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

[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.

[Fenster]

Froch will NEVER be ranked above Calzaghe because he's never established himself as the No.1 in the division.

You can rubbish Calzaghe's opposition all you like but the simple fact is - Lacy was the no.1 ranked supermiddle, unbeaten and IBF champion when Calzaghe beat him and Kessler was the no.1 ranked supermiddle, unbeaten and WBC/WBA champion when Calzaghe beat him.

Having tough fights and winning tough fights are two completely different things.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

...Handbags at dawn fellas

[Dia bando]

Froch V Calzaghe only one winner Joe, you lot carry on about Froch like he's undefeated he's lost 2 fights
what wrong don't you lot like a winner I do. He was well beaten by Ward and by Kessler.
I don't really think Froch is a great fighter a good one, Joe would have made a Froch fight very much like the Lacy one. My handbag is ready but it's full of bricks.

[Dia bando]

The many year's I have been a boxing fan, I don't fall for hype look at the pedigree Calzage 3 time ABA
Champion at 3 different weights World Champion at 2 different weights, a 46-0 undefeated record.
Now that's a great fighter if you don't think so you are a fuck in moron.
The boo boy's can't say he did not fight so and so, I tell you lot one thing he beat ever one they put in front of him, remember it's in the record books and they don't lie.

[Beanz]

@Althugz you come across as anything but neutral. You own credibility is critically undermined by your unreasonable and childish tantrums. You expect people to have empathy for your bizarre tirades against not just Calzaghe but also "the Brits" who appreciated his talent. Your anger is not the response of a rational man. Maybe you need some more carbs and a sense of perspective.

[Althugz]

@Althugz you come across as anything but neutral. You own credibility is critically undermined by your unreasonable and childish tantrums. You expect people to have empathy for your bizarre tirades against not just Calzaghe but also "the Brits" who appreciated his talent. Your anger is not the response of a rational man. Maybe you need some more carbs and a sense of perspective.

Haha once again bringing up my being in fairly good shape to attempt to undermine me. Your own lack of self esteem is alarmingly obvious..Quite pathetic.

[Beanz]

@Althugz you come across as anything but neutral. You own credibility is critically undermined by your unreasonable and childish tantrums. You expect people to have empathy for your bizarre tirades against not just Calzaghe but also "the Brits" who appreciated his talent. Your anger is not the response of a rational man. Maybe you need some more carbs and a sense of perspective.

Haha once again bringing up my being in fairly good shape to attempt to undermine me. Your own lack of self esteem is alarmingly obvious..Quite pathetic.

"attempt to undermine me" :-) you. are beginning to sound like a comedy despot. Whilst your ridiculous over estimation of what constitutes being in " fairly good shape" could be construed as faux humility, I will assume you are just proud of your waif like physique. For me, at my age, self esteem is not so closely attached to looking like an alternative version of Pete Doherty who swapped heroin for lettuce and and a can of spray tan.

Seriously though I don't feel the need to choose between Froch or Calzaghe. They are very different fighters both of whom deserve massive respect for great careers. I thought Froch would be way too much for Ward to handle and said as much at the time. I was wrong but I think if he started with a similar pace as he did against Bute he could well have scraped a draw. Even if he had beaten Ward though, I do not think that would have made him better than Calzaghe. Boxing does not work like that. If you can watch the Calzaghe- Kessler or Calzaghe- Lacy fight and dismiss Joe's ability you have a serious case of irrational hate.

[0james0]

Would Froch be number one if Ward wasn't around?

[Fenster]

Would Froch be number one if Ward wasn't around?

No Kessler would.

In fact, if Ward wasn't around Kessler would have a very high P4P ranking.

[0james0]

Froch is more likeable than Calzaghe, certainly for a neutral.

His guns blazing style, his humility outside the ring, the fact he appears willing to fight anyone seemingly better than him.

Who was better we will never know. Not yet anyway. Froch still has a couple fights in him, including an almost definite Kessler rematch. That could change many people's perception, would lose the whole Joe beat Kessler, Kessler beat Froch argument.

I like both fighters, I don't even want to have to split them on who I prefer. I think Calzaghe would have beat Froch if they fought, but that doesn't mean I think he is the better fighter. It's a bit of a rock, paper, scissors problem. Styles beat other styles. A bit like Ward would probably do another job on Froch if they fought again.

I think Froch should stick to fighting in Nottingham. He's done his share of travelling and some. He's proved himself to be fearless even in the lions den. He is clearly better when fighting at home.



Out of interest, Calzaghe vs Ward? Who would you pick?