Better resume Froch or Calzaghe???

I didn't know beating Arthur Abraham was cause to jump ones status so high.
He deservedly lost against Kesser and didn't impress against Dirrell, yet people think his 2 years at this level eclipse Joe's career.
Calzaghe was a world champion longer than Frochs entire career and no one scalped him in that time.

 

Froch's resume looks more impressive than it is because most people refuse to look beyond names on a list. It's good, just not as amazing as people make out.

Apart from a shot Robin Reid, Froch has yet to defeat anyone that has had real success at 168. He is yet to defeat a reigning champion and Abraham is the only prime fighter he has faced in his last five fights.

 

There's better fighters now than in Calzaghe's time

 

Realistically, Calzaghe and by quite a bit. That may change if Froch wins the super six and almost certainly would change if he beat Bute as well. I like both fighters, but whilst I love Froch's warrior mentality, anyone who honestly says He has the better resume (I.e list of names beaten) at this stage is reading too much into the last five fights. Now if you want to say Froch has taken on good opposition in a shorter space of time and that his last five fights are better than any five consecutive bouts inCalzaghe's career I'd agree. He deserves credit for taking tough fights closer together (though to be fair the promotional situation is more conducive to good match ups being made at the mo). He also deserves credit for beating Taylor on his home turf and Abraham on neutral ground.

However, I think it has become too fashionable to bash Calzaghe in favour of Froch these days. Let's take a look at the world class fighters beaten by either man:

Calzaghe: Eubank, Reid, woodhall, Sheika, Brewer, Mitchell, Lacy, Bika, Kessler, Hopkins. You could argue Jones but I don't include him as he was shot. You could also argue Beit and Starie but I don't think they were good enough.

Froch: Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham. You could include Reid, but I don't as he was shot or Magee but I don't as he wasn't good enough.

As I said, Froch's best wins (the four above) match up evenly with Calzaghes (Hopkins, Kessler, Lacy, Eubank). However, below that he has little. A lot of people like to bash Calzaghes opponents, but if you claim Eubank was shot then the same could easily be said about Taylor (wouldn't be true in either case). If you claim Lacy was a hype job, same could be said about Abraham (wouldn't be true there either). Dirrell could also be said to be unproven and Froch lost to probably a lesser Kessler than Calzaghe beat (on away soil admittedly).

Froch has made a fan of me for his attitude (I didn't used to be too keen on him) and if you say he has had his tough fights closer together and shown more drove than Calzaghe I'd probably agree. But in a logical, rational comparison of each man's noteworthy wins, He still has a bit of ground to make up.

 

froch as the better cv imo and more bottle

 

Carl Froch can never, ever overtake Calzaghe resume wise.

If Froch beats Vitali up at HW that just reflects well on Kessler, which relfects superbly on Calzaghe.

Every win Froch notches up is just him doing dirty work work Calzaghe's own reputation.

 

Who on Frochs resume would have beaten Calzaghe?:think

 

Calzaghe just. But mainly because I think it is a bit rich to include Dirrell as top level and yet not mention Reid or Woodhall. Both of the Brits were bonafide world champions. Dirrell has some good tools but has been slightly overrated because he is American.

Calzaghe also beat solid guys who were past their peak like Brewer and Mitchell. And Hopkins was not shot, certainly not his peak but clearly not shot. RJJ was totally shot and Froch would have stopped that version.

Froch lost to Kessler, whilst JC won. Froch got a home town decision over Dirrell but it's still a win.

However if Froch beats Johnson and then fights Ward I would say his record of opponents is better. Whether his "resume" is better I suppose depends on whether he beats Ward, because having a losing record against the best does not mean you have a better record than another fighter. Otherwise Peter Buckley would have one of the best resumes of any British fighter in history.

 

calzaghe only fought people he knew he could beat in his own garden, then he went for the big names to try and make his cv look slightly better, a half prime rjj would have ruined calzaghe which is why joe wouldnt fight him years ago, and b hop was never gonna out score joe, and joe slaps like a *****.

froch will fight anyone anywhere, he might have lost to kesler, but it was hardly a massive gap,some say carl got it some say draw some say it was too close to call, i personally think that was a draw, why wouldnt joe fight froch all the numerous times the cobra called him out?....cos he knew that he could not beat froch no chance.

the only reason joe's cv looks better is because he beat up a load of washed up legends, and the kesler of now would beat calzaghe from 2 years ago.

froch will end up with the better cv imho, but as it stands joe's looks better due to the fact the average fan looking at the 2 lists would say calzaghe's list is superior because they might think he beat all the legends in their prime......

but we all knw otherwise.

 

Ward is one of the best fighters of all time, why even mention the possibility of Froch beating him?

Besides Froch beats Ward, shot Kessler beat Froch, prime Kessler beats shot Kessler, shot Calzaghe beat prime Kessler.

