Better resume Froch or Calzaghe

Because Kessler is better than Bute and Froch(you know, having actually beat him and all while past prime).

Frochsucker land:

-A win over Bute is worth more than a win over prime Kessler...because it was a KO. :-(

-Taylor and Glen Johnson were top primes when they faced Froch.

 

Taylor was still favoured to win and Froch pulled it out. I give a lot of credence to underdog wins and world titles win.

Froch has done both in spades. It's close.

 

it is bad d poll isn't public . Makes me think that d Thread's starter gets paid by Calzaghe's lawyer / manager / promoter . serious .
Just compare Froch's supporters' vcash 2 Calzaghe's supporters' vcash and get a yet more pronounced gape between d 2 options .

 

Carl Froch:
Lucian Bute
Jean Pascal
Andre Dirrell
Glen Johnson
Jermain Taylor
Arthur Abraham

Joe Calzaghe:
Bernard Hopkins
Mikkell Kessler
Robin Reid
Jeff Lacy
Chris Eubank
Mario Veit

Joe has the 2 best wins but Froch isn't exactly done yet
Froch has more underdog wins
Both have won multiple titles.

Even at this stage it's close.

 

Because people thought so little of the unproven Froch than. Taylor was coming off two batterings at the hands of Pavlik, and his only fight inbetween was a onesided but rather unimpressive win over a horrid Jeff Lacy. He looked slow, weak, and vulnerable.

Food for thought, a past it Jones was more impressive against that version of Lacy than Taylor, making a fool of Lacy and actually being the first to stop him. One could argue the Jones that Calzaghe beat was actually a bit better than post Pavlik-Taylor.

 

:tired

Taylor's only 2 losses VS Jones' 2 Brutal KO losses and 1 more loss after that before fighting Joe? No. You'd be the only one arguing that one mate.

And Taylor wasn't coming off of two "batterings"- one was a stoppage loss and the other was a relatively close fight that Pavlik won, but it was close. Far from a "BATTERING" and it was at Supermiddleweight where Taylor seemed to perform better.

 

-If the man looks better in the ring, he looks better in the ring, you even have the same opponent to guage.

-Taylor took a battering in Pavlik I and II, regardless of what the scorecards said.

-Taylor looked sluggish in Pavlik II and Lacy, still a smart fighter with good power in his right hand. Surprising the way Froch came back and beat him, but to argue this is as a top prime win? More like Froch struggling against a past prime opponent.

As far as Jones vs. Taylor, I'm not arguing it as fact but its something to consider, a past prime Jones displaying better defense and still punching quicker and more effectively than Taylor is certainly cause for consideration. The only noteworthy win either man had managed at that low point in their careers was the same guy and one performed much better.

At any rate, my point is that Taylor of the Froch fight can't be aruged as prime. Pavlik beat a prime Taylor, Froch and Abraham didn't.

 

Calzaghe.

 

There you go, now you admit it.
A fighter can be older than another, and be prime while the younger fighter is shot. You've schooled yourself, Froch's best win is Bute, which is on a par with Calzaghe's win over Lacy, and Joe has better wins than Lacy. The likes of Taylor, Abraham and Pascal are not top SMW's, joe's win over Reid is a better win those three. Not to mention his wins over Eubank and prime undefeated Kessler and Hopkins. How did Froch do against an inactive past prime Kessler who was suffering double vision and coming off a loss?

 

He certainly does. He slapped the **** out of every Yank bum he fought thats for sure, particularly those last 2 Jones, and the gutless Hopkins. The same bum Hopkins that ducked Joe and fought Carl Daniels instead 10 years ago.

Secondly, could you really see Joe struggle like **** for 11 rounds against a pathetic bum like Jermaine Taylor? Cos if you do, you know even less about him than the average moronic Calzaghe hater.

 

Jones looked far more dreadful in his losses than Taylor did, no matter how you try to spin it.

 

mm but i've only schooled myself in your opinion about unrelated matter that you raised (Tyson and Lewis being 2 years difference in age) - and your opinion conveniently continues to duck the fact that 40somethings arent contenders in top level sports, across the board, and across history. Do you see the difference? I am arguing with the full weigh of history, you are arguing using an irrelevant issue.

So although I admit that in your smallminded view about an irrelevant issue i've schooled myself, sadly for you, in the wide world of everything that you've deliberately ignored, you failed to beat my superior argument.

 

I actually find it quite funny that you disagree in such an overconfident and disdainful way, after having your error spelt out to you.

Bute KOed in 5, after 9 defences of title.
Kessler outpointed after 4 defences (plus 2 later in career)

Not sure how I can spell out the difference more clearly. If english isnt your 1st language I will try and translate, butthere is a landslide thread poll in ESB about this exact question that supports me, so if you want to continue arguing your point, do so knowing that most people on here disagree with you.

 

Nope, you've admitted that age isn't indicative of where a fighter is at in his respective career. Hopkins peak performances and best wins came against Tarver, Wright and Pavlik. Carl Froch is 34 and is in his prime, contrast that to Ricky Hatton who was finished at age 29, but hold on, how can a fighter who is in his mid-30's be more prime than a 29 year old? In HerolGee logic, Ricky Hatton at age 30 is more prime than Froch at age 34, and Tyson was more prime than Lennox when they fought, after all Herol, it's biology atsch

Also, Calzaghe was fighting on the world level at age 25, why did Froch only start at age 31? By age 31, Calzaghe had beaten Eubank, Reid, Woodhall, Mitchell and Brewer, all former world champions. Froch meanwhile was only just fighting for his first title.

I've just seen you were trying to argue that Bute is better than Kessler. Even Carl Froch and Lucian Bute's mother would disagree with you there atsch

 

fair enough if you now arent trynig to use this argument to say Hopkins wasnt faded at fortysomething.

My point still stands about hopkins. not sure why you want to bring Bute and Froch into an argument about fortysomethings being greatly diminshed, but you are completely right in that respect about Bute and Froch. You should find someone to argue that point against though, it wasnt mine and I am not interested in it, I was blatantly and completely talking about the large physical losses that come in your forties, and nothing else.