Name for name: Carl Froch resume vs Joe Calzaghe resume

Do you tell yourself that gibberish nonsense to sleep better at night as a Calzaghe fan?. Or do you simply play his fight with Lacy where he rolled on the floor in tears of disbelief for beating a guy with 20 fights even though he had 40?.

 

Great post.

Joe had a great career. He achieved a lot more than many other fighters do. But like yourself, I know he could have done more if he'd have had a real desire to do so. The problem I have, is that I don't mind that he was content to just rack up WBO defences like Eubank did. It's that he's always tried to kid people that he wanted the best guys out there but he could never get the fights. Then the gullible fans buy into it. That's what pi$$es me off. A guy who made 21 defences of a lightly regarded title whilst staying in Britain, never gave himself the opportunity to fight a huge fight for big money. Because as great as he was, he was relatively unknown and brought nothing to the table.

If he'd have been ambitious, he wouldn't have killed himself to make SMW in the early 00's, knowing all the while that he couldn't unify with Ottke and Beyer. An ambitious guy would have moved up to LHW at that point. Guys like Bailey will say: "Yeah, but if he'd have moved up in the early 00's, he wouldn't have had the wins over Lacy and Kessler" And although that's probably true, the fact is: he remained at SMW, again, not only knowing that he couldn't unify, but also knowing that those guys weren't on the scene at that point. In a 2004 interview, he said that there was nothing on the horizon and he may have to move up. So that tells you the mindset that he had at the time. All this talk of him wanting to fight Roy in his prime etc, is complete horse manure.

If you're knowledgeable about his career, you'll know that he was unfortunately bullied as a child. And that must have been awful. I'm lucky that I never had to experience that when I was younger. But it was that experience that made him so fixated on his unbeaten record. After coming through it, he vowed he would never feel any kind of a defeat again. And that's why his career played out like it did. He became too protective of it. His ego couldn't have accepted a defeat. It would have destroyed him mentally. He would never have signed for a fight that he didn't favour himself 100% in. At the end of the day, everyone's circumstances are different. But I just wish that he and his fans were more honest about his career. Although he was a better fighter than Chris Eubank, and Eubank himself as a huge ego and he sometimes speaks nonsense, at least he openly admitted that he was never interested in pursuing the biggest fights out there, as he was just content to defend his WBO belt. People appreciate honestly. But again, Joe should be proud of himself. He was a great fighter, and I wish he was still active.

 

Great post.

 

Since you couldn't be bothered to read the whole thing I'll summarize for you.

Eubank proved he was still a dangerous fighter after 95 with his close fought constests at Cruiserweight with Carl Thompson, as well as giving Calzaghe the toughest fight of his career until Kessler - he was 2/3 years past his prime and no longer a great fighter but to write him off entirely is ridiculous when he was competitive in all three World Title fights he had post 95, and had only narrowly lost to Collins in the two losses he he suffered before, having arguably done enough to have won the second fight.

 

I think Froch win over Bute should be ranked higher than Calzaghe's over Eubank, because Bute was a reigning World Champion who was undefeated at the time and had been regarded as one of the division's three best fighters since 2007 whereas Eubank was 2/3 years past his prime and was very early into his Light Heavyweight comeback. In terms of where Bute and Eubank were in their respective career and what the Boxing world thought of them at the time there's not a justifiable arugment for ranking Calzaghe's win over Eubank higher than Froch's win over Bute.

This being said, Calzaghe's win over Eubank is easilly a match for Froch's win over Kessler, and Calzaghe's win over Kessler is much better than Froch's win over Bute.

 

its a good win for young joe, since eubank was still borderline world class (altough in the wrong division), and joe had fought noone before this.

shame he had to wait so long for another world level test, whereas froch just did it next fight, and next fight and next....

 

Hindsight is Great tho. it's very clear the Eubanks that fought calz is and always was a higher level of fighter than Bute and a far tougher out.

How can you try claiming NOW that Bute was on that eubank level win ? Eubank was a far tougher fight than Bute and the calz win is much better than torch over Bute. when it happened you could claim they were on similar levels but it's been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Bute had never reached even an older eubank than calz clearly handled without any real issues.

 

Hindsight is Great tho. it's very clear the Eubanks that fought calz is and always was a higher level of fighter than Bute and a far tougher out.

