Froch (2008-2011): - Jean Pascal - Glen Johnson - Andre Dirrell - Jermain Taylor - Arthur Abraham Calzaghe (1997-2007): - Mikkel Kessler - Jeff Lacy - Chris Eubank - Robin Reid - Byron Mitchell Call it :bbb
I actually think Carl has the better wins all in all. Calzaghe's two best wins (Kessler and Hopkins) are better than any of Carl's, but then Carl's next three shits all over Joe's next three imo. But its also a matter of taste...because they are close.
as the wins themselves: Taylor was done Abraham was never proved to be good at this weight Johnson was drained from 175 lb Bika wasn't special Lacy was overhyped so 3-2 for Calzaghe,
Carl's is deeper IMO, but Calazaghe has the best win (hopkins) which gives him the edge. Plus, Froch lost to Kessler, who Joey beat.
Joe beat a better version of Kessler than the one who beat Froch. When it comes down to any comparison of Froch and Calzaghe, that is all you really need to know about them.
That's what people keep saying to Joe's resume when he fights older fighters, but people still blame him for it all (even though in retrospect, Hopkins was a really amazing win and so was Kessler, and Calzaghe beat them several years before). Why won't people use the same criticism for Froch as well?
I think Woodhall and Mitchell better than Bika really - Mitchell was robbed by Ottke (just like Reid and Larsen were) but a less shot version of Ottke. As for Joe beating a better version of Kessler - well... He was fighting in front of 40000 crazed JC fans in Cardiff... He was injured in training (he wasn't feeling it in the fight but his timing was clearly off due to a lack of sparring)... He had a lousy trainer who was doing more harm than good... He hadn't learned to move his head (which he did A LOT in the Froch fight) Joe fought one of his best fights, Froch fought one of his worst. Once you get into no 5-15 on their lists Calzaghe beats Froch hands down, but Joe never fought consistently good opposition (hell, many even said Mikkel had faced better guys than Joe had).
When all things are considered - quality of opposition, time of fighting them, the weight they were fought at, etc - it's hard to seperate the two (Froch maybe edges it). For Froch, that's a good thing and he gets more respect from me, because he's more or less matched Zaggy's best wins in almost half of the time Zaggy spent in the sport. That's gotta' count for something.
You left Mitchell off Calzaghe's list, he's better than Bika, anyway Kessler > Dirrell (because their similar levels but Froch lost that fight everything aside) Eubank>Taylor - both past their best borderline greats, Taylor new at the weight, Calzaghe's win was more emphatic/dominant Reid-Pascal - close 1, I'd say they're about even, Froch's win was clearer so he has the edge Abraham-Lacy - close 1, I'd go with Abraham as better, Calzaghe put on a master class though, even Mitchell-Johnson - Johnson was quite a bit past his past, Mitchell slightly past his, similar levels, Calzaghe won cleanly, I thought Johnson deserved a draw
I don't think Kessler fought the better competition. He did face a lot of RING rankers, but when you check their records, a lot of them were going out faster than RJJ did. And like an earlier poster showed, Froch didn't face better competition. He just fought NAMED competition. One was more shot than RJJ, the other one had no business in 168. And Kessler that Calzaghe fought clearly was the better fighter. He still had both of his eyes in the fight. And for a distance general like Kessler was back then who could win fights with his jab alone, eyes were very important for his fighting style. He obviously had to move his head in the Froch fight to cover the fact that he can't read the distance as well as he did before. He never had that in the Froch fight, and his body is much older when he fought Froch than when he fought Calzaghe, stricken with a layoff, injury and now even more injury. Poor guy can't catch a break anymore.
It doesn't since it's not even the question at hand. Because even great fighters from past eras had extended periods of not fighting stellar opposition. Because not everyone is stellar opposition. If everyone could be stellar opposition all the time, heavyweight and cruiserweight would be super awesome divisions. Also, a lot of overrating being given to Froch. A LOT. Two of his top 5 wins are people who are completely past it or never belonged to 168, and one of them was shellshocked into negative fighting. Won't badmouth Pascal here. He's a good win. He's world level. He's just not into the BHop elite level.
Yes, you're right. I was away in my own world, and changed the OP's question to "Who do you respect more?".
It's close right now, although a win over Ward would put Froch ahead of Joe imo. He's also facing a tough level of competition consistently over a short period of time, which gains him a lot of respect. Joe would have beaten him H2H and was, for me, the better fighter. Froch has taken more chances though and seems determined to test himself against the best competition - a quality sadly lacking in many fighters.