Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendettos

The way to look at it is this, Froch has lost, so he is fallible and there is blueprints to beat him.

Calzaghe never lost so there isn't any way to beat him.

--------

Froch is much tougher than Calzaghe was.
Calzaghe was much more skilful that Froch is

--------

Calzaghe was faster.
Froch hits harder

--------

Froch fights in a much better super middle weight division than Calzaghe did.
Calzaghe beat prime Kessler, Froch lost to declining Kessler in that division.

--------

KO ratios
Froch 66%
Calzaghe 69%

---------

Calzaghe moved up a weightclass and won a world title. Froch has yet to do that.
Froch is actually more suited to the move up than Calzaghe was.

---------

Froch always is exciting to watch, while Calzaghe sometimes stunk.
Calzaghe won his bad fights.

---------

Advantages for each man in a Froch vs Calzaghe.

Froch
More powerful
Tough and durable
Calzaghe can be dropped

Calzaghe
Quicker
Froch can be countered
Froch will be in the pocket for quick combos




It really is straight down the middle, there's almost nothing to separate them.

I say Calzaghe still as he always found a way, I think that kind of speed is Froch' biggest enemy.

---

Just because Froch gets hit more often than Calzaghe doesnt make him tougher. Froch did get dropped by Taylor, a middle weight who couldnt drop welter weight Spinks or light middle Ouma.

Froch hasnt really fought any noted big punchers other than Kessler.

Id like to see how Froch deals with Bika;)

---

Bika isn't a puncher.

Calzaghe being dropped numerous times and Froch being dropped only once, makes him tougher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendettos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendettos

The way to look at it is this, Froch has lost, so he is fallible and there is blueprints to beat him.

Calzaghe never lost so there isn't any way to beat him.

--------

Froch is much tougher than Calzaghe was.
Calzaghe was much more skilful that Froch is

--------

Calzaghe was faster.
Froch hits harder

--------

Froch fights in a much better super middle weight division than Calzaghe did.
Calzaghe beat prime Kessler, Froch lost to declining Kessler in that division.

--------

KO ratios
Froch 66%
Calzaghe 69%

---------

Calzaghe moved up a weightclass and won a world title. Froch has yet to do that.
Froch is actually more suited to the move up than Calzaghe was.

---------

Froch always is exciting to watch, while Calzaghe sometimes stunk.
Calzaghe won his bad fights.

---------

Advantages for each man in a Froch vs Calzaghe.

Froch
More powerful
Tough and durable
Calzaghe can be dropped

Calzaghe
Quicker
Froch can be countered
Froch will be in the pocket for quick combos




It really is straight down the middle, there's almost nothing to separate them.

I say Calzaghe still as he always found a way, I think that kind of speed is Froch' biggest enemy.

---

Just because Froch gets hit more often than Calzaghe doesnt make him tougher. Froch did get dropped by Taylor, a middle weight who couldnt drop welter weight Spinks or light middle Ouma.

Froch hasnt really fought any noted big punchers other than Kessler.

Id like to see how Froch deals with Bika;)

---

Bika isn't a puncher.

Calzaghe being dropped numerous times and Froch being dropped only once, makes him tougher.

---

Bika isnt a puncher?;D

Go watch the last 2 rounds of Ward v Bika. Bika has Ward in trouble a fair few times and Ward has to hold on. He didnt look like that against Froch.

Calzaghe said Bika was the hardest puncher hes faced.

Your logic is spastic. Calzaghe being dropped numerous times but never losing makes him less tough than Froch? It makes him tougher! Calzaghe will walk through fire and find a way to win whereas Carl can be outfought and out thought while he plods along.

That's a testament to how bad a lot of calzaghe opponents were. 21 KOs in 40 fights is not a puncher.

And my logic is fine, if someone is knocked down 6 times in their career and someone else knocked down 1 time then the person who was knocked down 1 time is tougher

Only when you consider that the person knocked down 1 time fought much tougher guys with better punches.

Bute
Johnson
Abraham
Kessler twice.

Once again Ross opens his mouth and let's his belly rumble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendettos

That's a testament to how bad a lot of calzaghe opponents were. 21 KOs in 40 fights is not a puncher.

And my logic is fine, if someone is knocked down 6 times in their career and someone else knocked down 1 time then the person who was knocked down 1 time is tougher

Only when you consider that the person knocked down 1 time fought much tougher guys with better punches.

Bute
Johnson
Abraham
Kessler twice.

Once again Ross opens his mouth and let's his belly rumble.

---

Johnson was a weight drai ed light heavy;D Abraham was a middleweight with no power against the stronger supermiddle;D

Kessler is a puncher and it showed, in the first fight when he was fresher, he beat Froch. Froch wasnt tough enough to walk through it and beat him. Kessler has lost a step and is tight at the weight now, having fought above it last year.

Froch got hurt and dropped hard by Taylor;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BIG H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Froch now has a better record at supermiddle. He just matched Calzaghe's best ever win and has stronger backup form.

Unfortunately Calzaghe didn't fight in as strong an era, so his "gimme" fights, inbetween the meaningful contests, look really poor in comparison with Froch's consistent run of facing THE best fighters back-to-back.

