Joe Calzaghe vs Carl Froch

[lufcrazy]

I think anthony is more deserving of a big fight to be honest.

[trampie]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Not on my card.

There is no point in anybody debating with you about the relative merits and historical standing of various boxers because you are rewriting history, i would say only 1 fight in a 1000 would be unsound, judges scoring it one way, everybody else scoring it wide another way, a fight that the judges score by 1 round to boxer A and you score by 1 round to boxer B , should not be overturned by you when comparing boxers as that leads to ridiculous conclusions.

You obviously are free to do what you want but i wont be debating with you because i like dealing in facts, there is no point people offering you evidence because you dont do evidence, you will just say oh i dont recognise that result.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by trampie

There is no point in anybody debating with you about the relative merits and historical standing of various boxers because you are rewriting history, i would say only 1 fight in a 1000 would be unsound, judges scoring it one way, everybody else scoring it wide another way, a fight that the judges score by 1 round to boxer A and you score by 1 round to boxer B , should not be overturned by you when comparing boxers as that leads to ridiculous conclusions.

You obviously are free to do what you want but i wont be debating with you because i like dealing in facts, there is no point people offering you evidence because you dont do evidence, you will just say oh i dont recognise that result.

I'm not interested in debates about a being better than b because he beat c who beat b when I disagree.

If you want to debate the fight itself, feel free. I'll happily rewatch it when I get my broadband connected (they said 31st!) Who knows I might rethink my scorecard when placed under scrutiny.

But all this splitting hairs over close fights where I see it otherwise mean not a lot to me. For example I had jmm winning the second pac fight. So anyone trying to tell me pac was a better sfw based on that fight is wasting their time.

Bringing us back to froch, an argument that joe is better because he beat his biggest names is rubbish to me.

I'm more interested in deeper reasoning then "but the judges said".

[trampie]

You are more interested in your agenda, that is what your interested in, promoting your favourite boxers.

[Flea Man]

Then why does he say Froch beat Kessler but not Dirrell you mong?

[trampie]

Because he wants to put Froch over Kessler and Calzaghe, Dirrell is way down the pecking order and a smoke screen to big up Froch over Kessler and Calzghe.

He has Froch beating Kessler when Kessler beat Froch by a wide UD, 117-111, 116-112 and 115-113, it was a clear Kessler win and to overturn that when comparing boxers in an historical sense is ridiculous, Calzaghe beat Hopkins away from home clearly on 2 judges cards 116-111 and 115-112, with one notorious judge scoring it by a single point 113-114 the other way.

Too overturn the results of those fights means end of discussion, you just put your favourite boxer at the head of any group of boxers you are comparing and tell eveybody i dont recognise this result, i dont recognise that result, its a nonsense, we are not talking robberies, where 99% of people totally disagree with the judges, we are talking about over turning clear wins where lots of people agree with the judges.

Agenda.com, on the classic forum people like evidence, footage if there is any, newspaper reports, official scorecards, results, ignoring evidence and saying boxer A is better than boxer B is 'General Forum' stuff if evidence is going to be ignored.

Calzaghe beat a prime Kessler, a less than prime Kessler beat Froch, hard evidence that Calzaghe is better than Froch ?, Agenda.com says oh i think Froch beat Kessler so dont recognise that 'form' line. Calzaghe beat Hopkins and Froch doesnt have a win anywhere near that standard ?, Agenda.com says oh i dont recognise that Calzaghe beat Hopkins.

There is no point in discussing the merits and standing of various boxers with people like that.

[Flea Man]

I disagree that there's no point of discussion with 'those people' (each to their own and I'm here for debate) but I know what you mean now.

[lufcrazy]

So would me favouring both andre's over froch in a rematch help tilt the balance a bit?

Or how about me rooting for pascal in their fight (him and valero are the last two guys I actually were a fan of)

Infact if I really wanted I could just agree with flea and mcgrain that froch deserved his victory over dirrell, it's close enough right? I say wrong. I don't even think a draw is reasonable and I flat out call it a robbery in that anyone watching on tv has to declare andre the winner.

Froch was outclassed in my eyes and consistently beat to the punch whilst hitting nothing but air all night.

When carl called out joe 4 year ago I actually laughed at the thought of the two in a fight as it was seen as such a mismatch.

The problem with people like trampie is they're more bothered about the individual than the sport.

I respect froch as an unskilled grunt who's willed his way to victory at a high level but I'm not particularly fanatical about him.

His bird is really really fit though.

As I said before both guys born in england, both during my era, both did their country proud. I've no reason to favour one over the other.

Even if I did think mikel deserved to beat carl, your triangle argument would be a load of shit anyways.

My hero is bruno anyway, not carl.

I've seen more david haye fights than froch fights.

[trampie]

Froch calling out Calzaghe when Calzaghe was at the top and had big fry to fight when Froch himself had only just starting to break into the top tier was pathetic, it was even more pathetic when Froch was calling Calzaghe out when Calzaghe was retired.

I wonder when Froch is going to fight Cleverly ?, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by trampie

Froch calling out Calzaghe when Calzaghe was at the top and had big fry to fight when Froch himself had only just starting to break into the top tier was pathetic, it was even more pathetic when Froch was calling Calzaghe out when Calzaghe was retired.

Both are completely normal for the sport, neither is pathetic, unless Tyson is pathetic and Buchanan is pathetic and David Price is pathetic etc etc etc., practically every fighter calls out the big money fights available to them in their division.

[trampie]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Both are completely normal for the sport, neither is pathetic, unless Tyson is pathetic and Buchanan is pathetic and David Price is pathetic etc etc etc., practically every fighter calls out the big money fights available to them in their division.

I was being sarcastic, responding to the previous post to mine that mentioned Froch calling out Calzaghe, i wanted to put across that Cleverly is calling out Froch in a similar circumstance.

The pathetic bit is those people/fans that think that the champion boxer is ducking the boxer that is making his way to the top when they offer little at that stage, not the boxers themselves.

[McGrain]

Yeah, that's fair.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by trampie

Froch calling out Calzaghe when Calzaghe was at the top and had big fry to fight when Froch himself had only just starting to break into the top tier was pathetic, it was even more pathetic when Froch was calling Calzaghe out when Calzaghe was retired.

I wonder when Froch is going to fight Cleverly ?, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

It's laughable when people say joe ducked carl because it's so far removed from the reality.

Likewise carl himself has bigger fish to fry than nathan.

Namely a shot at redemption against mikel kessler hopefully in england somewhere.

[trampie]

Originally Posted by knockout artist

Froch lost the biggest fights of his career, Joe won his. Joe faced a stronger level of opposition, and beat them all, Froch didn't. I'm a fan of both, but Joe C is clearly greater H2H and on legacy.

I agree.