Which Calzaghe wins do you think are better than Froch's wins over Pascal & Taylor?

And why is Pascal suddenly a great win for Froch?

For beating somebody who got a belt handed to him and someone that Joe would have dominated from post to post?

 

Why does everyone keep saying hopkins, he should have lost that fight!

 

Its the only time Calzaghe faced a great fighter who still had a bit left in him.

and look what happened. It confirms most peoples opinion Joe nested in a an extremely poor supermiddle division and hid behind a minor title for a mojority of his career.

He refused to go to the states to make a name for himself early on because od "Plane sickness". amazing how that disapeered ...lol

one thing I will say Joe is P$P one of the cleverest craftiest dudes to ever step in the ring.

 

What????

 

(Taylor against Lacy)

Not according to the referee and if you watch it is pretty clearly a slip.

 

Hopkins, Kessler & Eubank :smoke

 

That's why his legacy is suspect. He didn't really beat B-Hop even though he got the decision. And B-Hop wasn't the same B-Hop of 2001 or 02. However, B-Hop was technically at his peak, but his legs and speed weren't the same, maybe just a fraction slower.

 

Doesnt mean ****, both close fights & look at Hops & Taylors performances vs Pavlik.

 

Isn't it a bit sad from Calzaghe's perspective that Froch, after 20 odd fights is not too far off surpassing his resume. But in answer to the question. Hopkins, Kessler and Lacy are all better wins than Taylor. Eubank was a better win than Pascal.