Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

@Althugz you come across as anything but neutral. You own credibility is critically undermined by your unreasonable and childish tantrums. You expect people to have empathy for your bizarre tirades against not just Calzaghe but also "the Brits" who appreciated his talent. Your anger is not the response of a rational man. Maybe you need some more carbs and a sense of perspective.

---

Haha once again bringing up my being in fairly good shape to attempt to undermine me. Your own lack of self esteem is alarmingly obvious..Quite pathetic.

---

"attempt to undermine me" :-) you. are beginning to sound like a comedy despot. Whilst your ridiculous over estimation of what constitutes being in " fairly good shape" could be construed as faux humility, I will assume you are just proud of your waif like physique. For me, at my age, self esteem is not so closely attached to looking like an alternative version of Pete Doherty who swapped heroin for lettuce and and a can of spray tan.

Seriously though I don't feel the need to choose between Froch or Calzaghe. They are very different fighters both of whom deserve massive respect for great careers. I thought Froch would be way too much for Ward to handle and said as much at the time. I was wrong but I think if he started with a similar pace as he did against Bute he could well have scraped a draw. Even if he had beaten Ward though, I do not think that would have made him better than Calzaghe. Boxing does not work like that. If you can watch the Calzaghe- Kessler or Calzaghe- Lacy fight and dismiss Joe's ability you have a serious case of irrational hate.

Froch V Calzaghe only one winner Joe, you lot carry on about Froch like he's undefeated he's lost 2 fights
what wrong don't you lot like a winner I do. He was well beaten by Ward and by Kessler.
I don't really think Froch is a great fighter a good one, Joe would have made a Froch fight very much like the Lacy one. My handbag is ready but it's full of bricks.;D

The many year's I have been a boxing fan, I don't fall for hype look at the pedigree Calzage 3 time ABA
Champion at 3 different weights World Champion at 2 different weights, a 46-0 undefeated record.
Now that's a great fighter if you don't think so you are a fuck in moron.
The boo boy's can't say he did not fight so and so, I tell you lot one thing he beat ever one they put in front of him, remember it's in the record books and they don't lie.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Althugz,

Your personal opinion of Calzaghe and his opposition is utterly irrelevant. There's not one single argument that could possibly rate Froch over Calzaghe.

You can only fight who is in your era. History shows us that Calzaghe unified the entire supermiddle division. He gained universal recognition by beating his highest ranked rivals. He cemented his place in history as being THE man at 168. It's an irrefutable fact.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying - Alan Wells is NOT the 1980 Olympic 100 metre champion because some top sprinters weren't involved. The ONLY thing history records is that Alan Wells was THE man in 1980. He has the gold medal to prove it.

Roy Jones was a light-heavyweight BEFORE Calzaghe had even fought Eubank. How the flying fuck does a British champion, who no-one on earth knows exists, get a fight with the P4P no.1 fighter in the world in a weight-class he doesn't even fight in?

Your entire argument is nonsensical. Fact.

---

Oh you do make me chuckle. As p4p kindly already stated, you stumbled straight out of the blocks.

You proceed with a bunch of whacky analagies that make zero sense or have any relevance. Sprinting?? Haha you're an absolute moron..

Most people understood my argument even if they didn't wholeheartedly agree with it. I wonder if your man crush would be so great if JC wasn't Welsh? Would you see his glaring misgivings then? Why can most neutrals see it where you can't?

The only irrefutable "fact" is that this forum loses all credibility by having an absolute douche lord of a moderator like you.

---

What the funk has Wales got to do with anything? I'm not Welsh you complete and utter plum.

Now calm yourself down... I never insulted you. I wasn't trying to embarrass you. All I did was give a counter argument to your opinion.

I don't write the history books. I didn't create the ranking system that The Ring, Boxing Monthly, the WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO and the worlds most preeminent boxing writers abide by.

Calzaghe established himself as the NO.1 guy at 168. Froch never has. Any "neutral" that doesn't agree with that should be shot for taking thickness to a new level. Fact.

What am I not seeing?

---

You're not seeing is that nobody ever once said JC was not the number 1 of his division at any point. I swear you argue with yourself sometimes. It's quite hilarious.

You're also not seeing that eventual greatness, in terms of boxing, isn't just measured in terms of "oh well done! You're number 1 in your division" - Fine, he ended up eventually a "great" supermiddle. BUT it took him way too long IMO and his route was a very carefully managed one. Whether it was his or Frank Warrens fault. I don't care. His opposition was also dire.

