Why I think Calzaghe's resume is still better than Froch's

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by iceferg, Jun 9, 2012.


Page 1 of 3
  1. iceferg

    iceferg Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,459
    2,418
    Apr 25, 2008
    In all fairness Froch has took a lot of fights on the Road but purely based on opponents this is my opinion. Also I could not have seen Calzaghe being willing to relentlessly take people on the way Froch has but here is goes.


    Kessler '07 >>> Kessler '10

    Lacy >>> Abraham. Lacy is underated these days and did more at SMW. Could change but that's my opinion for now.

    Robin Reid >>> Andre Dirrell. Dirrell has done very little for people to say he's better than Reid. I think both Calzaghe and Froch won these ones (although some don't)

    Hopkins >>> Ward. Again Close but the bottom line is Calzaghe won. I also believe Hopkins was still in his peak judging on results.

    Eubank >>> Pascal. Some may say Eubank was shot but by that measure Pascal was green.

    Taylor >>> Mitchell. Very good showing by Froch. Mitchell was also a top, under rated fighter but not on Taylor's level, although he did achieve a lot more at SMW.

    Bute >>> Brewer. Froch's best win for me, no denying that.

    Bika --- Johnson. Not a lot in this one for me.


    Then you are left with guys like Woohall, Veit etc. on Calzaghe's resume. It's close but Calzaghe has still faced the better guys for me although Froch could surpass thatand likely will in terms of who he faced at least.
     
    iceferg, Jun 9, 2012
    iceferg, Jun 9, 2012
    #1
  2. Piye

    Piye Guest

    Kill yourself.
     
    Piye, Jun 9, 2012
    Piye, Jun 9, 2012
    #2
  3. Chairman

    Chairman Active Member Full Member

    514
    0
    Jun 3, 2012
    Abraham is better than Lacy.

    Ward shouldn't count towards Froch's resume. Froch lost that fight.

    Eubank is so far above Pascal that they shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence together.

    Hopkins was in the P4P top ten when Calzaghe beat him.

    Joe Cazlaghe has the better record, hands down. Froch is still a good fighter though.
     
    Chairman, Jun 9, 2012
    Chairman, Jun 9, 2012
    #3
  4. iceferg

    iceferg Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,459
    2,418
    Apr 25, 2008
    Fair points mate. Personly I rate Lacy higher. He was knocking eveyone out before he fought Calzaghe. He tore his rotator cuff in the next fight and that was his power done, he never got a KO after that. He was a former Olympian, IBF/IBO SMW champ. Not like he's a bum.
     
    iceferg, Jun 9, 2012
    iceferg, Jun 9, 2012
    #4
  5. Chairman

    Chairman Active Member Full Member

    514
    0
    Jun 3, 2012
    Indeed. Americunts at the time were describing Jeff Lacy as a super middleweight Mike Tyson. Calzaghe haters tend to forget that.
     
    Chairman, Jun 9, 2012
    Chairman, Jun 9, 2012
    #5
  6. igor_otsky

    igor_otsky Undefeated Full Member

    14,285
    6
    Jul 26, 2008
    Froch is still a notch better than Calslap IMO.

    **** it. Calslappy is better. Than crackhead..
     
    igor_otsky, Jun 9, 2012
    igor_otsky, Jun 9, 2012
    #6
  7. knockout artist

    knockout artist Boxing Addict banned

    6,846
    12
    Sep 24, 2011
    Good thread Iceferg. I think most people on here only started following the SMW division when the Super Six started. Hence, they don't know how good the fighters in the division were 10 years ago.

