Greatest overall: Froch or Calzaghe

Froch likely fought overall better opposition on a more consistent basis...

But Calzaghe has the better wins, and has never lost.

 

i voted for froch.

i was lining up the upset money on froch before zag retired. i thought froch would have caught him late.. i thought it then (2008) and i still believe it now

 

A few points of my own

Carl and Joe had different circumstances as you say. Carl had more opportunities at 168 than Joe due to more big names being in the division and being willing to face one another, not Joe's fault.

I don't think it's as simple as Joe should have moved up and I'm not sure he can be blamed for not doing so because

1. Joe's career went well. Boxers are not usually the brightest bunch, they have professionals to match make etc for them and advise them. The boxers sometimes take and trust the professional's opinions. His promoter may have advised him to stay in his natural division and use his status and belt in that division as a bargaining tool to get the bigger fights. I believe they tried to fight the likes of Johnson and Hopkins somewhere around that time but they didn't happen because of circumstance. There is a business side to boxing and Joe had to make a living so he probably would have taken his promoters advice. I don't think Joe was against the risk of fighting the best opponents (he fought Hopkins and tried to fight him sooner, fought Lacy who was seen as a threat, fought Kessler), it's just a certain way he and his promoter went about getting the bigger fights. Use your status as 168 champ or drop the belt and try to work your way up the rankings at 175. I think their way worked out quite well for them. They eventually got the big 168 fights and the Hopkins fight and the RJJ payday swansong so I think they made the right decision.

2. He may not have been suited to 175. He wasn't powerful and he wasn't a masterful defensive boxer. Froch would probably be more suited to it as he is taller, has a longer reach, more punching power and probably an even better chin.

The circumstance do make a difference. Do I think Joe would have been willing to fight the opponents Froch fought if he were in the exact same circumstances? Yes, he fought Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins who were near enough as good/highly rated/seen as just as big threats as Froch's opponents.
Do I think if Froch had been in Joe's circumstances he would have done much different like moved up to 175? No, he has shown no desire to move up in his career. I think the circumstances are the main reason for the different career paths not that one is more willing to face challenges than the other.

 

the froch surprise would have been that he could have matched zags stamina. froch has insane stamina, just like jc did.. but isn't/wasn/t froch physically stronger?

 

why do you want froch to go to LHW and fight 2 fortysomethings?

explain why this increases his legacy more than fighting 2 prime smws.


it will only, reduce his legacy, in contrast to the fights he could have,

 

Carl or his fans can say what they want but Joe fought a prime Kessler and decisioned him clearly where as Froch clearly lost the 1st and possibly lost the 2nd to a lesser Kessler.

 

he didn't possibly lose the 2nd at all, he beat him more comprehensively than joe.

so why did you lie just then?


furthermore joe has proved he could beat kess at home, but not away, this is the same as what froch proved.

so why you lie about that too?

 

Rather than saying i am lying , actually watch the fights please. In no way did Carl beat Kessler better than Joe did.

Also lying about fighter home or away??

Oh my are you on break at KFC or something , because id stick to frying chicken if i were you. Boxing isnt for you.

 

Just compare their significant wins, in order from best to least talented.

Calzaghe beat:
1. Hopkins
2. Kessler
3. Eubank
4. Bika
5. Lacy
6. Reid
7. Jones

Froch beat:
1. Kessler
2. Groves
3. Pascal
4. Taylor
5. Bute
6. Abraham
7. Dirrell

Now just compare Joe's opponents to Carl's, one by one.

1. Hopkins is better than Kessler.
2. Kessler is better than Groves.
3. Eubank is better than Pascal.
4. Taylor is better than Bika.
5. Bute is better than Lacy.
6. Reid is better than Abraham.
7. Dirrell is better than Jones.

So that's 4-3 for Calzaghe, in my opinion.

 

Hopkins was in his 40's when joe beat him.

Dirrell is less talented than Pascal? What are you on!?