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

And I'm equally confident in what I wrote

How can you do more than beat the best guys? :nut

In case you forgot we were talking about Calzaghe (not) fighting Froch and when Froch was begging for a fight with Joe, Calzaghe was fighting better, more highly rated, highly ranked fighters or fighting in a higher weight class for bigger money.

 

I think the main fact is Calzaghe didn't fight the number 1 guy in his division ahead of him for the first SEVEN years of his WBO reign. He only fought for the RING belt after TEN YEARS as WBO champ.

Froch defended his WBC title in Herning, Denmark to Kessler, losing a close points decision. In England he beat Kessler. Calzaghe won 8-4 in front of 50k in Wales. BIG difference in risk. Roger Tilleman was one of the judges for Froch/Kessler I if anyone knows who that might be?? Don't you think Froch would've had a better chance at home for the first fight? I'd prefer to actually see Froch/Calzaghe instead of fans saying "didn't need to happen because he already beat Kessler". These "fans" prefer analysing triangle theories, even when the fight circumstances were different.

 

And Mayweather and Pacquiao still haven't fought. Sometimes boxing politics and egos ruin things for fans. You can still rate fighters though.

Any fighter would rather fight at home or in the place that makes the most money. I don't think it really matters where Froch or Calzaghe fought Kessler. I think the outcomes would be the same wherever they fought. They lost to the better guy on the night.

It's not about triangle theories. The fact is most people be they fans, experts, boxers etc would favour Calzaghe over Froch.
You say you'd rather see Froch/Calzaghe but at the time it didn't make sense, the timing just wasn't right. By the time Froch was stepping up to world level, Joe was unifying and moving up in weight.

 

This content is protected

I never mentioned anything about anybody's opinion.

I said "everybody KNOWS that"




You need to read up on these subjects, Harol, so's you don't come off looking like an

This content is protected

 

Kessler didn't drop off after losing the Calzaghe fight in Wales. Had 3 sharp wins then lost to Ward. He rebounded as top champs do with his best win, Froch, at home in Herning, Denmark fighting for Froch's belt - a close points win. Roger Tilleman (the ref who docked Reid a point for punching Ottke) was a judge. If Calzaghe fought Kessler in small town Denmark with that raring buoyant crowd would've been much harder.

Kessler is all Calzaghe has over Froch, even though Froch was defending his WBC in Denmark with no fans and only arriving 2 days before AND he avenged the close points defeat. He lost to Ward, but you can't begrudge him that surely or do you think Calzaghe would "wipe the floor" with him too.

 

Do you think that Pac's fans are a tad bit bitter over Floyd's success in the ring?

Vote by quoting me and just type the words yes or no:

Yes

No

 

While I don't think Calzaghe would wipe the floor with Ward, like a good majority of observers, I believe Calzaghe would have beaten Ward, at least current Ward and the version who defeated Froch.

I also believe BHop would have beaten Froch and almost certaionly, Lacy would have too.

Calazghe was simply better than Froch.

 

you are claiming you know to opinions of everyone again, and you don't even know you are doing it. Do you not know how arrogant you sound?

 

then you don't need backup, so don't ask for it, defend yourself.

you just changed best guy to best guys. huge difference between one and many. have you not noticed you did this? if so, why do you feel the need to surrepticiously change your arguments between posts? Do you think no one will notice?

jones was shot2****, all you do is spin the same lies again.

 

You was being relatively reasonable until you said Lacy would beat Froch. I don't mind arguing with reasonable Calzaghe fans, but there's no point in going against blind fanboyism.

 

It means you beat everyone you faced in the eyes of the wined and dined judges.

 

Yeah, they're the same people who bring up FEMA camps and 9/11 inside job theories.

 

[YT][/YT]

I made no such claim, Herol.

Go back and reread the thread.

Closely and carefully.




(Hint:
Your trouble is basically epistemological in nature. You're havin' a hard time with the distinction between KNOWLEDGE and OPINION.)

 

Nothing fan-boy here, Champ.

Calzaghe DID in fact beat the Muthafukkka. Decisively.

AFTER that, folks said the Yank had been a hype job.

Before that, he was a mini Mike Tyson and Joe needed to set his affairs in order before fight-night.

Froch might have beaten him too but if Joe had dropped out and Froch was the replacement, Carl would have been a huge underdog and would probably have lost.

Froch is quite over-rated by his delusional fans. He's a legend in his own mind. His interview after the ref saved him from Groves was indicative of a classless, fcuk-witted, delusional moron. He claimed the crowd was supporting him even as they booed him.

Calzaghe has a weak resume and for one reason or another failed to face better competition, but he's at least one level above the Nottingham nutter.