Joe Calzaghe has the better overall resume, but Froch isn't that far behind and he has build his legacy/resume in a much shorter time period than Calzaghe did
Age aint nuffin but a number. B-Hop had his career best performance (Pavlik) after the JC fight. He was also coming off wins against Wright and Tarver (Tarver probably his 2nd best career performance) 43 year old B-Hop beats 33 year old B-Hop any old day of the week!!!
Froch is a REAL fighter. took the toughest fights possible and fought everyone in his division. he should rank higher as an ATG or HOF when hes done.
Lennox Lewis was older than Tyson when they fought, who was closer to their prime? When Hopkins was younger, he was going through trilogies with the likes of Robert Allen his peak performances came at the time he lost to Joe, with career best performances and wins against Tarver, Wright and pavlik
Exactly. The only 'ignorance' being shown is by just looking at somebody's age and not looking at the other factors, i.e their performances!
biology. fact. cold reality. the laws of physics. and Bernards 43 year old lungs gassing out of a high pace fight after 5 rounds. dont ever pretend gravity dont exist, or you fall on your face in embarrassment.
wink was old and he squeezed that win out barely, Pavlik.... how proven was he? Tarver is old himself and dropping weight nothing suggest that bhop is better than bhop that whoop tito. When bhop fought Taylor, he wouldn't throw punches. He doesn't have the gas tank to go hard for 12 rounds. No way 40+ guy was in his physical prime.
Also that is like saying Floyd jr is still in prime with his good performances of recent, and he is no where near that
atsch I see you ducked the questions I asked, who was closer to their prime, Lewis or Tyson, by your logic it's Tyson right?
exactly, theres a very good reason, and overwhelming evidence for why there are practically no 40something champs in the entire history of boxing and for why they've all retired long before 43. To argue in the face of such overwhelming evidence is pretty desperate. some people will argue against the entire weight of history because they are ignorant of the simplest biological facts.
of course I didnt answer, because as I've shown you, the answer is entirely irrelevant to this thread. You can continue to bulldozer on with your non-applicable argument though, please be my guest, I have no problem with you doing that.
yeah thats why the 100m/200m/400m/800m tracks are heaving with 40somethings during the World Championships. and the Olympic swimming pools, choc with 40somethings, wow, trouncing all the twentysomethings regualrly for lung power, they do. plus all the fortysomethings in every other high intensity aerobic sport at world class level. and not forgetting all the 40something world champions in the entire history of boxing. oh and add to that all those 40plussers winning all the stages in the Tour De France. uh no there ARENT ANY fortysomethings in any of these categories in the hisotry of these sports, bar the odd one or two exceptions. Sorry, your argument failed in its entirely, please engage your brain next time you speak.