Froch says he has a better legacy then cazaghe

I call it like I see it, and here all I see is General Forum wrecking machine realsoulja putting yet another snotty-nosed Team Elite apprentice turd over his knee and giving his botty a firm spanking. :smoke

 

Calzaghe still would have embaressed Froch and slapped the **** out of Ward. But yeah what your saying is true.

 

I also think Calzaghe would have won easily but Froch has a more impressive list of opponents, especially back to back prime top fighters.

 

Of course, but this is what realsoulja does, he has issues with selective reading, and goes on to write lists of responses to comments that were never made atsch

Basically, that entire post by realsoulja was pointless, he just yapped on about how Hopkins has adapted his style into his 40's, when Calzaghe had a style that does not age well. Despite the fact that I already pointed that out :roll:

I've already given full credit to Hopkins, for being able to adapt his style, and carry on fighting at the top level into his forties. As I stated, certain fighters have certain attributes, and Calzaghe did not have a style that allowed him to continue fighting close to his best as he got significantly older, similar to RJJ. Calzaghe knew when his time was up, and left the sport at the top, fair play to him. Roy scored a flash KD in the first round, through hitting Joe with his forearm! You would know if you watched the fight.


So you'd rather see fighters take beatings well past their prime? I have to disagree there, even watching Pacquaio-Mosley last year was horrible.

Also, at age 35, Calzaghe beat a 'young hungry lion' in his prime in Mikel Kessler.

Calzaghe wasn't a legit two weight world champion? He unified the SMW division, unifying the WBO and IBF against Lacy, then unifying these titles with the WBA and Ring Magazine title against Kessler. Then he stepped up to LHW, and won the Ring Magazine title through beating Bernard Hopkins. You can cry all day about how Hopkins won, but the facts are Calzaghe SD12 Hopkins, live with it fanboy. Yeah he didn't have an alphabet title, but he was recognised as the man at LHW, through beating Hopkins. Like Hopkins, Calzaghe was a legit two weight world champion.

Unless you only go off Alphabet organisations? In which case you consider the likes of JCC jr a legit champ??

First you tried to degrade Calzaghe's win over Hopkins, making out that Hopkins was past his best

Then you backtrack, and admit that indeed both were past prime. Ignoring that it was Hopkins who turned down the opportunity to fight Calzaghe, when both were prime or near prime.


You've already been schooled on RJJ in previous threads. I don't need to add to that.

I don't really know how much clearer I can make this all for you :deal

 

dont wish to interrupt you two guys, but you both tend to be a bit extreme in some of your views that devalue your good arguments. The tourettes doesnt help, it just stops people reading posts full of smileys negatives.

Shame really, its interesting learning details from guys like you two who have been around in boxing viewing when guys like us couldnt afford it (ie when boxing went to Sky in the 90s).

Might be better for readers if you cleared up the posts a bit asthetically, they are a wonderful read then. I could literally spend days of my life reading all this, but the eyesore stops me doing that.

 

oh please, Carl Froch made Kessler look like ****ing Floyd Mayweather

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

No need to go crying to others now, stay in the ring.

You call it pointless but go on to reply to my next post.

Well done son. :good

Fighting late into your career has alot (not all) to do with mental strength, Calzaghe simply didnt have that.

Hopkins retired after losing to Taylor, everyone thought Hopkins time was up but Hopkins came back and became legit LHW champion.

A shot RJJ.

Calzaghe wasnt taking beatings because Calzaghe didnt step in the ring with a young Lion.

Hopkins went into the ring with young lions, and still aint taken a beating. But eventually will.

In the words of Bernard Hopkins.

"Kessler not in my league man, who is Kessler"

No

:good

Hopkins was The Ring LHW champion, the ring LHW champion means the lineal champion of the division. At that time, Erdei was the real lineal champion. Here is the lineage.

Maske (#1) vs Hill (#2) fought for the vacant lineal LHW championship
Hill won, DM goes on to beat Hill

Gonzales beats DM
Zsolt Erdei beats Gonzales
Zsolt Erdei then moves up to CW and vacates the lineal belt.

Dawson and Pascal fight for the vacant Lineal LHW championship
Pascal wins, Hopkins beats Pascal and becomes the Real Lineal champion.

