Do you agree with Froch?

I agree wholeheartedly with Carl.

Calzaghe was a great talent and had the potential to realize a crazy legacy, but his lack of heart for adventure will always be looked harshly upon once the time comes that we'll be really discussing his legacy in the coming years.

Lennox Lewis conquered the world, whereas Calzaghe failed to do so even though he had the chance to.

 

His wins over Pascal and Dirrel are impressive and could match up to Calzaghe's best two wins in Kessler and Hopkins

 

Still Froch lost in a close fight to Kessler, where calzaghe cominated Kessler

 

Absolutely. Calzaghe is a better fighter, but Froch has bigger balls. Calzaghe did try to redeem his career in the end by taking big fights.

 

Froch flew to Denmark and fought a twelve round war in a fight where he arguably won, whereas Kessler flew to Wales and lost a competetive, but clear decision.

You can't disagree with the fact that Froch is doing far better when it comes to providing good competetive fights. He aint got no Peter Manfredos meshed up with top elite fighters. Look at his last five fights, :smoke

 

Yes I do agree with Froch. He went after the champion to win his belt and is looking to make a legacy from there and he's fighting top opponents. Calzaghe had 15 title defenses against tomato cans in his backyard claiming there's no point in unification.

 

Whats impressive about a gift where he looked like a bum who couldnt hit **** the entire night?

 

Really, Dirrell? What has he ever done but beat AA - he has never even been a world champion before.

 

There is smoke and mirrors going here:

Froch has a nice list of names racked up but this was created by the super six tournament - Calzaghe never had this promotional opportunity. Froch is under contract to take these fights.

Besides it not all that impressive when you scracth the surfice:

Pascal was unknown - Froch didnt fight the best.
Taylor was a big name mandatory who has lost 4 of his last 5 fights - 3 by KO/TKO.
Dirrell is a great talent who had fought 17/18 fights with only 2 decent names on his record. He had never gone beyond 10 rounds or fought in champions backyard.
Kessler - Froch lost.

Froch is boasting that he beat Dirrell but many UK pundits thought he lost. I consider Calzaghe's victories over Roy Jones and Omar Sheika level with Froch beating Dirrell.

 

Dont agree at all.
Calzaghe has a fantastic resume with many top SMW names on it, and has a far stronger SMW resume than Froch, though admit Calzaghe has had a longer career to do that. The best name on Frochs resume is Kessler who he lost to and Calzaghe beat. The only big names on Frochs resume are Kessler, Taylor and Pascal, and when Froch beat Pascal, Pascal hadnt done anything of note.
Calzaghes SMW resume is very strong, but one thing I would say about Froch is that he made a very strong first defence of his title away to Taylor and another away to Kessler early in his title reign

 

Fantastic quote and exactly that. Dirrell hadnt beaten anyone of note, and his big win is against a former MW champ by DQ who hadnt beaten anyone of note. Mario Veit that Calzaghe is a bigger win with a better resume than Dirrell

 

If he couldn't hit ****, then how did he win? Honestly.

Don't give me this bull**** about how he didn't land a punch all night, and how Dirrell was 'robbed'. What were the judges scoring? Air punches? What about the several media outlets which scored the fight for Froch? Ring Magazine? If Dirrell was so good, and Froch was such a bum, then how did Froch manage to win?

 

Ignorance atsch. Who are these 15 tomatoe cans? I bet you cant come up with a sensible answer.
What champ do you think Froch won his belt from?

 

I'd venture to say that Froch's loss is more impressive than a rematch victory over Veit.