The best

[Violent Demise]

Let me get this right - Froch has ecplised Cazlaghe even though he lost to a man Calzaghe comfortably beat?

Calzaghe schools Kessler. Froch loses to Kessler. That makes Froch better? Hmmm....

If FRoch-Calzaghe ever happened there's only one winner. Froch is a tortoise for Calzaghe. Borderline mismatch.

Of course. Everybody knows Fighter A would never beat Fighter B. Cuz Fighter A lost to Fighter C. And Fighter B beat Fighter C.

The triangle theory. A true sign of desperation

[Rantcatrat]

Calzaghe would dominate Carl Froch. There is no doubt in my mind at all. Carl Froch is a warrior but stylistically, Joe Calzaghe was all wrong for him.

[Rantcatrat]

Froch has eclipsed Calzaghe now. If he had picked his fights he'd be unbeaten too.


I really do want the Big Man from Nottingham to take Ward, but its asking a lot at 34.

A lot of people think Carl would have got knocked out by JC but I cant see that happening, and most likely the Calzo would get a points victory by going all slappy as is his habit.

Well he has lost only once and that was to somebody Calzaghe also fought and beat, so your logic is pretty stupid.

I don't know about comfortable... my memory was that until later in the fight when Joe adapted, Kessler was able to give Joe quite a bit of trouble.

Carl fought a more experienced Kessler in his own backyard and gave him a VERY close fight.

It was also Kessler going for bust... if he'd lost to Froch after his previous fights then his career would have been well and truly over... I can't see him able to get more motivated than that.

You also have to consider the fact that Kessler had been able to watch the iteration of Carl that he was fighting in the ring with multiple other elite SMWs making his flaws look a lot more obvious and exploitable. Can the same really be said of Joe Calzaghe? Would Hopkins or Kessler really be able to learn much about the version of Joe they were fighting by watching him happy slap Peter Manfredo's arms for a few minutes?

I think Joe probably UDs Carl... but I really don't think there can be much denying that Froch's recent run beats any of Joe's in terms of consistent class in opponents and performances.

I don't have a problem with saying that Carl Froch's recent run is very impressive. I feel like we need to wait to judge Carl Froch against Joe Calzaghe until Carl Froch retires. This is a bit premature. As of now, Carl's best win in my book was still over Jean Pascal. He dominated Arthur Abraham better than Ward did and before Ward did and coming into the fight as a slight underdog. Yet, Abraham was never a true super middleweight because his power didn't translate. He also beat Dirrell, but that win said more about what Dirrell lacks than what Carl has. Glen Johnson is a warrior and he gets credit for beating him, but Glen Johnson has proven to lose at the top. Still, Carl lost to Kessler, and Calzaghe beat Kessler. This is the main loss that takes away from Froch in my opinion. Kessler is class, and Froch is Kessler's best victory, but Calzaghe dominated Kessler. Rewatch that fight, it wasn't late in the fight that Calzaghe took over, it was about round 4. I think Kessler took approximately 3 rounds, maybe 2 rounds of that fight. Calzaghe also beat BHop who went on to beat Pavlik and Pascal.

[Fenster]

Let me get this right - Froch has ecplised Cazlaghe even though he lost to a man Calzaghe comfortably beat?

Calzaghe schools Kessler. Froch loses to Kessler. That makes Froch better? Hmmm....

If FRoch-Calzaghe ever happened there's only one winner. Froch is a tortoise for Calzaghe. Borderline mismatch.

Of course. Everybody knows Fighter A would never beat Fighter B. Cuz Fighter A lost to Fighter C. And Fighter B beat Fighter C.

The triangle theory. A true sign of desperation

Nothing to do with that.

Calzaghe and Froch are basically fighters from different eras. Froch didn't turn pro until FIVE years after Calzaghe beat Chris Eubank.

How can Calzaghe be matched against Froch's current opposition when he's retired? Likewise how can Froch be matched against Calzaghe's opposition considering he wasn't around in that era? It's nothing but guesswork.

However, they have a common opponent. Mikkel Kessler. He is arguably the best supermiddleweight either have faced. Calzaghe beat him when he was unbeaten. Froch LOST to him after Calzaghe had beaten him.

That right there is a pretty telling formline.

