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

A couple of things....

1. You call a pro boxer "cowardzaghe"....if he's one what does that make You?

2. In reference to Kessler, a link would be nice...

3. My mother's side is Irish and Scottish, my dad's side is Serb. In fact my cousin was part of the Serbian volunteer guard....great guy. No Viking here.

 

Froch would’ve knocked down Calzaghe at least 3 times during the fight. Plus if we go by standards of ducking claims. Those saying Froch ducked GGG should apply their logic to why Calzaghe didn’t fight Froch.

 

joe has been given that nickname long befoe I used it. That is something i cannot change.

obviously I cannot call myself cowardzaghe as its not a name I've been given. you've called me names - I don't object. I deal with it. perhaps you should too.

you have no point.

Kessler doesn't talk about it. Irish are often Vikings really.
But I believe you in that you don't have enough Viking blood.

 

Once again......no proof.

 

So now you dont rate Froch as highly and must feel he was in a weak era as Bika became a title holder when rusty and faded in Frochs era and Kessler who you wrote was B rate when Froch fought him was Frochs best win?
You are losing your own dispute with your very own comments

You write that but dont write that Eubank went up to CW and pushed a CW champ to a disputed decision, the same CW champ who when faded and past best was the only CW to ever beat D Haye who many feel is one of the top CWs ever and did it before the half way mark. That doesnt look faded when Eubank can push that prime version to a disputed decision at all.
I think it looks worse when you build up Pascal as a Froch opponent and fail to note he drew lost to the oldest LHW champ ever that Calzaghe had beaten years previously in his first world title shot at the new weight.

Also I dont think you know anything at all about the opponents Eubank faced, otherwise you wouldnt have written that.
Tell me. Were you even watching boxing when Eubank was active. I bet you werent

I wrote Calzaghe wasnt a world champ at SMW when Jones was around and to be specific Jones last fight at SMW was a year before Calzaghe even got to get a title shot, so once again you dont know what you are talking about and the comment you made was part of a bigger paragraph where it even states Calzaghe was happy then to face Jones

Are you really this stupid? I have already said to you Jones had only been KOd twice at that time but came back to take the then LHW champ Tarver the distance in a competitive fight.
Why are you telling lies even when corrected?

You dont need to look after. they were beaten then. You need to look at where they were at the time and as said, I schooled you on this previously. Go back and look over the questions you avoided

Lacy, Kessler, Veit, Hopkins were all champs when Calzaghe faced them and Hopkins higher rated at the time P4P when the fight was made.
As said its what fighters do in a division. You note Pascal was young and prime and won a LHW title but as noted Calzaghe beat a string of fighters who would beat a fighter who would win a title at LHW which makes your above comments look ridiculous and that he lost to the oldest LHW ever. You walked into it again.
So basically you are rating Froch for losing to Ward, a fighter who wasnt around in Calzaghes era lol

So you are rating Froch for losing to a fighter who wasnt around during Calzaghes reign, even though Calzaghe has beaten far greater established fighters.

You make yourself sound stupid.

Do come back but do note how you ducked my previous questions.
Think next time I will just ask you questions and watch you squirm a bit more under your own embarrassment

 

Ive read that and I have also read another where he claimed he didnt know it was broken and that it wasnt a problem.

In this one here he says

So not before but during in this one
http://www.espn.co.uk/boxing/story/...efeat-hurts-carl-froch-broke-my-left-hand-won

This one here says he did it in the 6th round
https://www.badlefthook.com/2011/12/22/2656590/ward-vs-froch-ward-fractured-left-hand


They vary but you will go to the one that specifically suits what you want to say rather than open to any

 

Ask me what you actually wanted to ask. A straight question. I havent seen you do that, only try to tell me what you want seen writen

 

Why would he have discussed it in an interview which was 6 years after the fight?

Just read any in-depth interview from 2011 and he mentions that he was troubled by it going into the fight. Yes, he didn't know he'd broken until after the fight. But he hurt it the week before, and it troubled him before he even threw his first punch. It says that in the interview which I posted. It's you who's trying to ignore that by posting other interviews which weren't as in-depth. And in your 2011 link, it mentions that he injured it the week before fight, it's just that it doesn't feature a quote to go along with it.

You have no argument. My link is enough. It contains a direct quote.

Andre fought Carl with an injured hand which troubled him, yet he still beat him with relative ease. But you don't rate the win at all, because you think that Carl was faded. Yet you don't apply the same context and make allowances for other factors when you're discussing other fighters.

 

WHY ARE YOU SO BIASED WHEN IT COMES TO JOE?

You cannot say that Andre's win over Carl was merely average because Carl was faded, whilst at the same time proclaiming Joe's victory over Eubank was great, when Eubank was also faded, as well as injured with bad preparation.

It's ridiculous.

You have no credibility when you post things like that.

