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

[Fenster]

Althugz,

Your personal opinion of Calzaghe and his opposition is utterly irrelevant. There's not one single argument that could possibly rate Froch over Calzaghe.

You can only fight who is in your era. History shows us that Calzaghe unified the entire supermiddle division. He gained universal recognition by beating his highest ranked rivals. He cemented his place in history as being THE man at 168. It's an irrefutable fact.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying - Alan Wells is NOT the 1980 Olympic 100 metre champion because some top sprinters weren't involved. The ONLY thing history records is that Alan Wells was THE man in 1980. He has the gold medal to prove it.

Roy Jones was a light-heavyweight BEFORE Calzaghe had even fought Eubank. How the flying fuck does a British champion, who no-one on earth knows exists, get a fight with the P4P no.1 fighter in the world in a weight-class he doesn't even fight in?

Your entire argument is nonsensical. Fact.

[p4pking]

I'm fairly sure all anyone has done is rate Frochs opposition higher than Calzaghes, no? Your first sentence all but defeats itself. Fact.

[Fenster]

I'm fairly sure all anyone has done is rate Frochs opposition higher than Calzaghes, no? Your first sentence all but defeats itself. Fact.

I was responding to this.

My main point is - when being ranked Carl Froch should be ranked higher than Joe Calzaghe. I don't see an argument to have it any other way.

1. I've already showed why that doesn't work.

2. How can Froch's opposition be that much superior when Calzaghe BEAT a man Froch LOST against?

It's a silly argument. You might as well say Glenn Johnson is the greatest of all time because, although he lost a million times, he fought everyone.

Froch has arguably had the toughest run of fights in supermiddle history. Tougher than not just Calzaghe's but - Jones, Toney, Benn, Eubank, Collins, Kessler, Ward, etc

It doesn't mean he rates ABOVE them. Fact.

[p4pking]

I'm fairly sure all anyone has done is rate Frochs opposition higher than Calzaghes, no? Your first sentence all but defeats itself. Fact.

I was responding to this.

My main point is - when being ranked Carl Froch should be ranked higher than Joe Calzaghe. I don't see an argument to have it any other way.

1. I've already showed why that doesn't work.

2. How can Froch's opposition be that much superior when Calzaghe BEAT a man Froch LOST against?

It's a silly argument. You might as well say Glenn Johnson is the greatest of all time because, although he lost a million times, he fought everyone.

Froch has arguably had the toughest run of fights in supermiddle history. Tougher than not just Calzaghe's but - Jones, Toney, Benn, Eubank, Collins, Kessler, Ward, etc

It doesn't mean he rates ABOVE them. Fact.

Fair enough, it's kind of hard to read both of your posts in full once you get going about Calzaghe. I actually thought Froch deserved the nod against Kessler, and by any measure should rank well ahead of Eubank, Benn and Collins by this point.
Really though, who gives a damn where anyone "ranks" once they have retired. I would imagine it's safe to say Froch will now be remembered more fondly and has garnered a bigger fanbase than Calzaghe ever had, that's all I really took the thread to mean.

[ross]

I dont even think Froch is as liked as Calzaghe was.

Calzaghe fought Kessler in a stadium that could hold 55,000 people. Froch fought Bute in a stadium that could only hold 9,000. Calzaghes fight was a sellout. None of the major tv networks in america wanted the Froch fight.

I like Froch, he has won me around by his hard working attitude. If an arrogant pompous attitude is what turns you which is why you may not like Calzaghe, then you should remember to before Calzaghe retired when Froch was calling him out non stop. Froch hadnt even fought a former world title challenger at that point and was not at all known. Robin Reid whp was retired for a few years after getting beaten by Lacy was Frochs first former world title challenger opponent. Froch is just as guilty for the cockyness. At least Calzaghe was head and shoulders above everyone else, he had a right to hold himself in high esteem. Like we have all mentioned, Calzaghe dominated Kessler and there was no argument who wan. This was 3 years before Froch lost to him and while he was still unbeaten. Kessler was seen as more of a threat than Bute was this weekend. There were question marks over Butes resiliance from the Andrade fight.

[p4pking]

That could be, I really don't know how to guage how popular a fighter is these days. Calzaghe was certainly never an entity outside of the UK either, which was largely his fault imo. As far as cockiness or anything like that, I couldn't really care less. I've only seen a couple of interviews with Froch or Calzaghe for that matter, and they both came across as perfectly decent if not even humble.

[p4pking]

Lacy was also seen as more of a threat to Calzaghe than Kessler was, even though he'd shown all kinds of vulnerability against lesser fighters as well. Doesn't always tell the story.

[Althugz]

Althugz,

Your personal opinion of Calzaghe and his opposition is utterly irrelevant. There's not one single argument that could possibly rate Froch over Calzaghe.