Now consider this - Has Froch ever been regarded as THE man at supermiddle? No. Was Calzaghe THE man at supermiddle? Yes.

So how has Froch eclipsed him? Not only does Calzaghe have the stronger form, albeit from a limit crop, he is also down in history as the TRUE champion of his division during his era.

Froch ain't eclipsed shit.

[Mr140]

Ok i don't care for Calzaghe that much but the man is unbeaten, was champ for over a decade and was the man at 168 and when he beat Hopkins the man at 175. Not to mention he has 21 title defences anyhow his best wins are far better then Froches i mean come on Hopkins and Kessler are better then anything Froch has in his resume. Eubank was not prime but i dont think i call him shot almost won cw title off Thompson after there fight. Anyhow i think it far to early to say who while be above Calzaghe.

[Dia bando]

Carl Froch that low left hand way open to counter's, not very fast feet also he get's hit to much, and i do fear for him when he fight's Ward. And i no one thing Ward will hit him he may be to game for his own good. Ward will take him to school.

[Violent Demise]

Let me get this right - Froch has ecplised Cazlaghe even though he lost to a man Calzaghe comfortably beat?

Calzaghe schools Kessler. Froch loses to Kessler. That makes Froch better? Hmmm....

If FRoch-Calzaghe ever happened there's only one winner. Froch is a tortoise for Calzaghe. Borderline mismatch.

Of course. Everybody knows Fighter A would never beat Fighter B. Cuz Fighter A lost to Fighter C. And Fighter B beat Fighter C.

The triangle theory. A true sign of desperation

Nothing to do with that.

Calzaghe and Froch are basically fighters from different eras. Froch didn't turn pro until FIVE years after Calzaghe beat Chris Eubank.

How can Calzaghe be matched against Froch's current opposition when he's retired? Likewise how can Froch be matched against Calzaghe's opposition considering he wasn't around in that era? It's nothing but guesswork.

However, they have a common opponent. Mikkel Kessler. He is arguably the best supermiddleweight either have faced. Calzaghe beat him when he was unbeaten. Froch LOST to him after Calzaghe had beaten him.

That right there is a pretty telling formline.

Now consider this - Has Froch ever been regarded as THE man at supermiddle? No. Was Calzaghe THE man at supermiddle? Yes.

So how has Froch eclipsed him? Not only does Calzaghe have the stronger form, albeit from a limit crop, he is also down in history as the TRUE champion of his division during his era.

Froch ain't eclipsed shit.

I don't think he's eclipsed him either. But he's clearly shown a lot more desire to fight tough opposition than Calzaghe ever did

[Dia bando]

Again i have say Joe had VERY BAD HAND'S is that clear, so injury did stop him from fighting and boxing is about punching people with your HAND'S is it not.And i do not hate Carl Froch i wish him well but he is not on Joe's level, the best that is what this post is about i think Joe is.

[RohanKnight]

Again i have say Joe had VERY BAD HAND'S is that clear, so injury did stop him from fighting and boxing is about punching people with your HAND'S is it not.And i do not hate Carl Froch i wish him well but he is not on Joe's level, the best that is what this post is about i think Joe is.

tbh the truth is we will never know. Evidence says Calzaghe would probably win. Records say that Froch has an arguably better resume at world class level.

Whislt Froch struggles bad against the best volume punchers and his style leaves you pitying him facing someone like that, Bhop exposed JC's limitations to the world against a top level (but now old) intelligent fighter by winning their fight till he gassed out due to old age, suggesting there was a good reason Joe kept away from the smartest top fighters for years until they had lost their reflexes.

The two observations clearly irk the fans of both boxers.

[BIG H]

Let me get this right - Froch has ecplised Cazlaghe even though he lost to a man Calzaghe comfortably beat?

Calzaghe schools Kessler. Froch loses to Kessler. That makes Froch better? Hmmm....

If FRoch-Calzaghe ever happened there's only one winner. Froch is a tortoise for Calzaghe. Borderline mismatch.

Of course. Everybody knows Fighter A would never beat Fighter B. Cuz Fighter A lost to Fighter C. And Fighter B beat Fighter C.

The triangle theory. A true sign of desperation

Nothing to do with that.

Calzaghe and Froch are basically fighters from different eras. Froch didn't turn pro until FIVE years after Calzaghe beat Chris Eubank.

