Carl froch would have been 46-0 vs calzaghes opposition...

[Earl-hickey]

Originally Posted by byron87

Hopkins beats froch even now, kessler too. The guy that was co commentating with jim watt made me laugh when he said whats bute thinking even kessler thinking even Ward he will be a match for him after he battered mack. Hearn should be ashamed of himself for picking mack as an opponent for the cobra.

Kessler vs Froch 1 was a very close fight

And that was a poor performance by Froch and a virtuoso one by Kessler

that fight was Kesslers "Bute fight"

and he just about pulled it out (the scorecards were ludicrous)

Since then Froch has clearly improved, while Kessler looks to have gotten worse.

If the fight is anywhere other than Denmark, Froch will win.

As for hopkins, he's a wildcard, who knows.

[Anaboilc lion]

Originally Posted by Joe.Boxer

look what you've done now Jeff.

[BUSTER]

Guess we will never know i think calzaghe would have won a narrow points margin on work rate alone ppl see frochs style and underrate him and ppl look at calzaghes best performances and think it would be eaay for him froch would rogh him up and give him hell calzaghe 'lost' against reid and rough fighters like bika and byron mitchel gave him alsorts of trouble

[Loudon]

Here we go! Ha!

This is going to be a 20 pager.

Wait til Bailey sees this!

[achillesthegreat]

He lost to Kessler and he would lose to Hopkins. Those 2 are for sure.

Yesterday was probably the best Carl Froch I've seen in years but it was also against the worst opponent I've seen him fight in 4.5 years!!

[BoxingObserver]

Hopkins? Kessler? Your on crack blud.

[Boro chris]

Originally Posted by achillesthegreat

Yesterday was probably the best Carl Froch I've seen in years but it was also against the worst opponent I've seen him fight in 4.5 years!!

There's a connection there! Something we're missing! Now if we only damm well SEE IT!

[dftaylor]

The excitement over Froch's performance against Mack reminds me of Hatton versus Malignaggi. Everyone went on about how Mayweather had changed Hatton, gotten him back to his boxing, and how he'd controlled Malignaggi.

The reason Hatton looked so comprehensive was because Malignaggi had nothing to threaten Ricky with. No power, just a jab and really sloppy defence that relies entirely on his legs.

Ricky always had fast feet, so could close the distance, and his left hook was quicker than Paulie's left jab. So, both of Paulie's tools were gone and Hatton could do as he liked, which gave the impression that he was a changed fighter.

Against Pac though? All gone. He reverted to type because that's what he was. A world-level fighter will look like an elite when placed with a guy levels below him. They SHOULD look elite in those circumstances. But don't let it trick you.

Froch looked good beating an average fighter who hadn't fought at 168 in years, and wasn't anything special there either.

[richard mossley]

Joe at the same age as Carl is now carried nowhere near the same level of power.

[thistle1]

the Calzaghe vs Froch proposal is similar to the Jock McAvoy vs Bert Gilroy fiasco of 70 years earlier.

Cal & Froch the best British S-MWs could've, should've met. circa 2005/06, McAvoy vs Gilroy circa 1939/40...

the only difference being "at the time" Gilroy was more ready for world honours then, than Froch was in 05, but Froch of the last couple of years is 'arguably' better than Calzaghe was!!!

[byron87]

Originally Posted by Earl-hickey

Kessler vs Froch 1 was a very close fight

And that was a poor performance by Froch and a virtuoso one by Kessler

that fight was Kesslers "Bute fight"

and he just about pulled it out (the scorecards were ludicrous)

Since then Froch has clearly improved, while Kessler looks to have gotten worse.

If the fight is anywhere other than Denmark, Froch will win.

As for hopkins, he's a wildcard, who knows.

Do you agree mack should never of been in there with froch mate?

[Loudon]

Delete.

[BUSTER]

People go on about mack shouldnt have been in there with froch theres 2 reasons why ppl say that first is because froch has fought the best for so many years so he gets stick for facing mack reason number 2 is because he dealt with him so easy. calzaghe time after time fought the likes of charles brewer. tocker pudwell. byron mitchell. Evans ashir. manfedo jnr and a load more ppl iv never heard of and wont even try and spell there names. im a fan of calzaghe but hes a typical f w fighter great record full of shit names or good names well past it the kessler win was calzaghes best by far

[cassiusbrit]

Agreed. The Kessler Calzaghe beat was not as good as the more experienced Kessler that beat a slow poor start Froch. Froch will stop Kessler in a rematch, the mans breaking all norms getting stronger, more powerful and being a better fighter the older he gets. Its incredible really.

[dillinja]

Originally Posted by dftaylor

The excitement over Froch's performance against Mack reminds me of Hatton versus Malignaggi. Everyone went on about how Mayweather had changed Hatton, gotten him back to his boxing, and how he'd controlled Malignaggi.

The reason Hatton looked so comprehensive was because Malignaggi had nothing to threaten Ricky with. No power, just a jab and really sloppy defence that relies entirely on his legs.

Ricky always had fast feet, so could close the distance, and his left hook was quicker than Paulie's left jab. So, both of Paulie's tools were gone and Hatton could do as he liked, which gave the impression that he was a changed fighter.

Against Pac though? All gone. He reverted to type because that's what he was. A world-level fighter will look like an elite when placed with a guy levels below him. They SHOULD look elite in those circumstances. But don't let it trick you.

Froch looked good beating an average fighter who hadn't fought at 168 in years, and wasn't anything special there either.

What about the fight before when he destroyed Bute?