Which Calzaghe wins do you think are better than Froch's wins over Pascal & Taylor?

Eubank, Lacy, Kessler.

All three would beat Taylor. All three were clear wins for Calzaghe were he left no doubt who the better man was. Froch beat Taylor because Taylor has a tendency to let fights slip away.

 

hopkins, kessler.

 

ramalinga
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member


Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 272 Re: Which Calzaghe wins do you think are better than Froch's wins over Pascal & Taylo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eubank, Lacy, Kessler.

All three would beat Taylor. All three were clear wins for Calzaghe were he left no doubt who the better man was. Froch beat Taylor because Taylor has a tendency to let fights slip away.


Taylor beat Lacy remember!?

 

Hopkins and Kessler clearly surpass them IMO.

 

- Mikkel Kessler is a excellent win in my eyes (no two ways about it), and so is the Hopkins win for Calzaghe.

- The only way Froch matches Calzaghe is by battling Kessler himself for the WBA and then surpassing Joe by walloping Andrade for the IBF.

This way his resume looks far superior than Calzaghes

However, I was not a boxing fan around the time when he beat
Charles Brewer, Byron Mitchell and Robin Ried. The question is were these very, very underrated wins or what?

 

Calzaghe utterly annihilated the undefeated, confident Lacy. He was never the same afterwards, everybody knows that. Taylor got knocked down and won a competitive fight against the shell of Lacy.

 

Jeff Lacy is basically the same fighter he was before and after Calzaghe.

 

lets just say,froch has done more in two fights than calzaghe done in his first 14 defences,so i have alot of respect for froch that way,but he would lose to hopkins badly

 

Hopkins trumps all. I didn't agree with the decision but, officially, he won and Hopkins is better than both fighters despite, ironically, Taylor holding two wins over Bernard.

 

I stil dont think he proved he was better than hopkins at that time so i would even consider that.

Old eubank rely cant be considerred he was no where near the fighter of hus prime jus look at his hair line in that fight.

I think if Froch now would have fought lacy then if hed of hit him wit a quarter of the amount of punch calzaghe did we'd of been scraping lacy off the canvas.

But i would have to say for the time and the relevence kessler was a bigger win than taylor and pascal.

 

I had a feeling Pascal would go on to bigger things.

Froch beat Reid better than Calzaghe did.
Jermaine Taylor has beaten Jeff Lacy and Hopkins, Froch knocked him out.

People will really challenge Calzaghe's legacy. If Froch gets another big win, then it could be argued that Calzaghe got out at the right time and although he was good, he was never tested against the best and fought old men and retired towards the end of his career.

Jones and Hopkins were old and both managed to floor Calzaghe.
Lacy perhaps was not that good at all.
Kessler has done nothing since.
Eubank had lost to Collins twice at 168lbs.

One thing is for sure, Froch is willing to take the risks that Calzaghe never did after winning the WBO title.

Calzaghe would have beaten Froch in my opinion, but now the 168lbs division is picking up again with Froch, Bute, Balzsay and perhaps Abraham, Pavlik and Dawson, the question is where is Joe Calzaghe?

 

:thinkatsch