Calzaghe's resume?

Who considers Froch better than Calzaghe?

Only you and Bazzo Smitho by the looks of things and as usual you have your bent agenda.

Bute was on par with Lacy. Undefeated hyped fighter without any significant standout wins. Excellent performance and win by both Calzaghe and Froch.

Calzaghe beat the better version of Kessler much more clearly than the Version Froch did and add into the mix Kessler had already beaten Froch.

Pascal was a good win as he's gone on to do good things at 175 but Froch hasn't honoured his rematch agreement with him. But then again he's a warrior isn't he.

Froch was dropped hurt and losing to a former middleweight who had already been destroyed by Pavlik. And Abeaham also beat Taylor more convincingly than Froch.

Dirrell arguably beat Froch and he had done F.A prior to the super six and F.A since. Again Froch refused a rematch but then again he doesn't have to because hes a warrior isn't he.

Calzaghe is a much more complete fighter than Froch could ever dream of being.

Also his resume is severely underrated but he seems to be the man to hate at the moment.

 

many feel his resume is better.. johnny nelson said it even on sky the other day.

so in other words, you FLOP LIE there.

no Bute has better defences than lacy, and froch destroyed him better.

no froch beat the more experienced Kessler, and more convincingly.

hes not retired yet either. tough point coming from a Joe "no rematches" calzaghe fan, sorry mate you flopped bad with that point.

froch still won, so FLOP mate. or is getting dropped once but winning a loss to you? flop opinion, mate.

froch still won. FLOP mate. it obviously bothers you that froch wins and destroys your argument repeatedly.

he was weak resume for 11 year reign, but its good you are offering an opinion now instead of lying thank you.

 

laughable post

 

Care to expand?

 

So now Johnny Nelson is the go to man for boxing resumes

Again great arguments made by yourself with Froch winning therefore I "flopped" at what point did I ever say he didn't?

The thing is you discredit Calzaghes victory over an old Hopkins yet praise Frochs win over Pascal. Yet an even older Hopkins beat a more seasoned Pascal.

And if a past his prime Kessler is seen as more experienced than peak undefeated Kessler that Calzaghe beat then it says it all regarding your **** riding.

Plus both Calzaghe and Ward beat Kessler much clearer and easier than Froch ever did. Plus neither of them had to fight him twice or drag him out of semi retirement.

Again you flop every time you post rag head.

 

the better version of kessler :rofl the one with the hand injury

bute on par with lacy enough said , as i said it made me laugh at you

they dont call him stay at home joe for nothing

 

haha yes you laugh at yourself since you previously claimed barry smith and me alone helf that view.
Since a presenter also holds it, it stands to reason many do.

haha yes froch wins, your point is what? no point, yes.

no I give calzaghe credit for inching out Hopkins of course I do. but I do not praise him for picking 40somethings as his career pinnacle, I castigate him for it. You will find many do.

uninjured Kessler is better than injured Kessler IMHO but you can believe your own lies np.

frioch beat Kessler more convincingly, at half time joe was behind until kesslers hand gave way. froch was never really losing. but joe rallied better than froch once he saw that Kessler was having trouble throwing hard, that much is true. obviously he NEEDED to rally better.

calzaghe did not need to fight him in denmark because he didn't want losses yes.

why you quoting me telling you your flops. be original and no more lies please.

 

So you honestly believe that the unbeaten, young prime confident Kessler that Calzaghe beat was worse than the Kessler that Froch struggled with and went 1-1?

Which Kessler was this the one coming off a drubbing by Ward with a dodgy eyewho beat Froch or the Kessler coming in out of semi retirement?

Plus regarding Calzaghe fighting in the UK, why not?

Why would he go fighting abroad for less money in half empty stadiums? It's called economics son. It's not Joes fault that only up until a couple of years ago nobody knew who Froch was for that blame his bad promoters and ****ty personality.

 

Show me the numerous people that claim Froch is better and more thought of at 168 than Calzaghe. I'm not the one making the statement.


Again high Kessler are you referring to? The one coming off a dominant loss with a dodgy eye or the semi retired one?

 

I would say they were about on par, but ostensibly the evidence says an injured one is worse. ANy fool can see that injured is worse than uninjured. except in topsy turvy land - do you perhaps live in a topsy turvy land?

so you are holdind keslers loss to ward against him? if you believe this, then you are consummately believing he could have beaten ward? Who else has beaten ward? NOONE. You have no evidence to hold this against Kessler. He was going to get beaten by ward whatever. NOONE else has proved elsewise that ward is beatable by them, so why do you demand this of mikkel?
No more failed arguments please.

funnhow the economics didn't hold when the americans turned 40seomthing. You are arguing a failed argument -

your "joe stayed at home because he was earning good money" VS
your " joe went to America to fight 40somethings because he needed the money he wasn't getting at home"

- are counterarguments to each other. YOU DESTROY YOURSELF WITH YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS.

PLease my friend, why so many failed arguments in one post?

 

I have shown you one in the media. You have mentioned two. there are obviously more. do you want me to start a resume poll? I think its been done - do a search or choose to FLOP.

what is high Kessler? Do you mean Kessler was on a stimulant? please be clear and use English, not FLOP English.

 

Your making things up to suit your biased non English argument.

Ward is a level on his own at 168 we see this as Froch doesn't dare say his name. But prior to Kessler v Ward Kessler was the favourite to win the super 6 yet he got owned by a young buck in Ward. Do t you think his confidence may not have been were it was?

At least Kessler can retire knowing he lost to two of the best at 168 Calzaghe and Ward and then there was his loss to Froch.

I'm not even a Calzaghe fan but he is/was and will always be remembered as the better fighter than Froch.

Froch is a British great no doubt but a few steps behind Joe.

 

Which Kessler?

One eyed coming off a loss Kessler who beat your boy?

Or

Semi retired, past prime Kessler who at the time was content to fight b level opponents who still pushed Froch all the way?

 

Joe had one of the most bizarre and imitable styles I’ve ever seen in a ring, at any division.
The Lacy and Kessler fights showed the best of Joe, and I will remember them.

 

Joe C was a great no doubt about that, but can you honestly say the 10 years between Eubank and Lacy done his legacy any good.