I agree with others Froch has the better resume but Calzaghe is the better boxer. I still think Froch would have beaten Calzaghe though with a very close decision.
How can people compare these 2 fighters. I like Froch but Calzaghe would school him to an easy decision.
Froch's level of competition before the Super 6 was better than 99% of Calzaghe's WBO reign of terror.
oh ok so later careers don't matter? i guess calzaghe beating lacy then is right up there with duran beating leonard and ali beating foreman? and i suppose that unknown russian guy that lewis fought in his last fight just goes down as any other win?
are people really so thick, the question is who's resume is better, not who would win h2h? imo froch has the better resume just, dont care if hes lost some of those fights because if you fight the best available your bound to lose some fights. Calzaghe whilst a great fighter had the potential to be the best british fighter in history if he took a few more chances mid way through his career. He had a spell of about 3 years where he fought pish poor opposition and cant remember the name now but he fought that german kid twice after battering him the 1st time! was sickening really
Frochs best win - an aging version of kessler Calzaghes best win - Prime undefeated kessler or the B-hop who was ranked no1 at lightheavy in a close contest. and please dont tell me that Froch beat Dirrell which is a good win , that was an awful hometown decision...and im English. Calzaghe has a better resume although it could and should be far better , he is too blame as are a few other fighters who didnt want to fight him. Frochs resume gets overated cos hes fought a whose who of big names since he became champion and i admire his willingness to do so but are the names on it really all that good?