 

Hilarious again. Joe not taking a title fight at 168 until after RJJ left the division is telling enough.

And last I checked Froch beat Bute.

I rate Froch's run on competition better than Joe's. I think most non biased fans would as well. Froch lost a few because he challenged himself. Joe was undefeated due to the opposite.

There's no talking sense to you. So I'm moving on.

I'm betting you could explain why Joe is greater than Sugar Ray Leonard and actually believe it.

 

How should I know? Still not all of the links were 6 years after.
Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe someone asked him a question about it

Im sure it does. I dont doubt that but as said have read one that he wasnt aware or troubled

So does mine, so that must mean by your logic that you have no argument. He said he hurt it again in the 6th round. That would indicate that it didnt hurt him until then

When have I ever said I dont rate that win? That is you looking for an angle again. Complete fail, as I rate the win just not as highly as you

 

I dont need to be. Many posters werent watching his career. Yourself included who has said you get your info from ESB posts.
I was watching SMW from day one so know the division and know what did happen rather than another posters opinion

This is you trying to put words forward. see my previous post and also remember Calzaghe had severely damaged hands where it was unsure if he could even turn pro. Sounds alot worse dont you think.

Now why are you so biased when it comes to Jones Jnr?

 

Oh dear. Are you trolling, ignorant or just stupid?
When Jones had his last fight at SMW, Calzaghe was an unknown fighter who had not all that long before won the British title and not on anyones radar.
Thats like saying Froch not taking a title fight at SMW until Calzaghe left
Or Ward not taking a title shot at SMW until Calzaghe left.
Ridiculous. He wasnt on the radar at that time

Who has said he didnt? You losing it badly here

See the logic in what you wrote here. Then talk about hilarious.
Frochs first loss was to a faded fighter coming off a loss that Calzaghe beat years previously but you think Froch lost because he challenged himself losing to Calzaghe left over who Calzaghe beat when undefeated and prime lol.
Thats your logic

Now tell me who did Calzaghe choose not to test himself against at SMW. Who at SMW do you think he intentionally avoided?
Lets see what you think

Of course you are. You know you have been schooled. You realise that it is tougher for you to admit you dont know what you are arguing about rather than to admit that.
Just look at how you said Froch lost because he challenged himself yet that first loss was to a Calzaghe victim. That shows your logic there
Just like when you were going on about Pascal at LHW and forgetting he went on to lose to a Calzaghe victim from years previously.
I bet you do want to run along

I dont need to. It wouldnt be relevant on this debate whether he was or wasnt. This now is you making an irrelevant statement because you could not answer any of my questions and couldnt debate what you chose to argue.

 

bailey,

It was a rhetorical question.

That specific interview was dated 6 years after the fight. So I wouldn't have expected it to have contained specific information from the build up to it.

No. You've just shown me interviews that aren't as in-depth as what I've posted.

Just because they didn't have direct quotes of him speaking about it, it doesn't mean there wasn't an issue.

What are you talking about?

Here:

"The X-ray came back negative. I just knew it hurt like nobody's business," Ward said. "We had to go (through) with the fight. I was extremely concerned the whole week of the fight, but I knew I couldn't pull out. It was inevitable that it would get banged up again in the fight and that is my lead hand. I felt it all through the fight, but I bit down. I continued to do what I had to do."

There's nothing else to discuss.

All you have put forward as your so called evidence as him not being bothered by it, is a few interviews that have just given a brief overview with no specifics.

You have said that it was nothing more than an AVERAGE win as you feel that Carl was faded.

 

bailey,

A poor attempt at baiting me.

I watched his career from 96 until he retired.

Regarding my info, I think you'll find that I said I'm constantly learning new things with each passing year, as you and everybody else should. And if you haven't learnt anything new since you joined, then you've completely wasted your time on the forum.

No, if they were that bad, he would have had to have retired without going on and having 46 fights.

Eubank was faded, he had injured knees, he had no sparring, he couldn't do roadwork, and he had 11 days to drop back to a weight where he hadn't secured a win in 3 years.

If you think that Joe's win was great despite that, and because Eubank gave a valiant effort as well as pushing Thompson after, cool. But be objective and give Andre more credit than you initially have, seeing as though he beat Carl easily with a double fracture of his hand, before Carl then went out and demolished Bute shortly afterwards, who you personally rated very highly.

It's not the fact that you rate Joe's win over Eubank as being great. That doesn't bother me. It's the fact that you think it's great, whilst dismissing Andre's win as being nothing more than average, based on Carl being faded. Hello! Eubank was faded. It's the same with Andre's win over Kessler. You don't rate it because of Kessler's circumstances. Okay, cool. But you then turn a blind eye to all of Eubank's circumstances, as though there was no issues.

Regarding Roy, if you think that I've been biased, then show me some examples and we'll discuss them.