Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
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?
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
0james0
Would Froch be number one if Ward wasn't around?
No Kessler would.
In fact, if Ward wasn't around Kessler would have a very high P4P ranking.
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
0james0
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
0james0
Would Froch be number one if Ward wasn't around?
No Kessler would.
In fact, if Ward wasn't around Kessler would have a very high P4P ranking.
Probably, but not by much. I have them pretty much neck and neck.
Calzaghe was brilliant though, let's not forget that. I'm not saying Froch is better, but I can't rubbish either of them. Froch is still fighting though. Opinions change.
I agree 100% James.
Froch has carved himself a place into supermiddle history by fighting top ranked fighters back-to-back. It's virtually unheard of in any division in any era.
Calzaghe established himself as the king of the supermiddles during his era.
Only very childish fools could rubbish the success of these boxers. Fact.
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
0james0
Out of interest, Calzaghe vs Ward? Who would you pick?
Ward got bullied late by Bika and had to hold on and on and on;D
I think Ward gets beaten by Pascals fast combinations. Ward is taking on Pascals left overs;D
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
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
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
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.;)
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
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?
Re: Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe
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..?