In the past five years Froch's "gimme" was Yusef Mack. Calzaghe was still facing the likes of Manfredo jr not long before retiring. It's not entirely Calzaghe's fault, he spent the majority of his career with the "gimme" expert Frank Warren - however, the facts are the facts. Some of Calzaghe's best supermiddle wins were against guys coming off losses. They were good fighters, but he wasn't meeting them as champions. Jeff Lacy never did a thing again.

Calzaghe would have wiped the floor with Froch everyday of the week. But his resume is inferior.

---

100% agree with the last line of this.

---

Yeah this post pretty much sums up my thoughts as well.

I'd also like to add that Calzaghe beat Kessler when he was undefeated, and he beat him well. The fight wasn't close. Froch-Kessler was close twice, and Calzaghe wasn't hurt by Kessler once. I wish Joe had been a few years younger because he would be remembered as an all time great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Just because Froch gets hit more often than Calzaghe doesnt make him tougher. Froch did get dropped by Taylor, a middle weight who couldnt drop welter weight Spinks or light middle Ouma.

Froch hasnt really fought any noted big punchers other than Kessler.

Id like to see how Froch deals with Bika;)

---

So I assume that Froch-Kessler II is the first Froch fight you've ever seen then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bzkfn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Just because Froch gets hit more often than Calzaghe doesnt make him tougher. Froch did get dropped by Taylor, a middle weight who couldnt drop welter weight Spinks or light middle Ouma.

Froch hasnt really fought any noted big punchers other than Kessler.

Id like to see how Froch deals with Bika;)

---

So I assume that Froch-Kessler II is the first Froch fight you've ever seen then?

---

Iv seen all his fights, I think, from when he turned pro. The only people you would have said were dangerous punchers at super middle when Froch fought them were Bute and Kessler.

I agree, Froch is tough but to say hes tougher than Joe is daft. Taking punches doesnt equal tough. Froch didnt have it in himself to turn up the pressure in the first fight with Kessler because he likes to fight at his pace in his comfort zone. Like Abraham there is a myth that these kinds of fighters have good stamina and come on in the late rounds but when you look at their work rate its consistant and low. the oponent is ususally doing the working and winning until they tire but against the top boys it doesnt work like that, they will be there with you and against Calzaghe he would never have had the luxury of a tiring fighter in front of him.

He learned he had to do it in the rematch but I didnt see him as a clear winner again. I saw it a draw. Kesslers work in those mid rounds to 11th outshone what Froch was trying to do and I think it earnt Kessler a draw. I cant remember the exact rounds but between 4 and 11 Kessler to me wan the majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bzkfn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Just because Froch gets hit more often than Calzaghe doesnt make him tougher. Froch did get dropped by Taylor, a middle weight who couldnt drop welter weight Spinks or light middle Ouma.

Froch hasnt really fought any noted big punchers other than Kessler.

Id like to see how Froch deals with Bika;)

---

So I assume that Froch-Kessler II is the first Froch fight you've ever seen then?

---

Iv seen all his fights, I think, from when he turned pro. The only people you would have said were dangerous punchers at super middle when Froch fought them were Bute and Kessler.

I agree, Froch is tough but to say hes tougher than Joe is daft. Taking punches doesnt equal tough. Froch didnt have it in himself to turn up the pressure in the first fight with Kessler because he likes to fight at his pace in his comfort zone. Like Abraham there is a myth that these kinds of fighters have good stamina and come on in the late rounds but when you look at their work rate its consistant and low. the oponent is ususally doing the working and winning until they tire but against the top boys it doesnt work like that, they will be there with you and against Calzaghe he would never have had the luxury of a tiring fighter in front of him.

He learned he had to do it in the rematch but I didnt see him as a clear winner again. I saw it a draw. Kesslers work in those mid rounds to 11th outshone what Froch was trying to do and I think it earnt Kessler a draw. I cant remember the exact rounds but between 4 and 11 Kessler to me wan the majority.

---

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/...ac98cc9443.jpg

Joe was the better fighter and was undisputed champ. Carl is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tysonesque

No, Froch will not be remembered as being better than Calzaghe because he's not the better fighter. Had they ever fought Calzaghe would have beaten Froch quite comfortably.

Froch has a decent résumé, but there isn't a fighter on there that Calzaghe wouldn't have beaten more comfortably than Froch did.

Carl Froch will forever be in the shadow of Calzaghe, Eubank, Benn, Watson and rightly so.

---

I think that is a bit uncharitable to say the least. While he may not have been able to beat Calzaghe he did not have the opportunity to fight anyone else on your list. If you are going to make the argument for Joe that you can only fight who are around when you are fighting, then you can't suddenly take that same criteria away from Carl.

They are very different fighters and while he may not be considered as talented and graceful a fighter as Calzaghe was he will be remembered by many for some epic battles. While Calzaghe may have spent thousands of hours honing his craft there is an argument that a certain percentage of ability is innate, and training is about improving the rest. For Froch who is obviously not as gifted a boxer, his absolute dedication to fitness and building that teak physical and mental toughness that allows him to succeed is something to be equally admired. We have had some very good SMW's in Britain for a long time and I think that Froch could have aquitted himself well against any one of them. He has not avoided anyone and is seeking to avenge his defeats so I think history will remember him kindly, even in a division where the UK has had a bit of an embarrassment of riches.

