Non-British perspective: Froch easier to like than was Calzaghe

[Fenster]

I know this won't be very popular among our British friends here... but I find Carl Froch much easier to like than the retired and undefeated Joe Calzaghe. Froch sometimes looks awkward and easy to hit... but he comes to fight and usually puts on a pretty good show. You gotta give him the credit he deserves.

Whereas Calzaghe... undefeated record and all... was downright painful to watch. At least the fights I saw. Everyone always made such a big deal about his volume of punches. But upon further review... a lot of them were nothing but slaps. What a forgettable fight against Peter Manfredo! Not that Manfredo was worth shet to begin with... but that final "flurry" from Calzaghe that prompted the ref to stop the fight... that was comical. Not a single solid punch in the whole "flurry". A bunch of ugly slaps that looked bad in normal speed... never mind in slow-motion. I thought this was maybe an isolated incident. But along came the Hopkins fight. Not that Hopkins is all that much fun to watch either... but again... some of those so-called flurries from Calzaghe were nothing but a bunch of slaps. What dreadful fighting style. What good is it to throw 1,000 punches in a fight, when a large percent of them amount to nothing more than pitty-patter, trying to accumulate points with clueless judges? Just my opinion.

Anyway... this isn't meant to be solely about Calzaghe. It's meant to compare Calzaghe with Froch. Froch may not have the gaudy record... but he's much more fun to watch. I'd like to see him fight more in the U.S., where we'd have more of a chance to see him.

The only people who you'll offend with that statement are the deluded Brits who thought Calzaghes record was worth a damn. I myself, think you're absolutely correct. At least after last night.

I was never that big on Froch either but I always said his opponent selection was extremely respectable. Calzaghe ducked and dodged throughout his career..let's not make any bones about that.

A simple acid test for me is, look who Froch was fighting at fight number 20-25 and look who Calzaghe was fighting? Shit, I swear Calzaghes 40-something fight was Manfredo? I'm sorry but that's pathetic.

Yeah, it's no secret I have a strong dislike for JC..but it's not for no particular reason. It is for the reasons I mentioned, couple that with his delusional arrogance and the horrible style you mention..and well, IMO anybody who fights Manfredo as one of their last fights and gets dropped by a decrepid RJJ for his retirement send-off is not HOF worthy.

Froch over Carl. It's simply a no brainer.

Who did he duck and dodge?

[p4pking]

He may not have "ducked" anyone, but he also didn't make any efforts whatsoever to pursue the best opponents available for much of his career. I'm not a fan of Calzaghes and I love to watch Froch fight, however I do feel that Joe would probably have been able to take a decision over Froch at his best. However, his resume is already a joke compared to Carl's and he commands MUCH less respect for this imo.

[ruthless rocco]

of course froch is more likeable! that's a no brainer.

he shows up to fight. he brawls and gets hit alot. he leaves it all in the ring.

that's what we like in fighters.

[ross]

I think its unfair to compare the two.

Calzaghe didnt have many other big super middle names and neither did he have the super six which is what made most of these names. Like Dirrell and Abraham, even Johnson, would they have been names at super middle without the super six?

In fact Kessler (the favourite going in who still beat Froch) made his name by getting beat by Calzaghe!

I will agree that Froch now does have a greater resume than Calzaghe but Froch would lose to Calzaghe, of that not many would disagree. Also, Joe fought and beat Eubank (was supposed to be Collins, who pulled out) in his 23rd fight for the title. Abraham and Taylor were really middle weights and Froch lost to Kessler and Ward and most think he lost to Dirrell. Its easier to like Froch because he is fighting alot of known quantities that we can guage his talent on whereas Calzaghe never seemed to get those opportunities (Bernard accepted a fight years ago while still middle champ but then asked for double!). For me, the Kessler fight is evidence that Calzaghe was leagues above Froch and the trouble that Bika had Ward in late wouldnt have me betting against Joe vs Andre either.

