Better Top 5 Wins at SMW: Froch or Calzaghe?

All you seem to have on this thread are numbers and stats.

Numbers and stats mean very little when you are evaluating how good a fighter was at a particular time.


Examples:

Floyd Mayweather has only had one fight at lightmiddleweight. Sergey Dzinziruk held a world title at lightmiddleweight from 2005-2010. Right now, a win over Floyd Mayweather at 154 would mean a hell of a lot more than a win there over Dzinziruk, for any fighter - because Floyd is better than Dzinziruk, irrespective of Dzinziruk's far superior experience and accomplishments at the weight.

Sergio Martinez has never fought at supermiddleweight. Robert Stieglitz is the WBO supermiddleweight champion and has been fighting there since 2004. Who would be a better win for Carl Froch - p4p#3 and undisputed middleweight #1 Maravila, or Stieglitz, a relatively unproven world smw champion who has been knocked out by Librado Andrade and Alejandro Barrios?



You see?? Numbers and stats show who had been at the weight longer sure, but they don't show who was the better fighter and the tougher opponent at the time. :good

 

Not remotely, obviously.

"Who has the better wins, A or B?"

This cannot be a loaded question unless you yourself hold some baggage over the subject, and bring with that with you into what is clearly a perfectly fair question to ask, and not contrived nor coloured by anything.

Very petty. Very.

 

Another long-winded statistician. YAWN!

Tell me more about Calzaghe-Brewer is better than ANY win on Carl Froch's resume, I could do with a laugh.

:yikes

 

There's been a lot of long winded bollocks written on this thread, spin and soundbytes, meaningless stats.

You'd think it was the Labour party conference.

It's a perfectly reasonable question from the OP, comparing the best wins of Froch and Calzaghe, and to be perfectly frank there isn't a great deal of difference between the two.

But what you must do is compare their respective five wins against the other man's five wins, rather than simply ranking each five as you personally see fit and then saying so and so was better than so and so, or vice versa.

Calzaghe has the better individual wins, over Hopkins and Kessler, who of course beat Froch, but for me it's Froch who has the overall better body of work, with five wins from six fights over world level opposition.

For every person that says ''Taylor was shot'' or ''Abraham is a middle who did nothing at 168'' you could say ''Lacy was never that good anyway'', ''Hopkins beat him'' or ''Eubank was drained''.

Calzaghe pros.....

Unbeaten
20+ wins in world title fights
Beat Kessler (Froch didn't)

Calzaghe cons.....

Too many old/shot/coming off a loss opponents
Didn't travel
Arguably lost to Hopkins and Reid

Froch pros....

Done a lot in a short time at world level after cleaning up at home
Travelled abroad regularly
Will fight anyone

Froch cons....

Lost to Kessler, arguably Dirrell too
Technically all over the place at times
Not getting any younger with plenty still to do

It's an interesting debate, but most of what we've seen thus far is Calzaghe fangirls arguing with Calzaghe detractors, in amongst that there are a few good contributions.

 

It's a completely fair and unbiased question, and you know it. :smoke

 

This content is protected

Age:

This content is protected

Record:

This content is protected

Key fights in this time-period:

This content is protected

Best win of his career:

This content is protected

This content is protected

Age:

This content is protected

Record:

This content is protected

Key fights in this time-period:

This content is protected

Best win of his career:

This content is protected

Who was the better fighter between these two at these points in time?

 

Just about sums up your imbecilic and utterly biased criteria.

A fighter's best wins aren't important when evaluating his quality as a fighter, all that matters is whether he won one fight against a random fighter.

Good God :rofl

 

Your small brain evidently cannot grasp logic, nor the English language.

Question: "Which is better, A or B?"

Answer: "This is a loaded question"

Conclusion: You're quite obviously bringing your own baggage into a question which is purposefully set to allow both points of view to be put across equally and fairly.

Your point was petty, infantile, and just flat-out wrong. As I said, unjustifiable and you know this now, despite these feeble protestations. :good