Name for name: Carl Froch resume vs Joe Calzaghe resume

yes really.

 

which wins by 40something roy make you think this?

 

I think its more debatable then your giving credit, Roy was a LHW at this point so physicality favours him over the SMW's but the main reason I see the version of Roy who lost to Calzaghe still beating all those guys at that point in their careers comes down to adaptability. Even that version of Roy is fundamentally better then any of them, don't get me wrong I'm not saying Roy walks them or has an easy night but I think he could do enough early to set the pace and I don't see any of those guys making the adjustments or upping the pace enough to come out on top. Bare in mind the punishment Roy took from Calzaghe and it still didn't finish him off, I think he still had enough left to deal with a lesser man. I can def see why you've doubted it, I even questioned myself before mentioning the victory over Roy but at the given points in time for each guy mentioned I still think he does enough for the win. But each to their own opinions, was cool debating it with you (caption thumbs up)

 

wtf?? you ran away!

 

this is all speculation, the same as a claim that Roy would lose against any of the guys mentioned previously. Personally I think he had enough left at that time to get the wins. I've given a few replies that explain my views on the hypothetical match ups. Again I can see why the point can be debated as I too did second guess myself but i went with the gut. Until next time HerolGee

 

I'm a Floyd fan what can I say!?? seriously though I sense we'd be here all day on the subject and I'm guessing nothing I've put will change your mind on it, your point is more than valid but nothing has been said to sway me from my original thought so why delve in to it any longer. Also the topic has moved away from the actual point of the thread. Peace!

 

Calzaghe > Froch

 

Calzaghe had blistering handspeed and flurries.

 

Yeah, nice debate. Guess we just have to agree to disagree and all that. You argue your case well but I just don't see it. Roys reflexes were shot. Calzaghe made him look like an amateur and I'm not that hot on JC. His timing had gone, punch resilience had gone, foot speed gone. Sure his boxing brain was still firing but his body was like some old guy pointing his ear toward you and asking you to repeat everything. He was fighting in jello.

Those young, strong guys you mentioned would have gave him major problems. Joe didn't knock him out because Joe could punch for sh!t. Look at the Manfredo fight for proof. I give Tarver and Johnson some credit for beating Jones, Griffin too to a degree but no fighter after that beat anything close to the real Roy Jones. Take care.

 

no they said the point isnt debatable, as close as paraphrase that.

offer an argument now please.

 

Calzaghe would literally slap Froch silly.

Froch does nothing better than JC superstar.

12-0

 

You're not grasping reality, the eubank that calz fought AND BEAT was a superior fighter than Bute ever was, at any point throughout his entire career. That is the only reason that single win is much more favorable to calz that froch beating a far more limited bute.

Eubank was not a "shot" fighter when he fought calz,that was truly his first clear loss. But, reading most opinions on here it's a fact the majority is utterly clueless when trying to gauge a fighters level.

 

The Hopkins that Calzaghe beat would have beaten Froch....

 

no he wasnt- eubank unable to win any title fght was a lesser man than bute able to win title fights.

why do you refer to the reverse (ie lies) as reality? explain why. we need to know why u see lies as reality.

 

Travels and punches