The best

[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.

[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........

[RohanKnight]

[QUOTE=Fenster;1014557][QUOTE=RohanKnight;1014534]

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........

none of the fighters Bernard has beat since fight with the same pace and fitnes as Joe. Fitness was Calzaghe's biggest weapon, his engine was supreme, just kept on running. And thats how he won, JC simply kept on going at a higher pace for longer, slapping up points with his machine gun approach till Bhop started faking low punches to get air. After all theres not much else a grandfather do against that that kind of pace.

The fact remains that B-hop simply couldnt keep up with Joe supreme conditioning at such a late stage in his career, but nonetheless came very close to taking the fight. If he'd had the fitness to do what he was doing for 2 more rounds, say if he was 7-8 years younger, the fight would have been his. Theres absolutely no doubt he would have outclassed JC for more rounds than 4. You dont win the first 4 rounds and then lose almost all the others because your skills are failing you, its becuause of a differece in fitness.

[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

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.

[QUOTE=RohanKnight;1014575][QUOTE=Fenster;1014557]

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........

Fitness was Calzaghe's biggest weapon, his engine was supreme, just kept on running.

Them 10 lines of coke he snorted I'm sure helped keep that engine running

[Fenster]

none of the fighters Bernard has beat since fight with the same pace and fitnes as Joe. Fitness was Calzaghe's biggest weapon, his engine was supreme, just kept on running. And thats how he won, JC simply kept on going at a higher pace for longer, slapping up points with his machine gun approach till Bhop started faking low punches to get air. After all theres not much else a grandfather do against that that kind of pace.

The fact remains that B-hop simply couldnt keep up with Joe supreme conditioning at such a late stage in his career, but nonetheless came very close to taking the fight. If he'd had the fitness to do what he was doing for 2 more rounds, say if he was 7-8 years younger, the fight would have been his. Theres absolutely no doubt he would have outclassed JC for more rounds than 4. You dont win the first 4 rounds and then lose almost all the others because your skills are failing you, its becuause of a differece in fitness.

Hmm.. that's pretty flawed reasoning.

If Hopkins was 7-8 years younger so would Calzaghe be. That means Calzaghe is even fresher, faster and hits a whole lot harder because his brittle old hands aren't as bad.

Then you have to look at all the other factors - Hopkins had home advantage (consistently proves to play a huge role in the outcome of a fight), it was Calzaghe's first fight at the weight, he was the favourite. It's a totally different fight in every aspect.

AS for Calzaghe winning just because of fitness.... Hopkins hit Calzaghe LESS than he has any other fighter from Jermain Taylor to Pascal. I think that proves Calzaghe had a little more than just fitness going for him

[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]

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.