Poll - Who do you respect more, Carl Froch or Joe Calzaghe

I see you dont want to answer that question by throwing a moot statement back, as you know calzaghe would have beat both pavlik and Dawson.

 

:deal

 

He most likely would beat them, but this has nothing to do with this topic or the point that i was trying to make.

As a boxing fan, I am disappointed in Calzaghe's career.

 

There are parts im dissappointed with too , but its not all his fault. Many didnt want to know when he was in his prime and some only fought him when it suited them . Say one of these two Brewer or Mitchell had beaten Ottke would they have been so willing to fight Calzaghe??

 

I agree Calzaghe would have boxed Froch to a 9/3 points victory and had the superior skills.

I just don't agree for a second that he desperately tried to make the big fights and that all these opponents he somehow miraculously missed out on through absolutely no fault of his own at all ducked him! That is simply not true. I have read his book and the man doesn't even deny it really. He NEVER wanted to travel to have fights outside the UK and knew full well that people like RJJ and Hopkins would be unlikely to come to Wales and that the TV broadcast times would be all messed for american TV.

He was quite happy to stay here beating B grade opponents, I am not saying he wouldn't have fought those fighters in WALES, but he didn't go out of his way to take on the best abroad as Froch did. He COULD have beaten pretty much anyone but he chose not to, that certainly takes away from his legacy, which whilst impressive could have been so much better.

Instead we are discussing whether his record matches up to the 2nd or 3rd current best SMW in Froch. He could have been a nailed on, sealed in to history forever, SMW HOF ATG #1 rather than a great fighter with a record that could be brought in to question.

Even the most hardened Calzaghe fan must concede he could have done so much more if he had the inclination to travel or take fights outside his comfort zone.

 

You do know Santa isn't real right?

 

Skill set and as an athlete, Calzaghe.
Determination and heart, Froch.

 

Carl Froch had to travel, because he was a no mark.

And he's not a avoided and feared fighter like Joe Calzaghe was.

They are level's apart in ability.

Calzaghe resume is still better aswell.

Calzaghe was a warrior aswell, he would fight a straight up war with anybody!

 

This is like when the general forum had a thread about who you'd want to date your sister or daughter more, Pacquiao or Mayweather.

 

Froch, and it's not even close.

 

:thumbsup So true. Froch would have been Lacey'd if they had ever fought.

 

:nut

 

People mention Joe's record, but it wasn't that great.

It's OK to reel off his resume, but it's in patches and not done on the bounce like Carl's. And besides, Joe's last two opponents had a combined age of nearly 100 years old! Jones wasn't even ranked and Hopkins was what exactly?

Joe could have done so much more, yet here we are saying he could have fought and beat Pavlik, Dawson, Jones in his prime, Hopkins in his prime, Winky, Jermaine Taylor etc but he didn't.

I think Froch is lucky that he is in a division where everyone has HAD to fight each other. But I think that would have been the case anyway. Froch has fought THE VERY BEST of his era, did Joe? No.

He even slags Jones in his autobiography yet fights him in his last fight! The date when that book come out and the date of that fight must have been a few years? And that only made Jones even worse than what he was and Joe STILL got decked in the first round!

Joe never sought out the top fighters which is one of the reasons why I rate Carl above him.

 

Calzaghe dominated his weight for 10 years, beat Eubank more decisively than anyone else and fought through broken hands. Both warriors but Calzaghe for me.

 

A Eubank that was faded, past his prime and 9 months later retired. But hey ho..