Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamGB
Please. I thought is plainly obvious what I meant by that. Best not to give people advice such as not to be simplifying shit. If I said no way does Cal beat Roy Jones in the context of this thread would you post a youtube vid of Cal beating Roy?
I'm responding to the person I quoted and styles do make fights and I could give two shits if people over use the dam term.
Sorry, you're right... The Reid that essentially beat Calzaghe was a different beast.
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamGB
Don't know about Calzaghe wiping the floor with Froch either. If you struggle with the strength and gameness of Bika and only beat an old Hopkins by virtue of Hopkins atrocious punch output then the relentless and insanely strong fighter who threw 1000 full bodied REAL punches (not pitter patter slaps) last night might give you a problem or two? ???
Hold the fuck on right there!;D
Ward was almost out on his feet in the last 2 rounds against Bika, its the worst he has looked as champion, he looked terrible and had to hold on for dear life!
But yet he pissed all over Froch!
Calzaghe fought with Bika and Bika has said Calzaghe was the best hes been in with;)
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Your point being? ???
Bika shows that a strong fighter could trouble Calzaghe and negate some of advantages...
I don't see what that has to do with how Bika and Ward's styles match up?
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamGB
Your point being? ???
Bika shows that a strong fighter could trouble Calzaghe and negate some of advantages...
I don't see what that has to do with how Bika and Ward's styles match up?
My point is Ward struggled massively more with Bika to the point where the ref could have stepped in and stopped it. Iv seen worse stoppages.
But you are making out Joe struggled with him. Joe beat a fresher younger Bika. Ward struggled and looked like a ragdoll in the last 2 rounds BUT ward handled Froch easily.
If we took the respective Bika performances by Ward and Calzaghe as the only evidence of how a Froch fight might go for Calzaghe, then Calzaghe would just have too much of everything for Froch.;)
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Calzaghe was a better fighter than Froch and just as tough. Joe was one of a kind.
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
This debate goes over old ground, and it 's interesting on peoples view, boxing is very objective
as individuals you see what you like.!
I like both fighters Joe and Carl, both totally different fighters but I like Joe it's my opinion,
remember we have had some great fighters, at SM and we have more on the way up.!
In this country the Super Middle Weight division, seems to be one we do well in,!
Calzaghe
Benn
Eubank
Froch
Reid
Woodall
Catley
That's 7 World Champions at this weight, not bad for a start is it,! and I feel a few more
waiting to be Champs.:)
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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;)
Re: 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.
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.
