Does Carl Froch have a better record than Calzaghe?

If you mean if he has fought better opposition, then the answer is yes. Roy Jones and Hopkins are both past his prime (Jones is actually shot).

 

so why is hopkins "brilliant" just because it suits your purposes?

he just lost twice to jermaine taylor.

if you're serious about joe's career, you'll debate me about why he didn't make these fights happen before both jones and hopkins were 40 years old...

it's embarassing that a fighter of joe's ability needed to wait until both jones and hopkins started losing before he overcame a 'fear of flying' and fought them...isn't it?

 

what planet do you live on

 

tell me why i'm wrong

 

Come stop talking stupid to get a reaction. Kessler was never as good after his lay off and even worse after the damage he took in the Ward fight and he still clearly beat Froch. Taylor was never the same after KP and even then he had lost his desire. In all fairness Froch has taken on tougher fights than Calzaghe had at this stage but don't forget Calzaghe had wins over Eubank, Veit, Woodhall, Brewer, Mitchell, Lacy, Kessler and Hopkins who are all tough guys. Froch has some good wins right now but let's not forget these wins might not stand the test of time. Frank Warren despite his fall out with Calzaghe is still adamant he offerd Froch a fight instead of Bika. Even when Calzaghe was at light heavy Froch was asking for a catch weight of 172 and an even split which he knew was a joke. Don't get me wrong great show last night but don't get carried away.

 

which proven world class fighter did you say calzaghe beat in his prime?

 

thats about 10 minutes and i have to log.

people talk **** a lot but not many can back up what they want to say straight after they say it.

my advice is don't ****ing say it to begin with if you have to think about it.

 

How old are you 13-14? Kessler for one (who beat Froch) was in his absoulute peak at the time he fought Calzaghe. Hopkins it can also be argued was in his prime despite his age, you go and watch the who fought RJJ and then the light heavy one. Certainly the B-hop who fought Calzaghe was a lot less past it than the Taylor who fought Froch.

 

Nice and succint.

 

By the way hold my beer - people don't just say Hopkins because it suits there purposes, many feel he was drained at MW, at light heavy weight he's had wins over Tarver, Wright and Pavlik at 170.

 

Your comparing Byron Mitchell to Arthur Abraham.... atsch

As for the TS Froch is certainly building a list of quality names but Calzaghe still probably edges him on quality, with Hopkins and a peak Kessler.

 

I think he's fought better opposition. Joe was the better fighter and would've beaten Carl handily imo but Carl is really making the most of his talent, which has earned my admiration.

 

I predicted Froch's win last night and I am a fan of his, but Joe C would beat Froch without much trouble IMHO.

Without going into too much detail I'd say Calzaghe's victories over Kessler and Hopkins should be a pointer.

I think Calzaghe would have been so so much better if he wasn't plagued with brittle hands, very good fighter and very awkward for anyone, too much so for The Cobra.

 

Froch lost to a half blind past prime KEssler, Calzaghe schooled a prime Kessler. Thats all that needs to be said.

 

No. Calzaghe had Hopkins in his prime, and you could argue Kessler in his prime.
They much better fighters then any froch has on his record.