Froch beating Ward enhances Calzaghe's resume. Calzaghe cannot be surpassed and that is not a coincidence, his resume is full of quality wins, which ensure his bullet proof atg legacy.

 

I think it has to be Calzaghe, his fight resume is very impressive but it is a close call.

 

You're either a muppet or a wind up merchant. I suspect the latter. This comment is a complete joke. I'm disgusted with myself for even dignifying it with a response.

 

Andre Ward will retire an undefeated, unified champion having dominated the divisions around him for years.

It is obvious a fighter with his combination of talent and knowledge in applying the dark side of the boxing arts such as head-butting and arm-locks will go on to dominate all around him.

When his career is over people will look back and say "That Andre Ward was good, the second best SMW in history, a real ATG."

If I want to claim Andre Ward is one of the best ever earlier than everyone else then I will do, just like I did with Calzaghe before Calzaghe destroyed all before him.

 

[quote="TKO";8381391]Realistically, Calzaghe and by quite a bit. That may change if Froch wins the super six and almost certainly would change if he beat Bute as well. I like both fighters, but whilst I love Froch's warrior mentality, anyone who honestly says He has the better resume (I.e list of names beaten) at this stage is reading too much into the last five fights. Now if you want to say Froch has taken on good opposition in a shorter space of time and that his last five fights are better than any five consecutive bouts inCalzaghe's career I'd agree. He deserves credit for taking tough fights closer together (though to be fair the promotional situation is more conducive to good match ups being made at the mo). He also deserves credit for beating Taylor on his home turf and Abraham on neutral ground.

However, I think it has become too fashionable to bash Calzaghe in favour of Froch these days. Let's take a look at the world class fighters beaten by either man:

Calzaghe: Eubank, Reid, woodhall, Sheika, Brewer, Mitchell, Lacy, Bika, Kessler, Hopkins. You could argue Jones but I don't include him as he was shot. You could also argue Beit and Starie but I don't think they were good enough.

Froch: Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham. You could include Reid, but I don't as he was shot or Magee but I don't as he wasn't good enough.

As I said, Froch's best wins (the four above) match up evenly with Calzaghes (Hopkins, Kessler, Lacy, Eubank). However, below that he has little. A lot of people like to bash Calzaghes opponents, but if you claim Eubank was shot then the same could easily be said about Taylor (wouldn't be true in either case). If you claim Lacy was a hype job, same could be said about Abraham (wouldn't be true there either). Dirrell could also be said to be unproven and Froch lost to probably a lesser Kessler than Calzaghe beat (on away soil admittedly).

Froch has made a fan of me for his attitude (I didn't used to be too keen on him) and if you say he has had his tough fights closer together and shown more drove than Calzaghe I'd probably agree. But in a logical, rational comparison of each man's noteworthy wins, He still has a bit of ground to make up.[/quote]

This is probably the best comment I have seen on the issue.

I like both and think that Froch could eclipse Calzaghe in the next couple of years. For now, though, he isn't there and most of us aren't able to step back far enough to get some perspective.

 

[quote="TKO";8381391]Realistically, Calzaghe and by quite a bit. That may change if Froch wins the super six and almost certainly would change if he beat Bute as well. I like both fighters, but whilst I love Froch's warrior mentality, anyone who honestly says He has the better resume (I.e list of names beaten) at this stage is reading too much into the last five fights. Now if you want to say Froch has taken on good opposition in a shorter space of time and that his last five fights are better than any five consecutive bouts inCalzaghe's career I'd agree. He deserves credit for taking tough fights closer together (though to be fair the promotional situation is more conducive to good match ups being made at the mo). He also deserves credit for beating Taylor on his home turf and Abraham on neutral ground.

However, I think it has become too fashionable to bash Calzaghe in favour of Froch these days. Let's take a look at the world class fighters beaten by either man:

Calzaghe: Eubank, Reid, woodhall, Sheika, Brewer, Mitchell, Lacy, Bika, Kessler, Hopkins. You could argue Jones but I don't include him as he was shot. You could also argue Beit and Starie but I don't think they were good enough.

Froch: Pascal, Taylor, Dirrell, Abraham. You could include Reid, but I don't as he was shot or Magee but I don't as he wasn't good enough.

As I said, Froch's best wins (the four above) match up evenly with Calzaghes (Hopkins, Kessler, Lacy, Eubank). However, below that he has little. A lot of people like to bash Calzaghes opponents, but if you claim Eubank was shot then the same could easily be said about Taylor (wouldn't be true in either case). If you claim Lacy was a hype job, same could be said about Abraham (wouldn't be true there either). Dirrell could also be said to be unproven and Froch lost to probably a lesser Kessler than Calzaghe beat (on away soil admittedly).

Froch has made a fan of me for his attitude (I didn't used to be too keen on him) and if you say he has had his tough fights closer together and shown more drove than Calzaghe I'd probably agree. But in a logical, rational comparison of each man's noteworthy wins, He still has a bit of ground to make up.[/quote]

thumbsup