You can only fight who is in your era. History shows us that Calzaghe unified the entire supermiddle division. He gained universal recognition by beating his highest ranked rivals. He cemented his place in history as being THE man at 168. It's an irrefutable fact.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying - Alan Wells is NOT the 1980 Olympic 100 metre champion because some top sprinters weren't involved. The ONLY thing history records is that Alan Wells was THE man in 1980. He has the gold medal to prove it.

Roy Jones was a light-heavyweight BEFORE Calzaghe had even fought Eubank. How the flying fuck does a British champion, who no-one on earth knows exists, get a fight with the P4P no.1 fighter in the world in a weight-class he doesn't even fight in?

Your entire argument is nonsensical. Fact.

Oh you do make me chuckle. As p4p kindly already stated, you stumbled straight out of the blocks.

You proceed with a bunch of whacky analagies that make zero sense or have any relevance. Sprinting?? Haha you're an absolute moron..

Most people understood my argument even if they didn't wholeheartedly agree with it. I wonder if your man crush would be so great if JC wasn't Welsh? Would you see his glaring misgivings then? Why can most neutrals see it where you can't?

The only irrefutable "fact" is that this forum loses all credibility by having an absolute douche lord of a moderator like you.

[Fenster]

Althugz,

Your personal opinion of Calzaghe and his opposition is utterly irrelevant. There's not one single argument that could possibly rate Froch over Calzaghe.

You can only fight who is in your era. History shows us that Calzaghe unified the entire supermiddle division. He gained universal recognition by beating his highest ranked rivals. He cemented his place in history as being THE man at 168. It's an irrefutable fact.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying - Alan Wells is NOT the 1980 Olympic 100 metre champion because some top sprinters weren't involved. The ONLY thing history records is that Alan Wells was THE man in 1980. He has the gold medal to prove it.

Roy Jones was a light-heavyweight BEFORE Calzaghe had even fought Eubank. How the flying fuck does a British champion, who no-one on earth knows exists, get a fight with the P4P no.1 fighter in the world in a weight-class he doesn't even fight in?

Your entire argument is nonsensical. Fact.

Oh you do make me chuckle. As p4p kindly already stated, you stumbled straight out of the blocks.

You proceed with a bunch of whacky analagies that make zero sense or have any relevance. Sprinting?? Haha you're an absolute moron..

Most people understood my argument even if they didn't wholeheartedly agree with it. I wonder if your man crush would be so great if JC wasn't Welsh? Would you see his glaring misgivings then? Why can most neutrals see it where you can't?

The only irrefutable "fact" is that this forum loses all credibility by having an absolute douche lord of a moderator like you.

What the funk has Wales got to do with anything? I'm not Welsh you complete and utter plum.

Now calm yourself down... I never insulted you. I wasn't trying to embarrass you. All I did was give a counter argument to your opinion.

I don't write the history books. I didn't create the ranking system that The Ring, Boxing Monthly, the WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO and the worlds most preeminent boxing writers abide by.

Calzaghe established himself as the NO.1 guy at 168. Froch never has. Any "neutral" that doesn't agree with that should be shot for taking thickness to a new level. Fact.

What am I not seeing?

[Althugz]

Althugz,

Your personal opinion of Calzaghe and his opposition is utterly irrelevant. There's not one single argument that could possibly rate Froch over Calzaghe.

You can only fight who is in your era. History shows us that Calzaghe unified the entire supermiddle division. He gained universal recognition by beating his highest ranked rivals. He cemented his place in history as being THE man at 168. It's an irrefutable fact.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying - Alan Wells is NOT the 1980 Olympic 100 metre champion because some top sprinters weren't involved. The ONLY thing history records is that Alan Wells was THE man in 1980. He has the gold medal to prove it.

Roy Jones was a light-heavyweight BEFORE Calzaghe had even fought Eubank. How the flying fuck does a British champion, who no-one on earth knows exists, get a fight with the P4P no.1 fighter in the world in a weight-class he doesn't even fight in?

Your entire argument is nonsensical. Fact.

Oh you do make me chuckle. As p4p kindly already stated, you stumbled straight out of the blocks.

You proceed with a bunch of whacky analagies that make zero sense or have any relevance. Sprinting?? Haha you're an absolute moron..

Most people understood my argument even if they didn't wholeheartedly agree with it. I wonder if your man crush would be so great if JC wasn't Welsh? Would you see his glaring misgivings then? Why can most neutrals see it where you can't?

The only irrefutable "fact" is that this forum loses all credibility by having an absolute douche lord of a moderator like you.

What the funk has Wales got to do with anything? I'm not Welsh you complete and utter plum.

Now calm yourself down... I never insulted you. I wasn't trying to embarrass you. All I did was give a counter argument to your opinion.

I don't write the history books. I didn't create the ranking system that The Ring, Boxing Monthly, the WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO and the worlds most preeminent boxing writers abide by.

Calzaghe established himself as the NO.1 guy at 168. Froch never has. Any "neutral" that doesn't agree with that should be shot for taking thickness to a new level. Fact.

What am I not seeing?