Froch can easily be seen as greater when it's all said and done because of the risks he took far earlier than Calzaghe, quality of his opposition, his willingness to travel etc.

I guess it depends what you define as greatness - Conveniently yours in this particular argument is "He cleaned out the division and was ranked by Ring magazine as number 1 so he's great".

Yes, he's great but Froch can and should be regarded as greater when it's all said and done. So yeah, what are you not seeing, Fenny?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

@Althugz you come across as anything but neutral. You own credibility is critically undermined by your unreasonable and childish tantrums. You expect people to have empathy for your bizarre tirades against not just Calzaghe but also "the Brits" who appreciated his talent. Your anger is not the response of a rational man. Maybe you need some more carbs and a sense of perspective.

---

Haha once again bringing up my being in fairly good shape to attempt to undermine me. Your own lack of self esteem is alarmingly obvious..Quite pathetic.

---

"attempt to undermine me" :-) you. are beginning to sound like a comedy despot. Whilst your ridiculous over estimation of what constitutes being in " fairly good shape" could be construed as faux humility, I will assume you are just proud of your waif like physique. For me, at my age, self esteem is not so closely attached to looking like an alternative version of Pete Doherty who swapped heroin for lettuce and and a can of spray tan.

Seriously though I don't feel the need to choose between Froch or Calzaghe. They are very different fighters both of whom deserve massive respect for great careers. I thought Froch would be way too much for Ward to handle and said as much at the time. I was wrong but I think if he started with a similar pace as he did against Bute he could well have scraped a draw. Even if he had beaten Ward though, I do not think that would have made him better than Calzaghe. Boxing does not work like that. If you can watch the Calzaghe- Kessler or Calzaghe- Lacy fight and dismiss Joe's ability you have a serious case of irrational hate.

---

Aww, Greenbean..that really hurt. *sad face* Your words may potentially derail my "lettuce only" diet. Where's the chocolate..?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Althugz,

Your personal opinion of Calzaghe and his opposition is utterly irrelevant. There's not one single argument that could possibly rate Froch over Calzaghe.

You can only fight who is in your era. History shows us that Calzaghe unified the entire supermiddle division. He gained universal recognition by beating his highest ranked rivals. He cemented his place in history as being THE man at 168. It's an irrefutable fact.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying - Alan Wells is NOT the 1980 Olympic 100 metre champion because some top sprinters weren't involved. The ONLY thing history records is that Alan Wells was THE man in 1980. He has the gold medal to prove it.

Roy Jones was a light-heavyweight BEFORE Calzaghe had even fought Eubank. How the flying fuck does a British champion, who no-one on earth knows exists, get a fight with the P4P no.1 fighter in the world in a weight-class he doesn't even fight in?

Your entire argument is nonsensical. Fact.

---

Oh you do make me chuckle. As p4p kindly already stated, you stumbled straight out of the blocks.

You proceed with a bunch of whacky analagies that make zero sense or have any relevance. Sprinting?? Haha you're an absolute moron..

Most people understood my argument even if they didn't wholeheartedly agree with it. I wonder if your man crush would be so great if JC wasn't Welsh? Would you see his glaring misgivings then? Why can most neutrals see it where you can't?

The only irrefutable "fact" is that this forum loses all credibility by having an absolute douche lord of a moderator like you.

---

What the funk has Wales got to do with anything? I'm not Welsh you complete and utter plum.

Now calm yourself down... I never insulted you. I wasn't trying to embarrass you. All I did was give a counter argument to your opinion.

I don't write the history books. I didn't create the ranking system that The Ring, Boxing Monthly, the WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO and the worlds most preeminent boxing writers abide by.

Calzaghe established himself as the NO.1 guy at 168. Froch never has. Any "neutral" that doesn't agree with that should be shot for taking thickness to a new level. Fact.

What am I not seeing?

---

You're not seeing is that nobody ever once said JC was not the number 1 of his division at any point. I swear you argue with yourself sometimes. It's quite hilarious.

You're also not seeing that eventual greatness, in terms of boxing, isn't just measured in terms of "oh well done! You're number 1 in your division" - Fine, he ended up eventually a "great" supermiddle. BUT it took him way too long IMO and his route was a very carefully managed one. Whether it was his or Frank Warrens fault. I don't care. His opposition was also dire.

