Greatest overall: Froch or Calzaghe

I agree with the above , but what also must be taken into consideration is the manner of those wins.

At no point was Joe seriously behind on points , Carl was against both Groves and Taylor , plus im a Froch fan but thought he lost to Dirrell.

This puts an even wider divide between the two for me.

peace.

 

joe was behind Kessler until mikkels hand went, why did you lie about this?

joe was behind Hopkins first half of the fight -why did you lie about that?

 

he did, froch was never behind Kessler, though Kessler rallied at one point.

why did you lie?

so boxing ISNT for me when I mention home and away situations, yet when you mention them both for froch, its ok because its you mentioning both fights.

so I aks again, why did you lie?

 

froch also won one of the big three titles younger than joe.

and froch made FAR more defences of the big three than joe, and has defended unified crowns much more than joe.

 

thanks for reminding me, that i must put the parental web blocker on the new ipad i bought for my 4 year old.

 

that wouldn't stop you using it to post nonsensical arguments, flop mate.

 

You have to look at who they fought and who did what in the division.
Not many know Calzaghe pre Lacy on here, but know Froch due to a competition.

Calzaghe has a far greater resume with SMW champs Eubank, Woodhall, Reid, Veit, Lacy, Brewer, Bika, Mitchell, Kessler beaten at SMW.

I rate that over Froch beating SMW champs Magee, Bute, Reid, Kessler, Abraham

When Froch beat Kessler he was very faded to the version that Calzaghe beat and the Reid, Froch fought was very faded.

also when you look at the SMW champs on Frochs list, 2 were beaten when prime by Calzaghe and one of the others was beaten by a Calzaghe victim before Froch faced them.

Then look at how Dirrell, Pascal, Taylor havent done anything of note at SMW
The faded, boiled down G Johnson beat was beaten when prime by Calzaghe victim Sheika which shows how the division wasnt watched previously but is more now.
Groves was of a similar level to Starie who Calzaghe beat.

Calzaghes resume is far greater

 

This is it. and travel to do it

 

you over do it and end up sounding really nit picky and just write Froch off

 

Ha, ha! Bitter little boy, 'big three titles', that’s brilliant!

Herol you’re such a child. The whole world; the Ring magazine, HBO, Showtime, Sky TV, the BBC, ABC,NBC, Fox, ITV, Seconds Out, Boxing News, Bleacher report etc ad infinitum , all feel that there are in fact 4 (four) official or 'big' sanctioning bodies.

Why is it that you do not?

That’s a rhetorical question by the way Herol, because the reason you articulate yourself in this manner, on this subject, is because you literally exist to attack Calzaghe.

If you’re going to do that, that is your choice and fair play to you kid.

HOWEVER

If you must spend your life being hopelessly bitter, then do so using FACTS Herol. Otherwise you will not only be laughed at and ridiculed for your bitterness, but you will actually be proving those who state you are a child, correct Herol.

Think about that Herol, because it is actually a FACT that there are 4 (four) official or 'big' sanctioning bodies, and you, based purely on the strategic bearing such a view has on your anti Calzaghe rhetoric, claim there are but 3 (three).

Such a statement is clearly not a FACT Herol.

Put the key board down and go and play with your sibling’s child soldier.

 

not during all of joes reign. therefore my argument stands unequivocally.


sorry if it troubles you that wbo was the smallest title, and unrecognised by the ring during its early years. but this should not force you to allude facts that are not relevant to a different argument.

 

What are you going on about? What have I written that is incorrect? You havent noted anything

 

Froch.

Fought much better opposition.

And accomplished more with less!

 

Ha, ha, ha! Your priceless Herol!

'unequivocally' oah, did your mummy tell you a big word? Your like a little kid just saying funny **** in front of adults, ha, ha. Your brilliant kid!

HOWEVER

It's FACT time again.

It's going to get a lil technical now Herol so try to stay with me.

(1) The argument here is that you, right now 17/01/15 are saying that there are only 3 (three) official 'big' sanctioning bodies, as quoted here:

I 'unequivocally' proved this was subjective, an opinion, a lie with this FACT:

You got owned there kid.

HOWEVER

You decided to then narrow the criteria needed to qualify your statement as correct, at least to the best of your knowledge, im sure, with this gem:

With this, seemingly, utterly genial statement you feel you have resurrected your nonFACTual argument and trounced my FACTS.

BUT

You haven't. As clearly to suggest that the WBO was not regarded as one of 4 (four) official 'big' during the early reign of Calzaghe is absolute pants kid.

Calzaghe's Title reign began in 1997. By that time such established, accomplished and renowned champions as:
Dariusz Michalczewski, Michael Moorer, Tommy Hearns, Chris Eubank, Nigel Benn, Gerald Mclelland and Steve Collins all held and illustriously validated the WBO as one of 4 (four) official 'big' sanctioning bodies.

By 1997 the WBO belt had been recognised universally as one of the 4 (four) official, 'big' sanctioning bodies, as well as the RING magazine as can be evidenced from their position on Calzaaghe from the moment he dropped Eubank on his ar.se.

Such information is what is characterised as FACTSual Herol, because it is based on FACTS, not bitterness.

THEREFORE

You have been 'unequivocally' owned, go and ask your momma for some more big words to entertain us!

 

talking about calzaghe, who doesn't own the wbo title now on 17/01/15.

FLOP mate.

when you start talking about Arthur Abraham's current wbo title come back to me.