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

[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.

[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.

"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.

Aww, Greenbean..that really hurt. *sad face* Your words may potentially derail my "lettuce only" diet. Where's the chocolate..?

[Kirkland Laing]

a can of spray tan.

That tan looks natural to me.

[El Kabong]

Froch is less irritating than Calzaghe. For one I've never heard Froch's manager mouth off about anyone, Carl always seems to conduct himself with class, and he's willing to fight anyone anywhere....which is refreshing. I'm not going to jump on the Froch bandwagon, because I just don't do that sort of thing. I do respect him though. Calzaghe, was a victim of his stubborness and his era, he was a very good fighter. One of the best at 168, but once you stack him up against PRIME Roy Jones Jr then you'd see the huge gap in talent.

[Althugz]

Froch is less irritating than Calzaghe. For one I've never heard Froch's manager mouth off about anyone, Carl always seems to conduct himself with class, and he's willing to fight anyone anywhere....which is refreshing. I'm not going to jump on the Froch bandwagon, because I just don't do that sort of thing. I do respect him though. Calzaghe, was a victim of his stubborness and his era, he was a very good fighter. One of the best at 168, but once you stack him up against PRIME Roy Jones Jr then you'd see the huge gap in talent.

Again..This!

I too am not on the Froch bandwagon. However, you can only respect the opposition he's faced. I actually disagree with most that Froch comes accross well..he does when he wins emphatically but when he loses or has a close decision, he can throw his toys out of the pram a bit. Then there's that "stolen bike" interview..

[TitoFan]

I knew that starting this thread was going to ruffle the Calzaghe fan feathers. Geez.... get a grip, people. Nobody is trying to deny Joe's place in boxing history. Yes, he retired undefeated. Yes, he's one of the best supermiddles in boxing history. Is he THE best? In my opinion, not by a long shot. There's a lot of factors that go into being undefeated. Just take a look at how Baby Chavez is being brought along. Let's say he retires undefeated, after beating a few more bums. Will that make him HOF material? Well... knowing how this business runs, the last name will probably get him in no matter what. But you get my point.

As for pitting a prime Calzaghe vs. Froch... yeah... I have no problem seeing a Calzaghe points win. Again... it's the volume of punches thrown by JC that have always swayed the judges. Kinda like Olympic boxing. It's not the effectiveness, but rather the number of punches landed.

All I'm saying is that, from a non-British perspective, it's a lot easier to get behind and respect a fighter than Carl Froch, than Calzaghe. For being an undefeated fighter, Calzaghe's list of opponents does not stack up with other fighters who haven't necessarily been undefeated. And with me, it's also a question of style. Too many useless, ineffective, pitty-patter, so-called flurries to suit me. And I'm not picking on Joe. I wouldn't like any boxer who fought like this. It may impress the judges at ringside, who are busy punching in their CompuBox numbers.... but it doesn't impress this particular fan, especially given the benefit of slow-motion replays.

I saw De La Hoya do this a few times too, although not consistently. But Joe apparently lived off this tactic. He apparently never learned the proper way to throw a punch, where you put your whole body into it, and turn it over.

[Althugz]

I knew that starting this thread was going to ruffle the Calzaghe fan feathers. Geez.... get a grip, people. Nobody is trying to deny Joe's place in boxing history. Yes, he retired undefeated. Yes, he's one of the best supermiddles in boxing history. Is he THE best? In my opinion, not by a long shot. There's a lot of factors that go into being undefeated. Just take a look at how Baby Chavez is being brought along. Let's say he retires undefeated, after beating a few more bums. Will that make him HOF material? Well... knowing how this business runs, the last name will probably get him in no matter what. But you get my point.

As for pitting a prime Calzaghe vs. Froch... yeah... I have no problem seeing a Calzaghe points win. Again... it's the volume of punches thrown by JC that have always swayed the judges. Kinda like Olympic boxing. It's not the effectiveness, but rather the number of punches landed.

All I'm saying is that, from a non-British perspective, it's a lot easier to get behind and respect a fighter than Carl Froch, than Calzaghe. For being an undefeated fighter, Calzaghe's list of opponents does not stack up with other fighters who haven't necessarily been undefeated. And with me, it's also a question of style. Too many useless, ineffective, pitty-patter, so-called flurries to suit me. And I'm not picking on Joe. I wouldn't like any boxer who fought like this. It may impress the judges at ringside, who are busy punching in their CompuBox numbers.... but it doesn't impress this particular fan, especially given the benefit of slow-motion replays.

