all 4 belts, 3 of them simultaneously, lineal champion and number one in the division at both weights, fought in Las Vegas and at MSG, won at a higher level than Froch and was seen as top 5 P4P in the world, possibly even top 3. He has every right to feel he's achieved more compared to a fighter that's never been number 1 in the division, never unified the titles, only fought at one weight, was beaten by a lesser version of a man he beat, was beaten easily with one hand by the best fighter he's fought and he would have beaten with ease if they had ever met.

That's a pretty good synopsis, Calzaghe was the better boxer/fighter and Froch is involved in some very good fights - he is very good television whereas Joe wasn't (always).[/quote]

As anyone who watched the David Starie / Rick Thornberry/ Kabary Salem fights will surely testify.

columbo wrote:

palooka wrote:

expe wrote:What do you expect from them, should they say Froch is an international superstar and the greatest warrior in boxing history? Some of the reasons are laughable, but there's little doubt as to who the better fighter is.

And Joe is right, if Froch wants to conquer America, he should be after the Ward fight, not Chavez, I don't blame him for going for the payday, but he will claim he's conquered the US by beating Chavez, when he won't have done. And he's right as well about the legacy, 11 years as a world champion, 2 weight world champion, held all 4 belts, 3 of them simultaneously, lineal champion and number one in the division at both weights, fought in Las Vegas and at MSG, won at a higher level than Froch and was seen as top 5 P4P in the world, possibly even top 3. He has every right to feel he's achieved more compared to a fighter that's never been number 1 in the division, never unified the titles, only fought at one weight, was beaten by a lesser version of a man he beat, was beaten easily with one hand by the best fighter he's fought and he would have beaten with ease if they had ever met.

That's a pretty good synopsis, Calzaghe was the better boxer/fighter and Froch is involved in some very good fights - he is very good television whereas Joe wasn't (always).

Joe weaker competition though mate bar Hopkins and Jones and the latter were well past their sell by date. Dawson beat Hopkins more convincingly than Joe did. Calzaghe beat and protected a padded record for years against subpar or past it opposition. Im not convinced Joe would of still had his 0 if he'd of fought Ward. Dont get me wrong Joe would of beaten Froch, im not disputing that part of it.

Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Mitchell, Brewer, Lacy, Bika and Kessler say otherwise. The only fighter on Froch's record that was better when he fought them compared to anyone on Calzaghe's record when he fought them is Ward and Froch lost by a landslide, with Ward fighting half of the fight with one hand. Could be argued that some of the fighters on Froch's record were past it by the time he fought them and in the case of Kessler, he still lost the fight first time round.

expe wrote:

columbo wrote:

palooka wrote:
That's a pretty good synopsis, Calzaghe was the better boxer/fighter and Froch is involved in some very good fights - he is very good television whereas Joe wasn't (always).

Joe weaker competition though mate bar Hopkins and Jones and the latter were well past their sell by date. Dawson beat Hopkins more convincingly than Joe did. Calzaghe beat and protected a padded record for years against subpar or past it opposition. Im not convinced Joe would of still had his 0 if he'd of fought Ward. Dont get me wrong Joe would of beaten Froch, im not disputing that part of it.

Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Mitchell, Brewer, Lacy, Bika and Kessler say otherwise. The only fighter on Froch's record that was better when he fought them compared to anyone on Calzaghe's record when he fought them is Ward and Froch lost by a landslide, with Ward fighting half of the fight with one hand. Could be argued that some of the fighters on Froch's record were past it by the time he fought them and in the case of Kessler, he still lost the fight first time round.

Bute beat Bika and im convinced he would of beaten the likes of Woodhall and Lacy aswell. Same goes for Dirrell.

I think Joe believes, he was some Spanish explorer conquering America. He was great fighter who I would favour to out point Froch convincingly. Not so sure Joe would have entered a super six or fought the same level of fighters in a row though. He also good at fleecing the Wales support in fighting the likes of Manfredo rather than Steiglezt.

I think Joe just shades it with being unbeaten and rarely troubled. Froch has bigger nuts and probably a heavier bank balance.

zero wrote:I think Joe believes, he was some Spanish explorer conquering America. He was great fighter who I would favour to out point Froch convincingly. Not so sure Joe would have entered a super six or fought the same level of fighters in a row though. He also good at fleecing the Wales support in fighting the likes of Manfredo rather than Steiglezt.

I think Joe just shades it with being unbeaten and rarely troubled. Froch has bigger nuts and probably a heavier bank balance.