Froch can easily be seen as greater when it's all said and done because of the risks he took far earlier than Calzaghe, quality of his opposition, his willingness to travel etc.

I guess it depends what you define as greatness - Conveniently yours in this particular argument is "He cleaned out the division and was ranked by Ring magazine as number 1 so he's great".

Yes, he's great but Froch can and should be regarded as greater when it's all said and done. So yeah, what are you not seeing, Fenny?

---

Hello I see you are Calzaghe baiting again ;D You say one thing and I say another when this post came up I was amazed it took you so long to start your bitch en.
But true to forum bang you start, I feel we are going over old ground I no I repeat myself but that's for the one's that are thick or morons or may be a jackass now there are 3 to pick from, take your time
there is no hurry it's a big decision, if I was to pick for you Jackass would be favourite.;D

Pipe down Bando - Nothing I said in the post you quoted me on has anything unreasonable about JC within it and are the feelings of quite a few posters. If you are going to cry every time somebody criticises your fighter , a forum probably isn't the best place for you.

Also "records don't lie, he's undefeated" - Just like Sven Ottke. Please don't make me laugh..come with a better argument than that..

This post isn't aimed @Althugz or to downplay Froch's tremendous record. I just found these stats very surprising.

Froch's "world" title opposition at 168.

Pascal - never won title at 168.
Taylor - never won title at 168.
Dirrell - never won title at 168.
Kessler - former 168 title holder (LOST)
Abraham - never won title at 168.
Johnson - never won title at 168.
Ward - current 168 title holder (LOST)
Bute - 168 title holder.

Froch has only ever beat ONE "world" champion. How surprising is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

a can of spray tan.

---

That tan looks natural to me.

Froch is less irritating than Calzaghe. For one I've never heard Froch's manager mouth off about anyone, Carl always seems to conduct himself with class, and he's willing to fight anyone anywhere....which is refreshing. I'm not going to jump on the Froch bandwagon, because I just don't do that sort of thing. I do respect him though. Calzaghe, was a victim of his stubborness and his era, he was a very good fighter. One of the best at 168, but once you stack him up against PRIME Roy Jones Jr then you'd see the huge gap in talent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Froch is less irritating than Calzaghe. For one I've never heard Froch's manager mouth off about anyone, Carl always seems to conduct himself with class, and he's willing to fight anyone anywhere....which is refreshing. I'm not going to jump on the Froch bandwagon, because I just don't do that sort of thing. I do respect him though. Calzaghe, was a victim of his stubborness and his era, he was a very good fighter. One of the best at 168, but once you stack him up against PRIME Roy Jones Jr then you'd see the huge gap in talent.

---

Again..This!

I too am not on the Froch bandwagon. However, you can only respect the opposition he's faced. I actually disagree with most that Froch comes accross well..he does when he wins emphatically but when he loses or has a close decision, he can throw his toys out of the pram a bit. Then there's that "stolen bike" interview.. :D

I knew that starting this thread was going to ruffle the Calzaghe fan feathers. Geez.... get a grip, people. Nobody is trying to deny Joe's place in boxing history. Yes, he retired undefeated. Yes, he's one of the best supermiddles in boxing history. Is he THE best? In my opinion, not by a long shot. There's a lot of factors that go into being undefeated. Just take a look at how Baby Chavez is being brought along. Let's say he retires undefeated, after beating a few more bums. Will that make him HOF material? Well... knowing how this business runs, the last name will probably get him in no matter what. But you get my point.

As for pitting a prime Calzaghe vs. Froch... yeah... I have no problem seeing a Calzaghe points win. Again... it's the volume of punches thrown by JC that have always swayed the judges. Kinda like Olympic boxing. It's not the effectiveness, but rather the number of punches landed.

All I'm saying is that, from a non-British perspective, it's a lot easier to get behind and respect a fighter than Carl Froch, than Calzaghe. For being an undefeated fighter, Calzaghe's list of opponents does not stack up with other fighters who haven't necessarily been undefeated. And with me, it's also a question of style. Too many useless, ineffective, pitty-patter, so-called flurries to suit me. And I'm not picking on Joe. I wouldn't like any boxer who fought like this. It may impress the judges at ringside, who are busy punching in their CompuBox numbers.... but it doesn't impress this particular fan, especially given the benefit of slow-motion replays.

