I know this won't be very popular among our British friends here... but I find Carl Froch much easier to like than the retired and undefeated Joe Calzaghe. Froch sometimes looks awkward and easy to hit... but he comes to fight and usually puts on a pretty good show. You gotta give him the credit he deserves.

Whereas Calzaghe... undefeated record and all... was downright painful to watch. At least the fights I saw. Everyone always made such a big deal about his volume of punches. But upon further review... a lot of them were nothing but slaps. What a forgettable fight against Peter Manfredo! Not that Manfredo was worth shet to begin with... but that final "flurry" from Calzaghe that prompted the ref to stop the fight... that was comical. Not a single solid punch in the whole "flurry". A bunch of ugly slaps that looked bad in normal speed... never mind in slow-motion. I thought this was maybe an isolated incident. But along came the Hopkins fight. Not that Hopkins is all that much fun to watch either... but again... some of those so-called flurries from Calzaghe were nothing but a bunch of slaps. What dreadful fighting style. What good is it to throw 1,000 punches in a fight, when a large percent of them amount to nothing more than pitty-patter, trying to accumulate points with clueless judges? Just my opinion.

Anyway... this isn't meant to be solely about Calzaghe. It's meant to compare Calzaghe with Froch. Froch may not have the gaudy record... but he's much more fun to watch. I'd like to see him fight more in the U.S., where we'd have more of a chance to see him.

Maybe Kessler, Dawson, Froch and Ward should all fight it out with each other to show who is the elite of 168-175, I know Ward is in the driving seat but he tweeted that Froch deserves credit for last night, So you never know there might be a chance for a rematch down the line.

You never know Martinez might try and bulk up and get involved that could be interesting too.

I enjoyed watchin calzaghe fights, certainly not the wars froch provides but joes style just had a rhytm to it....the slaps had bhop claimin a low blow from a body shot, kess as well...

Originally Posted by TitoFan

I know this won't be very popular among our British friends here... but I find Carl Froch much easier to like than the retired and undefeated Joe Calzaghe. Froch sometimes looks awkward and easy to hit... but he comes to fight and usually puts on a pretty good show. You gotta give him the credit he deserves.

Whereas Calzaghe... undefeated record and all... was downright painful to watch. At least the fights I saw. Everyone always made such a big deal about his volume of punches. But upon further review... a lot of them were nothing but slaps. What a forgettable fight against Peter Manfredo! Not that Manfredo was worth shet to begin with... but that final "flurry" from Calzaghe that prompted the ref to stop the fight... that was comical. Not a single solid punch in the whole "flurry". A bunch of ugly slaps that looked bad in normal speed... never mind in slow-motion. I thought this was maybe an isolated incident. But along came the Hopkins fight. Not that Hopkins is all that much fun to watch either... but again... some of those so-called flurries from Calzaghe were nothing but a bunch of slaps. What dreadful fighting style. What good is it to throw 1,000 punches in a fight, when a large percent of them amount to nothing more than pitty-patter, trying to accumulate points with clueless judges? Just my opinion.

Anyway... this isn't meant to be solely about Calzaghe. It's meant to compare Calzaghe with Froch. Froch may not have the gaudy record... but he's much more fun to watch. I'd like to see him fight more in the U.S., where we'd have more of a chance to see him.

The only people who you'll offend with that statement are the deluded Brits who thought Calzaghes record was worth a damn. I myself, think you're absolutely correct. At least after last night.

I was never that big on Froch either but I always said his opponent selection was extremely respectable. Calzaghe ducked and dodged throughout his career..let's not make any bones about that.

A simple acid test for me is, look who Froch was fighting at fight number 20-25 and look who Calzaghe was fighting? Shit, I swear Calzaghes 40-something fight was Manfredo? I'm sorry but that's pathetic.

Yeah, it's no secret I have a strong dislike for JC..but it's not for no particular reason. It is for the reasons I mentioned, couple that with his delusional arrogance and the horrible style you mention..and well, IMO anybody who fights Manfredo as one of their last fights and gets dropped by a decrepid RJJ for his retirement send-off is not HOF worthy.

