Name for name: Carl Froch resume vs Joe Calzaghe resume

Roy was #6 LHW at the time and had a decent resume.
Overall careers often paly a part and Jones had in his last big fight lost a very competitive decision to the LHW champ where he showed grit and that he was still a factor.
Consider I read that L Bute is being considered for Stevenson if he wins his next fight but Bute was stopped and has been beaten. In Butes last 6 fights his record is 2-3-1 but could still possibly get a title shot. Jones had looked far more impressive than that

 

This I think is where you dont understand boxing.
Calzaghe wasnt interested in Dawson due to thinking there was no money involved when at the end of his career and possibly looking to make big money at the end.
Bika was a mandatory and Manfredo was to hype the Hopkins fight to create American interest. Also this thread is about SMWs

 

a baseless claim entirely. even Mack would crush 40something jones.

 

I respect your opinion, but Roy didn't look that great in beating a 172 pound Tito who hadn't fought for 2-3 years. Bute is the one who sticks out the most. Carl jumped on him straight away and took him out in spectacular fashion. Mentally, he was never the same afterwards. But although Roy had more talent than Carl, he would never have fought Bute in the same manner. Roy was cautious at that stage and I think it would have been a chess match. I think I'd have favoured Bute on points.

I can't give Joe too much credit for going to LHW in 2008, because he'd been struggling to make SMW for years. He could have moved up at any point during his career, as he was walking around at over 190 pounds. I also can't give him credit for beating Roy, when he'd said that Roy was shot in 2004 and that's the only reason why he thought Tarver and Johnson were able to have beaten him.

 

Does it really matter if someone had him rated at number 6?

Was that really relevant?

We know he hadn't had a top level win for 5 years.

Again, we know from Joe's comments why he chose Roy. I understand perfectly if I look from his perspective. But my initial point was that he wouldn't have fought Dawson or Froch even if he'd have prolonged his career.

 

This thread is looking at their resumes as a whole, not just SMW.

Are you seriously telling me that if Joe had prolonged his career and Dawson had been a huge fight financially, that he'd have fought him? I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. It doesn't follow the same pattern that he formed.

What about Pavlik? A Pavlik fight would probably have made more than his fight with Roy, because there would have been a bigger demand. Also, Joe agreed to split everything with Roy 50/50 and the PPV bombed. Then factor in what he'd said about Roy the previous year. Again, he said that Roy was shot and a fight would be pointless. So was he fighting for money or his legacy?

What about Tarver? He dismissed Tarver by saying he didn't rate him, then went on to fight guys who were levels below.

No disrespect to Manfredo, but that fight was a joke. A complete embarrassment.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But my opinion is that he didn't want to fight guys like Tarver and Dawson because he saw them as too much of a threat to his precious zero. Realistically, a guy who bragged of making 21 defences of a lightly regarded title, was never going to take on those types of challenges.

 

Yeah man, there is a lot of revisionism going on with JC fans. Not sure if they were around before the Lacy, BHop fights. I find his career a great disappointment. I remember the way fans thought of him back then. Kessler and BHop doesn't erase those wasted years. He pulled out of fights all the time, made no real effort to get the big fights and picked and chose no name fighters to pad his record. The first thing fans will do 50 years from now when they see that zero on his record is look at the names on it.

 

Calzaghe had the better resume. He never lost in 46 fights and his wins over Hopkins and Kessler were better than any Froch had. Sure Carl beat Mikkel too, but Kessler was finished when it happened and Froch had to lose to him along the way before winning the rematch. And there are some who have commented on how old Bernard was but let's not forget that he continued to be a top 3 light heavyweight for about 6 years AFTER fighting Calzaghe. Not to mention Joe had to rise in weight to face him- something froch never did

 

I do genuinely feel for him with all of the injuries he sustained. He had a stop-start career and he must have been incredibly frustrated. But the truth is: he wasn't overly ambitious, and people have to accept that.

 

Good points, but Carl never needed to move up, nor was he as naturally big as Joe was. Joe could and should have moved up to LHW much sooner than he did.

 

I'm fine with his resume. Establishing lineage in two weight classes, a 46-0 record, and some decent wins is enough for me. Carl Froch had a terrific career too but I don't think he's hall of fame material.. Calzaghe is in my book.

 

Yeah he was unlucky with injuries but I just never sensed he wanted to really fight the best. He could've done more earlier to make it hard for those names to avoid him. There was no upside to taking him on in the early 2000's. That's on him. My favourite JC fight is the Byron Mitchell fight. He showed real heart and desire in that fight. That showed more to me than the Hopkins and Jones fights. As for the Lacy fight, it meant next to nothing to me. A glorified sparring session against a protected fighter with no real skills. JC could have done more.

That unquantifiable thirst to prove yourself against the best is what separates a great fighter from an all time great fighter. Joe was the better fighter but Carl's ride was a reminder of why I love boxing. Froch may have fallen short of 'great' status but his heart is a lock for the hof. Joe is deservedly already in there but he is a level behind the Haglers, Jones's and Leonard's.

 

Eubank was far from his prime but also far from "past it" when he fought Calzaghe, nor was he coming off losses.

He'd retired after his loss to Collins in September 95 but made a comeback at Light Heavyweight in October 96 and had won two fights at that weight when the call came asking him to step in for WBO Super Middleweight Title fight as the replacement to Collins - he agreed to do so at 11 days notice.

Even with the crash diet and having had no time to prepare any decent plan for the fight, Eubank fought a tough contest Calzaghe in what turned into a war. Calzaghe on 22 fights and 21 KOs at the time aimed to knock Eubank out and was aggressive from the start yet Eubank weathered the storm and constantly fought back.

Despite - or, perhaps, even because of - the loss to Calzaghe, Eubank decided to challenge himself and jumped up to Cruiserweight to challenge Carl Thompson in what turned out to be 21 rounds in two fights seperated by only three months which were close fought from start to finish. He arguably deserved to have won the first fight and lost the second when the doctor stepped in after his eye was swollen shut.

There is no credibility in claiming that Eubank was no longer a dangerous fighter after 95. It's true he was well removed from his prime years but a man who is competitive in World Title fights, even if he comes up short, should not be written off altogether.

 

Passed on reading the rest of the garbage after reading this. Yes, he was past his prime and yes he was coming off losses. Unless of course you're imbecilic enough to consider his two exhibition quality fights overseas progressive. Only a complete fruitcake would rate that win as good. It's about as good as his win over Roy Jones.

 

It's still better than ANY real win froch had his entire career. I think we've been able to separate the men from the children and have all agreed only wins are resume builders, dumbfounded how this had to be explained.

Eubank at the time Calzaghe beat him would have a one sided win vs the best froch that could ever find a ring. Was Eubank at his absolute peak, no but he was much closers to that than being "shot" like moron's try claiming.

Why, well how are fighters ONLY at their optimal peak or shot to **** ? There's many more years of every fighters career where they're somewhere in between their peak and being shot.