Re: The best
[QUOTE=Violent Demise;1014601]

Originally Posted by
BIG H

Originally Posted by
Violent Demise

Originally Posted by
Fenster

Originally Posted by
Violent Demise

Originally Posted by
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.
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]

Originally Posted by
Fenster

Originally Posted by
RohanKnight

Originally Posted by
Dia bando
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
There is no point in debating anything regarding UK fighters with you, because for all your knowledge, you just cannot be objective in that area. If JC was from somewhere else, you would have a different opinion, but your brain will not allow you to believe that being born across the Atlantic still allows you to be a great fighter. If Joel Casamyor was British you would pick every part of his record to pieces
God is a concept, By which we can measure, Our pain, I'll say it again, God is a concept, By which we can measure, Our pain, I don't believe in magic, I don't believe in I-ching, I don't believe in bible, I don't believe in tarot, I don't believe in Hitler, I don't believe in Jesus, I don't believe in Kennedy, I don't believe in Buddha, I don't believe in mantra, I don't believe in Gita, I don't believe in yoga, I don't believe in kings, I don't believe in Elvis, I don't believe in Zimmerman, I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me!!
Bookmarks