 |
|
Thanks: 0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Forum Greatest Of All Time
Array
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
So I assume that Froch-Kessler II is the first Froch fight you've ever seen then?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
Forum Greatest Of All Time
Array
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.So I assume that Froch-Kessler II is the first Froch fight you've ever seen then?
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
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.
Flat Calm and Peace Lovin
Array
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.So I assume that Froch-Kessler II is the first Froch fight you've ever seen then?
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
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.
Super Moderator
Array
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Joe was the better fighter and was undisputed champ. Carl is not.
Do not let success go to your head and do not let failure get to your heart.
Forum Champ
Array
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.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
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.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
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.
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.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
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 ?
Up-and-Coming
Array
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.
Up-and-Coming
Array
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.
Forum Greatest Of All Time
Array
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.
Cunt of a Mod. Fact.
Array
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
Lets not get silly now.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.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
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.
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?
3-Time SADDO PREDICTION COMP CHAMPION.
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.Lets not get silly now.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.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
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.
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?
Forum Greatest Of All Time
Array
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.
Forum Greatest Of All Time
Array
Re: Can froch now legitimately claim to be remembered as better than Calzaghe
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.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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks