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

[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.