I saw De La Hoya do this a few times too, although not consistently. But Joe apparently lived off this tactic. He apparently never learned the proper way to throw a punch, where you put your whole body into it, and turn it over.

Yup, it ruffles all kinds of feathers. Debating against Calzaghe's greatness is the equivalent of insulting Calzaghe fan's mothers.

Nobody said Carl would beat Joe
Nobody said Joe wasn't one of the best, if not THE best Super Middle.

Yet, any reasonable critique on the fighter draws insults to your intellect, allegiance, knowledge of boxing and even irrelevant things like your hobbies

Nobody has actually ever refuted any of the points I've ever made about Calzaghe. It always gets personal way before that happens (or Fenster tries but goes off on a tangent and ends up arguing with himself)

I'll accept that Fenster correctly challenged one of my points (every dog has their day and all that..)- The Roy Jones point I will concede..but at the same time, JC knew Roy Jones was the best. You know he's at light-heavy...You tell everyone who will listen that you're the best BUT you won't chase the P4P guy who is at light-heavyweight when there are no solid opponents left for you at Super Middle?

As has been mentioned by MANY people already, half of JC's career was due to unfortunate circumstance (kind of like the Klitschko's) BUT the other half was JC's unwillingness to challenge himself further when he had the options to do so.

[Fenster]

Behave @Althugz your points about Calzaghe have been refuted a million times. Nothing you say is new. This same Calzaghe stuff has been going on long before 2004 (when I joined this forum). I was actually a Calzaghe critic back in those days. Things change though. The guy had a lull in his career but came good in the end.

Your "problem" is you get to emotionally affected by these debates. When people refute your points you resort to personal insults that have nothing to do with the actual topic (I know people have chucked personal insults at you too).

At the end of the day, no-one ever accepts they're wrong and it's nothing more than a pointless boxing nerds debate that means absolutely nothing. Fact.

[Beanz]

I knew that starting this thread was going to ruffle the Calzaghe fan feathers. Geez.... get a grip, people. Nobody is trying to deny Joe's place in boxing history. Yes, he retired undefeated. Yes, he's one of the best supermiddles in boxing history. Is he THE best? In my opinion, not by a long shot. There's a lot of factors that go into being undefeated. Just take a look at how Baby Chavez is being brought along. Let's say he retires undefeated, after beating a few more bums. Will that make him HOF material? Well... knowing how this business runs, the last name will probably get him in no matter what. But you get my point.

As for pitting a prime Calzaghe vs. Froch... yeah... I have no problem seeing a Calzaghe points win. Again... it's the volume of punches thrown by JC that have always swayed the judges. Kinda like Olympic boxing. It's not the effectiveness, but rather the number of punches landed.

All I'm saying is that, from a non-British perspective, it's a lot easier to get behind and respect a fighter than Carl Froch, than Calzaghe. For being an undefeated fighter, Calzaghe's list of opponents does not stack up with other fighters who haven't necessarily been undefeated. And with me, it's also a question of style. Too many useless, ineffective, pitty-patter, so-called flurries to suit me. And I'm not picking on Joe. I wouldn't like any boxer who fought like this. It may impress the judges at ringside, who are busy punching in their CompuBox numbers.... but it doesn't impress this particular fan, especially given the benefit of slow-motion replays.

I saw De La Hoya do this a few times too, although not consistently. But Joe apparently lived off this tactic. He apparently never learned the proper way to throw a punch, where you put your whole body into it, and turn it over.

Yup, it ruffles all kinds of feathers. Debating against Calzaghe's greatness is the equivalent of insulting Calzaghe fan's mothers.

Nobody said Carl would beat Joe
Nobody said Joe wasn't one of the best, if not THE best Super Middle.

Yet, any reasonable critique on the fighter draws insults to your intellect, allegiance, knowledge of boxing and even irrelevant things like your hobbies

Nobody has actually ever refuted any of the points I've ever made about Calzaghe. It always gets personal way before that happens (or Fenster tries but goes off on a tangent and ends up arguing with himself)

I'll accept that Fenster correctly challenged one of my points (every dog has their day and all that..)- The Roy Jones point I will concede..but at the same time, JC knew Roy Jones was the best. You know he's at light-heavy...You tell everyone who will listen that you're the best BUT you won't chase the P4P guy who is at light-heavyweight when there are no solid opponents left for you at Super Middle?

As has been mentioned by MANY people already, half of JC's career was due to unfortunate circumstance (kind of like the Klitschko's) BUT the other half was JC's unwillingness to challenge himself further when he had the options to do so.

