Better Top 5 Wins at SMW: Froch or Calzaghe?

If Eubank was faded, so was Taylor. Either that, or Taylor was never as good as many believes. Taylor not only lost to Pavlik and Froch, but was KO'd by Arthur Abraham who seems to have little business at SMW.

Glen Johnson was unable to land a title shot at Calzaghe in his prime. Lost to a guy Calzaghe defeated. I fail to see how a win over Glen at his current age can be rated so highly. To be honest with you, I cant see how the **** you can rate a win over 42 year old Johnson above 31 year old Eubank.

Saying Andre Dirrell is above Lacy seems questionable. Dirrell has beaten one fighter of notice, AA, who as already stated is a blown up MW. He just have not proved himself enough. At least Lacy picked up a title and defended it a couple of times.

But I can see why you rate the win over Pascal so highly. Pascal was prime and good enough to hand Chad Dawson his first loss. That aint no walk in the park.

I would go for:

1. Pascal
2. Kessler
3. Eubank
4. Taylor
5. Lacy.

3-2 in favour for Cal-slap-a-lot

 

what a loaded question. it's like saying "who has the better best win: buster douglas or wladimir klitschko?" then using that to insinuate that buster was a better heavyweight than wlad is.

for my money calzaghe has the better top 5 wins. altho i understand that others think otherwise. but carl froch only has 5 good wins. calzaghe won every belt at 168, had loads of title defences, moved up in weight & became a 2 weight world champ...& has a win rather than froch's loss against a common opponent. there isn't a comparison.

 

Calzaghe's wins are more impressive to me.

 

If heavy cocaine use has damaged Joe's financial situation sufficiently, I wouldn't be surprised to see him call out Froch in the future.

 

cheers :-(

 

I like froch and have stuck up for him in the past but this thread has really opened my eyes to the real value of his achievements at 168



if the question is about the better wins at 168 then it is quite clear that calzaghe has the much better wins at 168, though consideration has to be taken into account at the time in they're career that they fought both fighters.



kessler, lacy, mitchell, reid, eubank have all been world champions at the weight and have proven themselves in the 168 division

is it fair to say that kessler, eubank, mitchell, and lacy all make it into the top 10 atgs at 168?



now which of pascal, johnson, dirrell, taylor, or abraham would make it into the top 10 atg at 168? none of them would if we are being fair because they are not proven at the weight, though i do rate dirrell and think he can still do big things at the weight.





lets take a closer look at frochs list of wins at 168


johnson
0 wins - 3 defeats in 168 world title fights
notable 168 victories - none. 168 defeats to branco, sosa, kiwanuka, ottke, vanderpool, sheika, branco,

pascal
o wins - 1 defeat in 168 world title fights
notable 168 wins - none

taylor
0 wins - 2 defeats in 168 world title fights
notbale 168 wins - 1 (a shot jeff lacy + another defeat to kelly pavlik)

abraham
1 win - 3 defeats in 168 world title fights, 2 complete beatdowns
notable 168 wins - 1 (a shot jermain taylor)

dirrell
1 win - 1 defeat in 168 world title fights
notable 168 wins - 1 (DQ win over abraham)
I actually scored dirrel v froch to dirrell, so i can't class that as a froch win anyway.

 

i made quite clear why i consider it a loaded question. i see you have chosen to ignore that. good for you. in fact; i would consider any question that "heavily favoured" anyone a loaded question. your implication of bias on my part is ill-judged & unfounded.

i have an agenda?

dude...you're the one actually going to the bother of starting threads about a boxer you dislike...& you have asked a very obviously loaded question about this boxer you obviously dislike...pretty much the only question regarding a debate between him & froch where the result could possibly favour froch (as you have clearly admitted in your post)...& you accuse me of having an agenda?

you need to get out more. seriously.

 

Super super Joe
Super super Joe
Super super Joe
Super Joe Calzaghe. :happy:happy:happy

 

38-0
The five opponents you put forward as Calzaghe's best wins won 38 super middleweight world titles between them, two of them were even unbeaten multiple world champions at the weight when Calzaghe beat them.
The five opponents that you put up as Froch's best wins have not won a single world title at the weight between the lot of them.

 

JC would have beaten Froch, but the away from home fights on Froch's resume give him the edge in this poll