Calzaghe: "Carl was fortunate...I think he should give him (Groves) a rematch."

Sorry, thats rubbish. They're slightly different, depending on certain factors.

But at the end of the day, the older you are the less chance you're going to be in your prime.

Eubank was not at his best, but it wasn't a bad version.

 

The Reid win was legit because it went the distance, wasn't terribly controversial, and Calzaghe had a broken hand. A rematch was not necessary, you knew Reid had no shot.

Groves deserves a rematch because 1.) he dropped Froch, hard, which is hugely impressive given Froch's reputation/record. 2.) while Froch was coming on and winning on the cards and probably on the way to a stoppage, Groves was robbed of the chance to turn it around and should be given another shot. 3.)Froch was robed of a great comeback KO victory and should be allowed another shot.

There will be a rematch or Froch is a ducker, end of story. It doesn't need to be right away, as Froch could also fight Ward or the Bute/Pascal winner, but it should happen soon if Froch knows what's good for him.

Groves may go on to do great things and two stoppage victories over him would look real good on Froch's resume.

 

No it's not, some fighters are totally shot by the time they reach 30. Now Eubank was not shot, he was however well past his best and there for the taking for Joe. It was a decent win, but nothing spectacular.

 

How can it be rubbish?

An average 32 year old man wouldn't be classed as being old.

But Ali was old against Foreman at 32.

It all depends on the fighters, and the circumstances.

Eubank wasn't shot, but he had little time to prepare, he had bad knees, and then he fought at CW the following year.

 

^ this

Or Hopkins !

 

50 year old Hopkins would be Frochs best win.

Or is that a **** fight?:rofl

 

the SMW king speaks

 

yeah like your epic rematch with Mario fuc.king Veit
because the world DEMANDED that one

 

Froch > Calazage

Seen Ottke is still Undefeated...they Co-existed for 2 Decades...until he fights Ottke he has no legacy :deal

 

The average 32 year old man wouldn't be classed as old because he usually isn't rated on his athletic abilities. But athletes all show a similar decline in their athletic abilities as they get older. Yes it happens at different rates, and other factors (such as beatings) take their toll. But it is unlikely (not impossible) for a boxer to be a long way past their prime at 31, and it wasn't the case with Eubank.

 

I understand where you're coming from, but it seems that Povetkinfan merely looked at Eubank's age, and then decided that he was nearly prime.

But Eubank was a long way past his prime, both physically and mentally. He was never quite the same after the Watson tragedy, and again, he only had 11 days notice to drop from LHW to SMW, and he needed injections in his knees.

He'd got many miles on the clock at that stage, and he retired the following year.

 

When Zaggers explains why this is different to Hopkins and Reid then we can respect his opinion :yep

 

Calzaghe was later quoted as saying "Froch should never have fought a top ten fighter under the age of 40, Froch was just showing off and risking a loss by facing a credible opponent".

 

perhaps more importantly, he clearly wasn't interested in winning back his old title that he'd finished with long ago, only 2 weeks previous being two divisions up and preparing for a retirement fight.

Calzaghe would have won whatever the outcome that night.

 

when he was 34/35, not 37/38, wrong age, but you knew that anyway.

you should be comparing with Ward and Kessler if you want to match fighter for fighter, who are a superior combo to lacy/Kessler.