As you can see, Calzaghe never won the Lineal LHW championship ever. The Ring handed its belt to Roy Jones Jr, instead of DM.

So The Ring LHW title which is supposed to represent the division lineal champion was given to the wrong guy.
------------------------
Calzaghe went up and beat the man who beat tarver who beat RJJ. But the true lineal champ at the time was Erdei so Calzaghe aint no legit 2 weight champion, Calzaghe is only a legit champion at SMW.

Calzaghe never won an alaphabet title at LHW (WBA, WBC, WBO, IBF) Calzaghe only won The Ring title which at the time wasnt representing what its supposed to represent which is true lineage.

Calzaghe was recognised as the man with a Ring belt that is supposed to represent true lineage, however it wasnt representing true lineage.

Calzaghe was never seen as the man by the WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO at LHW, he was seen as the man by The Ring, which wasnt representing true lineage at the time and only fixed up when Zsolt Erdei moved up.

I am not saying Zsolt Erdei was The Man, but Zsolt Erdei was the true lineal champ.

Calzaghe got the SD12 win, and then had the opportunity to put things right by making himself a legit champion by picking up a strap that is truthful but he didint.

Hopkins at the moment is the True lineal champion of the LHW division, Calzaghe doesnt have claim to this.

Hopkins has been a legit Lineal champion in two divisions, Calzaghe hasnt.
Hopkins has won alphabet titles at LHW, Calzaghe hasnt.

There is clearly a BIG difference between Calzaghe's LHW reign and Hopkins.

JCC Jr is a paper champion. Besides, the WBC rank Sergio Martinez as the main man in their organisation, with JCC 2nd.

Degrade Calzaghe's win. I never did that.

Calzaghe SD12 Hopkins. the SD says it all anyway, a rematch should have been done, and most blame goes towards Calzaghe for not making it happen.

I never needed to admit nothing, I think it was common sense that Calzaghe was past his prime but you making it look like you just discovered it.

Calzaghe and Hopkins were both past their primes, but Hopkins was further away from his physical prime than Calzaghe.

Hopkins wins fights these days because he mastered the craft with experience, Calzaghe never showed he mastered the craft using experience.

You claim I need to read.

Let me show the difference between me and you now. I will tell you to go back and read, and also provide what you need to read below to make it easier for you not to duck any of my points.

You claim I ignored Hopkins turning down Calzaghe? read below and stop making up lies from now on.:-

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12428552&postcount=144

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12428254&postcount=128

Go back to that thread and learn from the debate between Joe.Boxer and Imperial1 on the topic of lineal championship. DM was the true lineal champ. RJJ was the undisputed champion.

You want to be clear.

Admit you was wrong.

Froch would have his moments vs Calzaghe.

 

This content is protected

Knock out artist why are you ducking the points I am making by editing quotes of mines to avoid schooling?

I posted this, (post 164):-
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12429194&postcount=164

This was your reply (Post 174):-
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12429838&postcount=174

You deliberately missed out the opening lines of my post which was:-

-------------------------------------------------------

Stop ducking son:deal
-------------------------------------------------------

And if you claim you didnt claim this, well here is my evidence:-

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12420713&postcount=27

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12420998&postcount=35

-------------------------------------------------------------------

You tried to use the triangle theory:-

Fighter A beats Fighter B
Fighter B beats Fighter C
so therefore Fighter A should theoretically beat Fighter C

And I schooled you on this topic, and you been ducking since.

 

To go back on it, you did try to degrade Calzaghe's win over Hopkins, you made the point

Whilst you're not wrong, you know it's not as clear cut as that. Then you backtracked, and admitted Calzaghe was also past prime, and acknowledged that Hopkins was coming off of two of his best wins in Tarver and Wright, then recorded another against Pavlik in his next fight so that's the end of that.

Calzaghe was recognised as the man at LHW, lineage is another debate and I don't need you explaining it to me, I already read Joe.boxers fantastic posts outlining the lineage. Joe was a legit two weight champ, we can debate this all day long, but he was recognised as the man at 175, and he didn't need an alphabet title to confirm this to boxing fans. I get that you don't like him, fair enough, criticise him all you like, but you can't start downgrading his achievements.