You're not seeing is that nobody ever once said JC was not the number 1 of his division at any point. I swear you argue with yourself sometimes. It's quite hilarious.

You're also not seeing that eventual greatness, in terms of boxing, isn't just measured in terms of "oh well done! You're number 1 in your division" - Fine, he ended up eventually a "great" supermiddle. BUT it took him way too long IMO and his route was a very carefully managed one. Whether it was his or Frank Warrens fault. I don't care. His opposition was also dire.

Froch can easily be seen as greater when it's all said and done because of the risks he took far earlier than Calzaghe, quality of his opposition, his willingness to travel etc.

I guess it depends what you define as greatness - Conveniently yours in this particular argument is "He cleaned out the division and was ranked by Ring magazine as number 1 so he's great".

Yes, he's great but Froch can and should be regarded as greater when it's all said and done. So yeah, what are you not seeing, Fenny?

[Dia bando]

Althugz,

Your personal opinion of Calzaghe and his opposition is utterly irrelevant. There's not one single argument that could possibly rate Froch over Calzaghe.

You can only fight who is in your era. History shows us that Calzaghe unified the entire supermiddle division. He gained universal recognition by beating his highest ranked rivals. He cemented his place in history as being THE man at 168. It's an irrefutable fact.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying - Alan Wells is NOT the 1980 Olympic 100 metre champion because some top sprinters weren't involved. The ONLY thing history records is that Alan Wells was THE man in 1980. He has the gold medal to prove it.

Roy Jones was a light-heavyweight BEFORE Calzaghe had even fought Eubank. How the flying fuck does a British champion, who no-one on earth knows exists, get a fight with the P4P no.1 fighter in the world in a weight-class he doesn't even fight in?

Your entire argument is nonsensical. Fact.

Oh you do make me chuckle. As p4p kindly already stated, you stumbled straight out of the blocks.

You proceed with a bunch of whacky analagies that make zero sense or have any relevance. Sprinting?? Haha you're an absolute moron..

Most people understood my argument even if they didn't wholeheartedly agree with it. I wonder if your man crush would be so great if JC wasn't Welsh? Would you see his glaring misgivings then? Why can most neutrals see it where you can't?

The only irrefutable "fact" is that this forum loses all credibility by having an absolute douche lord of a moderator like you.

What the funk has Wales got to do with anything? I'm not Welsh you complete and utter plum.

Now calm yourself down... I never insulted you. I wasn't trying to embarrass you. All I did was give a counter argument to your opinion.

I don't write the history books. I didn't create the ranking system that The Ring, Boxing Monthly, the WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO and the worlds most preeminent boxing writers abide by.

Calzaghe established himself as the NO.1 guy at 168. Froch never has. Any "neutral" that doesn't agree with that should be shot for taking thickness to a new level. Fact.

What am I not seeing?

You're not seeing is that nobody ever once said JC was not the number 1 of his division at any point. I swear you argue with yourself sometimes. It's quite hilarious.

You're also not seeing that eventual greatness, in terms of boxing, isn't just measured in terms of "oh well done! You're number 1 in your division" - Fine, he ended up eventually a "great" supermiddle. BUT it took him way too long IMO and his route was a very carefully managed one. Whether it was his or Frank Warrens fault. I don't care. His opposition was also dire.

Froch can easily be seen as greater when it's all said and done because of the risks he took far earlier than Calzaghe, quality of his opposition, his willingness to travel etc.

I guess it depends what you define as greatness - Conveniently yours in this particular argument is "He cleaned out the division and was ranked by Ring magazine as number 1 so he's great".

Yes, he's great but Froch can and should be regarded as greater when it's all said and done. So yeah, what are you not seeing, Fenny?

Hello I see you are Calzaghe baiting again You say one thing and I say another when this post came up I was amazed it took you so long to start your bitch en.
But true to forum bang you start, I feel we are going over old ground I no I repeat myself but that's for the one's that are thick or morons or may be a jackass now there are 3 to pick from, take your time
there is no hurry it's a big decision, if I was to pick for you Jackass would be favourite.

[Althugz]

Pipe down Bando - Nothing I said in the post you quoted me on has anything unreasonable about JC within it and are the feelings of quite a few posters. If you are going to cry every time somebody criticises your fighter , a forum probably isn't the best place for you.

Also "records don't lie, he's undefeated" - Just like Sven Ottke. Please don't make me laugh..come with a better argument than that..

[Fenster]

This post isn't aimed @Althugz or to downplay Froch's tremendous record. I just found these stats very surprising.

Froch's "world" title opposition at 168.

Pascal - never won title at 168.
Taylor - never won title at 168.
Dirrell - never won title at 168.
Kessler - former 168 title holder (LOST)
Abraham - never won title at 168.
Johnson - never won title at 168.
Ward - current 168 title holder (LOST)
Bute - 168 title holder.

Froch has only ever beat ONE "world" champion. How surprising is that?

[Glinchdogg]

Al thugz
You look like you've been creosoted
Haha