Froch vs Calzaghe if Froch Beats Kessler.....

Haha! That last paragraph made me laugh out loud! I nearly woke everyone up in my house! Ha!

 

I knew it wasnt for SMW but i remembered it wrong but Eubank wa pretty much shot no fighter can have so much wars in the ring and still be fresh...he wasnt totally shot but sure closer to shot that prime.

 

TROLL you just dont know basics of boxing:rofl Is someone shot or not, prime or not, does not decide number of his years on this planet, do i need to explain to you on every thread that number of wars in the ring take much more out of fighter than simply number of their yearsatsch now come back with boxrec informations and terrible boxing knowledge

 

WHAT SO GREAT ABOUT FROCH'S RESUME?.......:conf


Jean Pascal: What did he achieve at 168?........His first loss

jermain Taylor: What did he achieve at 168?....GETTING KNOCKED OUT 2 TIME'S IN A ROW

Andre Dirrell: What did he achieve at 168?....:huh

MIKKEL KESSLER: FORMER WORLD CHAMPION took Froch's 0 and his WBC Belt:blackeye

Arthur Abraham:What did he achieve at 168?.1st 2nd 3rd LOSS IN A ROW

Glen Johnson: What did he achieve at 168?.......9 OF HIS 18 LOSSES

ANDRE WARD: WORLD CHAMPION...took Froch to school:blackeye

Come May 25 carl froch's ibf paper title will soon be Mikkel Kessler's

 

I always believed Froch would beat Calzaghe even though Joe has more talent but I always questioned his chin and his resume of guys I never knew existed. Gotta go with the Cobra. Froch is just a bad ass and won't fall for Joe's gimmicks.

 

Calzaghe would toy with froch, much the same as he did with lacy.

 

Kessler has only fought four fighters post-Calzaghe that had any worth to their name and those fighters are Ward, Froch, Green and Magee, and, if your being generous, you might add Sartison to that list since he was an WBA Regular champion. The only fighters in Kessler post-Calzaghe resume who are better than his pre-Calzaghe list of Beyer, Mundine, Siaca and Lucas are Ward and Froch only one of whom he beat. So to say that Kessler had "beaten nobody of worth" before he fought Calzaghe despite the fact that had four former Super Middleweight Champions on his resume is betraying yous bias. With the exception of Ward and Froch, Kessler's pre-Calzaghe resume is no weaker than his post-Calzaghe one.

 

Calzaghe beats Froch by UD. I dont think Froch wide punches will stop Joe Calzaghe and Calzaghe is the better boxer.

Calzaghe UD.

Resume will all depends on how you rate the successive belt defences, the second title at a second weight and the Hopkins win.

 

What's all this 'what did he achieve at 168' rubbish? If a guy moves up or down one weight class he doesn't suddenly become a bum

 

It is weaker. Beating Froch is better than anything pre-Calzaghe combined. Who gives a **** if they were champs, the division was ****......Ottke was no.1, does that make him a good fighter?... Kessler's performance against Joe wouldn't of been enough to beat Froch today....You're hoping Froch beats Kessler in the rematch otherwise it proves even further that he wasn't close to his best back in 2007.

 

It matters because being Super Middleweight Champions means they had some worth as fighters, it means they weren't bum, it means they were world level fighters and legitimate names of some worth on his resume, thus making your statement that Kessler beat "nobody" of worth pre-Calzaghe completely bunk.

Beyer, Lucas, Siaca and Mundine were some of the top Super Middleweight available to Kessler, some of the most dangerous opponent active in the division. The fact that the only fighter Kessler has beaten to date that is better than any of them is Froch proves that his post-Calzaghe resume is hardly strong enough to give you any ammunition to say that his pre-Calzaghe resume is **** by comparison.

I have no reason whatsoever to hope that Kessler loses to Froch (other than perhaps being biased in Froch favour because we're both English) because I dont have any kind agenda to prove that he's not as good as he was. I'm not a fan of boxing, I dont comment on boxing or boxers, to promote any kind of agenda. I try to be fair to every fighter or fight I comment on. So the only issue I have here is your agenda, your attempt to say that Kessler was unproven and had beaten no one pre-Calzaghe when the facts are that his best win after Froch is Beyer, that four of the seven best names he has on his resume he beat before losing to Calzaghe. Your shitting on one part of Kessler career just because you dont want to give Calzaghe the credit he's due for beating him, or you want to downgrade Calzaghe's win by lessening Kessler's achievement before their fight. I find that unacceptable.

 

Ottke was rated above tham all and beat half of them, he was a bum. Didn't bother to read the rest, its bunk.

 

Golly McToosh - it's another Calzaghe thread!