"If you retire undefeated it means you didn't fight everyone you were supposed to"

Froch is a joke.. Calzaghe fought EVERYBODY and beat them all.

 

Joe beat a better version of Kessler than the one who beat Froch.

Joe would have beaten seven shades of shyte outta that insufferable, loudmouthed buffoon.

And everybody knows that.

Including Froch.

 

If Calzaghe fought everybody then what has Froch done? Are there really people that think Calzaghe has had a tougher run of fights - I guess so...

 

Is this "Bailey" again? I had to give up last time because he gave me an entire page reply. Not all of us work nights, so I no wouldn't have been tired at 1030 in the morning.

What I'm trying to say with the Kirkland-Lewis point is when you're comparing top fighters, you can't automatically write one off against the other, because much lesser fighters have beaten better ones already, agree? If you're comparing top fighters with a journeyman than fair enough, but even then you might be caught out. You can't automatically say one top fighter from another era would beat another - but if they're in the same era, then just fight and beat him. I'm not just saying Froch would beat Calzaghe, but Calzaghe fans seem adamant that Calzaghe would beat him, so there was no point in the fight taking place.

In boxing I prefer to actually see the matches, rather than reveling in them not happening and gloating when the other guy gets beat. Doesn't necessarily mean that your guy would've won because the other guy got beat by another top fighter - I think I'm being logical here?

Another example - If Stevenson beats Fonfara, then ducks Kovalev. Stevenson and Kovalev keep winning, but in 2 years Kovalev loses to Fonfara somehow. Stevenson and Kovalev retire without fighting each other. Stevenson fans can gloat that Kovalev would've lost anyway and take the indirect win as direct, saying there was no point in Kovalev-Stevenson happening. Doesn't mean Kovalev wouldn't have KO'd Stevenson 2 years before. Let's see the fights happen instead!

With Groves, just now you seemed to be saying when he fought Froch, he was the more famous one. If you're comparing Groves popularity v Froch I to Froch v Pascal it's probably pretty even. Froch was on ITV at the time and fought Pascal primetime on ITV I think? Groves was on BoxNation with no-one watching as he beat Johnson and some bum on an Abraham undercard, then he was on Froch's undercard on Sky. You might not know, but Groves's popularity had gone down during that time, after the high from Degale/Smith wins. The key difference here is that Froch gave Groves his chance and Calzaghe didn't.

I can't really fault Calzaghe for not fighting Hopkins and Jones earlier because they were in different weight classes.

About W'arren, if you really believe everything he says, that's up to you. He ran the perfect business model, but lots of boxers and fans often aren't happy with the easy defences and fighers "pricing themselves out" spiel - if you believe it all, that's up to you, but many others in the industry wouldn't. The reason Hatton left must've been because the big fights he wanted were easier to make without him, such as fighting in America.

Why would this Ottke refuse to fight Joe and yet go for Byron Mitchell, Reid, Tate, Johnson, Markussen and Brewer etc? Don't you think you've been believing too much of the W'arren-centric spiel, but don't worry I'm not from Germany. Joe didn't want to make concessions and travel to fight the number 1 in the division for the first 7 years of his WBO reign, that's all.

 

RJJ was at 175 whilst Froch was at 168. Froch was a nobody at the time, I don't think he'd even won a world title yet whereas RJJ was a well known superstar. RJJ brought more money, RJJ was bigger in every way

Which is why he's equally responsible for the fight not happening sooner. I'm not really blaming anyone, it's just one of those things. People saying Joe should have followed RJJ around and made it his lifes mission to get a fight with him is just a desperate, BS excuse to try to discredit Calzaghe in some way. There was no reason for them to fight sooner, they were in different weight divisions and at different stages in their careers. It would have been almost impossible for Joe to get a fight with an undefeated RJJ.

Fought everyone in his era.

 

98% of Joes defences were against opponents with no world titles, 90% of them weren't even on the world scene. If Joe was carry on his normal pattern of opposition then you seem to be arguing that Joe SHOULD have fought Froch rather than avoid him. YOu were happy for him to defend against largely sub-commonwealth opps for 8 years, but now prime Commonwealth champ Froch becomes mandatory, hes not worthy? Joe vacates the title that he cant manipulate for a weakling opponent, same as always.

and RJJ was shot2**** a guaranteed win, much like 98% of Joes defence material. That aside, Joe could easily have fought both Roy and Carl, whats your problem with someone having three fights in two and a half years?
explain - but I cant doubt that the problem is avoiding a loss.

Joe didn't get a fight with anyone close to RJJs level, despite there being plenty of opportunities. Plenty of people were fighting them during Joes 10 year wbo stint. At some point you gotta accept that it was HIM, not them who was responsible for facing such lowly opposition.

