Does Frochs win over Taylor beat any victory on Calzaghes resume?

[quote="TKO";3904165]This is incorrect. Eubank retired after the second Collins fight and dropped out of the magazine rankings due the the fact that most of them drop a fighter when they have been inactive for at least a year. Once he came back, he fought twice at light heavy so couldn't get back into the 168 rankings.[/quote]


Eubank did not make the Ring annual 1995 top ten SMW rankings (the year of the Collins defeats). Whether they booted him out for losing and beating no one of note that year or for announcing his semi retirement a few months earlier - I don't know for sure.

It's strange how few give Collins much credit for beating a two and a half years fresher version of Eubank.

 

Maybe but that's a separate issue. My logical view would be that dropping a fighter from the rankings would be a logical response to his announcing his retirement but who knows...

 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record....Taylor was the undisputed middleweight champion and he did beat Bernard Hopkins twice. These facts are not erased from our collective memory just because he subsequently loses a couple of fights. You talk about Taylor's "flaws" being "exposed and exploited", and then go on to suggest that Calzaghe beating Lacy is somehow a better win....

Lacy was clearly never that great, it debatable whether he was even any good. He had a belt, but had beaten no one of any great consequence. He also lost to Taylor in his last fight incidentally (which in itself is not particularly relevant). The fact that you mention him being "super confident" is really amusing, like this is somehow a legitimate criteria for measuring the quality of a win. Hamed was "super confident" he would beat Barrera, and we all know how that turned out.

What it comes down to is this: Had Kessler and Lacy ever beaten a fighter as good as Bernard Hopkins (twice)? Had they achived anything vaguely comprable to being the undisputed Middleweight Champion? The answer to both these questions is clearly a resounding 'no'.

Like it or not, age is relevant. And Hopkins was 43 when Calzaghe fought him. Can you not see the signifigance of this fact, given the way Calzaghe "won" the fight?

Hopkins clearly had the stamina of a 43 year old man, Calzaghe "won" because he had better stamina which meant a higher workrate. Put Calzaghe in with the Hopkins that fought Tito and Hopkins running out of steam mid-fight would not have been an issue.

You say that Froch's win "wasn't convincing", which in itself is a bizzare position to take. His performance for much of the fight might not have been convincing, but knocking your opponent out is clearly a very convincing way to win. It's also a "way to win" that is much more "convincing" than Calzaghe winning a highly disputed split decision, in a fight that many people feel he actually lost (including one of the judges).

I think Calzaghe's win over Eubank is a good one. Mostly because Calzaghe was green as hell and Eubank was still a very tough competitor despite being about 7 years past his absolute prime. However, it is not better than Froch's win over Taylor for the following reasons: Eubank was extemly shop worn, on a losing streak at the end of his career and struggling to make the weight for a fight he took at short notice. All these factors are clearly important in adding context to what remains a good win for Calzaghe.

Overall, the only win on Calzaghe's record which can be credibley argued as being better than Froch's win over Taylor, is Calzaghe's "win" over Hopkins, for the simple fact that Hopkins is a better fighter than Taylor. But givem the close nature of the fight, the poor performance and unconvincing "victory", I think all things considerd Froch beating Taylor is a better win.

 

On paper Joe's win over Hopkins looks better........... but damn that fight was awful, and Hopkins made Joe look awful.

Call me old fashioned but I can not give someone a win by slapping thier opponent for 12 rounds on his gloves and arms without landing a meaningful punch. like the guy above said, Joe didn't win because he was the superior boxer in my opinion Joe was made a fool of by B-Hop.... Joe was made look like an ametuer at times

 

Carl looked pretty awful at times last night, if he hadn't got come on in the last couple and got the KO it would have been a Clinton Woods/Antonio Tarver type performance.

Joe's great performances have been just that....Great.

Joe's beating of Lacy was far classier than Carl's bangathon against Pascal and against Kessler he oozed class and intelligence, adapting and bamboozling Kessler.

Mikkel Kessler "I knew he was good, just not that good...!"

 

Froch went to America and beat a top American fighter close to his prime.

Calzaghe never even tried to achieve this.

Froch has already achieved more than JC did.


JC made 20 defences of his Eurobum belt.

 

I'd agree with the original poster that the Taylor win is better then the Lacy or Kessler win. Taylor has had a better career then Kessler or Lacy.

With the Hopkins win its hard to compare. The subtracting points are that Hopkins was about 42 and it was only a SD and he had 2 losses to Taylor, but then again Hopkins was highly rated in the P4P rankings and went on to beat Pavlik (albeit at 170).

I'd have to rate the Hopkins win higher then the Taylor, especially considering that Hopkins showed that he wasn't shot by thrashing Pavlik afterwards. But I'd say that Froch's win over Taylor is superior to any of Calzaghes's other wins.

 

The Hopkins and Kessler wins are better except for them it's better than the rest of his wins.

 

Calzahge had the better wins, but Froch has gotten everyone's eye now, he will be so much better after that fight.

 

Froch won't improve. He looked worse than he did against Pascal and that was pretty awful too.

 

IMHO, though there's no doubt it was a superb win for Froch, Taylor is one of the most overrated fighters on this board. There's no doubt he's athletivcally gifted but he has basically been dining out on the Hopkins wins for four years now. Since then he has beaten up on two junior middleweights (unconvincingly) and the shell of Jeff Lacy whilst getting knocked cold and then beaten again by Pavlik. All the time never daring to leave the cosy confines of the United States. There's a limit to how far you can take the Hopkins fights. Junior Jones beat Barrera twice, Shane Mosley beat Forrest twice. Sometimes it's just a case of styles and the rest of Taylor's resume is not that impressive for mine. He was unproven at super middle and 3-2-1 in his last 6 bouts. Not trying to take the credit from Froch as I was cheering him on big time, but I think beating the undefeated Kessler, a proven super middle who was destroying everyone, is a better victory especially in the manner it was achieved. Hopkins is arguable as that was a **** fight and not a good performance by either man.

 

Agreed.

How people are lauding this performance better than any Joe Calzaghe win is pathetic.

Carl Froch was getting outclassed and well beaten for almost all of the fight, he didn't adjust his game once.

He walked Taylor down and banged him out, the skill was not plain to see, the will to win, chin, heart and power was.

Joe Calzaghe would outpoint Froch any day of the week if he wasn't totally retired and out of the game.

Forget all your eurobum/slapping GF BS!!

Joe Calzaghe was a different class :deal

 

Calzaghe never beat a top class opponent or anyone near the average Taylors ability.

 

Did Calzaghe steal your missus or something? Or are you just attention seeking while school's out?

 

[quote="TKO";3908819]Did Calzaghe steal your missus or something? Or are you just attention seeking while school's out?[/quote]



Nah he just built a career on being a coward ****. He would probably beat Froch. He could have pushed Hopkins and RJJ close when they were good but the fact he hid for so long fighting **** and eurobums and shouting about who he beat makes him a twat and another manufactured WBO Warren champ. He is just a super middle version of Khan but without the bottle.