    I'm a fan of both. However, Calzaghe dominated the division and became undisputed champion, Froch has yet to achieve this.
     
    knockout artist, Jun 9, 2012
    knockout artist, Jun 9, 2012
    #7
  8. iceferg

    iceferg Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,459
    2,418
    Apr 25, 2008
    KO artist. Yeah really good point mate. Calzaghe dominated at a time when the division was really unpopular. The division was loved during the Eubank, Benn, Watson, Collins era (due to massive coverage in the UK) then Calzaghe completely dominated for 10 years when it was "crap" then this S6 tournament comes along and brings interest, suddenly it's "stacked" again. I'm sorry but it's just too conveiniant to say it was **** for 10 years.
     
    iceferg, Jun 9, 2012
    iceferg, Jun 9, 2012
    #8
  9. des3995

    des3995 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,903
    126
    Oct 23, 2009
    I agree Calzaghe's overall resume is better, he also has the luxury of having had 11 years as champ as opposed to Froch having had 3-4. In that span Froch's opposition is better tham any stretch of Calzaghe's. IMO Froch's resume may not ever surpass Calzaghe's in total, simply because, at 34, he doesn't have all that much time unless he keeps fighting beyond what is reasonable to expect.
     
    des3995, Jun 9, 2012
    des3995, Jun 9, 2012
    #9
  10. Hatesrats

    Hatesrats "I'm NOT Suprised..." Full Member

    60,376
    242
    Sep 28, 2007
    "Classic or British forum talk"
     
    Hatesrats, Jun 9, 2012
    Hatesrats, Jun 9, 2012
    #10
  11. knockout artist

    knockout artist Boxing Addict banned

    6,846
    12
    Sep 24, 2011
    Yeah exactly mate, often when a fighter dominates a division it gets called ****. I don't see how fighters like Taylor, Abraham, Johnson and Bute are better than Mitchell, Brewer, Reid and Lacy. Then Calzaghe also has the win over Eubank and prime undefeated Kessler, who years later beat Froch.

    Take nothing away from Froch though, the man is a warrior and is a credit to the sport.
     
    knockout artist, Jun 9, 2012
    knockout artist, Jun 9, 2012
    #11
  12. kmac

    kmac On permanent vacation Full Member

    5,005
    15
    Jul 29, 2010
    haha!! yes, we were all comparing lacy to tyson. wtf?? :lol:
     
    kmac, Jun 9, 2012
    kmac, Jun 9, 2012
    #12
  13. Momus

    Momus Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,732
    2,573
    Nov 27, 2010
    Speaking as someone who has followed the division closely since its inception (well, admittedly I wasn;t a huge Chong-Pal Park fan), 168 was one of the weaker divisions in boxing in the late 90s and early 00s. Many of the champions were mediocre, and a mediocrity like Beyer was able to win two titles and be a fixture for years. Ancient lighter fighters like Hilton and Thobela were able to win belts, along with the likes of Catley and Nardiello who wouldn't crack the top 10 in most divisions. The two outstanding fighters (Calzaghe and Ottke) were unable to agree terms, and very few significant fights were made.

    It wasn't until Kessler and Lacy came on the scene that things picked up, and Calzaghe was able to prove his true quality. There was a genuine buzz about the division that had been missing since the mid 90s, and the momentum has continued with the Super 6.
     
    Momus, Jun 9, 2012
    Momus, Jun 9, 2012
    #13
  14. Brighton bomber

    Brighton bomber Loyal Member Full Member

    31,409
    29,753
    Apr 4, 2005
    I agree. I still rate Calzaghe's resume just above Froch's. The impressive thing about Froch is he has complied a comparable resume in a few short years, where it took Calzaghe over a decade to do so.

    If Froch can beat Kessler in a rematch and pick up a title at 175lbs, he may still surpass Calzaghe in terms of resume.
     
    Brighton bomber, Jun 9, 2012
    Brighton bomber, Jun 9, 2012
    #14
  15. Chairman

    Chairman Active Member Full Member

    514
    0
    Jun 3, 2012
    Awww bless, a boxing newbie.

    Here are some quotes for you:

    http://www.fightsrec.com/boxing-news.php?start=300&search=lacy&subt=&day=&sdate=&edate=

    http://julianwilliamsboxing.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/jeff-lacy.html

    http://ringsidereport.com/?p=5888

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Calzaghe_vs._Jeff_Lacy

    http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=5660&more=1
     
    Chairman, Jun 9, 2012
    Chairman, Jun 9, 2012
    #15
Page 1 of 3