---

Of course Froch will be remembered and respected, but like I said, he will forever be in the shadow of Calzaghe, Eubank, Benn and Watson, who were all better fighters than he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

He's beaten better names at Super Middleweight than Calzaghe ever did.

Jermain Taylor
Andre Dirrell
Arthur Abraham
Jean Pascal
Lucian Bute
Mikkel Kessler
Glen Johnson

Apart from Mikkel Kessler obviously who on Calzaghe's list at Super Middleweight really compares with them names ?

Chris Eubank maybe but Eubank was weight drained and not in his prime, still a good win for Calzaghe. But other names like Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, don't really compare IMO.

And Reid and Woodhall were both coming off bad losses, Reid lost his title to a 42 year old Thulani Malinga in one of the worst world title fights i've ever seen.

And Woodhall had just lost to Markus Beyer, being decked 3 times by a fighter not known to be a hard hitter.

Calzaghe maybe the better skilled fighter, but Froch is more willing to fight the top boys and has beaten more dangerous fighters at Super Middleweight IMO.

---

Seriously whats behind those names? You wont see a Cal fan boasting about beating Roy Jones.

Taylor. Had no business being in the tourney and was ruined about 4 years earlier in the second Hopkins fight and barely snuck by Ouma and Spinks. That version of Taylor would have never made it to 12 rounds with Joe.

Dirrell. Did Carl actually win that fight? Well its open for debate imo. And btw with a 13 and 0 record he had no business being in that tourney either.

Abraham. Not only was he a career middleweight prior to the tourney but was and is perhaps the most over hyped, overrated, 6 minute, one dimensional rinse and repeat plodder of this generation.

Try to imagine Joe against Abe or Taylor. He'd be charged afterward for cruel and unusual punishment.

Pascal. Great win and a great fight.

Bute. Well imo Bute folded and completely fell apart but that's not Carls problem. Solid win.
And its worth mentioning that after the Bute fight many people including on this forum suggested Bute was a homer who hid out in Quebec and was out of his league. Well if that's the case then the win over him is no big deal.

Kessler. I don't think anybody today beats the Kessler that Cal beat and that includes Ward. Don't want to deflect away from Carls great win last night but it was pretty obvious to me that it was not even the same Kessler that he fought the first time.

Johnson. I love the Road Warrior but lets be honest here, he was beyond gate keeper status when he fought Carl. He was also 42 and career lightheavyweight. Glen looked like a worn out catchers mit when he made 168 and Carl could only manage a ud.

Its not a given that Carl beats Reid, Woodhall, Eubank or even Veit or Lacy. Frochs style is far more suited for all of them then Joe's was.

As far as head to head goes Carl and Joe could fight 10 times in their primes and Joe wins 10 outta 10. Joe defended his title more then any person in history and dominated the 168 division more then anyone before or since. He never ducked a soul and I challenge anyone to say who he ducked and when he could have fought them once again. There is this eternal suggestion every time the mans name comes up that he never fought some phantom player in his day. Who? When? Sorry but Sven Ottke will not wash;D

---

You can slate Froch's opposition all you want, but the fact is there more household names than Calzaghe's best wins at Super Middleweight. Sorry but you think Woodhall, Veit, Lacy, would give Froch trouble ? really ? in all honesty he'd smash them to pieces. I think he'd beat Reid and it all depends on what Euabnk turned up.

As for your last comment there's few names he could of fought, but he didn't duck them. But he could of made more of an effort to travel, and he could of moved up to Light Heavyweight where all the big names were. He said for years he was tight at the weight yet he was happy just to beat up the Tocker Pudwill's of this world.

I don't think anyone thinks Froch is better in a head to head sense, although i think Froch would give him problems. It's the fact Froch is more of a warrior willing to fight the best, and travel which make's his record better and more likable and more willing to root for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendettos

The way to look at it is this, Froch has lost, so he is fallible and there is blueprints to beat him.

Calzaghe never lost so there isn't any way to beat him.

--------

Froch is much tougher than Calzaghe was.
Calzaghe was much more skilful that Froch is

--------

Calzaghe was faster.
Froch hits harder

--------

Froch fights in a much better super middle weight division than Calzaghe did.
Calzaghe beat prime Kessler, Froch lost to declining Kessler in that division.

--------

KO ratios
Froch 66%
Calzaghe 69%

---------

Calzaghe moved up a weightclass and won a world title. Froch has yet to do that.
Froch is actually more suited to the move up than Calzaghe was.

---------

Froch always is exciting to watch, while Calzaghe sometimes stunk.
Calzaghe won his bad fights.

---------

Advantages for each man in a Froch vs Calzaghe.

Froch
More powerful
Tough and durable
Calzaghe can be dropped

Calzaghe
Quicker
Froch can be countered
Froch will be in the pocket for quick combos




It really is straight down the middle, there's almost nothing to separate them.

