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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

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

---

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

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

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

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

Carl Froch does not beat Joe Calzaghe.

Personalities:

Arrogant or confident boxer Welshman?

vs

Arrogant or confident puncher Throwback?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TitoFan

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

Who did he duck and dodge?

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

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

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

that's what we like in fighters.

I think its unfair to compare the two.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

I think its unfair to compare the two.

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

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

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

---

Good post ross. Sums up the situation perfectly.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

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

---

Exactly, you'll notice I never said Froch would beat Calzaghe. I think Calzaghe would use those b.s flurries that don't land to trick judges into a points win - Carl would never stop working though and not tire like Hopkins did. (which I still thought Hopkins won - boxing isn't scored on punches missed/pitty pats with the inside glove)

Ross, the Eubank fight is a joke example. He was finished and had 2 weeks notice. Even if he fought Collins. Collins was at the tail end. That example just adds to my point imo.

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.

Froch will NEVER be ranked above Calzaghe because he's never established himself as the No.1 in the division.

You can rubbish Calzaghe's opposition all you like but the simple fact is - Lacy was the no.1 ranked supermiddle, unbeaten and IBF champion when Calzaghe beat him and Kessler was the no.1 ranked supermiddle, unbeaten and WBC/WBA champion when Calzaghe beat him.

Having tough fights and winning tough fights are two completely different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

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

---

I'm pretty sure Kessler would disagree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

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

---

I'm pretty sure Kessler would disagree with you.

---

Oh really? Kess would disagree with me that Froch fought better opposition in 20-25 fights than Calzaghe had in his entire career? Well then he'd be as deluded as most other Brit Calzaghe fans.

Once again people think I'm saying Froch would beat JC if they fought. Never said that. (But of course we'll never know because JC retired with his tail between his legs when Froch called him out)

Fenster, I couldn't give a shit that Calzaghe cleared out his weak as shit SMW division. Jeff Lacy?? L...O...L...

When ranking fighters, the algorithm isn't just "oh well he stayed in his division until the last 2 fights of his career so he's awesome" - No, you look at the whole picture and the FACT is JC NEVER wanted to challenge himself. Never ever ever. For example, a challenge for him was moving up to light heavy to face an old ass Bhop in Vegas (A neutral place tbh) and eeking out a controversial split decision.

As Roy Jones said, "When I was the man in the division, he didn't want to come face me. If I'm the man in this division and he thinks he is the man, then he has to come to me..but now he's the man, I have to play by his rules" or something long those lines.

JC throughout his whole career just told himself and the public he was the best, just sitting there with his WBO belt and his ego without wanting to challenge himself.

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

He was an absolute waste of talent..and that's a shame. I guess he made a bit of money though so as long as he's happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NUCLEAR BULL

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

---

Froch got offered the fight with Calzaghe and bottled it.

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.

I'm fairly sure all anyone has done is rate Frochs opposition higher than Calzaghes, no? Your first sentence all but defeats itself. Fact:rolleyes:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

I'm fairly sure all anyone has done is rate Frochs opposition higher than Calzaghes, no? Your first sentence all but defeats itself. Fact:rolleyes:.

---

I was responding to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

My main point is - when being ranked Carl Froch should be ranked higher than Joe Calzaghe. I don't see an argument to have it any other way.

---

1. I've already showed why that doesn't work.

2. How can Froch's opposition be that much superior when Calzaghe BEAT a man Froch LOST against?

It's a silly argument. You might as well say Glenn Johnson is the greatest of all time because, although he lost a million times, he fought everyone.

Froch has arguably had the toughest run of fights in supermiddle history. Tougher than not just Calzaghe's but - Jones, Toney, Benn, Eubank, Collins, Kessler, Ward, etc

It doesn't mean he rates ABOVE them. Fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

I'm fairly sure all anyone has done is rate Frochs opposition higher than Calzaghes, no? Your first sentence all but defeats itself. Fact:rolleyes:.

---

I was responding to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Althugz

My main point is - when being ranked Carl Froch should be ranked higher than Joe Calzaghe. I don't see an argument to have it any other way.

---

1. I've already showed why that doesn't work.

2. How can Froch's opposition be that much superior when Calzaghe BEAT a man Froch LOST against?

It's a silly argument. You might as well say Glenn Johnson is the greatest of all time because, although he lost a million times, he fought everyone.