I saw De La Hoya do this a few times too, although not consistently. But Joe apparently lived off this tactic. He apparently never learned the proper way to throw a punch, where you put your whole body into it, and turn it over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

I knew that starting this thread was going to ruffle the Calzaghe fan feathers. Geez.... get a grip, people. Nobody is trying to deny Joe's place in boxing history. Yes, he retired undefeated. Yes, he's one of the best supermiddles in boxing history. Is he THE best? In my opinion, not by a long shot. There's a lot of factors that go into being undefeated. Just take a look at how Baby Chavez is being brought along. Let's say he retires undefeated, after beating a few more bums. Will that make him HOF material? Well... knowing how this business runs, the last name will probably get him in no matter what. But you get my point.

As for pitting a prime Calzaghe vs. Froch... yeah... I have no problem seeing a Calzaghe points win. Again... it's the volume of punches thrown by JC that have always swayed the judges. Kinda like Olympic boxing. It's not the effectiveness, but rather the number of punches landed.

All I'm saying is that, from a non-British perspective, it's a lot easier to get behind and respect a fighter than Carl Froch, than Calzaghe. For being an undefeated fighter, Calzaghe's list of opponents does not stack up with other fighters who haven't necessarily been undefeated. And with me, it's also a question of style. Too many useless, ineffective, pitty-patter, so-called flurries to suit me. And I'm not picking on Joe. I wouldn't like any boxer who fought like this. It may impress the judges at ringside, who are busy punching in their CompuBox numbers.... but it doesn't impress this particular fan, especially given the benefit of slow-motion replays.

I saw De La Hoya do this a few times too, although not consistently. But Joe apparently lived off this tactic. He apparently never learned the proper way to throw a punch, where you put your whole body into it, and turn it over.

---

Yup, it ruffles all kinds of feathers. Debating against Calzaghe's greatness is the equivalent of insulting Calzaghe fan's mothers.

Nobody said Carl would beat Joe
Nobody said Joe wasn't one of the best, if not THE best Super Middle.

Yet, any reasonable critique on the fighter draws insults to your intellect, allegiance, knowledge of boxing and even irrelevant things like your hobbies :rolleyes:

Nobody has actually ever refuted any of the points I've ever made about Calzaghe. It always gets personal way before that happens ;) (or Fenster tries but goes off on a tangent and ends up arguing with himself)

I'll accept that Fenster correctly challenged one of my points (every dog has their day and all that..)- The Roy Jones point I will concede..but at the same time, JC knew Roy Jones was the best. You know he's at light-heavy...You tell everyone who will listen that you're the best BUT you won't chase the P4P guy who is at light-heavyweight when there are no solid opponents left for you at Super Middle?

As has been mentioned by MANY people already, half of JC's career was due to unfortunate circumstance (kind of like the Klitschko's) BUT the other half was JC's unwillingness to challenge himself further when he had the options to do so.

Behave @Althugz your points about Calzaghe have been refuted a million times. Nothing you say is new. This same Calzaghe stuff has been going on long before 2004 (when I joined this forum). I was actually a Calzaghe critic back in those days. Things change though. The guy had a lull in his career but came good in the end.

Your "problem" is you get to emotionally affected by these debates. When people refute your points you resort to personal insults that have nothing to do with the actual topic (I know people have chucked personal insults at you too).

At the end of the day, no-one ever accepts they're wrong and it's nothing more than a pointless boxing nerds debate that means absolutely nothing. Fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

He apparently never learned the proper way to throw a punch, where you put your whole body into it, and turn it over.

---

The man spent 20-odd years boxing, lost only a few times in around 200 fights, which includes a plethora of stoppage victories and reached the absolute pinnacle of his profession.

If only you were around to teach him how to correctly punch (;D... seriously... no seriously)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Behave @Althugz your points about Calzaghe have been refuted a million times. Nothing you say is new. This same Calzaghe stuff has been going on long before 2004 (when I joined this forum). I was actually a Calzaghe critic back in those days. Things change though. The guy had a lull in his career but came good in the end.

Your "problem" is you get to emotionally affected by these debates. When people refute your points you resort to personal insults that have nothing to do with the actual topic (I know people have chucked personal insults at you too).