I say Calzaghe still as he always found a way, I think that kind of speed is Froch' biggest enemy.

---

Just because Froch gets hit more often than Calzaghe doesnt make him tougher. Froch did get dropped by Taylor, a middle weight who couldnt drop welter weight Spinks or light middle Ouma.

Froch hasnt really fought any noted big punchers other than Kessler.

Id like to see how Froch deals with Bika;)

---

Arthur Abraham, Lucian Bute, Mikkel Kessler x2, all 3 of them can hit. As for Jermain Taylor his power is pretty solid it's just his stamina isn't that good. You say Froch got decked by Taylor who was a world class fighter BTW.

Didn't Joe Calzaghe get decked heavily by Kabary Salem ? who only had 12 stoppages ?

Also you say you think Froch hasn't really fought any punchers, well how many monster punchers did Calzaghe really face either ?

Just to play devil's advocate:

Taylor - Pavlik already stopped him. 160 was his best weight class.
Abraham - Dirrell already beat him. 160 was his best weight class.
Pascal - Great Win. 175 is his best weight class though.
Bute - Froch's best win.
Kessler - Good win. Splits series with Kessler. 31 year old Kessler beat Froch in a close fight. 34 year old Kessler lost to Froch in close fight. Age play a role?
Dirrell - Close fight. Counts as a win though.

What Froch has going for him in my opinion is that he took an all-comers in their home town, and epitomizes warrior. He could face Ward again, but I don't see a different outcome, even on home turf. A win over Hopkins would be a bump for his legacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Just to play devil's advocate:

Taylor - Pavlik already stopped him. 160 was his best weight class.
Abraham - Dirrell already beat him. 160 was his best weight class.
Pascal - Great Win. 175 is his best weight class though.
Bute - Froch's best win.
Kessler - Good win. Splits series with Kessler. 31 year old Kessler beat Froch in a close fight. 34 year old Kessler lost to Froch in close fight. Age play a role?
Dirrell - Close fight. Counts as a win though.

---

I think Froch deserves credit for the Taylor win, because Taylor looked sharp and Froch fought better version of Taylor than Abraham and ETC fought. Also remember Taylor fought Pavlik in there rematch at near enough 168, and Taylor performed better in the rematch than he did at Middleweight losing a narrow decision. Also remember how high everyone ranked Pavlik at that time.

As for the Kessler fight Froch is older than Kessler remember, also i think why Froch lost the 1st fight was because he was too passive. In the rematch he started off very quickly and was alot more aggressive, which is why i think he won rather than it to do with Kessler's age.

If froch starts aggresive early in any fight he will be trouble for anyone.

Froch would beat JC 3 times out of 10.
Ward beats JC 6 times out of 10.
Roy beats JC 10/10 in primetime.

JC beat everyone 46 out of 46.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

He's beaten better names at Super Middleweight than Calzaghe ever did.

Jermain Taylor
Andre Dirrell
Arthur Abraham
Jean Pascal
Lucian Bute
Mikkel Kessler
Glen Johnson

Apart from Mikkel Kessler obviously who on Calzaghe's list at Super Middleweight really compares with them names ?

Chris Eubank maybe but Eubank was weight drained and not in his prime, still a good win for Calzaghe. But other names like Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, don't really compare IMO.

And Reid and Woodhall were both coming off bad losses, Reid lost his title to a 42 year old Thulani Malinga in one of the worst world title fights i've ever seen.

And Woodhall had just lost to Markus Beyer, being decked 3 times by a fighter not known to be a hard hitter.

Calzaghe maybe the better skilled fighter, but Froch is more willing to fight the top boys and has beaten more dangerous fighters at Super Middleweight IMO.

---

Seriously whats behind those names? You wont see a Cal fan boasting about beating Roy Jones.

Taylor. Had no business being in the tourney and was ruined about 4 years earlier in the second Hopkins fight and barely snuck by Ouma and Spinks. That version of Taylor would have never made it to 12 rounds with Joe.

Dirrell. Did Carl actually win that fight? Well its open for debate imo. And btw with a 13 and 0 record he had no business being in that tourney either.

Abraham. Not only was he a career middleweight prior to the tourney but was and is perhaps the most over hyped, overrated, 6 minute, one dimensional rinse and repeat plodder of this generation.

Try to imagine Joe against Abe or Taylor. He'd be charged afterward for cruel and unusual punishment.

Pascal. Great win and a great fight.

Bute. Well imo Bute folded and completely fell apart but that's not Carls problem. Solid win.
And its worth mentioning that after the Bute fight many people including on this forum suggested Bute was a homer who hid out in Quebec and was out of his league. Well if that's the case then the win over him is no big deal.

Kessler. I don't think anybody today beats the Kessler that Cal beat and that includes Ward. Don't want to deflect away from Carls great win last night but it was pretty obvious to me that it was not even the same Kessler that he fought the first time.

Johnson. I love the Road Warrior but lets be honest here, he was beyond gate keeper status when he fought Carl. He was also 42 and career lightheavyweight. Glen looked like a worn out catchers mit when he made 168 and Carl could only manage a ud.

