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

Possibly. So many make comments when they have little idea.
sobot was a sub for undefeated Salmaci, eubank for Collins, Thornberry was supposed to be a double bill showcase for a Collins fight, McIntyre was a sub for Echols, Pudwill was a late sub for Tate.
They're the ones I can recall

 

But thats the point.
Ward was in a competition where all but him from the original line up traveled.
Ward had big fights abroad and chose not to take them.
You said yourself there wasnt really a SMW fight for calzaghe to travel for so that point is not relevant. Fact is Calzaghe did

Once again not true. He agreed to face Hopkins in America and Jones if that fight was made and when both were willing which they were even without him having fought in America before, he traveled and beat them both even when he was shot and bloated in a new weight division

 

he didnt travel, loudons right - until they were old, that was only to escape tough fights

 

bailey,

Here:

"He chose to go to LHW rather than face Calzaghe"

Early 00's?

He was happy to fight Pavlik in 2006 when he was an unknown NABF, MW champ.

Yet in 2008, he said he didn't want to fight him, as he'd done nothing to warrant a fight.

Ha!

He'd done nothing to warrant a fight with him in 2008, yet he had in 2006?

How does that make any sort of sense?

What had Roy done to warrant a fight?

He'd already said on a live interview that Roy was past his best and he'd be disappointed to fight him.

A more serious fight?

Have a word with yourself.

In 2007, Joe wrote in his own autobiography that a fight with Roy would be pointless, as he'd been shot since 2004.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Pavlik was a much more relevant fight, and everyone knows it.

Yes, Joe-Roy was more popular than Pavlik-Hopkins.

What I'm saying, is that a Joe-Pavlik fight would have been more poular than a Joe-Roy fight.

Beyer?

I know his fights with Hopkins was after Joe had retired.

 

Rewrite history?

Joe himself had a hand in the poor PPV numbers, by saying on live TV that he'd be disappointed to fight Roy, as he was past his best.

He'd also released his autobiography which detailed similar quotes.

Roy was nearly 40 years old, he'd looked bad against a 172 pound Tito who hadn't fought for 3 years, and it was 5 years to the day since he'd had his last top level win. He was 3-3 in his previous 6, and had been knocked out by Johnson over 4 years earlier. He was damaged goods.

Pavlik was popular at the time, riding high with exciting wins over Taylor.

A fight against Joe could have been built up big, with 2 undefeated fighters coming together. The old fighter vs the young fighter. Two different styles, with Joe looking to avenge his stablemates defeat etc. There were lots of angles to use.

It was a far more relevant fight.

 

Clearly you do.

The issue with you, is that you defend Joe's low level opponents, whilst at the same time saying things like:

"If a big fight had presented itself, he'd have taken it"

Yet any knowledgeable person knows that the reason why the big fights never presented themselves earlier on his career, is because he was fighting those very guys who you defend.

It's utterly ridiculous.

You can't see the wood for the trees.

He loved playing the victim in the media and going on shows like Soccer AM etc.

"I want to fight the best out there, but they won't fight me...."

Yes. And the biggest reason why that was, is because he was a relatively unknown WBO belt holder who brought nothing to the table.

He wasn't a victim of circumstances.

That was BS.

The truth is:

He was more than content to defend his lightly regarded title against whoever Frank lined up. And we know that because of the number of times he's boasted of his 21 title defences.

He was comfortable doing what Eubank had done before him. But at least Eubank was honest enough to admit it.

Now you're either trolling, or you've been taken for a ride all of these years.

A guy who truly wanted to fight the world's best fighter, would not have starved himself to have fought mainly B and C class opposition, in the division BELOW.

It's a joke.

 

I've shown you the link many times where Joe contacted him, despite having dismissed him on live TV just a few months prior.

In the build up to the fight, the media put him on the spot by referring to excerpts from his autobiography, where he'd said that Roy was shot. And he replied that he had said that, but that Roy was looking back to his best after 3 great wins.

Pathetic.

 

What difference does it make?

None.

So what if Sobot and Pudwell were late replacements for Salmaci and Tate?

It doesn't help your argument at all.

Fighting those guys were never going to put him in a position to the fight the big fights which he supposedly yearned for.

 

bailey,

What's the point?

Again, you've taken snippets from 2 completely different discussions.

Was Bernard Hopkins the ONLY relevant fight to go to the U.S. for?

Regarding an earlier fight with Roy, I keep telling you, unless he'd have made concessions and gone to the U.S. and moved up to LHW, he could never have obtained that fight. Which is the exact reason he stayed put. Because he didn't really want it. He just wanted to massage his ego in public.

He travelled when he was shot?

When he was a top 10, P4P fighter, with his famed punch output?

Bloated?

Had he eaten too much of Enzo's pasta?

 

It's better than going to bed with the missus.

Only just though.

 

With all due respect, if I considered a fighter 'pathetic & a joke' then there is no way in 10 years time that I'd be able to remember his TV interviews? Or have even watched them.. Nor would I read & be able to quote his biography? (If you have..) Or know nearly every minutiae of his career as you seem to do.. 10 years later & you're still angry?! Let it go dude..

As for his comments on Roy being 'shot'.. I'd backtrack on what I said if someone offered me £10 million stop being so naive, boxing is a business, Jones & he came to an agreement, no one forced him..

& didn't Bhop say he wouldn't fight Jones again after Joe but did? Could have sworn I remember that... Is he 'pathetic' too then?

I consider Adonis Stevenson 'a joke' but I can guarantee i won't give a **** about him in 10 years.. At least Joe got round to fighting his main rival (Kessler,) whereas pimp won't go near Kovalev.. That guys a 'joke'!

 

I don't consider him to be pathetic or a joke.

What are you talking about?

I said that fighting Roy after he said he was shot was pathetic.

Yes, what Bernard did was also pathetic.

Both of them were scavengers.

 

It was far more relevant. It was the LHW champ defending against the #6 LHW (They were Ring ratings), who had at that time more wins over the top LHWs in the division than any other.
Calzaghe was a name at this point and recognised as one of the top fighters around.
It was one of the biggest fights that year (not saying the biggest before you try and bend things to suit the agenda) and far more relevant than fighting a MW who had only defended his title against G Lockett. Get serious Loudon. Josey was correct again