-
Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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!
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Full credit to Froch for beating Kessler, I thought Kessler would stop him this time but he was absolutely knackered in the last few rounds. Its credit to Kesslers toughness that he got through and even had Carls legs going in the 12th. I reckon hes very tight at the weight now, fighting over super middle last year.
Anyway, no Froch wont ever be regarded as better than Calzaghe because first time of asking Froch couldnt beat Kessler who was coming off his worst loss. Calzaghe beat Kessler when Joe was 35 and Kessler was 28, undefeated and a unified world champ.
Froch has improved but only in that he has improved his punch output. He still gets caught.
I do think he would now have a better chance against Ward but it depends on how much this fight has taken out of him because Froch himself was exhausted. I said before this fight was made, it made more sense to get Ward first and try the higher output against him while Froch is still relatively fresh. Win or lose he still has the big money rematch with Kessler but now Ward gets a more tired version. Froch should nail Ward down to a rematch in England for November. Froch gets a good 6 months rest and Ward has been out for over a year.
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Who's better is a matter for Calzaghe and Froch fans to argue.
I will say this, however.
This is how much I enjoy Froch fights versus how much I enjoyed Calzaghe fights:
Froch...... Calzaghe
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
No.
Froch would lose to Calzaghe every time.
Calzaghe was too fast. Took Froch 2 try's to beat Kessler.
CALZAGHE beat Kessler in Kesslers prime.
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
If Froch rematches and beats Ward, he'll surpass Calzaghe.
But with what he's done so far, he will NOT be remembered as a greater fighter than Joe.
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
If Froch is worse than Calzaghe then you're right... Froch wouldn't be guaranteed a win, seeing as how Robin Reid beat the great Calzaghe in most's opinion.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, until meeting the massively hyped Lacy - Calzaghe was the equivelant of Sven Otke ('undefeated'... So what?).
You can argue that Lacy was ruined bu Calzaghe, but he showed NOTHING at all afterward and in hindsight, little before against elite fighters.
Calzaghe then looked a lot plainer versus the limited, if game Bika and it took a ridiculous ammount of time for him to actually get in with Kessler (the only post lacy win that I give him full credit for). The less said about slapping manfredo about the better...
The Hopkins fight was dreadful, Calzaghe had youth and workrate against the old man, he didn't win on technical skill and several people think that B.Hop was robbed.
Calzaghe said that jones was shot and then several YEARS later had the cheek to fight him and bill it as a megafight, ended up on his arse the same as he did with Hopkins.
Eubank was a good arrival at world level, but he was old and weight drained.
I like Calzaghe, but the overhyped lacy's destruction was a springboard for the typical hyping and careful stearing that we've seen from Frank Warren and far too many of you got over excited by it (ala Ricky Hatton).
His career (if not ability) is on par with Froch's, if not exceeded by it.
It's stupid to compare Froch and Calzaghe from just one mutual opponent... Styles make fights is a cliche that I have to use far too fucking much around here. Stop simplifying shit.
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Its not a given that Carl beats Reid
:-\
Carl Froch Vs Robin Reid (PART 2/2) - YouTube
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.
And that pretty much sums up the entire debate.
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
In the end, who has the undefeated record. It's hard to argue against a guy who beat everyone he ever faced.
-
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.
The term is "I couldn't give two shits"
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Regardless of what's said about, Calzaghe undefeated undisputed Super Middle Weight Champion of the
world , also Light Heavy Weight Champion of the world, has a nice ring to it .
Carl Froch HAST LOST TWICE, were for all the BS , remember the only people THAT COUNT, scoring
a fight are the Judges.
If Froch had meet Calzaghe, Joe would have given him a important lesson a boxing lesson it's
called chap's, you all seem to get carried away with Froch he and has been OUT-BOXED, as
luck goes Talyor out boxed him all night dropped Froch, until he got lucky.
Froch is A GOOD fighter, but I would only rate him 4th in all time great Super Middle Weights
we have produced.;)
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
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.
The term is "I couldn't give two shits"
Not here lol "I could give two shits" infers you do not.
Thanks though
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Regardless of what's said about, Calzaghe undefeated undisputed Super Middle Weight Champion of the
world , also Light Heavy Weight Champion of the world, has a nice ring to it .
Carl Froch HAST LOST TWICE, were for all the BS , remember the only people THAT COUNT, scoring
a fight are the Judges.
If Froch had meet Calzaghe, Joe would have given him a important lesson a boxing lesson it's
called chap's, you all seem to get carried away with Froch he and has been OUT-BOXED, as
luck goes Talyor out boxed him all night dropped Froch, until he got lucky.