At the end of the day, no-one ever accepts they're wrong and it's nothing more than a pointless boxing nerds debate that means absolutely nothing. Fact.

---

Well we can both agree with your last statement - However, I accepted I was wrong about the Roy Jones thing didn't I? ;)

If I was so emotional about JC, I wouldn't have been the first to give him his props for the Kessler victory. That was his best win in my opinion when you weigh up the performance, Kesslers prime and ranking.

You are probably the only one who tries to refute my points, I'm just sorry that I disagree with your defence for Calzaghes poor opposition. Some clearly agree with you, some agree with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

I knew that starting this thread was going to ruffle the Calzaghe fan feathers. Geez.... get a grip, people. Nobody is trying to deny Joe's place in boxing history. Yes, he retired undefeated. Yes, he's one of the best supermiddles in boxing history. Is he THE best? In my opinion, not by a long shot. There's a lot of factors that go into being undefeated. Just take a look at how Baby Chavez is being brought along. Let's say he retires undefeated, after beating a few more bums. Will that make him HOF material? Well... knowing how this business runs, the last name will probably get him in no matter what. But you get my point.

As for pitting a prime Calzaghe vs. Froch... yeah... I have no problem seeing a Calzaghe points win. Again... it's the volume of punches thrown by JC that have always swayed the judges. Kinda like Olympic boxing. It's not the effectiveness, but rather the number of punches landed.

All I'm saying is that, from a non-British perspective, it's a lot easier to get behind and respect a fighter than Carl Froch, than Calzaghe. For being an undefeated fighter, Calzaghe's list of opponents does not stack up with other fighters who haven't necessarily been undefeated. And with me, it's also a question of style. Too many useless, ineffective, pitty-patter, so-called flurries to suit me. And I'm not picking on Joe. I wouldn't like any boxer who fought like this. It may impress the judges at ringside, who are busy punching in their CompuBox numbers.... but it doesn't impress this particular fan, especially given the benefit of slow-motion replays.

I saw De La Hoya do this a few times too, although not consistently. But Joe apparently lived off this tactic. He apparently never learned the proper way to throw a punch, where you put your whole body into it, and turn it over.

---

Yup, it ruffles all kinds of feathers. Debating against Calzaghe's greatness is the equivalent of insulting Calzaghe fan's mothers.

Nobody said Carl would beat Joe
Nobody said Joe wasn't one of the best, if not THE best Super Middle.

Yet, any reasonable critique on the fighter draws insults to your intellect, allegiance, knowledge of boxing and even irrelevant things like your hobbies :rolleyes:

Nobody has actually ever refuted any of the points I've ever made about Calzaghe. It always gets personal way before that happens ;) (or Fenster tries but goes off on a tangent and ends up arguing with himself)

I'll accept that Fenster correctly challenged one of my points (every dog has their day and all that..)- The Roy Jones point I will concede..but at the same time, JC knew Roy Jones was the best. You know he's at light-heavy...You tell everyone who will listen that you're the best BUT you won't chase the P4P guy who is at light-heavyweight when there are no solid opponents left for you at Super Middle?

As has been mentioned by MANY people already, half of JC's career was due to unfortunate circumstance (kind of like the Klitschko's) BUT the other half was JC's unwillingness to challenge himself further when he had the options to do so.

---

Altug, the FACT is you can not call someone a moron or a douche and then complain that after this people get personal.

You can not post a picture of yourself like you have on a forum like this and reasonably expect nobody to pull your leg about it.

You can not open up your posting in a thread with a statement like

"The only people who you'll offend with that statement are the deluded Brits who thought Calzaghes record was worth a damn"

and then expect anyone to take any following points you make seriously, however salient they may be. What is the point of fighting anyone if your record means nothing? It is only by using this weird logic that you can then say things like

"Calzaghe ducked and dodged throughout his career" and this is the crux of your argument, a point you are unable to substantiate. So blinded are you by your rage

"I say nothing more on the JC matter because everytime I start - I can't contain my (very reasonable I might add) anger. "

that you forget that the thread is about who is the most likeable and say

"My main point is - regardless who you think would have won if they ever met, when being ranked Carl Froch should be ranked higher than Joe Calzaghe. I don't see an argument to have it any other way. "

Who exactly did Calzaghe beat? Eubank, Kessler, Lacy ,Roy Jones Jr amongst others
Froch? Pascal,Taylor,Direll,Abraham,Johnson,Bute

As a proud Englishmen and a huge fan of Froch I would have to say hand on heart that I continue to enjoy watching him fight more than I did Calzaghe. As a warrior I put Froch up there with legendary fighters whose heart and determination more than made up for what may have been lacking in their boxing skills. This is not the same as ranking him higher than Calzaghe, because as a boxer and an artist Joe was fantastic. The fact that he didn't hang his chin out and go toe to toe with everyone does not make him an inferior fighter but does make him a better boxer and we I assume are talking about boxing.

