Better resume Froch or Calzaghe???

:good

 

Poll or stfu noob

 

Calzaghe>prime Kessler>shot Kessler>Froch.

 

Froch

 

Seen all the fights lad

I said fair enough bout kessler - just pointed out the slap master was at home for a change, you could say kessler was more experienced & fighting for his career against froch

Lacy - hype job, can't say any more

Hopkins (legend but past prime) - pavliks an alco who had moved up from 160 to 170, didn't look right at all in that fight, bernard looked a million$s against RJJ, I said debatable decision you call it close but only give bhop 3 rnds - that's not that close p.s. winky had blown up to 170 as well

RJJ - shot agreed but still dropped jc eh?

Eubank - shot might of been harsh (I can take a point), well faded & too many wars, the cats a warrior but "THE cruiserweight champion" - bit much

 

If Lacy is one of the "big names" on Calzaghe's "amazing" resume, it says alot.

 

Nothing dubious other than Hopkins cheating his way through the whole fight!

 

"Ring Generalship"

My arse!!atsch

 

Calzaghe...

 

Froch still has some way to go but he's not that far off, he got a few more years left in him to fight some top guys and really cement a legacy in Boxing and British Boxing.

 

The only 1 they both have in common is Kessler. Froch has had a hard run of fights and has had some great results.
Love the pair of them and hopefully Froch will go on to beat Johnson, Ward and Pascal again. Always like watching Froch's fights. Only been to one of them and that was the Dirrell fight.......Chose the wrong one there didn't i......

 

Great - so please explain your daft reasoning.

Nonsense. Pure sophistry again - a convenient argument that doesn't hold up to the facts.

Again, considering what Joe did to him and the fact he was favourite going in, that's dismissive and inaccurate.

Ok - let's pull this apart. You're completely discrediting Hopkins' win, which was a good one by any standard. There's no clear proof that Pavlik's performances were suffering at that point - he was the same, limited fighter he'd been shown up as in the rematch with Taylor. Good when his opponent's in front of him, less impressive when they aren't.

The alcoholism thing is a cheap jibe at a troubled man. Poor show. The first real issue from Kelly's drinking appears to be the staph infection. Either way, it was a GREAT performance from Hopkins. Movement, speed, punch selection.

The performance against Jones was hardly a million dollars, which suggests to me you haven't watched the fight. I do think Hopkins is seriously faded as a result of watching that travesty.

Em... so? Joe must be ****! Nonsense. That was Roy's ONLY moment of success. We've seen Roy show flashes of his former self early in fights before. But Joe slapped him around the ring for the rest of the 11 1/2 rounds.

I'm not sure what point you want to make. But I expect it's to say that, had Roy been six years younger, he'd have 'destroyed' Calzaghe. Sophistry again.

I don't even see an argument for being 'well faded'. He was unlucky against Collins first time out, seemed disinterested second time. Gave Calzaghe absolute hell, then did the same to a MUCH bigger man.

You're looking at every possible way to run Joe down. That's not being objective, it's trying to prove a point irrespective of what the evidence shows you.

Joe's resume isn't great and his WBO reign is average, but he has good wins.

 

it's amazing how some can look at holding, headbutting and refusing to fight as ring generalship. Hopkins gets a lot of slack for his behaviour in the Calzaghe fight.

Certainly Joe at least wanted to fight.

 

I think Hopkins will give Pascal a real hard time. Think he's worth a few bob at attractive odds.
Agree with you on your breakdowns dftaylor. :good

 

Froch isn't there yet.
Calzaghe's perfect record in 11 years at the top through 20+ odd title defenses puts him ahead at the moment. If Froch wins the super 6 then he'll close the gap. Froch has only been at this level for a few years after all.