How can Calzaghe be matched against Froch's current opposition when he's retired? Likewise how can Froch be matched against Calzaghe's opposition considering he wasn't around in that era? It's nothing but guesswork.

However, they have a common opponent. Mikkel Kessler. He is arguably the best supermiddleweight either have faced. Calzaghe beat him when he was unbeaten. Froch LOST to him after Calzaghe had beaten him.

That right there is a pretty telling formline.

Now consider this - Has Froch ever been regarded as THE man at supermiddle? No. Was Calzaghe THE man at supermiddle? Yes.

So how has Froch eclipsed him? Not only does Calzaghe have the stronger form, albeit from a limit crop, he is also down in history as the TRUE champion of his division during his era.

Froch ain't eclipsed shit.

I don't think he's eclipsed him either. But he's clearly shown a lot more desire to fight tough opposition than Calzaghe ever did

Taking on Lacy (at the point where everybody thought Lacy was 'The Man') showed desire to fight tough opposition. Taking on Kessler, who was unbeaten and many peoples number 1 in the division showed desire to fight tough opposition. Going over to USA to fight Hopkins (a fight sandwiched by wins over Tarver, Wright and Pavlik, and still Hopkins last defeat and only defeat at 175) showed desire to fight tough opposition.

[imp]

Joe would have beaten hopkins anyway on the decision because of that white boy comment. Judges werent gonna let that slide..joe never wanted a rematch though did he.

[RohanKnight]

Joe would have beaten hopkins anyway on the decision because of that white boy comment. Judges werent gonna let that slide..joe never wanted a rematch though did he.

It would be too much a risk to take now that JC was getting on himself (boxers should be retiring after 35 anyway) but Joe would likely win a rematch with a 40something BHop, same result, Bhop would outclass joe for the first 5 rounds, no way Joe can box smarter than Bhop on equal 'gass', but then later Bernard would gass and not be able to cope with his fitter opponents blinding workrate.

I have no problem with acknowledging that JC is the 3rd-5th best SM ever, behind Bhop, RJJ, Sugar Ray etc, even though I am British and Joe Calzaghe was as close we have come recently to a dominant Brit legend in boxing. He was God to me when Ifirst read about him - a brit champion undefeated, not bad looking, a bit cocky, exciting to watch, good role model, perfect tabloid material!

[BIG H]

Joe would have beaten hopkins anyway on the decision because of that white boy comment. Judges werent gonna let that slide..joe never wanted a rematch though did he.

Even though B-Hop is/was older, I think Calzaghe was more past his best at that point than Hopkins was. He said himself, that he retired because if he carried on he was gonna lose. Doesn't change the fact that he won the fight though.

[Fenster]

Again i have say Joe had VERY BAD HAND'S is that clear, so injury did stop him from fighting and boxing is about punching people with your HAND'S is it not.And i do not hate Carl Froch i wish him well but he is not on Joe's level, the best that is what this post is about i think Joe is.

tbh the truth is we will never know. Evidence says Calzaghe would probably win. Records say that Froch has an arguably better resume at world class level.

Whislt Froch struggles bad against the best volume punchers and his style leaves you pitying him facing someone like that, Bhop exposed JC's limitations to the world against a top level (but now old) intelligent fighter by winning their fight till he gassed out due to old age, suggesting there was a good reason Joe kept away from the smartest top fighters for years until they had lost their reflexes.

The two observations clearly irk the fans of both boxers.

That's a bit silly.

Has Hopkins "gassed out" since fighting Calzaghe? No. Hopkins has ENHANCED his reputation.

These are the facts - Hopkins was in GREAT form before he fought Cazlaghe - beating Winky and Tarver - loses to Calzaghe - then shows great form to beat Pavlik, Ornelas, Jones and Pascal.

So Hopkins only lost to Calzaghe because he got old. However, he hasn't lost since and has defeated P4P fighters much younger than Calzaghe was.

Hmmmm........

[Fenster]

Joe would have beaten hopkins anyway on the decision because of that white boy comment. Judges werent gonna let that slide..joe never wanted a rematch though did he.

Good point.

Judge Adalaide Byrd scored it for Hopkins. She's black.

The two "white" dudes gave it Calzaghe. Golden Boy, Hopkins promotional team, obviously made sure two whites were judging so their man would lose.