Its not a given that Carl beats Reid, Woodhall, Eubank or even Veit or Lacy. Frochs style is far more suited for all of them then Joe's was.

As far as head to head goes Carl and Joe could fight 10 times in their primes and Joe wins 10 outta 10. Joe defended his title more then any person in history and dominated the 168 division more then anyone before or since. He never ducked a soul and I challenge anyone to say who he ducked and when he could have fought them once again. There is this eternal suggestion every time the mans name comes up that he never fought some phantom player in his day. Who? When? Sorry but Sven Ottke will not wash;D

---

You can slate Froch's opposition all you want, but the fact is there more household names than Calzaghe's best wins at Super Middleweight. Sorry but you think Woodhall, Veit, Lacy, would give Froch trouble ? really ? in all honesty he'd smash them to pieces. I think he'd beat Reid and it all depends on what Euabnk turned up.

As for your last comment there's few names he could of fought, but he didn't duck them. But he could of made more of an effort to travel, and he could of moved up to Light Heavyweight where all the big names were. He said for years he was tight at the weight yet he was happy just to beat up the Tocker Pudwill's of this world.

I don't think anyone thinks Froch is better in a head to head sense, although i think Froch would give him problems. It's the fact Froch is more of a warrior willing to fight the best, and travel which make's his record better and more likable and more willing to root for.

---

Lets not get silly now.

Pudwill was a last minute replacement for Thomas Tate. I'm sure if you were out of nappies back then, and had purchased a ticket for that show, you'd have sooner see Calzaghe box than not, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

He's beaten better names at Super Middleweight than Calzaghe ever did.

Jermain Taylor
Andre Dirrell
Arthur Abraham
Jean Pascal
Lucian Bute
Mikkel Kessler
Glen Johnson

Apart from Mikkel Kessler obviously who on Calzaghe's list at Super Middleweight really compares with them names ?

Chris Eubank maybe but Eubank was weight drained and not in his prime, still a good win for Calzaghe. But other names like Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, don't really compare IMO.

And Reid and Woodhall were both coming off bad losses, Reid lost his title to a 42 year old Thulani Malinga in one of the worst world title fights i've ever seen.

And Woodhall had just lost to Markus Beyer, being decked 3 times by a fighter not known to be a hard hitter.

Calzaghe maybe the better skilled fighter, but Froch is more willing to fight the top boys and has beaten more dangerous fighters at Super Middleweight IMO.

---

Seriously whats behind those names? You wont see a Cal fan boasting about beating Roy Jones.

Taylor. Had no business being in the tourney and was ruined about 4 years earlier in the second Hopkins fight and barely snuck by Ouma and Spinks. That version of Taylor would have never made it to 12 rounds with Joe.

Dirrell. Did Carl actually win that fight? Well its open for debate imo. And btw with a 13 and 0 record he had no business being in that tourney either.

Abraham. Not only was he a career middleweight prior to the tourney but was and is perhaps the most over hyped, overrated, 6 minute, one dimensional rinse and repeat plodder of this generation.

Try to imagine Joe against Abe or Taylor. He'd be charged afterward for cruel and unusual punishment.

Pascal. Great win and a great fight.

Bute. Well imo Bute folded and completely fell apart but that's not Carls problem. Solid win.
And its worth mentioning that after the Bute fight many people including on this forum suggested Bute was a homer who hid out in Quebec and was out of his league. Well if that's the case then the win over him is no big deal.

Kessler. I don't think anybody today beats the Kessler that Cal beat and that includes Ward. Don't want to deflect away from Carls great win last night but it was pretty obvious to me that it was not even the same Kessler that he fought the first time.

Johnson. I love the Road Warrior but lets be honest here, he was beyond gate keeper status when he fought Carl. He was also 42 and career lightheavyweight. Glen looked like a worn out catchers mit when he made 168 and Carl could only manage a ud.

Its not a given that Carl beats Reid, Woodhall, Eubank or even Veit or Lacy. Frochs style is far more suited for all of them then Joe's was.

As far as head to head goes Carl and Joe could fight 10 times in their primes and Joe wins 10 outta 10. Joe defended his title more then any person in history and dominated the 168 division more then anyone before or since. He never ducked a soul and I challenge anyone to say who he ducked and when he could have fought them once again. There is this eternal suggestion every time the mans name comes up that he never fought some phantom player in his day. Who? When? Sorry but Sven Ottke will not wash;D

---

You can slate Froch's opposition all you want, but the fact is there more household names than Calzaghe's best wins at Super Middleweight. Sorry but you think Woodhall, Veit, Lacy, would give Froch trouble ? really ? in all honesty he'd smash them to pieces. I think he'd beat Reid and it all depends on what Euabnk turned up.

As for your last comment there's few names he could of fought, but he didn't duck them. But he could of made more of an effort to travel, and he could of moved up to Light Heavyweight where all the big names were. He said for years he was tight at the weight yet he was happy just to beat up the Tocker Pudwill's of this world.

I don't think anyone thinks Froch is better in a head to head sense, although i think Froch would give him problems. It's the fact Froch is more of a warrior willing to fight the best, and travel which make's his record better and more likable and more willing to root for.