Froch is A GOOD fighter, but I would only rate him 4th in all time great Super Middle Weights
we have produced.;)
Frochs got more household names.
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
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.
The term is "I couldn't give two shits"
Not here lol "I could give two shits" infers you do not.
Thanks though
Ok...
The other one that gets misinterpreted is "I couldn't care less" I always see it written as "I could care less"
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dia bando
Regardless of what's said about, Calzaghe undefeated undisputed Super Middle Weight Champion of the
world , also Light Heavy Weight Champion of the world, has a nice ring to it .
Carl Froch HAST LOST TWICE, were for all the BS , remember the only people THAT COUNT, scoring
a fight are the Judges.
If Froch had meet Calzaghe, Joe would have given him a important lesson a boxing lesson it's
called chap's, you all seem to get carried away with Froch he and has been OUT-BOXED, as
luck goes Talyor out boxed him all night dropped Froch, until he got lucky.
Froch is A GOOD fighter, but I would only rate him 4th in all time great Super Middle Weights
we have produced.;)
Just because Froch has a better record doesn't mean he's a better fighter. We are basically comparing fighters from different eras.
But the fact is - Mitchell, Brewer, Woodhall - some of Calzaghe's best wins - are not as good as Pascal, Taylor, Abraham, Bute, Johnson etc, especially when you consider Froch's victims are still winning titles, fighting in world-class, whereas Calzaghe's victims were coming off a defeat and never did a thing again.
Hopkins has a better record than Roy Jones but prime for prime he never beats him.
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
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.
The term is "I couldn't give two shits"
Not here lol "I could give two shits" infers you do not.
Thanks though
Ok...
The other one that gets misinterpreted is "I couldn't care less" I always see it written as "I could care less"
Interesting. Both are common expressions especially orally and I suppose Canadian slang. When written, it’s a matter of what came before it and in response to what. Just two different ways of saying the same thing.
-
Joe is a great fighter...but, he never took as many risks as froch and unfortunately he fought guys(not all) that were past their primes and never gave rematches in close decisions.
Froch never lies about injuries toget out of fightsand never ducked anyone inc glen johnson.
I still think 46-0 is an amazing achievement but its a shame when anyone brings it up theres a bit of an empty feeling in that undefeated record
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
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.
The term is "I couldn't give two shits"
Not here lol "I could give two shits" infers you do not.
Thanks though
Ok...
The other one that gets misinterpreted is "I couldn't care less" I always see it written as "I could care less"
Interesting. Both are common expressions especially orally and I suppose Canadian slang. When written, it’s a matter of what came before it and in response to what. Just two different ways of saying the same thing.
If you could care less that means you must care a little. If you couldnt care any less that means you just care so little about it you couldnt care any less at all.
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
I rewatched the Calzaghe Kessler fight leading up to last nights. It really was a masterful performance from Calzaghe, the small adjustments he made to basically have Kessler at a standstill for the second half of the fight were brilliant and showed just how clever a fighter he was. Sure he had off nights, thats a given over a 40 odd fight career, but when he was in the most apparent danger Joe boxed circles around the two guys that were supposed to beat him.
Froch better than Calzaghe? Not a chance.
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
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.
The term is "I couldn't give two shits"
Not here lol "I could give two shits" infers you do not.
Thanks though
Ok...
The other one that gets misinterpreted is "I couldn't care less" I always see it written as "I could care less"
Interesting. Both are common expressions especially orally and I suppose Canadian slang. When written, it’s a matter of what came before it and in response to what. Just two different ways of saying the same thing.
If you could care less that means you must care a little. If you couldnt care any less that means you just care so little about it you couldnt care any less at all.
Lol
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Kessler that Calzaghe beat > Kessler that Froch beat
I don't think Froch is greater than Calzaghe.
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Memphis
I rewatched the Calzaghe Kessler fight leading up to last nights. It really was a masterful performance from Calzaghe, the small adjustments he made to basically have Kessler at a standstill for the second half of the fight were brilliant and showed just how clever a fighter he was. Sure he had off nights, thats a given over a 40 odd fight career, but when he was in the most apparent danger Joe boxed circles around the two guys that were supposed to beat him.
Froch better than Calzaghe? Not a chance.
It's about skill boxing, yes Froch can brawl he can box a bit to be honest I laugh when, people
compare Froch to Calzaghe, Joe is like a fine wine hard for philistines to appreciate, were
Carl is like cheap cider rough as a bears ass.;D
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
-
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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? ???
-
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;)