Froch over Carl. It's simply a no brainer.

I meant *Froch over Calzaghe (won't let me edit)

Originally Posted by Althugz

I meant *Froch over Calzaghe (won't let me edit)

I know what you meant... and I'm glad someone agrees with me. Granted... I'm no authority on Calzaghe. But I saw enough of his fights to reach the aforementioned conclusion. Hell... even Hatton, who I was never a fan of either (don't like mauling, clinching styles) threw harder punches and with more intention than Calzaghe. All of us have our pet peeves. Mine is those fighters who throw these so-called "flurries" to excite the crowd, only to see in "slo-mo" that they're nothing but pitiful punches devoid of any form or power. If I want to see people slapping each other, I'll go to nearest shopping mall on "Black Friday" and watch old ladies fight over the blue-light specials.

Froch is much easier to like then Calzaghe for many reasons.....Froch is a true warrior who takes risks and fights the best, he goes abroad if need be to make the fights happen and he takes fight where he knows he'll be outboxed but believes he can find a way to get the win.......Calzaghe stayed at home fought no hopers and when he did fight names they were in there 40's and i still believe he lost to hopkins.....i've watched the fight many times there no way he landed 220 punches, more like 145-150 and he refused to give hopkins a re-match...he always refused to fight Froch in what would have been a big fight in the uk.

Although their styles somewhat resemble each other Calzaghe has something Bute lacks... a freakin brain pan.

Maybe Roy beats Cal at 168 or an early Charles but neither stayed at the weight. Cal is the best super middleweight that ever lived.

Carl Froch does not beat Joe Calzaghe.

Personalities:

Arrogant or confident boxer Welshman?

vs

Arrogant or confident puncher Throwback?

Rather go for a pint and game of snooker with Carl to be honest.

Originally Posted by Althugz

Originally Posted by TitoFan

I know this won't be very popular among our British friends here... but I find Carl Froch much easier to like than the retired and undefeated Joe Calzaghe. Froch sometimes looks awkward and easy to hit... but he comes to fight and usually puts on a pretty good show. You gotta give him the credit he deserves.

Whereas Calzaghe... undefeated record and all... was downright painful to watch. At least the fights I saw. Everyone always made such a big deal about his volume of punches. But upon further review... a lot of them were nothing but slaps. What a forgettable fight against Peter Manfredo! Not that Manfredo was worth shet to begin with... but that final "flurry" from Calzaghe that prompted the ref to stop the fight... that was comical. Not a single solid punch in the whole "flurry". A bunch of ugly slaps that looked bad in normal speed... never mind in slow-motion. I thought this was maybe an isolated incident. But along came the Hopkins fight. Not that Hopkins is all that much fun to watch either... but again... some of those so-called flurries from Calzaghe were nothing but a bunch of slaps. What dreadful fighting style. What good is it to throw 1,000 punches in a fight, when a large percent of them amount to nothing more than pitty-patter, trying to accumulate points with clueless judges? Just my opinion.

Anyway... this isn't meant to be solely about Calzaghe. It's meant to compare Calzaghe with Froch. Froch may not have the gaudy record... but he's much more fun to watch. I'd like to see him fight more in the U.S., where we'd have more of a chance to see him.

The only people who you'll offend with that statement are the deluded Brits who thought Calzaghes record was worth a damn. I myself, think you're absolutely correct. At least after last night.

I was never that big on Froch either but I always said his opponent selection was extremely respectable. Calzaghe ducked and dodged throughout his career..let's not make any bones about that.

A simple acid test for me is, look who Froch was fighting at fight number 20-25 and look who Calzaghe was fighting? Shit, I swear Calzaghes 40-something fight was Manfredo? I'm sorry but that's pathetic.