I like them both but they have both said things outside of the ring that could be construed as arrogant and I can see why someone like Froch would go down well internationally particularly in the land of Gunslingers like John Wayne. Perhaps it might be an idea not to assume that not all Brits are deluded, or that it is impossible to appreciate two fighters who represent two sides of the same coin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

He apparently never learned the proper way to throw a punch, where you put your whole body into it, and turn it over.

---

The man spent 20-odd years boxing, lost only a few times in around 200 fights, which includes a plethora of stoppage victories (including the Manfredo one, where the ref saved Peter from a barrage of limp-wristed slaps) ;D and reached the absolute pinnacle of his profession.

If only you were around to teach him how to correctly punch (;D... seriously... no seriously)

---

All he had to do was ask.

:)

Al thugz
You look like you've been creosoted
Haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Behave @Althugz your points about Calzaghe have been refuted a million times. Nothing you say is new. This same Calzaghe stuff has been going on long before 2004 (when I joined this forum). I was actually a Calzaghe critic back in those days. Things change though. The guy had a lull in his career but came good in the end.

Your "problem" is you get to emotionally affected by these debates. When people refute your points you resort to personal insults that have nothing to do with the actual topic (I know people have chucked personal insults at you too).

At the end of the day, no-one ever accepts they're wrong and it's nothing more than a pointless boxing nerds debate that means absolutely nothing. Fact.

---

Well we can both agree with your last statement - However, I accepted I was wrong about the Roy Jones thing didn't I? ;)

If I was so emotional about JC, I wouldn't have been the first to give him his props for the Kessler victory. That was his best win in my opinion when you weigh up the performance, Kesslers prime and ranking.

You are probably the only one who tries to refute my points, I'm just sorry that I disagree with your defence for Calzaghes poor opposition. Some clearly agree with you, some agree with me.

---

You love to play people with your little mind game's, now you feel you are sweetness and light it don't wash with me.If I was insulting a fighter from your country I would expect to be challenged, don't through shit and expect not to get some back.After most of your posts Fuck Calzaghe grow up how old are you it's like me after ever post saying your a Fuck in JACKASS.;D

Froch and Calzaghe are both bum fighter like black Lacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Froch and Calzaghe are both bum fighter like black Lacy.

---

:lol: You are taking the piss.;D

No, Kessler are cheated against both English bum. Only he are easy fighter to like.

This is why it's so easy to like Froch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYcGdQdoUbc

I did start writing up a rather long response but I realise that interwebz victory means more to Mr Bando, Fenster and the physically and intellectually complexed Greenbeanz so I wrote an apology note instead :-

Joe Calzaghe is the greatest and most popular fighter that ever lived - Bando, Fenster and Greenbeanz are the boxing gods of the interwebz! I apologise for speaking out of turn about the deity Joe Calzaghe. May my sins not go unpunished and death to all who challenge Joe Calzaghes superiority! What a fool I have been..I see the light

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

I did start writing up a rather long response but I realise that interwebz victory means more to Mr Bando, Fenster and the physically and intellectually complexed Greenbeanz so I wrote an apology note instead :-

Joe Calzaghe is the greatest and most popular fighter that ever lived - Bando, Fenster and Greenbeanz are the boxing gods of the interwebz! I apologise for speaking out of turn about the deity Joe Calzaghe. May my sins not go unpunished and death to all who challenge Joe Calzaghes superiority! What a fool I have been..I see the light

---

Uh-oh........ I'm screwed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

I did start writing up a rather long response but I realise that interwebz victory means more to Mr Bando, Fenster and the physically and intellectually complexed Greenbeanz so I wrote an apology note instead :-

Joe Calzaghe is the greatest and most popular fighter that ever lived - Bando, Fenster and Greenbeanz are the boxing gods of the interwebz! I apologise for speaking out of turn about the deity Joe Calzaghe. May my sins not go unpunished and death to all who challenge Joe Calzaghes superiority! What a fool I have been..I see the light

