Does Froch now have a better record than Calzaghe?

Seems to be a real lack of perspective going on.

 

[url]http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=005364&cat=boxer[/url]

Legendary.

Manfredo > Any of Froch's wins.

*Sarcasm Off*

 

Froch has had 8 hard fights in a row, winning 6 of them - and on two occasions has thoroughly wasted opponents who were heavily favoured to beat him, in a similar way to how Calzaghe smacked Lacy around.

Calzaghe cops a fair bit of grief for lots of reasons, some of it unfair, but there's an awful lot of shite in that run from Eubank onwards.

Some of the opponents were absolute gash, like Sobot for example, and not many of them did anything of note afterwards. Of course Kessler is different, he went on to defeat the then undefeated Froch and also a few other decent names, whilst Hopkins thrashed Pavlik and did a job on Pascal x2.

In that respect, Froch is his equal - Pascal later clearly defeated Dawson, who was heavily hyped up to the eyeballs at the time (though I picked Pascal - just had to get that in!), Dirrell did a job on Abraham.... whilst we remain to see what Kessler, Ward and Bute do in future.

As I've said, Calzaghe was the better of the two, but Froch has done more - one didn't really make the most of his talents and the other will retire knowing he fought practically everybody there was to fight - you could say he's already playing with house money and what happens from hereon is just a bonus.

It's just so rare for a British fighter to be so willing to take risks and fight everyone, anywhere..... he ticks all the boxes.

Recorded KO wins over ALL his domestic contemporaries - tick
Beat a good opponent to win the world title, not waiting for a weak champion - tick
Defended it against top opponents - tick
Fought back stronger after a defeat - tick x2

etc.

 

Overall Froch may have fought better opposition but Calzaghe would have beaten Ward, and did beat Kessler.

 

Hatton might have been linear champion but by that stage wasn't much more than a goodish contender, and fought like a journeyman on the night.

Mosley on the other hand was only there to get his money to settle his divorce case, winning was the last thing on his mind.

Of course historically Shane is better than all of them, but is Hatton really a superior fighter to Kessler?

I think not - Kessler won the title three times, partially unified once and barely lost a round in his first 40 fights, and despite looking faded defeated the unbeaten and battle hardened Froch.

 

Why would Joe of beaten Ward? Ward is future ATG, I honestly believe that.

 

Why do you keep mentioning Manfredo? Nobody is trying to use Manfredo to defend Calzaghe's record.

 

Froch didn't beat Kessler though, did he? Even then it's arguable whether he is/was better than Hatton, Hatton was coming off a very dominant win against Malignaggi going into the Pacquiao fight whereas Kessler was coming off a pretty damaging loss. As i said, i think a lot of perspective has been lost in this debate because people love Froch (rightly so, he has massive stones and will fight anyone) and dislike Calzaghe (again, with justification given that he was a fanny).

 

I didn't say Froch beat Kessler (I had it 8-4 to MK), you said that ''Hatton was better than any of them'', which I took to include Carl's opponents from Pascal onwards - from which I used Kessler to pull you up on. If I misread you that's my fault.

I rate Kessler higher, there's not a massive difference between them admittedly but at the time Pac fought Hatton, Ricky was a lot less dangerous than Kessler was to Froch (and vice versa) - despite a dominant win over Paulie.

 

When evaluating boxers resume losses should mean a negative, i could fight Bute, Froch, Calzaghe, Kessler, Ward etc, etc and lose every fight inside the first minute of the first round every time and claim to have a great resume, at the end of the day Froch lost convincingly against Ward and clearly against Kessler, Froch resume doesnt compare to Calzaghe, people should not credit losses as a positive when comparing boxers unless there was mitigating circumstances, a robbery, a very close decision, an unfortunate injury etc, but basically losses should count as a negative when comparing one top boxer with another.

Calzaghe has Kessler, Hopkins, Lacy, Roy Jones and Eubank on his resume Froch has Bute, Johnson, Abraham, Pascal and Taylor on his, there is no comparison, not only would Calzaghe have beaten Froch by a wide margin in the ring, Calzaghe has a much better record also, people should not count clear losses as a positive for a boxer.

 

I said that they were better than anyone Froch had beaten (other than Bute). Have to agree to disagree on Hatton and Kessler's relative standing, at the time Hatton fought Pacquiao he was still the number 1 light-welter and was ranked number 8 p4p by The Ring. Kessler to my knowledge even in his very best days was never ranked that highly and when he fought Froch he wasn't the number 1 in the division either. You stated that Hatton was an 'easy fight' for Pacquiao, which fairly well demonstrates the total lack of perspective being shown on this thread. On a p4p basis Hatton would sit comfortably in Froch's top 3 wins.

 

Hatton at his best would be, you're right on that score, but by May 2009 he was crap (IMHO of course).

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

 

Roy wasn't even ranked in the top 10 at the time of that win, and was clearly shot to pieces.

Even in Joe's Autobiography he say's that a fight with Roy "Would make no sense".

 

Yes

 

Calzaghe still has the better resume, too many people are giving credit for losses.