Carl Froch sets the record straight on who would have won if he fought Calzaghe

So only "accomplishments" at SMW, the shallowest of talent pools in boxing history count. Hilarious.

Again, show me a guy Froch fought who would literally never win another fight like Joe did with washed up Eubank. Show me a guy Froch fought who had been knocked comatose 3 consecutive times before Froch fought him like the shell of RJJ that Joe fought. Show me a rematch against a hopeless guy like Veit. Or show me a Froch title defense as weak as Charles Brewer.

Show me a guy Joe fought who was in his prime and ascending the P4P ranks like Froch did vs. Ward.

Simply put, you can't. Joe fought a very select set of opponents in a very shallow weight class. Froch took what challenges awaited in a slightly deeper era.

Hence Froch selling out Wembley twice and being respected on two continents and Joe being considered to have a very weak resume. Froch's run from Pascal on shits on any run of opponents Joe ever faced.

 

Thats because Froch who you are defending didnt compete in any other division dummy. You are arguing for Froch and he only fought at SMW in title fights.
You walked into it again

Kessler, Mack, G Johnson lost 3 straight after, Rybacki. But that is still being ridiculous with what you wrote because Eubank went up 2 weights putting weights in his pockets and weighing in fully clothed to appear heavier and challenged a CW champ. Who did Froch face who went up to challenge a CW world champ? Answer none so once again your points are irrelevant

Once again you are going onto LHW because you havent a debate at SMW where we were discussing. Jones had only been stopped twice at that time not 3 times, so try and at least get your facts straight. Tell me when Froch fought as an accomplished fighter in his career as Jones... You cant and do you not forget that Froch was facing Taylor who had been brutally KOd at a lower weight and Bute had looked fortunate not to have been stopped by Andrade. All this slip your mind?

Groves who hadnt beaten any world class fighters come the rematch.
The win Calzaghe had over Veit was a very good victory.
The first time Calzaghe beat Veit, Veit was 30-0 and hadnt beaten anyone of real note, hence he was blown away in a round by Calzaghe.
When Calzaghe beat Veit a 2nd time Veit was an accomplished world rated 45-1 fighter who had some solid victories behind him, and was top 10 rated.
Veit had beaten undefeated Dziarra who wasnt a great fighter but did go on to beat L Mock and undefeated M Oral who would go on to challenge MW champs A Abraham and S Sylvester recently.
Veit had also beaten beaten undefeated Guerrero for the European union title.
Veit beat future title challenger Salem and Mock.
Veit also beat world rated C Brewer with an educated destructive 9th round KO.
A note on Veit. He only ever lost to world champs or fighters who became world champs and has victories over Mock, Salem, Perdermo (a future Kessler challenger), Brewer when Brewer was world rated and Veit beat undefeated Braehmer who became WBO LHW champ and WBA LHW champ and even now Brahmer would be a good win for Groves
A good Calzaghe victory over a mandatory world class SMW
Also a great away victory for Calzaghe in Germany

Brewer had done more than Dirrell, Mack, Abraham at SMW, Johnson at SMW, Taylor at SMW.
Tell me what they had done at the weight at that time?

Ward wasnt in the P4P when Froch fought him.

I notice how you dont answer my questions which shows you cant debate what I wrote earlier.
How was it a deeper era? Frochs best win is arguably a shot faded not overly active Kessler that Calzaghe beat when undefeated and prime a near around 5 years previously

Selling out Wembley doesnt make it a strong fight. It was a big fight because Froch was pushed so hard by a novice.


Now lets look at the fights and victories you rate so highly

Calzaghes win over Eubank is greater than Frochs over Kessler
Calzaghes win over Kessler is greater than Frochs win over Bute
Calzaghes win over Hopkins is greater than Frochs win over Pascal
Calzaghes win over Lacy is greater than Frochs win over Groves
Calzaghes win over Sheika is greater than Frochs win over Johnson
Calzaghes win over Mitchell is greater than Frochs win over Abraham
Calzaghes win over Brewer is greater than Frochs win over Taylor
Calzaghes win over Woodhall is greater than Frochs win over Dirrell

Calzaghes wins over Veit, Reid, Starie are greater than many on the Froch list and you could add Bika in there somewhere also I expect.

Eubank was a more accomplished SMW than any Froch ever faced. Tell me what SMW Froch faced that did more...


You are trying to debate something you know nothing about and an era you are not familiar with, which is why you are getting schooled. Man up and instead of trying to argue for the sake of it when you dont have a clue. Admit to what you dont know and get on with it. That was advice, but I expect you will come back having ducked every question and looking to get owned again.
Do answer the questions now

 

Now that's some funny ****.

Let's just state the obvious: you have dedicated your life to defending Joe Cal's weak legacy and resume. No matter what I type you will keep on defending the slaptastic feats of your hero. Your dedication is almost creepy.