Showtime wouldn't touch Stieglitz, fighting him wasn't an option and the end result would have been the same anyway, Manfredo at least had the draw of being well known in the US thanks to the Contender, which was the only reason he got the fight.

columbo wrote:

expe wrote:

columbo wrote: Joe weaker competition though mate bar Hopkins and Jones and the latter were well past their sell by date. Dawson beat Hopkins more convincingly than Joe did. Calzaghe beat and protected a padded record for years against subpar or past it opposition. Im not convinced Joe would of still had his 0 if he'd of fought Ward. Dont get me wrong Joe would of beaten Froch, im not disputing that part of it.

Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Mitchell, Brewer, Lacy, Bika and Kessler say otherwise. The only fighter on Froch's record that was better when he fought them compared to anyone on Calzaghe's record when he fought them is Ward and Froch lost by a landslide, with Ward fighting half of the fight with one hand. Could be argued that some of the fighters on Froch's record were past it by the time he fought them and in the case of Kessler, he still lost the fight first time round.

Bute beat Bika and im convinced he would of beaten the likes of Woodhall and Lacy aswell. Same goes for Dirrell.

Bute was near enough knocked out by Andrade, Kessler won every round against him, Lacy would have finished him far earlier than that, no way would his chin have held up. I'd still give Woodhall a chance against him anyway, Bute wasn't amazing, dodgy chin and he went to pieces under pressure, take him out of his comfort zone and he's in trouble, although I think he probably would beat Woodhall. Dirrell means fornicate all in the grand scheme of things, lots of potential and talent, but didn't have the will or desire to match it. I'd back at least 4 of that list, plus Hopkins, to beat Bute and a similar number to beat Dirrell and Kessler certainly would beat both and would knock Bute out.

Calzaghe needs to shut up. He is one of the most boring personalities the sport has ever seen.

He took a cowardly approach to his career and opted out of taking many challenges, only taking on Hopkins and Jones in particular when they were both over the hill.

I do give credit to Calzaghe for his win over Hopkins, although it was hardly convincing was it? I also credit him for seeing off Kessler and Lacy, despite Lacy achieving little before and after they fought.

As for the Calzaghe-Froch argument, I know most people will say "Froch has better CV but Joe would have beaten him". I'm not so sure any more. Joe may be favourite and it's easy to pick him as the superior boxer, but I'm not as convinced as before. Joe was dropped a few times in his career, including in the first round by both Hopkins and Jones. I'm sure the shot Froch finished George with would have dropped Calzaghe too, but the question there is whether he would have landed it.

Would Calzaghe have beaten all of Taylor, Pascal, Bute, Abraham, Groves, Johnson and Dirrell? Maybe he would, but not all of those fights would have been easy and that opposition collectively is better than what he faced (outside of Kessler who I excluded as they both fought him). And of those even Groves hits harder than the ageing versions of Hopkins and RJJ that Joe faced.

deadpan wrote:Good find.

Some amusingly haphazard logic in the Wales Online piece.

'Calzaghe has the best trainer of all' being the topper.

I'll never forget Enzo Calzaghe's immortal line after his man Maccarinelli got marmalised in two rounds:

'If this fight had gone 12 rounds, David Haye would never have fought again!'

Kind of like saying 'If this roast lamb was a portion of sprouts, all vegetarians would love it!'

Calzaghe is right, full stop!

Ian1973 wrote:Calzaghe is right, full stop!

You just say that so he stops singing.

That article is very poorly written.

I can't seem to open the link,

But does show him high on cocaine and snogging his own sister ?

G0mez wrote:I can't seem to open the link,

But does show him high on cocaine and snogging his own sister ?

No way :(

Wake up call wrote:That article is very poorly written.

"Despite some trying to coax Calzaghe out of retirement and Froch's claims of superiority, we reckon had they fought Calzaghe would have won within six rounds."

Even Calzaghe would never pretend that was true.

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:

Wake up call wrote:That article is very poorly written.

"Despite some trying to coax Calzaghe out of retirement and Froch's claims of superiority, we reckon had they fought Calzaghe would have won within six rounds."

Even Calzaghe would never pretend that was true.

First link says "Froch has since talked about either retiring or fighting in America Julio Cesar Chavez Jnr in Las Vegas." Makes it sound like there's a part of Las Vegas called America Julio Cesar Chavez Jnr.

These two sentences are very poorly phrased.

"The Welsh legend believes if Froch wants to fight in Las Vegas he should be targeting Andre Ward and not Chavez Jnr."

"Ward is the only one of the world’s elite super-middleweights Froch has yet to beat with the American defeating the Cobra in 2011 on points"