Carl Froch Resume vs Calzaghe

When you put it like that, I dont think Froch would be far off Calzaghe's resume if he won the Super Six.

 

IF wins the super 6 hes almost there, a win over Arthur Abraham would be massive if he could pull it off.
IF he can beat Kessler (maybe he doesnt need Kessler that much anymore but hes probably better than Bika)& Bute& AA hes resume would be better than calzaghes i would think this is a massive ask however. Even so if he could beat Kessler and Bute hes resume would be damm good anyway. Carl's a proper fighter when hes calls it a day we will know exactly how good he was

 

He needs to win the Super 6, beat Bute and then move up and beat Dawson.

 

What are they resuming?

 

HES ALREADY PASSED calzaghe's resume

 

nah, he's at least a couple of decent wins away.

 

Frotch needs to win the WBO belt to beat Calzaghes record.

 

Which is one more than Calzaghe had ...lets face it, if Froch wins this tournament then he hasn't just exceeded Calzaghes achievements, he will have pissed all over them.

 

honestly if Froch wins the tourney, even is he looses on the way he would be ahead of Calzaghe.

at the moment you have to go by Froch's 26 fights vs Calzaghes 26 fights.

In 26 fights Froch beat all his domestic rivals and has world title fight wins over Pascal (goes on to win belt at Light Heavy), Taylor (former world champ) who he beat abroad and undefeated Dirrell.

After 26 fights Calzaghe was also world champion havin. He had made 3 defences. He beat Eubank for the vacant title like Froch had with Pascal. We will give that to Pascal but Calzaghe then defended agaisnt weak opposition until he faced former champ and domestic rival Robin Reid.

I would say at the moment Froch is ahead.

 

Froch has the better record but skills wise Calzaghe is in a whole new league.

There is more to fighters than records.

 

I think the problem with Calzaghe's resume (and overall standing) - as I've said before - is that you have to make a great deal of assumptions as to whether he'd beat this guy or that.

He was unfortunate to arrive on the scene as a worthy contender after the Benn/Eubank/Collins era, and co-exist with a few champions quite content to sit on their title and stack up the cash.

Additionally, it is his failure (if that's the right word) to move up a division to get better fights - as Hatton and Haye have done. That said, if you are a 168lb fighter, you are a 168lb fighter.... why bother going up if it's unnatural to do so at that stage of your career.

With Froch, perhaps a reason why he has taken the tougher challenges at an earlier stage is because he didn't have the promotion that Calzaghe had, and he turned pro relatively late. His title defences regardless of what has happened to Taylor and whether you scored the Dirrell fight for him or not are very good, unlike Calzaghe's first couple of years with his title.

As for a H2H matchup - as a Froch fan it pains me, but Calzaghe beats him all day long.

 

Calzaghe would have been dropped in the first round and then finished off in the second. Everytime a decent puncher caught him he was on his arse.

 

most ridiculous thing i ever read.

how do you know how good someone is, unless they proved it against unbeaten, legit contenders ranked in the top 3 of their weight classes?

pascal was unbeaten 27 years old, Taylor was 28-2 and 30yrs old and then Dirrel who is 25 and 18-0.

all of them were top ranked by the WBC and were either former ring middleweight unified, olympians or have since capture titles. Which is a lot more impressive than fighting non-title fights with money making seniors with a combined aged of 80 something

I'd say that i doubt hopkins would beat all three of those, infact he lost to Taylor twice already a couple of years before joe got beaten up. Pascal is a tough handful and dirrell is a skilled-nightmare.

Im not even got mention roys name amongst them three as he is utterly and completely shot.

 

That's a good line. And a commendable attribute in Froch.