---

Lets not get silly now.

Pudwill was a last minute replacement for Thomas Tate. I'm sure if you were out of nappies back then, and had purchased a ticket for that show, you'd have sooner see Calzaghe box than not, right?

---

I meant in general when i said that, i wasn't specifically on about Pudwill. My point was he was happy fighting mediocre opposition rather than moving up to Light Heavyweight and taking a risk.

I don't think so, calzaghe was the MAN at 168, froch until he avenges the loss to ward is always going to be number two.Also i know some people will want to break down calzaghes opposition in retrospect as not being as good and what not, hell you can do the same to froch's just as easily imo. I genuinely think calzaghe would beat froch 9 out of 10 cause there are no absolutely sure things in boxing, i also think joe would beat ward the majority of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Just to play devil's advocate:

Taylor - Pavlik already stopped him. 160 was his best weight class.
Abraham - Dirrell already beat him. 160 was his best weight class.
Pascal - Great Win. 175 is his best weight class though.
Bute - Froch's best win.
Kessler - Good win. Splits series with Kessler. 31 year old Kessler beat Froch in a close fight. 34 year old Kessler lost to Froch in close fight. Age play a role?
Dirrell - Close fight. Counts as a win though.

---

I think Froch deserves credit for the Taylor win, because Taylor looked sharp and Froch fought better version of Taylor than Abraham and ETC fought. Also remember Taylor fought Pavlik in there rematch at near enough 168, and Taylor performed better in the rematch than he did at Middleweight losing a narrow decision. Also remember how high everyone ranked Pavlik at that time.

As for the Kessler fight Froch is older than Kessler remember, also i think why Froch lost the 1st fight was because he was too passive. In the rematch he started off very quickly and was alot more aggressive, which is why i think he won rather than it to do with Kessler's age.

---

Kessler wan a world title 4 years before Froch fought for one. Kessler is tired at the weight. He first became a world champ at super middle 9 years ago. Kessler was a unified champ before his first loss to Calzaghe. It has taken Froch 2 losses to become a unified champ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Just to play devil's advocate:

Taylor - Pavlik already stopped him. 160 was his best weight class.
Abraham - Dirrell already beat him. 160 was his best weight class.
Pascal - Great Win. 175 is his best weight class though.
Bute - Froch's best win.
Kessler - Good win. Splits series with Kessler. 31 year old Kessler beat Froch in a close fight. 34 year old Kessler lost to Froch in close fight. Age play a role?
Dirrell - Close fight. Counts as a win though.

---

I think Froch deserves credit for the Taylor win, because Taylor looked sharp and Froch fought better version of Taylor than Abraham and ETC fought. Also remember Taylor fought Pavlik in there rematch at near enough 168, and Taylor performed better in the rematch than he did at Middleweight losing a narrow decision. Also remember how high everyone ranked Pavlik at that time.

As for the Kessler fight Froch is older than Kessler remember, also i think why Froch lost the 1st fight was because he was too passive. In the rematch he started off very quickly and was alot more aggressive, which is why i think he won rather than it to do with Kessler's age.

---

Kessler wan a world title 4 years before Froch fought for one. Kessler is tired at the weight. He first became a world champ at super middle 9 years ago. Kessler was a unified champ before his first loss to Calzaghe. It has taken Froch 2 losses to become a unified champ.

---

Kessler hasn't really had a hard career though, he's a fresh 34 year old Froch has been in more wars than Kessler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

He's beaten better names at Super Middleweight than Calzaghe ever did.

Jermain Taylor
Andre Dirrell
Arthur Abraham
Jean Pascal
Lucian Bute
Mikkel Kessler
Glen Johnson

Apart from Mikkel Kessler obviously who on Calzaghe's list at Super Middleweight really compares with them names ?

Chris Eubank maybe but Eubank was weight drained and not in his prime, still a good win for Calzaghe. But other names like Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, don't really compare IMO.

And Reid and Woodhall were both coming off bad losses, Reid lost his title to a 42 year old Thulani Malinga in one of the worst world title fights i've ever seen.

And Woodhall had just lost to Markus Beyer, being decked 3 times by a fighter not known to be a hard hitter.

Calzaghe maybe the better skilled fighter, but Froch is more willing to fight the top boys and has beaten more dangerous fighters at Super Middleweight IMO.

---

Wow. Just wow. Can I ask hold old you are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silkeyjoe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

He's beaten better names at Super Middleweight than Calzaghe ever did.

Jermain Taylor
Andre Dirrell
Arthur Abraham
Jean Pascal
Lucian Bute
Mikkel Kessler
Glen Johnson

Apart from Mikkel Kessler obviously who on Calzaghe's list at Super Middleweight really compares with them names ?

Chris Eubank maybe but Eubank was weight drained and not in his prime, still a good win for Calzaghe. But other names like Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, don't really compare IMO.

And Reid and Woodhall were both coming off bad losses, Reid lost his title to a 42 year old Thulani Malinga in one of the worst world title fights i've ever seen.

And Woodhall had just lost to Markus Beyer, being decked 3 times by a fighter not known to be a hard hitter.