Joe faced guys who were shot or near so. Hence only Kessler and Hopkins doing anything of note after Joe fought them. Nobody else really did much of note prior, but definitely nothing of note after Joe fought them.

The common denominator with Froch is that he faced the best available of his era while they were still prime or near so. You can't say the same about Joe Cal. Nobody can.

 

This thread still going... LOL

I could gave saved you 32 pages.

Calzaghe UD Froch.

/thread.

 

bailey,

You're just being your normal argumentative self.

A greater SMW based on accomplishments.

Not a greater SMW based on ability.

You have already agreed that you could class Joe as a better LHW than guys who achieved more than he did at the weight.

No.

You're just being yourself.

You love to be different.

You love to go against the grain.

It was a simple hypothetical question which you don't want to answer. And that's because if you answered truthfully, it would destroy your silly point.

Accomplishments and talent are 2 completely different things.

Statistically, Nathan Cleverley was a more accomplished LHW than Joe.

Statistically, Sergey Kovalev is also a more accomplished LHW than Joe.

Yet nobody would rate Nathan higher, and me and you are in a small minority of people who think that Joe could/would have beaten Kovalev, had he have fought him at his full capabilities.

You can look at stats and resumes all day.

You also have to objectively analyse the skill set of the fighters in question.

I wouldn't care if Ottke had retired at 65-0.

He wasn't a better fighter than a peak version of Roy Jones.

It should be anyone's opinion who lived through the era.

 

It's a very tough question to answer. Because if you want to be objective, you have to consider an awful lot of factors when you put them both under the microscope. It's also very difficult to compare fighters from different weights.

Where's Herol at?

I was looking forward to reading some more comedy from your back and forth arguments/debates.

 

bailey,

I've already covered this.

Stop being argumentative and give me something proper to debate.

As above.

You can't answer.

We both know that.

You're a stat man.

You can spin the stats to build a guy like Mario Veit into being something special to a casual.

I'm a realist.

Stats aren't the only factor to consider, and they have to be put into context for obvious reasons.

More deflection.

You either answer a question with a question, or you try to be witty.

Let's say that Joe made 5 defences of the title that he won from Eubank and then he moved up. And it's really not important who he moved up and faced. It isn't at all relevant. The only thing that would be relevant in this hypothetical scenario, is that:

Joe had made 5 defences.

Ottke had made 22 defences.

Therefore, Ottke would be far more accomplished.

However, that would not necessarily mean that Ottke was the better SMW. Because anyone with any understanding of the sport would know that overall, Joe was the better fighter.

Roy only had 7 fights at SMW, but it doesn't matter.

He beat Toney, Malinga and Lucas with consummate ease, before also beating guys at LHW, who were either as good as, or better than the guys who Ottke fought.

Ottke can have an extra 15 defences in his favour. Again, it makes no difference. In terms of ability, a prime version of Roy Jones is the greatest 12 stone fighter we've ever seen. Which is why many people have him as their no.1 SMW based on a H2H basis.

Again, we're not just looking at resumes. We're also looking at overall ability.

And you seriously think that Ottke would have fought Ward?

Well of course you would.

 

The comments regarding Veit are absolutely brilliant.

They had me laughing out loud.

It's just you doing what you do best.


"Veit beat future title challenger..."

"Veit beat world rated...."


If Roy or Andre had beaten Mario Veit, you wouldn't even acknowledge it at all. It would be a low level win not worthy of your attention.


It'll be a sad, sad day if you ever leave this forum.


Andre Ward beat Carl Froch with ease, despite having a fractured hand.

To you:

An AVERAGE win, as Carl was faded and past his best.


Andre Ward beat Kessler with ease.

To you:

A nothing win, as Kessler was faded, unwell, and practically blind.


Wait for it....


Joe Calzaghe beats Chris Eubank.

To you:

One of the greatest wins in the history of the division.

Despite the following factors:

Eubank being faded.

Having only had 11 days notice to prepare for the fight.

Not being able to do roadwork due to having bad knees which he needed injections in.

Not having had any southpaw sparring.

Not being able to have pivoted properly.

Going on a crash diet in order to make the weight.

Not having fought at SMW for 2 years.

Not having had a win at SMW for 3 years.

Losing back to back fights against Collins.


Oh, but we can ignore all of the above factors for 2 reasons:

1. Because he gave a valiant effort, before going and pushing Thompson hard at CW afterwards.

2. Much more importantly, because it was Joe who beat him.


You sir, are:

'The King of Spin'


An ESB legend.


Keep up the good work.

It's boring without you.

 

hahaha Super Veit, hilarious. Failey do yourself a favour and go back to being embarrassed by Veit like everyone else is, including joe.

 

haha Sven is better than roy jones? pure comedy gold Failey. No wonder they call you Failey.

 

I skim read the title & thought that Froch setting the record straight was him admitting Dirrell beat him...

 

He was extremely lucky there.

 

Absolutely!

 

Very true against a US hype job.

 

What a terrible waste of talent.