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

It took an awfully long time to unify at all,(the reasons/blame are irrelevant to me), and was undisputed for 1 fight and then moved up, but undisputed he was.

It's hard to put stock in a dominant streak that also saw another guy putting up a similarly dominant streak. The division was pretty weak for a stretch there. Watch the fights, watch the fighters. Guys like Mitchell and Brewer would be gate keepers now. Back them they were genuine contenders and champs.

Personally I think Calzaghe would have been equally as effective in today's division.

 

thanks! yes, i think that's all of us yanks in those five quotes. you don't think any of that could have been said to maybe hype up the fight do you? with your logic, you probably think calzaghe could have actually beat tyson because of what was said here.

 

Very easy to say in hindsight, isn't it, you stupid American?

What do you think you'd have said before the fight? :hi:

 

i watched the fight in vegas. i actually bet on a draw. i thought it would be close because neither guy had really fought anyone but joe destroyed him. sounds like you have nation envy. you sound like a tough guy. being able to post anonymously and talk **** must make you feel tough.

 

Kmac your the biggest **** talker on the forum.

 

What the hell have you been smoking.

Calzaghe is the better fighter and would beat Froch but as for standard of opposition, Froch's level of opposition has been far, far superior. In my opinion it's not even a close.

 

The Pascal that fought Froch beats the **** out of and might even get a late stoppage over the Eubank that fought Calzaghe.

 

Agreed, but he did it. Calzaghe was 23 when he won his first world title, and was still world Champion 11 years later. Froch won his first world title at 31, and has lost his title twice. Surely Calzaghe deserves some credit for that as well.

No way, with Pascal's awful stamina, he won't have the energy late on. Also, Eubank had a granite chin. That Eubank wins a points decision over that Pascal.

 

He still loses to Pascal. He was past his prime, half retired and probably drained. He had be dropped and hurt bad even im his prime so Pascal with his size, speed, power and explosiveness could easy lay a beat down on THAT Eubank causing a stoppage or just by pounding him into the ground. Just like Watson probably would have done in the second fight if not for that uppercut.

 

Sure he deserves credit, but you could also look at it like had he fought as tough a fight schedule as Froch, he may not have held the titles for so long.

If Froch had gone that route and didn't really stick his neck out, he may be sitting on an unbeaten record and double digit defenses.

How do you think Froch would have done vs Calzaghe's opponents, and viceversa?

 

Interesting question.

Froch against Calzaghe's opposition,

- I think he has a hard war of attrition with Eubank, that could go either way.
- He has a long night, and possibly loses to prime Robin Reid
- He has tough nights against Brewer and Mitchell, though I think he pulls through to beat both
- He beats Jeff Lacy
- Definitely loses to the Kessler that Joe beat
- If he steps up to Light Heavy, he loses to the Hopkins that Joe beat

No way Froch runs through Calzaghe's resume without picking up a few losses.

Calzaghe against Froch's opposition

He beats them all hands down except;

- Andre Ward, which would be a very long and hard night for Joe. Joe's inside fighting skills are better than given credit for, and we saw how Ward ran out of gas against Froch. I would pick Joe to win a very close decision over Ward, just.

What do you think?

 

Pretty much along he same lines, although.....


I think Froch beats that version of Eubank. I think he beats everyone save Kessler.

I do think Calzaghe beats everyone Froch has faced. Ward is a toss up, but I'd slightly favor Calzaghe to outwork him.

 

No way Froch beats B-Hop.

 

Agreed. Left that out.

 

A very, very one-sided, selective analysis. There is no method to why you've matched up their respective opponents as you have done so (other then a logical comparison between the two versions of Kessler).

As for Pascal being green - he won a world title two fights later. Furthermore he was a better opponent at that stage of his career then Eubank, who came in at very late notice having been preparing for a fight at light heavy. This is the same Eubank who never one another fight in his career.