Quote Originally Posted by tysonesque View Post
No, Froch will not be remembered as being better than Calzaghe because he's not the better fighter. Had they ever fought Calzaghe would have beaten Froch quite comfortably.

Froch has a decent résumé, but there isn't a fighter on there that Calzaghe wouldn't have beaten more comfortably than Froch did.

Carl Froch will forever be in the shadow of Calzaghe, Eubank, Benn, Watson and rightly so.
I think that is a bit uncharitable to say the least. While he may not have been able to beat Calzaghe he did not have the opportunity to fight anyone else on your list. If you are going to make the argument for Joe that you can only fight who are around when you are fighting, then you can't suddenly take that same criteria away from Carl.

They are very different fighters and while he may not be considered as talented and graceful a fighter as Calzaghe was he will be remembered by many for some epic battles. While Calzaghe may have spent thousands of hours honing his craft there is an argument that a certain percentage of ability is innate, and training is about improving the rest. For Froch who is obviously not as gifted a boxer, his absolute dedication to fitness and building that teak physical and mental toughness that allows him to succeed is something to be equally admired. We have had some very good SMW's in Britain for a long time and I think that Froch could have aquitted himself well against any one of them. He has not avoided anyone and is seeking to avenge his defeats so I think history will remember him kindly, even in a division where the UK has had a bit of an embarrassment of riches.