Altug, the FACT is you can not call someone a moron or a douche and then complain that after this people get personal.

You can not post a picture of yourself like you have on a forum like this and reasonably expect nobody to pull your leg about it.

You can not open up your posting in a thread with a statement like

"The only people who you'll offend with that statement are the deluded Brits who thought Calzaghes record was worth a damn"

and then expect anyone to take any following points you make seriously, however salient they may be. What is the point of fighting anyone if your record means nothing? It is only by using this weird logic that you can then say things like

"Calzaghe ducked and dodged throughout his career" and this is the crux of your argument, a point you are unable to substantiate. So blinded are you by your rage

"I say nothing more on the JC matter because everytime I start - I can't contain my (very reasonable I might add) anger. "

that you forget that the thread is about who is the most likeable and say

"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. "

Who exactly did Calzaghe beat? Eubank, Kessler, Lacy ,Roy Jones Jr amongst others
Froch? Pascal,Taylor,Direll,Abraham,Johnson,Bute

As a proud Englishmen and a huge fan of Froch I would have to say hand on heart that I continue to enjoy watching him fight more than I did Calzaghe. As a warrior I put Froch up there with legendary fighters whose heart and determination more than made up for what may have been lacking in their boxing skills. This is not the same as ranking him higher than Calzaghe, because as a boxer and an artist Joe was fantastic. The fact that he didn't hang his chin out and go toe to toe with everyone does not make him an inferior fighter but does make him a better boxer and we I assume are talking about boxing.

I like them both but they have both said things outside of the ring that could be construed as arrogant and I can see why someone like Froch would go down well internationally particularly in the land of Gunslingers like John Wayne. Perhaps it might be an idea not to assume that not all Brits are deluded, or that it is impossible to appreciate two fighters who represent two sides of the same coin.

[Fenster]

He apparently never learned the proper way to throw a punch, where you put your whole body into it, and turn it over.

The man spent 20-odd years boxing, lost only a few times in around 200 fights, which includes a plethora of stoppage victories and reached the absolute pinnacle of his profession.

If only you were around to teach him how to correctly punch (... seriously... no seriously)

[TitoFan]

He apparently never learned the proper way to throw a punch, where you put your whole body into it, and turn it over.

The man spent 20-odd years boxing, lost only a few times in around 200 fights, which includes a plethora of stoppage victories (including the Manfredo one, where the ref saved Peter from a barrage of limp-wristed slaps) and reached the absolute pinnacle of his profession.

If only you were around to teach him how to correctly punch (... seriously... no seriously)

All he had to do was ask.

[Kirkland Laing]

He apparently never learned the proper way to throw a punch, where you put your whole body into it, and turn it over.

Watch some of his early fights. He used to knock everybody out in his early career. he punched just fine back then but he kept breaking bones in his hands and developed serious problems with both of them, especially the left hand. So he changed his style and threw punches to score points, not KO people. Sop really he deserves extra credit for going from a knockout artist to a different style of fighting.

[TitoFan]

He apparently never learned the proper way to throw a punch, where you put your whole body into it, and turn it over.

Watch some of his early fights. He used to knock everybody out in his early career. he punched just fine back then but he kept breaking bones in his hands and developed serious problems with both of them, especially the left hand. So he changed his style and threw punches to score points, not KO people. Sop really he deserves extra credit for going from a knockout artist to a different style of fighting.

Wow... didn't know that, thanks. While it's admirable that he would adapt his fighting style to his brittle hands, the fact is he went on to what you could call Olympic-style boxing, where nothing else matters other than the amount of punches landed. Except in the Olympics they don't count slaps, either. The punch must be delivered with the white portion of the glove. So Calzaghe managed to continue his pro boxing career while adapting to brittle hands. Admirable, but not fan-friendly.

[Dia bando]

He apparently never learned the proper way to throw a punch, where you put your whole body into it, and turn it over.

Watch some of his early fights. He used to knock everybody out in his early career. he punched just fine back then but he kept breaking bones in his hands and developed serious problems with both of them, especially the left hand. So he changed his style and threw punches to score points, not KO people. Sop really he deserves extra credit for going from a knockout artist to a different style of fighting.

Don't bother in the past I have told the same person, Sorry Jackass the same thing it's useless just like a ashtray on a motorbike a wast of time. For a guy with very bad hands he was a great they could not give him credit it's a strange fact we hate winners in this country. The late Barry Sheen, had it in one on the way up everybody love's you when you get there they hate you spot on I would say.