---

Thank you your cheque is in the post ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

I did start writing up a rather long response but I realise that interwebz victory means more to Mr Bando, Fenster and the physically and intellectually complexed Greenbeanz so I wrote an apology note instead :-

Joe Calzaghe is the greatest and most popular fighter that ever lived - Bando, Fenster and Greenbeanz are the boxing gods of the interwebz! I apologise for speaking out of turn about the deity Joe Calzaghe. May my sins not go unpunished and death to all who challenge Joe Calzaghes superiority! What a fool I have been..I see the light

---

As I said in the previous post - It's not about winning it's just about alternative opinions. I merely stated a counter argument to your claim that Froch now ranks above Calzaghe.

To your credit, I saw Glyn Leach (Boxing Monthly editor) post on twitter that he now believes Froch is ahead of Calzaghe in the supermiddle standings (as well as some other journos). So I was wrong to call your argument nonsensical.

Although I do believe my argument is superior. Fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

I did start writing up a rather long response but I realise that interwebz victory means more to Mr Bando, Fenster and the physically and intellectually complexed Greenbeanz so I wrote an apology note instead :-

Joe Calzaghe is the greatest and most popular fighter that ever lived - Bando, Fenster and Greenbeanz are the boxing gods of the interwebz! I apologise for speaking out of turn about the deity Joe Calzaghe. May my sins not go unpunished and death to all who challenge Joe Calzaghes superiority! What a fool I have been..I see the light

---

As I said in the previous post - It's not about winning it's just about alternative opinions. I merely stated a counter argument to your claim that Froch now ranks above Calzaghe.

To your credit, I saw Glyn Leach (Boxing Monthly editor) post on twitter that he now believes Froch is ahead of Calzaghe in the supermiddle standings (as well as some other journos). So I was wrong to call your argument nonsensical.

Although I do believe my argument is superior. Fact.

---

I'm glad you can admit to slinging the first insult by calling my perfectly valid argument "nonsensical" ;)

Opinions are perfectly fine - and many oppose my own on this matter. Just haven't heard one on this forum that makes me even think twice about JC's legacy. Unfortunately the counter argument of "Jackass" and "Waif" don't seem to do it either. Strange that..

Althugz,

Hold up a minute...How is calling an argument "nonsense" a personal insult? I gave valid reasons why I believed it was nonsense. Nothing I said wavered from the topic and in no way was a personal insult aimed at anyone.That's not my style.

It's simply the way debates work. I counter the argument and the onus is back on you.

I still believe Froch over Calzaghe is wrong. However, I understand the angle people are coming from ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Althugz,

Hold up a minute...How is calling an argument "nonsense" a personal insult? I gave valid reasons why I believed it was nonsense. Nothing I said wavered from the topic and in no way was a personal insult aimed at anyone.That's not my style.

It's simply the way debates work. I counter the argument and the onus is back on you.

I still believe Froch over Calzaghe is wrong. However, I understand the angle people are coming from ;)

---

Uhh.... you forgot to add "Fact" there, sport.

Seriously tho, this has become a very heated and emotional feeding frenzy here. Look back at the title of my thread. It says very clearly: "Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe." No more... no less. So spewing out all of Calzaghe's stats is truly unnecessary here, don't you think? And I stand by my statement, as I'm sure lots of other Calzaghe non-sympathizers will agree.

And you seemed to have an issue with my point regarding Calzaghe's style of fighting, whereupon you immediately brought up his "however-many-stoppages" he's had. If you were truly being objective about it, I'm sure you'd agree with my point regarding Calzaghe's pitty-patter style, and how it makes for ugly, non-crowd-pleasing fights. But since you're a "big bad MOD", and like to spew out all your opinions with your signature "Fact" line..... you think you can ramrod your opinion down people's throats. By the way... that IS a fact. Thankfully, not everyone backs down from your overbearing style.

;)

But hey.... no problem. That's what this forum's all about. People disagreeing all the time. Otherwise, where would the fun be? Hell, if I had a dollar for everytime I got into an argument with someone around here, I'd be retired by now.