Calzaghe maybe the better skilled fighter, but Froch is more willing to fight the top boys and has beaten more dangerous fighters at Super Middleweight IMO.

---

Wow. Just wow. Can I ask hold old you are?

---

Does it matter how old i am ? i've seen pretty much every important Joe Calzaghe fight. Aswell as every important Carl Froch fight, so i think i can voice an opinion on both fighters.

Im not really sure why your so gob smacked by my comment ? what in my comment has shocked you ? i think pretty much mostly everyone on this thread agrees that Froch has beaten more household names at SMW, but in a head to head sense Calzaghe would beat Froch.

Im not really sure what else i can say.

The long and short of it for me is that Froch has had a better peak career and that a fight between the two would be very competative. Both fighters have attributes that the other has been challenged by in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silkeyjoe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

He's beaten better names at Super Middleweight than Calzaghe ever did.

Jermain Taylor
Andre Dirrell
Arthur Abraham
Jean Pascal
Lucian Bute
Mikkel Kessler
Glen Johnson

Apart from Mikkel Kessler obviously who on Calzaghe's list at Super Middleweight really compares with them names ?

Chris Eubank maybe but Eubank was weight drained and not in his prime, still a good win for Calzaghe. But other names like Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, don't really compare IMO.

And Reid and Woodhall were both coming off bad losses, Reid lost his title to a 42 year old Thulani Malinga in one of the worst world title fights i've ever seen.

And Woodhall had just lost to Markus Beyer, being decked 3 times by a fighter not known to be a hard hitter.

Calzaghe maybe the better skilled fighter, but Froch is more willing to fight the top boys and has beaten more dangerous fighters at Super Middleweight IMO.

---

Wow. Just wow. Can I ask hold old you are?

---

Does it matter how old i am ? i've seen pretty much every important Joe Calzaghe fight. Aswell as every important Carl Froch fight, so i think i can voice an opinion on both fighters.

Im not really sure why your so gob smacked by my comment ? what in my comment has shocked you ? i think pretty much mostly everyone on this thread agrees that Froch has beaten more household names at SMW, but in a head to head sense Calzaghe would beat Froch.

Im not really sure what else i can say.

---

Yeah I'm really not sure what about ICB's opinion shocks you so much. Most people would agree Froch has the better resume but Calzaghe is the better fighter.

It isn't really Joe's fault that these names weren't about. Calzaghe beat everyone he could possibly beat at Super Middle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oakleyno1

In two respects:
Peak vs Peak & Secondly Career wise

Career wise I think there is no competition - froch has now beaten what was Joe's best ever win - on the same terms (i.e. at home) and by similar margins

No doubt in my mind froch would beat Hopkins and every other person on joe's resume

However Peak vs Peak will still be debated - and perhaps this is because Froch has just hit his peak a couple of years ago

I would actually say Froch vs JC at peak would now be a pick em fight - and if froch can beat ward I would give it to carl all the way -

compared to watching the taylor fight all those years ago he has come on so much if you watch -
full respect to carl!

---

I wouldn't say better, Joe in his prime would comfortably beat Carl in his Prime! However when you look at their resumes and career paths, Cobra has superiority in the way he has gone about his business!

I think Froch's career is every bit as good as Calzaghe's. Froch has proven that he will fight anyone, anywhere and he has consistently turned up fit, prepared and motivated. he has shown courage and grit second to none - he is a real brute of a fighter.

Calzaghe, of course, has that undefeated record and it's always really hard to win an argument saying that anybody would certainly have won against an undefeated fighter.

HOWEVER - rather than try and make a logical argument based on who they fought, when, who fought the best people and all that (which is really quite subjective) .... I think Carl trades on brute force, he is so so strong but his technique is pretty ungainly. Ive noticed that he likes to box at the middle distance, and ward beat him by fighting either at long range or right close up. carl doesn't infight at all, if you notice.

I rate carl very highly indeed, but Calzaghe (in my opinion only) was just that little bit more multidimensional. If they has fought each other at their peaks we would all know exactly what to expect from Froch (and the only question would be whether Calzaghe could cope with it, did he have enough power to get carl's respect, could he outbox him, would he be too fast, would he break his hands on Froch's iron chin?) ....... but Joe was a master at creating and setting the tempo and style of his fights (he even changed it half way through against Kessler). I just think that - technically - Joe would bring too much variety and outpoint Froch by quite a wide margin.

I also don't mean to demean Froch in any way, because he is a magnificent fighter - his wars with Kessler (and the build up) are everything that is good about boxing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

He's beaten better names at Super Middleweight than Calzaghe ever did.

Jermain Taylor
Andre Dirrell
Arthur Abraham
Jean Pascal
Lucian Bute
Mikkel Kessler
Glen Johnson

Apart from Mikkel Kessler obviously who on Calzaghe's list at Super Middleweight really compares with them names ?

Chris Eubank maybe but Eubank was weight drained and not in his prime, still a good win for Calzaghe. But other names like Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, don't really compare IMO.

And Reid and Woodhall were both coming off bad losses, Reid lost his title to a 42 year old Thulani Malinga in one of the worst world title fights i've ever seen.

