As a big fan of both fighters I'll try and explain without being derogatory to either fighter.

Eubank fought Calzaghe in my opinion because he was coming off of losses. If he was still unbeaten and had a chance of making big money stateside he wouldn't have taken the fight.

As to Benn fighting Eubank, they both came along at the same time and Eubank was very much a prime contender on the world stage when Benn was champ. Furthermore the WBO belt they were fighting for was a trinket belt back then and not considered much of a world title at all.

Also it should be mentioned that Eubank was from the very beginning a huge celebrity, whose eccentric personality generated newspaper sales and media interest. Both fighters were huge names not just in British boxing, but with the British public generally.

Calzaghe and Froch differ greatly from this. Whereas Benn and Eubank's careers were contemporary with each other Joe is a good five years ahead of where Carl Froch is, so a fight between the two has never been realistic.

Secondly Froch is completely and utterly unknown outside of hardcore boxing circles. In terms of money he brings less to the table for Joe than a Peter Manfredo, whilst being a good deal riskier. It made sense for Calzaghe to avoid him.

As a fan of both I personally don't really want to see them fight. I'd love Joe to retire undefeated and then enjoy a few years with Froch hopefully winning a world title belt and enjoying his own place in the limelight.