Also, id like to see Ward fight Pascal. I think Pascals quick combinations would catch Ward and then you have another Froch v Bute situation where someone seen as nigh on unbeatable and above Ward surprisingly beaten by the seemingly lesser fighter. He is about to fight someone Pascal hurt and beat comfortably after all.

[Gandalf]

I don't see the point in comparing who is easier to like. Outside the ring I like them both and inside the ring much the same. Calzaghe was the better fighter of the two though, but Froch is one of the best today. Definitely top 2.

[Fenster]

He may not have "ducked" anyone, but he also didn't make any efforts whatsoever to pursue the best opponents available for much of his career. I'm not a fan of Calzaghes and I love to watch Froch fight, however I do feel that Joe would probably have been able to take a decision over Froch at his best. However, his resume is already a joke compared to Carl's and he commands MUCH less respect for this imo.

I think its unfair to compare the two.

Calzaghe didnt have many other big super middle names and neither did he have the super six which is what made most of these names. Like Dirrell and Abraham, even Johnson, would they have been names at super middle without the super six?

In fact Kessler (the favourite going in who still beat Froch) made his name by getting beat by Calzaghe!

I will agree that Froch now does have a greater resume than Calzaghe but Froch would lose to Calzaghe, of that not many would disagree. Also, Joe fought and beat Eubank (was supposed to be Collins, who pulled out) in his 23rd fight for the title. Abraham and Taylor were really middle weights and Froch lost to Kessler and Ward and most think he lost to Dirrell. Its easier to like Froch because he is fighting alot of known quantities that we can guage his talent on whereas Calzaghe never seemed to get those opportunities (Bernard accepted a fight years ago while still middle champ but then asked for double!). For me, the Kessler fight is evidence that Calzaghe was leagues above Froch and the trouble that Bika had Ward in late wouldnt have me betting against Joe vs Andre either.

Good post ross. Sums up the situation perfectly.

[p4pking]

That is certainly a fair post Ross, I just don't think Calzaghe ever really wanted to test himself the way Froch does. It's not as if Joe was completely without options and barred from leaving Wales, he must have more or less been content with the way he was being handled. I'm also less and less sure that it would have been a wide points win for Calzaghe every time I see Carl fight.

[Althugz]

That is certainly a fair post Ross, I just don't think Calzaghe ever really wanted to test himself the way Froch does. It's not as if Joe was completely without options and barred from leaving Wales, he must have more or less been content with the way he was being handled. I'm also less and less sure that it would have been a wide points win for Calzaghe every time I see Carl fight.

Exactly, you'll notice I never said Froch would beat Calzaghe. I think Calzaghe would use those b.s flurries that don't land to trick judges into a points win - Carl would never stop working though and not tire like Hopkins did. (which I still thought Hopkins won - boxing isn't scored on punches missed/pitty pats with the inside glove)

Ross, the Eubank fight is a joke example. He was finished and had 2 weeks notice. Even if he fought Collins. Collins was at the tail end. That example just adds to my point imo.

My main point is - regardless who you think would have won if they ever met, when being ranked Carl Froch should be ranked higher than Joe Calzaghe. I don't see an argument to have it any other way.

[C.J.Rock]

Of course Froch is easier to like than Calzaghe. Carl Froch FIGHTS!!!
Calzaghe cherry picked his oppnents throughout his career. Never wanted to fight away from home soil. He also lacked the heart of a champion EG Joe wanted to pull out of the Jeff Lacey fight "injured" but Enzo kicked his ass and made him fight.
Calzaghe knew he did not deserve the nod over Bernard Hopkins either hence his refusal to fight a rematch even though it would have been at home in wales. What a way to thank his devoted fans but instead he retired.
Calzaghe had the talent but lacked the cojones. Froch has a champions cojones

[IamInuit]

You prefaced your intent on slapping at the end of his career. In other words, the end justifies the means. It's really at a point where I really have no reason to point it out. Objective intent I am sure lol.