Froch has arguably had the toughest run of fights in supermiddle history. Tougher than not just Calzaghe's but - Jones, Toney, Benn, Eubank, Collins, Kessler, Ward, etc

It doesn't mean he rates ABOVE them. Fact.

---

Fair enough, it's kind of hard to read both of your posts in full once you get going about Calzaghe. I actually thought Froch deserved the nod against Kessler, and by any measure should rank well ahead of Eubank, Benn and Collins by this point.
Really though, who gives a damn where anyone "ranks" once they have retired. I would imagine it's safe to say Froch will now be remembered more fondly and has garnered a bigger fanbase than Calzaghe ever had, that's all I really took the thread to mean.

I dont even think Froch is as liked as Calzaghe was.

Calzaghe fought Kessler in a stadium that could hold 55,000 people. Froch fought Bute in a stadium that could only hold 9,000. Calzaghes fight was a sellout. None of the major tv networks in america wanted the Froch fight.

I like Froch, he has won me around by his hard working attitude. If an arrogant pompous attitude is what turns you which is why you may not like Calzaghe, then you should remember to before Calzaghe retired when Froch was calling him out non stop. Froch hadnt even fought a former world title challenger at that point and was not at all known. Robin Reid whp was retired for a few years after getting beaten by Lacy was Frochs first former world title challenger opponent. Froch is just as guilty for the cockyness. At least Calzaghe was head and shoulders above everyone else, he had a right to hold himself in high esteem. Like we have all mentioned, Calzaghe dominated Kessler and there was no argument who wan. This was 3 years before Froch lost to him and while he was still unbeaten. Kessler was seen as more of a threat than Bute was this weekend. There were question marks over Butes resiliance from the Andrade fight.

That could be, I really don't know how to guage how popular a fighter is these days. Calzaghe was certainly never an entity outside of the UK either, which was largely his fault imo. As far as cockiness or anything like that, I couldn't really care less. I've only seen a couple of interviews with Froch or Calzaghe for that matter, and they both came across as perfectly decent if not even humble.

Lacy was also seen as more of a threat to Calzaghe than Kessler was, even though he'd shown all kinds of vulnerability against lesser fighters as well. Doesn't always tell the story.

Joe would beat Froch but Carl has taken on better fighters over a shorter period mainly because of his age. Had he been younger Froch would have taken it a little slower.

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.

...Handbags at dawn fellas :D

@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.

Froch is more likeable than Calzaghe, certainly for a neutral.

His guns blazing style, his humility outside the ring, the fact he appears willing to fight anyone seemingly better than him.

Who was better we will never know. Not yet anyway. Froch still has a couple fights in him, including an almost definite Kessler rematch. That could change many people's perception, would lose the whole Joe beat Kessler, Kessler beat Froch argument.

I like both fighters, I don't even want to have to split them on who I prefer. I think Calzaghe would have beat Froch if they fought, but that doesn't mean I think he is the better fighter. It's a bit of a rock, paper, scissors problem. Styles beat other styles. A bit like Ward would probably do another job on Froch if they fought again.

I think Froch should stick to fighting in Nottingham. He's done his share of travelling and some. He's proved himself to be fearless even in the lions den. He is clearly better when fighting at home.



Out of interest, Calzaghe vs Ward? Who would you pick?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 0james0

Froch is more likeable than Calzaghe, certainly for a neutral.

His guns blazing style, his humility outside the ring, the fact he appears willing to fight anyone seemingly better than him.

Who was better we will never know. Not yet anyway. Froch still has a couple fights in him, including an almost definite Kessler rematch. That could change many people's perception, would lose the whole Joe beat Kessler, Kessler beat Froch argument.

I like both fighters, I don't even want to have to split them on who I prefer. I think Calzaghe would have beat Froch if they fought, but that doesn't mean I think he is the better fighter. It's a bit of a rock, paper, scissors problem. Styles beat other styles. A bit like Ward would probably do another job on Froch if they fought again.

I think Froch should stick to fighting in Nottingham. He's done his share of travelling and some. He's proved himself to be fearless even in the lions den. He is clearly better when fighting at home.



Out of interest, Calzaghe vs Ward? Who would you pick?

---

Couldn't have put it better myself, James.
And in answer to your question - I think Ward spoils Calzaghes rhythm on route to a 116-112 type victory. Ugly, ugly fight.

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?

Would Froch be number one if Ward wasn't around?

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.

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.

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.

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