Oh...... and Calzaghe's undefeated record doesn't mean shit to me, as I'm sure it doesn't mean shit to most true boxing fans. Why? Because it does not include the plethora of career-defining and/or great opponents that really define a fighter's career. Sorry Calzaghe fans. No hate involved here. Just an honest opinion. Slapping the shit out of Peter Manfredo doesn't do it for me.

Carry on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

He apparently never learned the proper way to throw a punch, where you put your whole body into it, and turn it over.

---

Watch some of his early fights. He used to knock everybody out in his early career. he punched just fine back then but he kept breaking bones in his hands and developed serious problems with both of them, especially the left hand. So he changed his style and threw punches to score points, not KO people. Sop really he deserves extra credit for going from a knockout artist to a different style of fighting.

TitoFan,

I honestly have no idea how ending a sentence with "fact" could upset someone so much? Just a week ago I let you in on the JOKE that it stems from a HUMOROUS thread, and yet once again you bring it up.

People like you deserve to be ridiculed. Fact.

What issue did I have with you? It's IRONIC (look that up) that YOU could coach a man that won 200 fights that he is punching INCORRECTLY!!! Even if he was it certainly didn't harm him did it?

Fact.

Fact.

Fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

He apparently never learned the proper way to throw a punch, where you put your whole body into it, and turn it over.

---

Watch some of his early fights. He used to knock everybody out in his early career. he punched just fine back then but he kept breaking bones in his hands and developed serious problems with both of them, especially the left hand. So he changed his style and threw punches to score points, not KO people. Sop really he deserves extra credit for going from a knockout artist to a different style of fighting.

---

Wow... didn't know that, thanks. While it's admirable that he would adapt his fighting style to his brittle hands, the fact is he went on to what you could call Olympic-style boxing, where nothing else matters other than the amount of punches landed. Except in the Olympics they don't count slaps, either. The punch must be delivered with the white portion of the glove. So Calzaghe managed to continue his pro boxing career while adapting to brittle hands. Admirable, but not fan-friendly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

TitoFan,

I honestly have no idea how ending a sentence with "fact" could upset someone so much? Just a week ago I let you in on the JOKE that it stems from a HUMOROUS thread, and yet once again you bring it up.

People like you deserve to be ridiculed. Fact.

What issue did I have with you? It's IRONIC (look that up) that YOU could coach a man that won 200 fights that he is punching INCORRECTLY!!! Even if he was it certainly didn't harm him did it?

Fact.

Fact.

Fact.

---

It doesn't upset me, sport. You're giving yourself WAY too much credit.
Fact.

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

He apparently never learned the proper way to throw a punch, where you put your whole body into it, and turn it over.

---

Watch some of his early fights. He used to knock everybody out in his early career. he punched just fine back then but he kept breaking bones in his hands and developed serious problems with both of them, especially the left hand. So he changed his style and threw punches to score points, not KO people. Sop really he deserves extra credit for going from a knockout artist to a different style of fighting.

---

Don't bother in the past I have told the same person, Sorry Jackass the same thing it's useless just like a ashtray on a motorbike a wast of time. For a guy with very bad hands he was a great they could not give him credit it's a strange fact we hate winners in this country. The late Barry Sheen, had it in one on the way up everybody love's you when you get there they hate you spot on I would say.;)

Broke the record for the most defenses in history. Was essentially the undisputed champ even though he dumped the ibf belt. Had to change his punching style because of hand problems. So what? He had one of the best Ko ratios in boxing prior to his hand problems. One might say that one was the byproduct of the other. Was supposed to get beat up by Jeff Lacy but after he kicked the snot out of Jeff, Lacy was then a defacto bum. A prime Kessler was then going to give him a proper beat down but alas, he got the shit kicked out of him also.

Calzaghe. What a loser.

Stirred up some sensitive shit, did I? Again ladies... not taking away from Joe's accomplishments. Merely stating my personal opinion that watching JC's fights was about as much fun as watching two drunk bitches slapping each other silly over a boyfriend. With about as many actual PUNCHES being landed.

Geez... lighten up.

Not sure who is getting sensitive here. The author put forth a non British perspective. So did I.

Duly noted. From one non-British to another. You enjoyed watching Calzaghe fight.... I didn't. Especially later in his career when he was supposed to be having those "career-defining" fights. Instead, I was treated to a sideshow against Manfredo, and a forgettable, controversial affair against that OTHER fighter I've always loved to watch... Bernard Hopkins. Not the stuff legends are made of.