Furthermore, if you're going to downplay Calzaghe's opponents and Calzaghe's reign as champion, we can just as easily go through Hopkins best wins. Trinidad, a blown up WW. ODLH, a guy who started his career at Lightweight, and stepped up to fight Hopkins, who's now a champ at LHW. I'm only using this as an example, I don't actually want to downgrade Hopkins and his achievements, but if you're going to dismiss an opponent like Mikel Kessler, it's important to appreciate where he was, compared to the best opponents Hopkins has beaten. I think he's a better win than Trindad, ODLH considering these fights were at MW. Winky Wright at 170, Tarver, Pavlik and Pascal. That's my opinion.

The Calzaghe and Froch debate is over, I explained my points clearly, and consistently, whilst I admitted the wording of my first post wasn't the best, I clearly recovered to explain what I meant, and ended that debate. You completely avoided the points I made on why Calzaghe would beat Froch clearly, you ignored other points I made to compare it, and finally you contradicted yourself, stating that it's about styles, then using Hopkins, RJJ, Salem, Reid and Mitchell as reasons for why Froch would match up well against Calzaghe. That's the end of it. To people reading this, you can easily go back and find the previous posts where I explained myself, ignore realsoulja's silly post about me 'ducking' the points he made, it's tedious and pointless to just go round in circles copying and pasting previous posts.

 

The point I made:-
"Hopkins made his money, and eventually fought Calzaghe when Hopkins was physically past his prime and Calzaghe was coming off his greatest win"

What is stated above is 100% fact. You tried to twist it to make it look like I am not giving Calzaghe props, if you never had Calzaghe's nuts in your mouth you would have behaved like every other civilised poster on ESB, read and move on like Tyson Fury's house.

You even admit I was not wrong with the point I made:

So if you admit, why bother trying to divert and duck the Froch vs Calzaghe discussion and try to turn it into a Hopkins vs Calzaghe discussion.
Stop Ducking.

Hopkins best wins in his physical prime: Glen Johnson and Felix Trinidad, these took place more than 10 years ago now, and Hopkins is still dominating despite being way past his "PHYSICAL" prime.

I will leave this for a separate post to make sure you dont duck.

You can downplay Hopkins wins as much as you want, Hopkins will always be above Calzaghe.

You are trying to duck your way out of the Calzaghe Vs Froch debate like a *****, so I will no longer look at the rest of your post and go back to Calzaghe vs Froch, which is the subject of the thread.

 

Again you are using the triangle theory which is flawed, after ducking and deliberately removing parts of my post to avoid schooling.

And since you are crying that I am schooling you over this topic, then let me ask you some questions.

This content is protected

What link is there between the '

This content is protected

' in Ward UD12 Froch, and a POSSIBLE '

This content is protected

' in a Calzaghe Froch fight?

Since you are showing signs of duckings, dont come here and say:-

"I never said there was a link between the two, I didnt want no trouble I just am a Calzaghe fan boy and think he would beat Froch, I never meant to mess with you realsoulja, im sorry please forgive me"

Because that would be considered a duck from the position I am holding down.

You made a link between Ward UD12 Froch, and a possible 'poor stylistic match-up' between Froch and Calzaghe. If you think there was no link between the two, then why mention it in the first place. Regardless I speak the truth even when I lie, and here is proof of your failure:-

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12420713&postcount=27

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12420998&postcount=35

Next question....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firstly I never said its all about styles, just want to clear up that. Secondly....

(Re)Read the part in red son. Do you disagree with that.

The thing is you deep down inside your heart want to agree with the part in red because you know its true after the Schoolage you got from me on the topic, but you are only disagreeing because you cant accept defeat.

If you agree with the part in red, in your quote above then that means you retract the following statements you made earlier,. Hence contradicting yourself and being KO. These are the statements you made earlier:-

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12420713&postcount=27

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12420998&postcount=35

This content is protected

Do you accept the part in red:-

A simple yes no would be ok, lets see the next question.
----------------------------------------------------------------

You make up another lie, You are claiming I said Hopkins and RJJ and Froch all have similar styles? Why would I disrespect great boxers like Hopkins and RJJ by comparing their styles to Carl Froch?

Have some respect.

You said that,

1. Froch has no chance vs Calzaghe
2. Froch wont have his moments vs Calzaghe

And since pure styles was not easy for your mind to grasp, I had to add logic so maybe your mind will be able to comprehend, but it wont unless you take Calzaghe's balls outta ur mouth.

