Quote Originally Posted by Violent Demise View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
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.