And Woodhall had just lost to Markus Beyer, being decked 3 times by a fighter not known to be a hard hitter.

Calzaghe maybe the better skilled fighter, but Froch is more willing to fight the top boys and has beaten more dangerous fighters at Super Middleweight IMO.

---

;D My God that list is sickening!

I agree with all of this but still firmly believe that Calzaghe beats Froch 4 times outta 5. Just too many holes in Froch's arsenal and too slow of hand and foot and not sharp enough to prevent Calzaghe from successfully outworking/ outsmarting him.

Calzaghe could beat anyone Froch already has. With the exception of maybe Dirrell.

Its pretty obvious that froch has had a much harder road than JC.

But then again how much of this is frank warrens fault?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silkeyjoe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

He's beaten better names at Super Middleweight than Calzaghe ever did.

Jermain Taylor
Andre Dirrell
Arthur Abraham
Jean Pascal
Lucian Bute
Mikkel Kessler
Glen Johnson

Apart from Mikkel Kessler obviously who on Calzaghe's list at Super Middleweight really compares with them names ?

Chris Eubank maybe but Eubank was weight drained and not in his prime, still a good win for Calzaghe. But other names like Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, don't really compare IMO.

And Reid and Woodhall were both coming off bad losses, Reid lost his title to a 42 year old Thulani Malinga in one of the worst world title fights i've ever seen.

And Woodhall had just lost to Markus Beyer, being decked 3 times by a fighter not known to be a hard hitter.

Calzaghe maybe the better skilled fighter, but Froch is more willing to fight the top boys and has beaten more dangerous fighters at Super Middleweight IMO.

---

Wow. Just wow. Can I ask hold old you are?

---

Does it matter how old i am ? i've seen pretty much every important Joe Calzaghe fight. Aswell as every important Carl Froch fight, so i think i can voice an opinion on both fighters.

Im not really sure why your so gob smacked by my comment ? what in my comment has shocked you ? i think pretty much mostly everyone on this thread agrees that Froch has beaten more household names at SMW, but in a head to head sense Calzaghe would beat Froch.

Im not really sure what else i can say.

---

Just strange that you would rate a shot Taylor, a shot Johnson, an average Abraham and an average Bute above Hopkins, RJJ, Lacy. I think the above at the time Joe fought them beats anyone Carl fought at the time he fought them. I know Jones was a bit shot when he fought Joe but I still think that Roy beats them. Sure Hopkins today would still beat them all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silkeyjoe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silkeyjoe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

He's beaten better names at Super Middleweight than Calzaghe ever did.

Jermain Taylor
Andre Dirrell
Arthur Abraham
Jean Pascal
Lucian Bute
Mikkel Kessler
Glen Johnson

Apart from Mikkel Kessler obviously who on Calzaghe's list at Super Middleweight really compares with them names ?

Chris Eubank maybe but Eubank was weight drained and not in his prime, still a good win for Calzaghe. But other names like Woodhall, Reid, Lacy, don't really compare IMO.

And Reid and Woodhall were both coming off bad losses, Reid lost his title to a 42 year old Thulani Malinga in one of the worst world title fights i've ever seen.

And Woodhall had just lost to Markus Beyer, being decked 3 times by a fighter not known to be a hard hitter.

Calzaghe maybe the better skilled fighter, but Froch is more willing to fight the top boys and has beaten more dangerous fighters at Super Middleweight IMO.

---

Wow. Just wow. Can I ask hold old you are?

---

Does it matter how old i am ? i've seen pretty much every important Joe Calzaghe fight. Aswell as every important Carl Froch fight, so i think i can voice an opinion on both fighters.

Im not really sure why your so gob smacked by my comment ? what in my comment has shocked you ? i think pretty much mostly everyone on this thread agrees that Froch has beaten more household names at SMW, but in a head to head sense Calzaghe would beat Froch.

Im not really sure what else i can say.

---

Just strange that you would rate a shot Taylor, a shot Johnson, an average Abraham and an average Bute above Hopkins, RJJ, Lacy. I think the above at the time Joe fought them beats anyone Carl fought at the time he fought them. I know Jones was a bit shot when he fought Joe but I still think that Roy beats them. Sure Hopkins today would still beat them all

---

RJJ was completely shot, i find it strange your trying to give JC any credit for RJJ win. Calzaghe himself said in his own words a few years before he fought RJJ, "Beating RJJ would mean nothing now" so why a few years later should it mean something ? look at RJJ's record after the Calzaghe fight, this isn't the 90's RJJ were talking about here.

Jeff Lacy overhyped and was only ever mediocre, he struggled against Peter Manfredo for crying out loud. Amongst all his other one sided losses, including losing to in your own words "A shot Jermain Taylor" by 12 rounds to 0.

I don't think Jermain Taylor was shot either, maybe not at his 100 percent best but not shot. He lost a razor thin decision to Pavlik and destroyed Jeff Lacy who you seem to rate.

The only real win i'd give him credit for is the B-Hop one, although i felt B-Hop edged it by 1 round. But that's debatable but i'd agree on the B-HOP win but nothing else.