Froch wasn’t a great inside fighter, in fact JC was better, so Froch wouldn’t have gotten the better of a tear up. Did JC drop rounds of course he did but the fighters you mention like Bika and Salem fight nothing like Froch who again I will stress is neither dirty or a good inside fighter. Styles make fights and Froch is made for Calzaghe.
I never claimed that Carl was a great inside fighter. But he had good skills, very good power, a good chin and plenty of heart. He was also aggressive. He wasn't elite, but he was dangerous. Joe could be vulnerable in a tear up, because he was easy enough to hit. Salem was a euro level SMW. Roy was shot. There's no reason why Carl couldn't have dropped him had they have gone at it.
Carl wasn’t a big puncher, a good puncher but not big on the elite level. Also let’s look at the fighters who Froch went life and death with, Taylor and Dirrell ( 1 was winning before being stopped, the other arguably beat him), Ward handled him easily enough, He went life and death over 2 fights with Groves, even at British level he struggled with Brian Magee. Again Froch couldn’t or wouldn’t benefit from making it a dirty fight as he’d be picked of with his caveman swings, the fight would be competitive in spots but it’s a dominant win for JC.
Carl had a right hand comparable to 3 of the 4 guys who dropped Joe, due to Joe always being open for a right hand. Yes, I'm aware of who Carl fought. I watched his entire career. There's no way he beat Dirrell. Dirrell has wasted his talent. It's such a shame how his career has turned out. Andre Ward was an elite level fighter. Yes, the fight would have been competitive in spots. But a 12-0 landslide is a gross exaggeration. We'll leave it at that. It's pointless taking it further.
and was beat by froch better. null point. next. he wasnt. next. Odin cannot see the fail in logic that rybacki was calzaghes replacement. So if Calzaghe HADNT moved up Rybacki wouldnt need to stand in. Rybacki is the evidence for the opposite of what you claim. Love it! triple fail.
He fought Rybacki 2 months before Joe beat a top P4P Hopkins. Are you comparing Hopkins to Rybacki? Joe beat a prime, undefeated Kessler, Froch lost to a faded Kessler then beat a past prime Kessler and still had to go to the well to do it. No comparison.
Actually I stand corrected it was a month before Froch v Rybacki that JC beat Hopkins, with both JC and Froch having their previous fight in November of 2007. So Froch had over half a year to find a better opponent, whilst JC went on to beat BH.
they happened in consecutive months of each other. Joe only shed the title the week before, so no, he was due to fight Froch. There is no need to lie - april and may are clearly consecutive months. Please dont lie again. thanks. what you should have corrected me on was that calzaghe fought hopkins not jones.
they both fought and beat kessler at home. how is the same fighter "no comparison"? oh, when you havent got another argument. nice.
When was he due to fight Froch? Was contracts signed? Did Calzaghe pull out of a fight with Froch? No, none of the above, Calzaghe faced Hopkins, Froch faced Eurobum Rybacki. Froch then fought for a vacant title, but no he was never signed to gave JC, being a mandatory doesn’t mean you have a fight signed.
1. One version was a dominant, undefeated champion, in his prime at 28. 2. The other version was a guy with 1 good eye, way past his prime, dropped two fights before and aged 34. Through into the mix Froch already lost to Kessler, JC never needed to do it twice. Any version of Calzaghe beats any version of Froch.
If Carl Froch never had a granite chin, he would never have even been world level. He had a great ability to take some of the biggest punches and still come forward. Carl Froch is one of the most arrogant and pompous men in boxing, but he would have been a tough night for anyone.
they both have same top win, so either way your claim is one of equality. This obviously burns you which is why you keep trying to rewrite it as a winning point, when its repeating the same point. My point. I thank you then for paraphrasing my winning point.