Yeah, it's no secret I have a strong dislike for JC..but it's not for no particular reason. It is for the reasons I mentioned, couple that with his delusional arrogance and the horrible style you mention..and well, IMO anybody who fights Manfredo as one of their last fights and gets dropped by a decrepid RJJ for his retirement send-off is not HOF worthy.

Froch over Carl. It's simply a no brainer.

Who did he duck and dodge?

He may not have "ducked" anyone, but he also didn't make any efforts whatsoever to pursue the best opponents available for much of his career. I'm not a fan of Calzaghes and I love to watch Froch fight, however I do feel that Joe would probably have been able to take a decision over Froch at his best. However, his resume is already a joke compared to Carl's and he commands MUCH less respect for this imo.

of course froch is more likeable! that's a no brainer.

he shows up to fight. he brawls and gets hit alot. he leaves it all in the ring.

that's what we like in fighters.

I think its unfair to compare the two.

Calzaghe didnt have many other big super middle names and neither did he have the super six which is what made most of these names. Like Dirrell and Abraham, even Johnson, would they have been names at super middle without the super six?

In fact Kessler (the favourite going in who still beat Froch) made his name by getting beat by Calzaghe!

I will agree that Froch now does have a greater resume than Calzaghe but Froch would lose to Calzaghe, of that not many would disagree. Also, Joe fought and beat Eubank (was supposed to be Collins, who pulled out) in his 23rd fight for the title. Abraham and Taylor were really middle weights and Froch lost to Kessler and Ward and most think he lost to Dirrell. Its easier to like Froch because he is fighting alot of known quantities that we can guage his talent on whereas Calzaghe never seemed to get those opportunities (Bernard accepted a fight years ago while still middle champ but then asked for double!). For me, the Kessler fight is evidence that Calzaghe was leagues above Froch and the trouble that Bika had Ward in late wouldnt have me betting against Joe vs Andre either.

Also, id like to see Ward fight Pascal. I think Pascals quick combinations would catch Ward and then you have another Froch v Bute situation where someone seen as nigh on unbeatable and above Ward surprisingly beaten by the seemingly lesser fighter. He is about to fight someone Pascal hurt and beat comfortably after all.

I don't see the point in comparing who is easier to like. Outside the ring I like them both and inside the ring much the same. Calzaghe was the better fighter of the two though, but Froch is one of the best today. Definitely top 2.

Originally Posted by p4pking

He may not have "ducked" anyone, but he also didn't make any efforts whatsoever to pursue the best opponents available for much of his career. I'm not a fan of Calzaghes and I love to watch Froch fight, however I do feel that Joe would probably have been able to take a decision over Froch at his best. However, his resume is already a joke compared to Carl's and he commands MUCH less respect for this imo.

Originally Posted by ross

I think its unfair to compare the two.

Calzaghe didnt have many other big super middle names and neither did he have the super six which is what made most of these names. Like Dirrell and Abraham, even Johnson, would they have been names at super middle without the super six?

In fact Kessler (the favourite going in who still beat Froch) made his name by getting beat by Calzaghe!

I will agree that Froch now does have a greater resume than Calzaghe but Froch would lose to Calzaghe, of that not many would disagree. Also, Joe fought and beat Eubank (was supposed to be Collins, who pulled out) in his 23rd fight for the title. Abraham and Taylor were really middle weights and Froch lost to Kessler and Ward and most think he lost to Dirrell. Its easier to like Froch because he is fighting alot of known quantities that we can guage his talent on whereas Calzaghe never seemed to get those opportunities (Bernard accepted a fight years ago while still middle champ but then asked for double!). For me, the Kessler fight is evidence that Calzaghe was leagues above Froch and the trouble that Bika had Ward in late wouldnt have me betting against Joe vs Andre either.

Good post ross. Sums up the situation perfectly.

That is certainly a fair post Ross, I just don't think Calzaghe ever really wanted to test himself the way Froch does. It's not as if Joe was completely without options and barred from leaving Wales, he must have more or less been content with the way he was being handled. I'm also less and less sure that it would have been a wide points win for Calzaghe every time I see Carl fight.