Better resume Froch or Calzaghe

I did.

The facts speak for themselves.

After Pavlik: Taylor's best win was Lacy, lost to every other decent contender.

After Tarver III: Jones best win was Lacy, lost to every other decent contender.

If we are assuming those losses were what caused these guy's downfalls than they seemed to be equally effective. I will add Jones did beat a couple more top 10s in Hanshaw and this Glazewski character.

 

Froch

 

Ok so since the best wins are equal before their respective fights, we can only look to losses to determine who was more damaged.

Jones losing 3 times, 2 times brutally is worse than losing 2 times and 1 time brutally. Fact. Jones was more used against Calzaghe than Taylor was vs Froch.

 

If Jones was clearly worse than Taylor he wouldn't have been so much more impressive against Lacy.

Jones also took time off and slowly built himself back up to face Calzaghe. Those losses were several years removed.

Taylor kept jumping back in with the lions, until he got himself concussed.

I just don't see a case for the Taylor of the Froch match being clearly better than Jones.

 

theres a point at which every man in history, and in the future of mankind, must accept the biological facts about your lungs, but i can see thats still along way off for you if you think stamina at 43 is as good as it is at 23.

I am not going to argue that which is a provensolid and incontestible fact with you anymore. I have most of a medical degree and I side with the knowledge of the boffins who teach me over you, I hope thats not an issue for you.

 

Nice way to ignore everything that I wrote. Each individual is different, what you can't deny are the facts I presented, hence why you avoided them. Another duck by HerolGee, you're quickly becoming one of the biggest jokes on here. You're assertion that Bute is better than Kessler was hilarious!

'I have most of a medical degree'

Nice way to try and duck the facts and statistics I presented, is that what they teach you in 'medical school'?

 

This.

Only smashing Ward can ever bring Froch level with Calzaghe.

 

fine, medical knowledge is a joke to you. What does that say about your opinion on age and stamina? What exactly is your profession?

you mean your assertion that I asserted he was better? People have already forgotten your mistaken assertion, move on.

 

Taylor wouldn't have been favoured so highly against Froch if that were the case, and Jones/Calzaghe was viewed as a joke mismatch.

You're so out of your depth in this one I think I'll bow out right here :good

 

So you've been presented facts and statistics that show that Hopkins was throwing the same amount of punches in a fight, and making opponents miss at this age. You've continued to ignore this. What medical knowledge have you presented? Nothing.

For more examples, see Steve Redgrave and Ryan Giggs.

 

Froch and I say that as a Calzaghe fan, he just fought a tougher string of opponents from Pascal through to Bute.

 

Froch comfortably.

 

-Odds don't tell the whole story and also have much to do with the perceptions of their opponents at the time. Froch was regarded as unproven, Calzaghe a reigning Champion.

-I've made stated my case in very well reasoned and consistent fashion without insulting you. The "depth" comment is out of line and just makes you look insecure.

 

Since you are pulling thoe guys apart, maybe you can tell me who he did actually beat that was worth a ****, coz for 10 years at MW (until Tito) he didn't fight anybody as good as Tarver or Pavlik

 

Not to mention Hopkins beat Pascal at 46 years old.

The same Pascal being pimped as a great win for Froch.

So yeah, rather hypocritical to paint Hopkins in a bad light if he duplicated what Froch did in his mid 40s.