Kabery Salem was able to land a right hand on Calzaghe's chin and had his moments, Froch has a better right hand and is a better fighter than Salem so why do you think.

1. Froch has no chance vs Calzaghe
2. Froch wont have his moments vs Calzaghe

since Kabery Salem was able to expose a flaw in Calzaghe by landing that right hand, so could Froch who has demonstrated a right hand.

I have been answering this throughout the schooling. To answer the question in red in a familiar tone.

Styles make fights.

I have already discussed Calzaghe being open to lead right/counter right hands.

Jeff "LEFT HOOK" Lacy, wasnt able to land a right hand, he wasnt known for it. Carl Froch was landing lead right hands on Andre Dirrells southpaw stance. (See 2:22 of reference video 1.) And Froch is known for right hands.

Kabery Salem landed a right hand, was an example of a **** fighter who had a average right hand being able to expose flaws in Calzaghe.

So why are you trying to deny, Froch won have his moments when the above is clear indication Froch can have success with the lead right hand which he often uses.

Jeff "LEFT HOOK" Lacy is not known for lead right/counter right hands, and this particular weapon of Lacy doesnt compare to Carl Froch.

What is Carl Froch's greatest offensive weapon? --------The Lead right hand.

I have to teach you that the triangle theory doesnt wo rk, (and just because Ward dominated Froch, doesnt mean Calzaghe would,)and styles make fights. And it aint about you learning this, you know this know because you are forced to accept it. But refuse to accept due to nutthuggery.

Froch would have his moments vs Calzaghe,

Ok you didnt say backfoot, but you said Calzaghe would 'dance around' Carl Froch.

I asked you to bring me one example of how Calzaghe would 'dance around' Carl Froch and you failed to bring one fight where Calzaghe done this.

Again bring proof, you are resorting to lies on a regular basis to hide from the truth that you got owned. I never compared Froch to Morales or Calzaghe to Pacqiuao. I was teaching you what a real technical fight between southpaw vs Orthadox looks like,

since you a claimed, Calzaghe's southpaw stance would negate Carl Froch's Jab atsch

You think I agree with you, (re)Read this post.

Like the Morales Pacqiuao thing?

You said a southpaw style negates an orthadox fighters jab atsch, so I bought up an example of a orthadox fighter out jabbing a southpaw fighter.

If you watch the Morales vs Pacqiuao I fight, you would see Morales throwing his jab above Pacqiuaos while stepping away from Pacqiuao's left hand.

Dont act like you knew that, so you should thank me I am teaching you boxing lessons for free here, instead of complaining now son.

Arcane is an ATG poster, Drozzy a first ballot HOF poster, Snakefist is a future P4P #1, and Popkins is a retired legend of the game.

You got owned.

What I am saying is pure boxing knowledge:deal

 

Knockout Artist, you got owned in the Calzaghe vs Froch discussion and you knew that so you tried to make it into a Calzaghe vs Hopkins discussion by attacking my following point:-

Which is 100% fact, you later on admited:-

You tried to go off the topic of the thread which is Calzaghe vs Froch, by attacking a post of mines you agree with?

Now explain yourself, no more ducking son.

 

I don't think Froch would stand much of chance to beat Calzaghe, but to say he wouldn't get close to winning a round is a little far fetched. Lesser fighters than Froch took rounds off Calzaghe. If guys like Reid, Woodhall, Mitchell, and Starie can take rounds off Calzaghe, I'm certain Froch can manage at least 1.

But therein lies the problem. Calzaghe WAS a better fighter than Froch, without a doubt, and does have the better legacy. But people think that because he beat up on a host of inferior opponents, and did manage to win a few meaningful fights, and retired unbeaten, that he was invincible.

Calzghe does have the better legacy, and will be remembered in higher standing, but he does not get the near universal respect that Froch does because he didn't take on challenges consistently like Froch does.

 

Low key, under the radar ESB living HOF'er des3995 gives his judge's verdict:-

Good post, I learnt a lot from it myself, its an honour to share knowledge with such one of the old school posters.

 

Damn. It's rare that I read a post and think 'If I were smarter, I would have stated it like that.' This happens to be one of those times.:good