How can you try claiming NOW that Bute was on that eubank level win ? Eubank was a far tougher fight than Bute and the calz win is much better than froch over Bute. when it happened you could claim they were on similar levels but it's been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Bute had never reached even an older eubank than calz clearly handled without any real issues.

 

becasue eubank was no longer definitely world class as smw. Bute was. this is obvious, why you not noticing it. explain why, cheers.

 

This is an outstanding post. This is the issue I have with Bailey. Because he doesn't rate guys on where they were at the specific time of the fights, he rates them on their past achievements/overall body of work. He would never agree that Carl's win over Bute was better than Joe's win over Eubank, on the grounds that Eubank was the more accomplished SMW who was a better fighter when at his best.

 

Not someone rated Roy #6 but The Ring mag had him at #6 and other publications rated him highly.
You ducked away my comment about Bute.
As for your delusional belief that had Calzaghe been around that he would not have fought Froch or Dawson. Well Calzaghe was a LHW at that time so would Froch have gone up like he said? He didnt to give Pascal the rematch, but why do you think he wouldnt fight Froch when he was a SMW champ if it had of been pushed for. At that time Froch was British champ and hadnt always looked impressive. The decision he had with Adamu was debatable and Calzaghe had beaten far more impressive established SMWs at that time, including the fighter who would beat Froch. You comment about
Bika but he at that time had already been in and given a good account of himself with an active world champ which was more than Froch had done at that time.
As for Dawson he chose to jump away from SMW where Calzaghe was to go to LHW.
So tell me what SMW did Calzaghe look to avoid and not face when SMW champ? Lets answer that question though I know you will waffle and duck

 

Are you trying to rewrite history. Tarver was schooled by Hopkins, so Calzaghe beat the champ rather than Tarver who didnt offer much.
Now at SMW where Calzaghe was a long reigning champ, who did he look to avoid? "Loudon" Waffle waffle waffle.... No direct answer

 

I have not been fortunate to catch MAJRs post that you are replying to but get the idea.

Bute when Froch fought him was 32
Eubank when Calzaghe fought him was 31

Bute was 10-0 in world title fights
Eubank was 17-2-2 in world title fights

But now look at who they fought! Eubank was fighting at a far higher level.
Bute at the time he fought Froch was coming off a win over G Johnson coming off a loss and who was 2-3 in his last 5 fights and with 15 losses yet that shows what leading up to Froch?
What was Butes best SMW win to make you think Eubank was faded whereas Bute wasnt and would have been able to get by Wharton, Benn, Close, Holmes, Essett, Thornton to name a few,


Still you tell yourself that you dont think Eubank regardless of how you want to dramatize any circumstance wasnt better.

 

Bute was going into the fight with Froch undefeated in 30 fights and as the longest reigning active World Champion in the division, and he was rated second only Andre Ward as the division's top fighter.

Eubank was going into the fight with Calzaghe after a year's retirement two wins removed from his second loss against Collins, having to drop down from Light Heavyweight on a crash diet over 11 days, and barely scraped into the top ten ranking for Super Middleweight.

Nobody is arguing that Eubank wasn't a far better, more accomplished fighter with a much better resume than Bute, but the fact remains that Bute was at the height of his career when he fought Froch while nobody can claim the same for Eubank - nor, indeed, was Eubank rated as highly by the boxing community when he fought Calzaghe as Bute was when he fought Froch.

 

Again, why does it matter where the Ring had Roy ranked?

Again, we are looking solely from Joe's perspective.

The point is:

Joe didn't rate Roy at that point, and he obviously saw him as easy pickings. Again, he said he was shot in 2004. So due to his actions and comments, I think it's only logical to assume that he wouldn't have fought either Froch or Dawson had he prolonged his career. Yes, that's only my opinion, and of course none of us know what would have happened. But that is a logical opinion.

You keep saying it would have been a no-brainer that he would have fought Dawson had he not retired, and that I'm being delusional. But where is the logic in that? Where is the logic to put forward an argument that he'd have gone on to fight those guys? There isn't any.

You ask why wouldn't he have fought those guys?

My answer is simple:

Because in my honest opinion, he didn't want tough fights like that at that point.