 

Froch was a weakling opponent. Easy work for Joe. You are unhappy with him fighting opponents on the level of that version of Froch (unproven at world level, hadn't even won a world title yet) but now you're unhappy that he didn't fight him lol. Typical, all you do is obsessively bash Joe. You should think and post about people you do like. Bitter hatred is not a good look.

Froch would have been a guaranteed win, Joe beat Kessler who was better and more highly rated and ranked than Carl. May as well make some money at the end of your career. Why fight somebody that nobody has heard of for no money in a weight division you can't safely make anymore?

He faced all the best guys in his division except for one guy who wasn't interested in compromising. I suppose I can hold Joe responsible for that :smooch.

 

It is usually the case but I voted no because it is just Froch having another sly dig at Calzaghe who he was scared to box when he had the chance.

 

when you write bull**** about someone who was at the time an awesome Comonwelath champ, and then wins and defends major world titles younger than Joe did and beats Joes best opponent more clearly than Joe did, you will get ignored, sorry.

I actually refeered to Joes subcommonwealth opponents. YOU should reply to whats written, not what you imagine it to be written, then you wouldn't have to falsely accuse people of not thinking when its your brain not engaged. big flop, mate.

bull**** again

bull****, if you beat one guy it don't mean you beat everyone, unless you are a deluded nuthugger of course.

they were both big money fights. one was easy, one was a possible loss. you could take them both, there was ALL the time in the world to do it. There is no excuse for not taking it. Weight issues are an excuse, Joe was at indeed a big SMW, but he was a SMW for his whole pro life. Another three months at SMW would never have been a problem.



He faced all the best guys in his division except for one guy who wasn't interested in compromising. I suppose I can hold Joe responsible for that :smooch.[/quote]

 

Put up a poll asking who would win, the Kessler/Hopkins version of Calzaghe vs the pre Pascal version of Froch. We'll see if it's bull****. Froch was not in Calzaghe's league. He would have no chance.

You complain about pretty much all of Joes opponents except for Kessler. The fact is Calzaghe beat the best guy in his division (Kessler) then moved up to fight a top 5 p4p fighter but your complaining that he didn't fight the SMW commonwealth champ instead lol.

Put a poll up again. Froch has/had nothing that could beat Calaghe. Guaranteed win for Joe

If you're fighting and beating world champs and top p4p fighters then it means you don't have to prove you can beat commonwealth title level guys, unless you're a deluded hater of course.

Bull****. Froch wouldn't have generated as much money as RJJ. Calaghe had already beaten the best SMW in the world and moved up. RJJ had more chance of beating Joe than Froch did. The older you get, the more difficult and dangerous it becomes to boil down to the weight.

 

Bub,

You've just contradicted yourself.

How could Roy have been responsible for it not happening sooner?

He fought at 175 and was the unified champ. He wasn't going to drop his belts to move back down to 168, to fight Joe who wasn't popular in the U.S. for a lightly regarded WBO belt.

He can't in anyway be held responsible. He was obligated to fight mandatories from three organisations.

Roy's options at the time, were to either defend his belts, or to try and get big money fights.

Joe wasn't ranked at 175 and he brought no money to the table, to fight at that weight.

It was a complete no go, unless Joe's circumstances changed.

 

The thing with Froch/Calzaghe was that it would have been a big domestic fight, on the same level as Froch/Groves I. Froch might not have fought Groves if he had the same record but was from another country. Being a big domestic fight is something different to fighting Groves/Froch (when they were both only semi-proven at world level) if they weren't from UK - THAT IS THE MAIN ISSUE (other than they were mandatory).

Also Calzaghe never had a UK rival for a big fight, so this would have been good local business, like Froch/Groves I.

 

I said in the post you quoted that "I'm not blaming either guy, it's just one of those things. There was no reason for them to fight sooner, they were in different weight divisions and at different stages in their careers. It would have been almost impossible for Joe to get a fight with an undefeated RJJ."

I say Roy was equally responsible because neither guy tried to make the fight because it wasn't realistically a viable option.

 

if it troubles you, its you who should put up the poll. I am quite confident in what I said, which is certainly not what you want me to say.

you would expect someone to do more than that in a ten year reign, but it that's enough for you then so be it. Barry McGuigan did more than that in 3 title fights.

just 2 champs in 10 years, certainly not fighting champs all the time, unless you are deluded. about the same number of top fighters, because they were the same as those 2 champs!

again this is what you've written, not wyat I wrote, so I have no need to defend what words you want to put in my mouth. I'd rather argue for my actual points, it that ok with you?thanks, then you should reply to them first off.

 

only an idiot decides they know the opinion of everyone.

your comment has been duly noted.